http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:05 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/science/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2011/02/09/defaulting-to-ignorance-what-bill-oreilly-and-the-insane-clown-posse-have-in-common/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2011/02/09/defaulting-to-ignorance-what-bill-oreilly-and-the-insane-clown-posse-have-in-common/#comments Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:57:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2137 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2011/02/09/defaulting-to-ignorance-what-bill-oreilly-and-the-insane-clown-posse-have-in-common/feed/ 4 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 154 - Bill O'Reilly is a conservative political commentator who is best known for his TV show "The O'Reilly Factor" and its many associated books. Recently, he got into some hot water over comments he made about life, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 154 Bill O'Reilly is a conservative political commentator who is best known for his TV show "The O'Reilly Factor" and its many associated books. Recently, he got into some hot water over comments he made about life, the universe and everything. This is the quote you'll hear often regarding this issue: "Okay, how did the moon get there? How'd the moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How'd the moon get there? How'd the sun get there? ...Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it. How come? Why not? How'd it get here?" Here's the video of the above: This comment was made in response to viewer feedback, after an earlier broadcast had him claiming that the Earth's tides were proof God created the Universe - since we didn't know how the tides worked, O'Reilly claimed, that was proof of the existence of God. Every commentary I've read on this issue so far addressed the point that O'Reilly is factually wrong: Yes, we do know how the tides work. We know how the moon and sun "got there". These issues have been addressed in plenty of detail by people much smarter than I. So I'm not going to tackle them here. Most criticism of this issue misses a more important point than O'Reilly being factually wrong. Yes, he didn't know some basic science. He then proceeded to plant himself deeper in his hole by backing up his claim with more examples of Stuff We Don't Know, although it turns out We Do. O'Reilly's problem is not in knowing specific answers. His problem is in assuming that because we don't know something, then "God did it". In his response to scientific criticism, O'Reilly moved from talking about the tides to talking about the moon and the sun. I see where he's going with this. If we then tell him how the moon and sun are formed, he'll pull back the camera to encompass an even bigger picture. He might say something like: "Okay, pinhead, then how'd the solar system get here? How'd the Universe get here? Why is there anything at all?" O'Reilly claims that because we don't know something, God (presumably the Christian god) is the answer, because if something exists, it must have had a creator. That sounds nice on the surface, until we use his technique and pull back the viewpoint. We might respond with something like this: "Okay, Bill, then how'd the Universe get here? You say your god made it? How did your god get here? Why is there anything at all?" The answer to this question: God always existed. He exists outside of time and space. However: 1) How is it that a god can always have existed, but the Universe can not? It's frustrating to me that, when religious people claim that their god created the Universe, they don't worry about the creation of their god, who supposedly has always existed. If you can accept a god that always existed, why can't you accept a Universe that always existed? 2) Saying 'I don't know' does not mean 'I give up'. O'Reilly's attitude indicates that a sensible person must respond to him with, "because I can't answer your question, God must be the answer". Listen to the rest of his commentary - he seems to believe this himself, and expects his audience to follow this same logic. However, I don't have a problem saying 'I don't know'. But I do have a problem with people who explain their ignorance by defaulting to an even more unknowable and complex explanation. They shrug their mental shoulders and default to a "god did it" explanation. To me, this is the same as saying, "Because I do not have an answer myself, there must be a supernatural answer and I will not search further. I see no need to learn about this or research it. I won't evolve and life will not improve." This is the refusal to explore our world's many mysteries. Even worse, it's to state that you have no interest in doing so. This is willful ignorance. This is mental stagnation. Andy Kaiser clean 8:20 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/11/21/skeptical-parenting-critical-thinking-around-the-family-dinner-table/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/11/21/skeptical-parenting-critical-thinking-around-the-family-dinner-table/#comments Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:22:39 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2080 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/11/21/skeptical-parenting-critical-thinking-around-the-family-dinner-table/feed/ 1 Celestia Ward By Celestia Ward Article ID: 1414 - Is skeptical fun possible with children? I have heard this question voiced by people who think childhood must be a sacred place, populated with Easter bunnies, unicorns, lollipops, Santa, fairies, dragons, By Celestia Ward Article ID: 1414 Is skeptical fun possible with children? I have heard this question voiced by people who think childhood must be a sacred place, populated with Easter bunnies, unicorns, lollipops, Santa, fairies, dragons, and a co... Andy Kaiser clean 17:49 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:50:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/feed/ 9 Science Reason & Rationality by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, American Scientist (1934-1996) How many times have you heard someone claim that their products, theories or beliefs are "Scientifically Proven”? They often do this before completely taking over your brain and gaining absolute access into your wallet. Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone. What is science? So, how can you tell which claim is truly scientifically proven and which one is not? To understand, we first need a basic understanding of what science is, and how to ensure that those who claim to be “scientifically proven” have followed the required procedures to really deserve that title. Okay, let’s get to work. What exactly is science? Science is a method, a procedure, a technique by which we use to examine our surroundings and gain knowledge from them. With sometimes painstaking accuracy, science produces precise unbiased data. It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based. For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. No matter how many times you repeat the process, it will produce the same results Expecting others to believe that one plus two equals four (without using any systematic scientific method to prove it) is not the right method of gaining knowledge and it is always prone to error. Another example of a factual approach is in the court of law. The court looks for evidence first before making a verdict. The judge and jury do not start with a conclusion – they develop one based on available evidence. “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” - Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987) The scientific method The 10 Commandments of Science (inspired by science journalist “Potholer”) Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence. Just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. Thou shalt use large sample sets. Thy tests shall be double-blinded. Thy tests shall have observable controls. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed up by evidence. Thy opinion is not a fact. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Don’t lie! Well, actually, the above are not really divine commandments, but they're a good basic guide to scientific observation. All scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Thus, good research follows these rules to produce true scientific data and genuine knowledge. As we said earlier, such rules are applied in the court of law to preserve or uphold justice. The rules exist to ensure impartiality, fairness and the most truthful of results. Now that we’ve understood the basics of science, let’s go a little deeper to see what exactly is involved in this whole scientific procedure thing. We’ll create a scenario, apply the basics of the scientific method, and see what happens… 1. Andy Kaiser clean 16:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/#comments Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:04:32 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1877 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 144 - As some of you know, I'm writing the first book in what will hopefully be a young adult mystery series called "The League of Scientists". It takes place in the "real world" - it's not fantasy or science fiction. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 144 As some of you know, I'm writing the first book in what will hopefully be a young adult mystery series called "The League of Scientists". It takes place in the "real world" - it's not fantasy or science fiction. It's about the adventures of friends who use critical thinking and applied science to solve seemingly-supernatural mysteries. It's already been accepted by "Science, Naturally!", a traditional book publisher, but it's not yet available in stores. It should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. Here's the latest: Things have gone very well with the book, of which the full title is "The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water". While I'm sure future efforts will be faster, it took me quite a while to write it, even when I don't have the length of a standard adult book. My comparatively short 35,000 words still took a lot of keypresses. I've been meeting with the cover artist on a weekly basis to design and approve the artwork. After more than 70 hours of work (which includes conceptual designs as well as the actual final oil paining), we're pretty much done. The book itself has its own website at LeagueOfScientists.com, but some of you may have seen it elsewhere. You can follow it on Facebook and Twitter, and of course here on Digital Bits Skeptic. I've also had it mentioned and introduced on the "Swift Blog" of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I'm very lucky to have the JREF's continued interest and promotion. Special thanks to outgoing President Phil Plait and the Randi.org editor Brandon Thorp. I also have a surprise. You know how some books have a "famous person's quote" on the book jacket? Mine will have one of these, too. And the person I've got to do the promotion... well, let's just say that most everyone in the skeptical community - and many outside of it - have heard of him. This skeptical celebrity is... ...going to remain a surprise for just a little longer. I can't say who it is right now. While he's already committed to getting me a review and a quote, I don't yet have it in my greedy electronic hands. Heck, worst case is that he may not actually like the