Intelligent Design


 Religions > Atheism > Intelligent Design

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 3

1
 

2
 

3
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Elroy Willis"
Date: 30 Aug 2005 09:51:12 AM
Object: Intelligent Design
I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.
1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?
2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?
This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "JTEM"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 03:55:08 PM
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote

I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

A little more complex, but a keeper:
3. Would you mind detailing for us this theory of your's without
making mention of evolution, Darwin, God or liberals?
If you ask anyone to explain this "intelligent design" to you,
all you ever get is a list of imaginary issues they have with
evolution... all of them stemming from either a gross
misunderstanding of the evidence or outright distortions.
4. The vast majority of species which have inhabited the
Earth are extinct. How "intelligent" is a "designer" that
fails far more often then he succeeds? And wouldn't all
this failure suggest to you a "designer" of limited capabilities,
ruling out a deity and strongly suggesting a more natural
origin?
.

User: "DH"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 01:16:13 PM
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

Never mind all that; if it's INTELLIGENT Design, why the hell do I have an
appendix? I'd like to see the ID crowd answer THAT question. The appendix
is entirely useless and still quite capable of killing you.
.

User: "Ike"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 01:24:44 AM
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.


The Intelligent Designer has a Stupid Designer.
.
User: "Apostate"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:08:02 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:24:44 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:


"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.


The Intelligent Designer has a Stupid Designer.

It's not so much stupid, as constrained by the need to operate in an environment
of Cosmic Competition. The upgrade should be on the market Any Day Now,
at a Very Affordable Price.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
User: "Mike Painter"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 08:57:18 PM
Apostate wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:24:44 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:


"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of
faith, which everyone knows is pure *****.


The Intelligent Designer has a Stupid Designer.


It's not so much stupid, as constrained by the need to operate in an
environment of Cosmic Competition. The upgrade should be on the
market Any Day Now,
at a Very Affordable Price.

Clearly not an old timer "Real Soon Now" is the proper term as developed by
Pournelle at Byte magazine.
Of course back then upgrades were very affordable.
.
User: "Apostate"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:42:17 PM
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:57:18 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Apostate wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:24:44 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:


"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of
faith, which everyone knows is pure *****.


The Intelligent Designer has a Stupid Designer.


It's not so much stupid, as constrained by the need to operate in an
environment of Cosmic Competition. The upgrade should be on the
market Any Day Now,
at a Very Affordable Price.


Clearly not an old timer

Poof!

"Real Soon Now" is the proper term as developed by
Pournelle at Byte magazine.

I'm just old timer enough to have turned up my nose at Byte, and not read Pournelle.

Of course back then upgrades were very affordable.

--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at
will. -- Doc Smartass
e-mail to lower-case only
.




User: "Vince"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 10:59:21 AM
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0qq8h1dsl5nilmpp9jbr4tnpip09svgnlj@4ax.com...


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.

1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?

2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?

This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.

The intelligent designer made a few slips along the way like hurricanes,
earthquakes, droughts, floods, the Artic zone, deserts, etc. It's ironic
that the area hit hardest by Katrina was the so-called Bible Belt.
Apparently, god was not impressed with their prayers.

Vince
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 12:07:13 PM
Vince <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.
1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?
2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?
This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.

The intelligent designer made a few slips along the way like hurricanes,
earthquakes, droughts, floods, the Artic zone, deserts, etc. It's ironic
that the area hit hardest by Katrina was the so-called Bible Belt.
Apparently, god was not impressed with their prayers.

I'll bet there's a few prayer-believers who believe their prayers are
what caused Katrina to move eastward a bit, sparing New Orleans the
full force of the hurricane. Meanwhile, the prayers from people
wishing it to stay west of them failed... What a waste of time prayer
is, don't you think?
Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...
The days of praying to invisible gods to fix or influence the weather
should have become history by now, but sadly they haven't...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
User: "Preacher Boy"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 05:13:32 PM
'What a waste of time prayer is, don't you think?
Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...
The days of praying to invisible gods to fix or influence the weather
should have become history by now, but sadly they haven't...
--'
Reply: Umm. no, i dont believe Prayer is a waste of time. Its the
instrument that the Creator has fashioned in order to commune with him.
Prayer does and has, changed many an outcome ; i have a personal friend
who was diagnosed by 3 seperate specialty Cancer Doctors and all 3
confirmed thru biopsy and mri that she had growing malignant tumors. The
day (approx. 3 weeks later) came when she was taken from her hospital
room and place in the Operating Room....only to be returned to her room
because the Surgeons could not find a trace of tumors. These types of
situations happen on a DAILY basis. Further, you SHOULD believe in
miracles because the greatest miracle that ever occured was the personal
Universe we have brought about from nothing, ex nihilo by an
unimaginable powerful personal loving Being. Further, the chances of a
successful human birth has been placed on the order of 10 to the 13th
power (a staggering number) , which occurs many thousands of times each
day.
ANother big miracle, is when a human being willfully turns his life over
to the Creator and is sincerely sorry of all his/her sins..and recieves
total undeserved forgiveness by a most Holy Creator ..and then recieves
his power to live a changed life that demonstrates his presence and
mercy. That miracle is also available to all who come with a heart of
humility and is prepared to put aside thier heart of stone.
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 07:31:26 PM
(Preacher Boy) wrote in alt.atheism

