The nub of the climate change thing problem

[kalm]

this is science

No it's not. What's commonly referenced as "Climate Science" is not science. It's observational study. I know I've said it many times before but it can't be said too often. It would actually be better if they called it something like "Climate Study" and quit giving it the aura of "Science." I think that if they stopped calling it what it isn't that would give people in general a better perspective with regard to the certainty associated with it.

I've been through it before but I'll do it again. You can find many references but one version of the information involved is at http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... ethod6.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I'll quote that site's discussion of "experiment" first then post a graphic. The graphic shows the steps of the scientific method. Note that one of the steps is "Conduct an Experiment." If you don't do that you didn't apply the scientific method. It might be neat. It might even be correct or at least close to it. But it's not science. We've become numb to people calling things science that aren't. But the truth remains. Now here is the discussion of "experiment" from the site (underline added for emphasis):

Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Many people think of an experiment as something that takes place in a lab. While this can be true, experiments don't have to involve laboratory workbenches, Bunsen burners or test tubes. They do, however, have to be set up to test a specific hypothesis and they must be controlled. Controlling an experiment means controlling all of the variables so that only a single variable is studied. The independent variable is the one that's controlled and manipulated by the experimenter, whereas the dependent variable is not. As the independent variable is manipulated, the dependent variable is measured for variation. In our car example, the independent variable is the shape of the car's body. The dependent variable -- what we measure as the effect of the car's profile -- could be speed, gas mileage or a direct measure of the amount of air pressure exerted on the car.

Now the graphic:



Back to my post at the start of this thread: This issue is the nub of the problem with creating the impression that we MUST do what the IPCC recommends, that doing what they recommend will result in a net benefit when plusses and minuses of all possible scenarios are taken into account, because "science" tells us that's what we need to do. "Science" is not involved. Or at least not for the most part. There may be some limited scale controlled experiments that relate to the issue. But the main body is that thing about experimenting with "virtual Earths" described by models. That just does not cut it as "science."

All the stuff with the Hansen projections, etc., is irrelevant to that point.

OK, I see what you're getting at and you're probably correct. Let's call it observational forecasting, or prediction, or as you suggest, "study" instead.

Northwest indian tribes observed massive salmon runs that returned to their rivers at the same time, year after year, and thrived on this rich source of protein. Of course there were always a few anadromous fish deniers who claimed the fish wouldn't return that year. They were forced to exist on more camas root and berries and thus raised puny children who didn't grow as big and strong. Now we have fisheries biologists who study the life of salmon. Unfortunately, no one has been able to recreate a giant ocean and a river system where they can control the variables enough to be sure. Yet we continue to call them scientists.

And how about the solar system? If you really want to know for sure that heliocentrism is real, why don't you build the model? Astrophysicists...

Hell even Bill O'reilly got this shit right. Tides go in, tides go out. YOU can't explain that. Why…………no model.

[JohnStOnge]

One more for now. An excerpt from a statistics text used in 1997/1998 for a couple of graduate level basic Experimental Statistics courses I took. I've posted the excerpt before but this is a good time and place to do it again because it clearly states the distinction between scientific study and observational study. It's long so I'll underline the key language so you can just look at that if you want.

The impression I get is that proponents of doing what the IPCC says are implying that the fact that it's not POSSIBLE for them to conduct controlled experiments what they're doing must be accepted as just as good. But that's not the way it works. If you can't conduct controlled experiments to infer cause and effect you can't infer cause and effect. You don't get to say, "well we can't conduct controlled experiments so that means we can infer cause and effect without them." Not legitimately anyway. Not that people don't do it all the time. But they shouldn't be.

To me the point that observational study is NOT scientific study can't be over emphasized because with the advent of powerful computing capability so much analysis of observational data is being presented as scientific study. It's ubiquitous.