book! So, I'll let you know after I have the review. Believe me, the Digital Bits Skeptic audience will be the first to know. Your only hint is that this person is not female. That cuts the field by quite a bit. Record your guesses, good luck, and I'll let you know later if you guessed right. What's next? If there's anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of the publishing process, speak up and I'll give some detail. But to keep things simple, I'll just say that, for the most part, the book is completely done, and what's next is the actual draft revision, proofing, and then publicity and publication. And, yes, I've already started writing The League of Scientists #2. That's right - you heard it here first! The current beta title for this work in progress is "The League of Scientists and the Magician's War". I'm still in the outlining stage right now - because these books are mysteries, I can't just start writing them without a general direction of where I'm going. I, just like you, have to figure out the mystery, only I have to know "whodunnit" a little bit sooner than you. So, the first book - "The Ghost in the Water" - is pretty much done and will hopefully be available within a year, assuming the publisher keeps to their schedule. Book #2 - who knows? Depending on how life's treating me, I can be a really pessimistic guy. In this case, I think my personality flaw is appropriate: if I keep my expectations low, no matter what happens with the book, I'll be happy with the results. Hopefully you will be, too. Andy Kaiser clean 3:19 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/#comments Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:19:29 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1701 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/feed/ 4 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1348 - On October 9, 2009, NASA's LCROSS mission (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) slammed a "Centaur" rocket into the moon, into a dark, ancient crater named "Cabeus". After a silent explosion of moon guts, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1348 On October 9, 2009, NASA's LCROSS mission (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) slammed a "Centaur" rocket into the moon, into a dark, ancient crater named "Cabeus". After a silent explosion of moon guts, the rocket was destroyed. The resulting ejecta was huge, measuring six miles across. NASA then surveyed that moon plume, and found water. Even in the tiny section of the plume that the instruments could survey, they found about 27 gallons of water! H2O! Translucent gold! By Earth standards, the moon is still extremely dry, about as dry as a desert. But, even a desert can still hold enough water to support life. NASA's LCROSS mission is the first indicator of significant amounts of water in Earth's neighborhood. A critical person might say, "so what?" This is not the first discovery of water in outer space, or even on the moon. Other planets and moons contain ice, and perhaps liquid water, though we don't yet know how much of what states there are. The discovery of water on the moon is still very significant. Here's why: 1) Knowledge: We add to the current store of scientific knowledge. It puts another piece in the puzzle of how the Universe works, how the moon formed, and ultimately helps us to improve the human condition. 2) Alien life: It provides additional evidence to the notion that life could exist outside of Earth. For those who believe life originated on Earth through a natural process, having a higher abundance of life-making ingredients increases the chances of there being alien life. What do we need for life? From our current understanding, we need water, carbon, and an energy source. Carbon is everywhere. We know that water is remarkably abundant. Energy sources abound (we're not just talking about the sun). Get the right catalyst in place, and so-called miracles can happen. 3) Moon bases: When we get to the moon, we could "live off the land". There are two significant aspects: Humans who live there could drink the local water. They could also move around the moon with vehicles powered by a hydrogen/oxygen fuel source, all extracted from available water. And, there's another use for the oxygen: breathing! Fuel, water and life support are very expensive items to transport from the Earth to the moon. Having them already in place will make a moon base far easier to create and maintain. 4) Human life in off-world colonies: You don't think a moon base is important? Well, it is. Right now, we Earthlings are horribly susceptible to complete extinction. Our entire species could easily be wiped out. Take your pick of any horrible natural disaster. Just ask the dinosaurs why they didn't do anything about the fire from the sky, the killer rock that, so many millions of years ago, destroyed them all. There are also more embarrassing (but just as effective) ways to die, by killing off our own kind, something which we humans are perversely good at. In order to survive, we must spread the human species from off this planet. Here's a video, courtesy NASA, of the LCROSS mission and resulting lunar impact by the "Centaur" rocket. You can't actually see the rocket hit the moon, but it's still interesting to see the process to get the rocket to the moon itself: The discovery of water on the moon is powerful, no doubt. Don't just shuffle it aside as needless fact-gathering. This advance is just as important for scientific cheerleading as it is for powering future technology and off-planet living. This discovery doesn't just tell us more about our celestial neighborhood. It also gives us the ability to not only know our place in the Universe, but to change it. I can think of no better way to