'What a waste of time prayer is, don't you think?
Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...
The days of praying to invisible gods to fix or influence the weather
should have become history by now, but sadly they haven't...
Reply: Umm. no, i dont believe Prayer is a waste of time. Its the
instrument that the Creator has fashioned in order to commune with him.

Rubbish. It's just you talking to yourself.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "stoney"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 02 Sep 2005 12:19:58 PM
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:13:32 -0500,
(Preacher
Boy) wrote:

'What a waste of time prayer is, don't you think?
Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...
The days of praying to invisible gods to fix or influence the weather
should have become history by now, but sadly they haven't...
--'

Reply: Umm. no, i dont believe Prayer is a waste of time. Its the
instrument that the Creator has fashioned in order to commune with him.

What an ego! There's a universe-spanning entity® that's existed for
all time® that's going to 'commune' with an ignorant
less-than-a-amoeba®.
[snip abject idiocy]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "Olrik"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 11:42:47 PM
Preacher Boy wrote:

'What a waste of time prayer is, don't you think?
Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...
The days of praying to invisible gods to fix or influence the weather
should have become history by now, but sadly they haven't...
--'

Reply: Umm. no, i dont believe Prayer is a waste of time. Its the
instrument that the Creator has fashioned in order to commune with him.
Prayer does and has, changed many an outcome ; i have a personal friend
who was diagnosed by 3 seperate specialty Cancer Doctors and all 3
confirmed thru biopsy and mri that she had growing malignant tumors. The
day (approx. 3 weeks later) came when she was taken from her hospital
room and place in the Operating Room....only to be returned to her room
because the Surgeons could not find a trace of tumors. These types of
situations happen on a DAILY basis.

And yet, even if your story is true (I've read this story quite a few
times already...), she'll die anyway, no matter what.

Further, you SHOULD believe in
miracles because the greatest miracle that ever occured was the personal
Universe we have brought about from nothing, ex nihilo by an
unimaginable powerful personal loving Being. Further, the chances of a
successful human birth has been placed on the order of 10 to the 13th
power (a staggering number)

Sure. But it's bad maths. You should read up on probabilities.
Come to think of it, don't. You're too far off into Wackoland.

which occurs many thousands of times each
day.

ANother big miracle, is when a human being willfully turns his life over
to the Creator and is sincerely sorry of all his/her sins..and recieves
total undeserved forgiveness by a most Holy Creator ..and then recieves
his power to live a changed life that demonstrates his presence and
mercy. That miracle is also available to all who come with a heart of
humility and is prepared to put aside thier heart of stone.

By Jove, what did you do to feel so guily about?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 07:42:48 PM
Elroy Willis wrote:


The intelligent designer made a few slips along the way like hurricanes,
earthquakes, droughts, floods, the Artic zone, deserts, etc. It's ironic
that the area hit hardest by Katrina was the so-called Bible Belt.
Apparently, god was not impressed with their prayers.


I'll bet there's a few prayer-believers who believe their prayers are
what caused Katrina to move eastward a bit, sparing New Orleans the
full force of the hurricane. Meanwhile, the prayers from people
wishing it to stay west of them failed... What a waste of time prayer
is, don't you think?

The states with severe votin' irregularities have experienced the wrath
of the IDer, hurricanes have been pounding FL, and OH is getting
Katrina's
remains now. Too bad the National Guard is overseas.
JG
.

User: "WCB"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 12:51:21 PM
Elroy Willis wrote:

Vince <vcuccia122@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message


I've read and watched a few news reports and videos of discussions
about intelligent design lately, and not a single one of them
contained the following questions for the ID proponents to answer.


1. Do you believe the intelligent designer is more intelligent and
complex than the life forms you believe it designed?


2. If yes, how do you propose this intelligent designer came to be,
without needing an intelligent designer of its own?


This is a stumper question, and one I'd like to see all of the ID
pushers answer, but they can't answer it without resorting to the
copout of "The intelligent designer always existed" article of faith,
which everyone knows is pure *****.


The intelligent designer made a few slips along the way like hurricanes,
earthquakes, droughts, floods, the Artic zone, deserts, etc. It's ironic
that the area hit hardest by Katrina was the so-called Bible Belt.
Apparently, god was not impressed with their prayers.