Here is the statistics text excerpt:

From Ott, R. Lyman (1992). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Chapter 2, pages 31 – 32. Belmont California: Duxbury Press

Before leaving the subject of sample data collection, we will draw a distinction between an observational study and a scientific study. In experimental designs for scientific studies, the observation conditions are fixed or controlled. For example, with a factorial experiment laid off in a completely randomized design, an observation is made at each factor-level combination. Similarly, with a randomized block design, an observation is obtained on each treatment in every block. These “controlled” studies are very different from observational studies, which are sometimes used because it is not feasible to do a proper scientific study. This can be illustrated by way of example.

Much research and public interest centers on the effect of cigarette smoking on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. One possible experimental design would be to randomize a fixed number of individuals (say 1,000) to each of two groups – one group would be required to smoke cigarettes for the duration of the study (say 10 years), while those in the second group would not be allowed to smoke throughout the study. At the end of the study, the two groups would be compared for lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. Even if we ignore the ethical questions, this type of study would be impossible to do. Because of the long duration, it would be difficult to follow all participants and make certain that they follow the study plan. And it would be difficult to find nonsmoking individuals willing to take the chance of being assigned to the smoking group.

Another possible study would be to sample a fixed number of smokers and a fixed number of nonsmokers to compare the groups for lung cancer and for cardiovascular disease. Assuming one could obtain willing groups of participants, this study could be done for a much shorter period of time.

What has been sacrificed? Well, the fundamental difference between an observational study and a scientific study lies in the inference(s) that can be drawn. For a scientific study comparing smokers to nonsmokers, assuming the two groups of individuals followed the study plan, the observed differences between the smoking and nonsmoking groups could be attributed to the effects of cigarette smoking because the individuals were randomized to the two groups; hence, the groups were assumed to be comparable at the outset.

This type of reasoning does not apply to the observational study of cigarette smoking. Differences between the two groups in the observation could not necessarily be attributed to the effects of cigarette smoking because, for example, there may be hereditary factors that predispose people to smoking and cancer of the lungs and/or cardiovascular disease. Thus, differences between the groups might be due to hereditary factors, smoking, or a combination of the two. Typically, the results of an observational study are reported by way of a statement of association. For our example, if the observational study showed a higher frequency of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease for smokers relative to nonsmokers, it would be stated that this study showed that cigarette smoking was associated with an increased frequency of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is a careful rewording in order not to infer that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.

[JohnStOnge]

Going through all the posts in this thread and came upon this:

All I know is there are folks much smarter than me studying the issue and it's damn hard to find a scientist or scientific organization not funded by energy companies to deny the threat and our influence on it.

Here's the thing about that: If there is someone out there who disagrees with the idea that we need to do things that would harm energy companies interests, energy companies are likely to support that person. It does not necessarily mean that the person involved is being intellectually dishonest in what they say. It could very well be that the energy company support is a result of what they say rather than a situation in which what they say is the result of energy company support.

This thing of dismissing people because they receive some funding from industry has got to stop. I've thought about that with respect to other areas too. Environmentalists attack industry then when industry funds research to rebut them people say "Oh well we can't trust that because it's funded by industry." That's a bunch of crap. They're put in a situation where it's impossible to defend themselves.

[SeattleGriz]

So practically the entire scientific community is in on the scandal?

The "practically the entire scientific community" thing is a pro-evolution talking point but it is fallacious on many levels.

Again, consensus is what is being pushed in the evolution community but consensus is not what drives good science. It leads to the abandonment of scientific discovery - this is why this "entire scientific community" refuses to try to identify the reasons why the evolution models are not lining up with the observed results- because their minds have been made up and there's as much orthodoxy to it as there is science. The real inconvenient truth here is that none of the evolution models from your "entire scientific community" have been correct. This in and of itself does not mean that evolution isn't a real phenomenon- but it definitely calls into question the actual impact.

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

[JohnStOnge]

Still going through the post and came across a link to the article at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in which this language appears:

Krauthammer asserts, with an air of unassailable confidence, that reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, because “we don't control the emissions of the other 96 percent of humanity.” Krauthammer’s implication that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas problem lies beyond the direct control of the United States is untrue, since, while the United States may only account for 4 percent of the world’s population, it emits 16 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions:

Oh WOW. So Krauthammer asserting that reducing US greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact is untrue because we emit 16 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions? You've got to be kidding me. I can't believe someone seriously wrote that.