end this article than with this quote by Carl Sagan: "The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars." For those who really like the audio version of that quote, here's the full video: Andy Kaiser clean 7:00 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/#comments Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:06:45 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1621 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/feed/ 10 Andy Kaiser Editor's note #1: This article contains spoilers about The Flight of Dragons movie. - Editor's note #2: This article uses many audio clips from The Flight of Dragons. To fully appreciate this article, listen to the podcast or use the above audio play... Editor's note #1: This article contains spoilers about The Flight of Dragons movie. Editor's note #2: This article uses many audio clips from The Flight of Dragons. To fully appreciate this article, listen to the podcast or use the above audio player. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1345 "Look down there, Gorbash my friend. On that troubled earth below us, confusion and chaos reign. All mankind is facing an epic choice. A world of magic, or a world of science. Which will it be?" The movie "The Flight of Dragons" begins with that brief monologue, spoken by wizard to dragon. The rest of the movie answers the question while providing great entertainment. When I say "entertainment", though, I don't mean all sunshine and flowers. The next scene in the movie is of a swan, paddling down a river. A few tiny fairies hop on the swan for a ride. Suddenly, in the river ahead, there appears a gigantic waterwheel, spinning fast to power a mill in a nearby house. The swan can't escape the waterwheel's current, and swan and fairies are sucked underneath and killed. Here we have an eerie visual of one of the movie's themes: Magic versus science. Will one destroy the other? Which one? Can they possibly coexist? "The Flight of Dragons" takes place in a world of magic - where wizards ride dragons as casual transportation, where magic does exist - and it's powerful - but it bows to the will of science. The movie is primarily about a quest involving four wizard brothers. Three are good. One is bad. You may recognize the evil red wizard "Ommadon" as voiced by James Earl Jones, also the iconic voice of Darth Vader. The wizards argue whether or not they and their world can coexist with magic. One wizard proposes building "The Last Realm of Magic", in order to hide from the physical world and safeguard what magic remains. The evil wizard Ommadon disagrees. This scene is even more powerful and takes on more meaning when you see it with the video. Those last words, where Ommadon says, "I'll teach [Man] to fly like a fairy!" are spoken to a visual of a slowly spinning nuclear bomb. "The Flight of Dragon" movie's main plotline is simple - in order to stop Ommadon, the good wizards try to steal his magical crown, the source of all the red wizard's power. Peter Dickinson and The Flight of Dragons Yet, the surrounding themes are not so simple. To find a hero, the wizards are told by an oracle to recruit an unusual choice: the long-distant relative of "Great Peter, the Dragonmaster", seven hundred and seventy-seven generations removed from the original. Why this particular descendant? Because, the oracle says, this man is the first of the decendents who is a man of science. Later, this comes in very important. The man is Peter Dickinson. He lives in the late twentieth century. We see a flash-forward to the future - it appears to be the late 1970s or so, which makes sense - the movie was released in 1982. We see Peter Dickinson talking to a pawn shop owner, and find that not only is Dickinson a dragon fanatic, he's also written a book, called "The Flight of Dragons". Here's a spot where this supposed kid's movie breaks convention. There really is a Peter Dickinson. He really does love dragons. He really did write a book called "The Flight of Dragons", in which he attempts to show how dragons could've existed, flew and breathed fire. We get to see this detail in the movie, as our hero analyzes dragons and develops a scientific theory of how dragons fly! Through some magical hijinks, Dickinson is transported into a dragon's body and mind, and there he remains for most of the movie. It's fun watching him try to figure out dragon-flight and dragon-life, and it gives the magical quest a new level of difficulty. While "The Flight of Dragons" book is non-fiction, the movie is very close adaptation, and not just in the book's subject matter. The artwork, particularly the background images, the wizards' towers, Andy Kaiser clean 18:32 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/#comments Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:47:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1615 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/feed/ 3 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1344 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. - The majority of people who visit Digital Bits Skeptic are - you’ll be shocked to know – mostly skeptics. Many of us here have related interests in critical thinking, in science, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1344 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. The majority of people who visit Digital Bits Skeptic are - you’ll be shocked to know – mostly skeptics. Many of us here have related interests in critical thinking, in science, and in wondering about how the world works. This is just a guess, but it’s an educated one; these topics often go hand-in-hand. It is with this shared interest that I’d like to introduce you to my latest project, a book called “The League of Scientists”. If the book is successful, we’ll