[Chizzang]

Regardless of Globes Warming and Worlds ending... (Jesus is coming, look busy)
We should always strive for higher efficiencies and less consumption for equal or better return

Beyond that no one should care
If we're striving for THAT the rest of this debate is a circle jerk

[SeattleGriz]

Regardless of Globes Warming and Worlds ending... (Jesus is coming, look busy)
We should always strive for higher efficiencies and less consumption for equal or better return

Beyond that no one should care
If we're striving for THAT the rest of this debate is a circle jerk

Lean / Six Sigma man.

[HI54UNI]

Still going through the post and came across a link to the article at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in which this language appears:

Krauthammer asserts, with an air of unassailable confidence, that reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, because “we don't control the emissions of the other 96 percent of humanity.” Krauthammer’s implication that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas problem lies beyond the direct control of the United States is untrue, since, while the United States may only account for 4 percent of the world’s population, it emits 16 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions:

Oh WOW. So Krauthammer asserting that reducing US greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact is untrue because we emit 16 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions? You've got to be kidding me. I can't believe someone seriously wrote that.

The climate changers will argue things like emissions per capita, etc. to get the numbers for the U.S. to look bad compared to China but this chart says it all.



Add India and the other developing nations in and whatever we do won't mean shit.

Cleets is right - we need to be responsible and prudent in our use of resources. That also means finding a balance between the responsible use and the impact on the quality of life in this country.

[SeattleGriz]

Still going through the post and came across a link to the article at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in which this language appears:



Oh WOW. So Krauthammer asserting that reducing US greenhouse gas emissions will have no significant impact is untrue because we emit 16 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions? You've got to be kidding me. I can't believe someone seriously wrote that.

The climate changers will argue things like emissions per capita, etc. to get the numbers for the U.S. to look bad compared to China but this chart says it all.



Add India and the other developing nations in and whatever we do won't mean shit.

Cleets is right - we need to be responsible and prudent in our use of resources. That also means finding a balance between the responsible use and the impact on the quality of life in this country.

Aren't we already projected as responsible?

[JohnStOnge]

On the quote below my comments here:

First I'll say that, broadly defined such as in Webster's science is:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

Science does go beyond cause and effect experimentation. Like in biology the classification of species, observing/describing their behavior, etc., is science. So in reality I don't think it's inaccurate to call the study of the climate "Climate Science."

Also people use associations seen in observational data to arrive upon and support decisions all the time. And most of the time, I think, it works out well.

However, I think, it's important to maintain the distinction and be honest with the "consumer" about it. Nothing the Climate Science community is saying is based on "Scientific Study." To be intellectually honest about it they should be qualifying everything they say while being careful, as noted in the quote from the statistics text I posted, to refer to "association" rather than cause and effect. It should go something like this:

We can't say that human activity is the cause of any particular change we see in the climate because it's not possible to conduct experiments to confirm that it is. However, there are associations between changes in the climate and various human activities. There is an association between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over time and a general trend toward rising atmospheric temperatures. And those associations are consistent with our hypotheses with respect to the effects of human activities such as adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Maybe they could improve the language so as not to be as wordy as I am or something. But the important point is that it's not intellectually honest to downplay or soft pedal the fact that none of what they're saying is supported by experimentation. And it creates a false impression when they say they can't conduct experiments but then refer to experiments on "Virtual Earths" as though that takes care of THAT limitation. It doesn't.

And this goes beyond just a statement of general effects. These people are prescribing "treatments" for the problem based on saying that if X is done Y will happen within certain bounds. Again: With respect to the medical analogy, we would never allow that. We would never allow application of a medical treatment based on the kind of evidence supporting the "treatments" being prescribed for climate change right now.

OK, I see what you're getting at and you're probably correct. Let's call it observational forecasting, or prediction, or as you suggest, "study" instead.

Northwest indian tribes observed massive salmon runs that returned to their rivers at the same time, year after year, and thrived on this rich source of protein. Of course there were always a few anadromous fish deniers who claimed the fish wouldn't return that year. They were forced to exist on more camas root and berries and thus raised puny children who didn't grow as big and strong. Now we have fisheries biologists who study the life of salmon. Unfortunately, no one has been able to recreate a giant ocean and a river system where they can control the variables enough to be sure. Yet we continue to call them scientists.

And how about the solar system? If you really want to know for sure that heliocentrism is real, why don't you build the model? Astrophysicists...

Hell even Bill O'reilly got this **** right. Tides go in, tides go out. YOU can't explain that. Why…………no model.

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing is that, as I've written before, there is a point where you can obviously say there is cause and effect without an experiment. Like if you see a dog hit by an 18 wheeler and it's dead. Getting hit by the 18 wheeler caused the dog to die. More broadly you can say motor vehicle accidents cause fatalities without an experiment. The effects are very physical; very directly observable. I even think the one about the moon causing tides and the one about the angle of the earth's axis changing as it revolves around the sun causing seasonal temperature changes for each hemisphere are in that category.

But the climate change thing is not. At least I don't think so. I suppose everyone can draw their own line as to when to be "technical" about it and say that you need a controlled experiment to infer cause and effect but to me the climate change thing is way past that line; especially when you go beyond just saying "human activity is causing the planet to warm" (for instance) and get into saying "If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by X then the temperature will be between Y and Z 100 years from now instead of between A and B."

Then there's the whole other level of what that means in terms of net benefit or net harm.

To me it is most certainly NOT a situation where there is nothing to lose for anybody and we KNOW that if they're right things are going to be worse on balance so we ought to do it "just in case." Not at all.

[JohnStOnge]

It seems like, based on what we've all heard in the news recently, the GISTEMP line ought to flatten out at the top. You know…the thing about how the increase has paused since around 1997 or around 2000 depending on the story you read. Here's an example from NOAA: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/cl ... -did-earth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade (for some reason the link won't come out right so try Googling "NOAA why did earth's surface temperature stop rising past decade.").

I say that because if you were to show the GISTEMP line flattening out at 2010 Hansen's projection wouldn't look as good. It would give the impression that it's starting to "break down."

Full disclosure: There is reference on the Realclimate.org site to a study suggesting that there hasn't really been a pause: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-by-half/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

However, just trying to eyeball the graph on Hansen's projection it looks like it does show a pause in the trend and looks consistent with other graphs such at the NOAA page I linked that refer to a pause so I'm guessing it is using some of the "standard" estimates.

[Chizzang]

The "practically the entire scientific community" thing is a pro-evolution talking point but it is fallacious on many levels.

Again, consensus is what is being pushed in the evolution community but consensus is not what drives good science. It leads to the abandonment of scientific discovery - this is why this "entire scientific community" refuses to try to identify the reasons why the evolution models are not lining up with the observed results- because their minds have been made up and there's as much orthodoxy to it as there is science. The real inconvenient truth here is that none of the evolution models from your "entire scientific community" have been correct. This in and of itself does not mean that evolution isn't a real phenomenon- but it definitely calls into question the actual impact.

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

and replace AGW with Christianity and it still rings true.. again


Consensus brainwashing: Never a good thing

[BDKJMU]

"Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Mexico on Wednesday that temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” However, although it was hot that day, he was off the mark....."
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/patri ... -ever-been" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kerry and Gore- even IF AGW is true, with these 2 buffoons as the 2 most high profile alarmists out there, it can't be taken seriously..

[SeattleGriz]

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

and replace AGW with Christianity and it still rings true.. again


Consensus brainwashing: Never a good thing

I am talking about the bastardisation of the scientific method, which by the way, happened to be furthered along quite a bit by Christians.

If it weren't for the monestaries, much of the Roman information would be lost. Without the Christian scientists, the scientific method would have been refined much later, and are you really going to say Cambridge was for naught just because it is Christian.

[Chizzang]

and replace AGW with Christianity and it still rings true.. again


Consensus brainwashing: Never a good thing

I am talking about the bastardisation of the scientific method.