take it to a series. The full title for this first book is “The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water”. The League of Scientists stars several science-minded young adults. They use their knowledge along with skepticism and critical thinking to solve seemingly-supernatural mysteries. Kinda like what a lot of skeptics do, isn’t it? This is a “real” book – it’s not from a print-on-demand company or a vanity press. It’s been accepted by a traditional book publisher (Science, Naturally!), and I’m working with an editor to finish, edit and get it published. You’ll eventually be able to find it in big bookstores near you, and of course at the usual online places. I’m telling you about The League of Scientists because investigating our world and exploring mysteries with science and critical thought is important to a lot of skeptics. It is to me – that’s why I’m writing the book. (And knowing a little bit about the publishing industry, believe me, it's not for the money.) If you’d like to know more, visit LeagueOfScientists.com. The book isn’t available yet – the writing, editing, promotion and publishing process takes a while, particularly for a new, unproven writer like me – but, I wanted to get the word out to start driving interest. The sooner the better, because, well, it’s a lot of work and it takes a while. If you have kids, and if they like science and mysteries, go to LeagueOfScientists.com, visit the “Info” page, and sign up for email updates. I’ll let you know as I make progress on the book, and you’ll of course be notified when it’s available for purchase. If you are a young adult, and want to know more – anything from questions on the publishing process to The League of Scientists characters and story - let me know. This is my first experience working with a book publisher, but I’m happy to share what I know. And I'll share more League of Scientists updates as they occur. Stay tuned. Andy Kaiser clean 4:50 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:38:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1539 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/feed/ 8 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1338 - Of all the interesting, insightful models produced in the last two or three hundred years of economics existence (I’m not including the models of financial markets: those are neither interesting nor insightful) few h... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1338 Of all the interesting, insightful models produced in the last two or three hundred years of economics existence (I’m not including the models of financial markets: those are neither interesting nor insightful) few h... Andy Kaiser clean 8:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/#comments Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:15:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1515 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/feed/ 15 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1337 - 1.8 trillion US dollars. That's the cost that Climate Change will inflict upon the United States by 2100 . But there is a problem with the 2008 NRDC report that generated this figure: it’s based on 2008 technology. - By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1337 1.8 trillion US dollars. That's the cost that Climate Change will inflict upon the United States by 2100 . But there is a problem with the 2008 NRDC report that generated this figure: it’s based on 2008 technology. One of the oldest problems facing long-term forecasters is that no one can tell what technology is around the corner. In his 1968 book "The population bomb", Paul Ehrlich predicted, "In the 1970s and 1980s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Oddly enough, 1968 was also the year in which the phrase “Green Revolution” was coined. What people frequently fail to notice is that the scientific controversy around Global Warming is (or, anyway, ought to be) as much social as it is physical. The global temperature going up by a few degrees is not a problem in itself – problems occur because we get an increase in the use of air-conditioning, more expensive electricity, the rising demand for water, et cetera. If possible, I want to avoid debating this physical science and focus on the social aspects. By “social aspects”, I mean how humans react to climate change, especially when there are also changes in technology. To see why this is a problem, lets look at the NRDC report. At one point, the NRDC looks at energy consumption and concludes that by 2100, “climate change will increase the retail cost of electricity by $167 billion and will lead to $31 billion in annual purchases of air conditioning units”. However, the increase in the cost of electricity is calculated by looking at the impact of higher temperatures on power generation plants with the technology that is being used now. If global warming (and energy prices) turn out to be as large problems as is projected, it wouldn’t be very surprising to see cheaper, more efficient air conditioning units hit the market. Indeed, the increasing efficiency of air conditioners is responsible for the fact that the amount of electricity consumed by AC units remains steady (as a fraction of the total electricity consumed by homes) even though the number of air conditioners bought has gone up dramatically. The same logic can be extended over the other sectors where the NRDC claims there will substantial damage: agriculture, for example. The NRDC claims that although the crops won’t be too badly affected in the first half of the century, the second half of the century (after temperature increases beyond six degrees Fahrenheit) will see crop yields fall dramatically. To see what’s wrong with this projection, put yourself