I'm talking about believing what your told without further examination...
1) Bad for scientists
2) Bad for those who seek any kind of truth

[SeattleGriz]

I am talking about the bastardisation of the scientific method.

I'm talking about believing what your told without further examination...
1) Bad for scientists
2) Bad for those who seek any kind of truth

Dang this tablet! Too slow to reply. I addressed your concerns above. You dismiss Christians without looking at their history. By the way, check out the molecular machines thread. The whole point is that Christians are asking questions at the PhD level and yet are dismissed because they don't fit into the mold Citdog outlined.

Why do you think I have been beating the Intelligent Design aspect so much? They are rocking the boat with traditional evolution and asking questions that need to be asked.

Funny how you don't see it.

Lastly, what sort of Christians are you meeting. They sound like idiots.

[Chizzang]

I'm talking about believing what your told without further examination...
1) Bad for scientists
2) Bad for those who seek any kind of truth

Dang this tablet! Too slow to reply. I addressed your concerns above. You dismiss Christians without looking at their history. By the way, check out the molecular machines thread. The whole point is that Christians are asking questions at the PhD level and yet are dismissed because they don't fit into the mold Citdog outlined.

Why do you think I have been beating the Intelligent Design aspect so much? They are rocking the boat with traditional evolution and asking questions that need to be asked.

Funny how you don't see it.

Lastly, what sort of Christians are you meeting. They sound like idiots.

They are asking questions that only support their predetermined outcome conclusion
which are great questions - indeed - but they avoid 1,000 other questions
and zero in on single point observations that allow any possible confusion -
To support their already foregone conclusion

I can see why you find it so enticing...

[CID1990]

The "practically the entire scientific community" thing is a pro-evolution talking point but it is fallacious on many levels.

Again, consensus is what is being pushed in the evolution community but consensus is not what drives good science. It leads to the abandonment of scientific discovery - this is why this "entire scientific community" refuses to try to identify the reasons why the evolution models are not lining up with the observed results- because their minds have been made up and there's as much orthodoxy to it as there is science. The real inconvenient truth here is that none of the evolution models from your "entire scientific community" have been correct. This in and of itself does not mean that evolution isn't a real phenomenon- but it definitely calls into question the actual impact.

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

Your fantasy would be a believable one if not for the fact that there most certainly is a plainly observable historical record which overwhelmingly supports evolution.

Apples and oranges here, but nice try

[Chizzang]

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

Your fantasy would be a believable one if not for the fact that there most certainly is a plainly observable historical record which overwhelmingly supports evolution.

Apples and oranges here, but nice try

He'll hit you with the Blind Watch Maker here in a minute... (Run while you still can)
the blind watchmakers apprentice is the book I'm waiting on

[SeattleGriz]

Thanks Cit for the assist.

Simply replaced AGW with evolution and it still rings true. I would say this is a keeper!

Your fantasy would be a believable one if not for the fact that there most certainly is a plainly observable historical record which overwhelmingly supports evolution.

Apples and oranges here, but nice try

Not saying evolution isn't correct, but when an experiment doesn't fit the mold, the mainstream evolution group will find a way to cram it in.

Same thing as AGW. You don't like the data, find some way to say it supports your idea.

Both are trying very hard to shut down differing opinions.

By the way what empirical evidence are you quoting?

[kalm]

On the quote below my comments here:

First I'll say that, broadly defined such as in Webster's science is:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

Science does go beyond cause and effect experimentation. Like in biology the classification of species, observing/describing their behavior, etc., is science. So in reality I don't think it's inaccurate to call the study of the climate "Climate Science."

Also people use associations seen in observational data to arrive upon and support decisions all the time. And most of the time, I think, it works out well.

However, I think, it's important to maintain the distinction and be honest with the "consumer" about it. Nothing the Climate Science community is saying is based on "Scientific Study." To be intellectually honest about it they should be qualifying everything they say while being careful, as noted in the quote from the statistics text I posted, to refer to "association" rather than cause and effect. It should go something like this:

We can't say that human activity is the cause of any particular change we see in the climate because it's not possible to conduct experiments to confirm that it is. However, there are associations between changes in the climate and various human activities. There is an association between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over time and a general trend toward rising atmospheric temperatures. And those associations are consistent with our hypotheses with respect to the effects of human activities such as adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Maybe they could improve the language so as not to be as wordy as I am or something. But the important point is that it's not intellectually honest to downplay or soft pedal the fact that none of what they're saying is supported by experimentation. And it creates a false impression when they say they can't conduct experiments but then refer to experiments on "Virtual Earths" as though that takes care of THAT limitation. It doesn't.

And this goes beyond just a statement of general effects. These people are prescribing "treatments" for the problem based on saying that if X is done Y will happen within certain bounds. Again: With respect to the medical analogy, we would never allow that. We would never allow application of a medical treatment based on the kind of evidence supporting the "treatments" being prescribed for climate change right now.

OK, I see what you're getting at and you're probably correct. Let's call it observational forecasting, or prediction, or as you suggest, "study" instead.

Northwest indian tribes observed massive salmon runs that returned to their rivers at the same time, year after year, and thrived on this rich source of protein. Of course there were always a few anadromous fish deniers who claimed the fish wouldn't return that year. They were forced to exist on more camas root and berries and thus raised puny children who didn't grow as big and strong. Now we have fisheries biologists who study the life of salmon. Unfortunately, no one has been able to recreate a giant ocean and a river system where they can control the variables enough to be sure. Yet we continue to call them scientists.

And how about the solar system? If you really want to know for sure that heliocentrism is real, why don't you build the model? Astrophysicists...

Hell even Bill O'reilly got this **** right. Tides go in, tides go out. YOU can't explain that. Why…………no model.

Solid back pedal.

[SeattleGriz]

Dang this tablet! Too slow to reply. I addressed your concerns above. You dismiss Christians without looking at their history. By the way, check out the molecular machines thread. The whole point is that Christians are asking questions at the PhD level and yet are dismissed because they don't fit into the mold Citdog outlined.

Why do you think I have been beating the Intelligent Design aspect so much? They are rocking the boat with traditional evolution and asking questions that need to be asked.

Funny how you don't see it.

Lastly, what sort of Christians are you meeting. They sound like idiots.

They are asking questions that only support their predetermined outcome conclusion
which are great questions - indeed - but they avoid 1,000 other questions
and zero in on single point observations that allow any possible confusion -
To support their already foregone conclusion

I can see why you find it so enticing...

And you don't think the biblical scholars haven't looked at those questions?

[Chizzang]

Solid back pedal.

I figured you'd jump all over this little quote: "Hell even Bill O'reilly got this shit right. Tides go in, tides go out. YOU can't explain that. Why…………no model."

Because that quote ^ is so stupid it just screams apologist
The now very famous "Tides go in tides go out.. You can't explain that" quote - can be explained, and quite concisely with an almost absolute conclusion - what you can't exactly do is PROVE IT... you can very easily explain it because of the basic understanding of the relationship between mass and gravity

So yes: Easily explained / virtually provable / but not quite...

Poor John

this concept
Explaining something based on mountains of knowledge
and proving that thing should not be so elusive

[CID1990]

Your fantasy would be a believable one if not for the fact that there most certainly is a plainly observable historical record which overwhelmingly supports evolution.

Apples and oranges here, but nice try

Not saying evolution isn't correct, but when an experiment doesn't fit the mold, the mainstream evolution group will find a way to cram it in.

Same thing as AGW. You don't like the data, find some way to say it supports your idea.

Both are trying very hard to shut down differing opinions.

By the way what empirical evidence are you quoting?

And Im not saying climate change isnt anthropogenic

Im going to make an educated guess that you dont follow evolution science much- the scientific community involved in evolution research exhibits anything BUT consensus. Their debates and peer review processes are as acrimonious as any you will see- but they arent debating evolution itself

they arent trying to make evolution fit any kind of mold- it doesnt need to be shoehorned- the process by which DNA replicates itself imperfectly and in response to external stressors is empirical evidence enough in what is a veritable ocean of empirical evidence.

it bears no similarity to the AGW debate

like i said- nice try