in the shoes of a 1958 agriculturalist and try to guess what the global yield will be in 2008. (This puts Paul Ehrlich's 1968 predictions into a different - and more error-prone - perspective.) The NRDC seems to have forgotten that by 2050, hardier, heat resistant crops will be developed, especially if companies believe that a huge market for them is around the corner. To be fair, the NRDC does wonder about “the speed and accuracy of the farmer’s response to changing conditions…in view of the large year-to-year variations, it seems unrealistic to expect rapid, accurate adaptation.” Although this lack of savvy on the part of farmers is questionable, the loss of crops is not the real cost. Instead, the bigger picture must include the cost of adaptation. The ability of forecasters to predict the reactions of humans is terrible, and this includes those forecasters who have a strong incentive to be right. In a move that has since become a standard case study in economic textbooks, OPEC cut oil production in the mid 1970s in order to increase prices and make more profits. They succeeded for a while with the price of petrol quadrupling in many parts of the world. However, by 1980 prices had fallen back to their pre-crisis levels. When oil prices hit the roof, people began to look for ways around it. Andy Kaiser clean 8:27 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/#comments Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:46:58 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1107 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/feed/ 13 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1325 - Atheism and evolution are two topics that I write about and discuss with my religious friends. I encounter the same objections for both. Repeatedly. - Myth: "If you do not believe in God, By David Annis Article ID: 1325 Atheism and evolution are two topics that I write about and discuss with my religious friends. I encounter the same objections for both. Repeatedly. Myth: "If you do not believe in God, you have no basis for morality.  Anything is permissible." I can and do have a system of morality. It's based on what kind of world I want to live in, not on belief that a supernatural being wants me to behave in a certain way.  Wars, genocides, pogroms, holocausts, discrimination, terrorism, and slavery have all been justified based on religion.  I donate to charity, know that murder is wrong, and teach my children right from wrong (there are no toy guns in our house). Show me empirical evidence that the religious behave in a more moral way than non-religious and you might have an argument, but the evidence is not there.  I know many atheists that donate to charity, love their wives, abide by the law, and otherwise act in a moral way. And I know many religious people that do not. If you maintain that belief in God is needed as a foundation for a moral system, is any God sufficient?  Are Xenu, Shiva, Allah and the Christian God, all equally moral?  If so, isn't picking a God just taking the easy way out?  Instead of grappling with the difficult questions you are swallowing a belief system whole. Since you took the easy way out, if a premise fails you end up with a moral structure that can't support itself. If all Gods are not equally moral, how can you be sure that your God's system leads to real morality? Myth: "You can't prove a theory, so the Bible may be literally true." This argument falls into two pieces.  The first piece says that an omnipotent being could change the Universe in all sorts of ways.  Physical laws that work one way today may have worked differently years ago, so we should not believe the evidence before us.  Carbon may decay at a different rate then than it does now, geological process may have been different one thousand years ago, and so on.  Yet, those who make this claim also assume their refrigerator, car, and home heating system will still work just as well tomorrow. They rely on medical and agricultural systems built upon scientific methods.  That's intellectually dishonest. The second piece of this objection is that science only proves that a theory is highly improbable. It doesn't say something is impossible. A scientific theory can be overthrown.  I can't prove that I can't jump to the moon.  I can't prove that I can't pray my way there.  Using the scientific method, however, I can prove that it is highly improbable that either method will put a man on the moon.  Gathering insights about how the universe behaves is what allowed Neil Armstrong to take his giant leap for mankind. Myth: "I can't see evolution happen." Some people protest that they can't see evolution happening right before their eyes.  Plant speciation has been observed and used by farmers for hundreds of years, though not under laboratory conditions.  In a previous post, I discussed macro-evolution occurring in the laboratory, but still got a response saying something like, "Gee, that's a long way from seeing a bacterium turn into a horse." So, why don't we see a bacterium turn into a horse right before our eyes?  It's because we observe over too short a period of time.  My 10-year-old son is growing, but he looks no taller now than he did last week.  There is rich evidence of evolution in the fossil record, in the genetic sequences of the plants and animals alive today, in our ability to breed new varieties of plants, pets, and livestock, and in the changes we observe in the natural world around us.  We can't see changes within our lifetime because these changes normally take hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Does this mean we should conclude these changes aren't happening? If my son isn't taller this week compared to last week, does this mean he's not growing? Andy Kaiser clean 8:24