I'll bet there's a few prayer-believers who believe their prayers are
what caused Katrina to move eastward a bit, sparing New Orleans the
full force of the hurricane. Meanwhile, the prayers from people
wishing it to stay west of them failed... What a waste of time prayer
is, don't you think?

Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...

God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying flood
plains in hurricane country.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 30 Aug 2005 09:44:36 PM
WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop a
hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...

God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying flood
plains in hurricane country.

Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 06:14:22 AM
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop
a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?

Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global Warming.
It's about the same thing.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
User: "Adam H."

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 06:50:19 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna stop
a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global Warming.
It's about the same thing.

Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation of
larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 07:29:39 AM
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna
stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation of
larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.

Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the basis
of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would rival that
of the fundiest fundies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
User: "Adam H."

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 08:39:44 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna
stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation of
larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the basis
of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would rival that
of the fundiest fundies.

'Barely detectable'? Are you kidding? The earth IS getting warmer, and
that is going to fuel more and nastier hurricanes. I think the vastly
increased melt rates of glaciers all over says something, don't you?
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 08:55:56 AM
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:bbcbh1949okbf2mlpvqvfdefkcsi8iqs17@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


'Barely detectable'? Are you kidding?

No, I'm not kidding. The earth has been both warmer and cooler than it
is now, looking at the last few centuries.

The earth IS getting warmer, and
that is going to fuel more and nastier hurricanes. I think the vastly
increased melt rates of glaciers all over says something, don't you?

A slight increase in solar radiation could explain that as opposed to
the greenhouse effect. There are just too many variables that aren't
well enough determined in the computer models.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
User: "Adam H."

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:11:27 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:55:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:bbcbh1949okbf2mlpvqvfdefkcsi8iqs17@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


'Barely detectable'? Are you kidding?


No, I'm not kidding. The earth has been both warmer and cooler than it
is now, looking at the last few centuries.

The earth IS getting warmer, and
that is going to fuel more and nastier hurricanes. I think the vastly
increased melt rates of glaciers all over says something, don't you?


A slight increase in solar radiation could explain that as opposed to
the greenhouse effect. There are just too many variables that aren't
well enough determined in the computer models.

Well, I wasn't going into the greenhouse effect or necessarily blaming
it on industrial causes. But the fact is that there IS a warming trend
and that WILL cause stronger hurricanes, and more of them.
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:25:59 AM
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:aeebh1l15gchgctn0f19t4n7niggn71mam@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:55:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:bbcbh1949okbf2mlpvqvfdefkcsi8iqs17@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low
lying flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on
gay people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a
well-known process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


'Barely detectable'? Are you kidding?


No, I'm not kidding. The earth has been both warmer and cooler than it
is now, looking at the last few centuries.

The earth IS getting warmer, and
that is going to fuel more and nastier hurricanes. I think the
vastly increased melt rates of glaciers all over says something,
don't you?


A slight increase in solar radiation could explain that as opposed to
the greenhouse effect. There are just too many variables that aren't
well enough determined in the computer models.


Well, I wasn't going into the greenhouse effect or necessarily blaming
it on industrial causes. But the fact is that there IS a warming trend
and that WILL cause stronger hurricanes, and more of them.

We may be on the upside of a climate cycle, and that may have some
effect on the number and magnitude of hurricanes. As recently as 1940 it
appeared that we were on the down side of the cycle until about 1970.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.




User: "Matt Silberstein"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 07:50:38 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125491379.1217615a722fedfabf6989ac15dc3118@teranews> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with 100%
accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is gonna
stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation of
larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the basis
of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would rival that
of the fundiest fundies.

Your ability to understand the material better than the scientists in
the field is impressive. How about you tell us why the models are
"*very* shaky". And you can tell us why you think that the temp
change is "barely" detectable, do you think that the scientists are
lying or just that if the numbers are not large then we should ignore
it? It sure seems to me that if it is detectable it is detectable.
What you would like to say (if you were using the same hat you pretend
to wear when dealing with creationists), but it would contract the
evidence, is that the measured rise is less than the margin of error.
You are behind the times, you know. Even the administration has
accepted that global warming is happening and, tentatively I think,
that human actions were a cause.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 08:32:48 AM
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125491379.1217615a722fedfabf6989ac15dc3118@teranews> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


Your ability to understand the material better than the scientists in
the field is impressive.

I read both the supportive and the critical material. My ability to
comprehend scientific articles is adequate to the task.

How about you tell us why the models are
"*very* shaky".

Because the models are extremely sensitive to variations in parameters
that are not determined well enough. A slight change in parameters like
"atmospheric reflectivity" can change the outcome from burning hell to
iceworld and yet the standard error of that parameter in the model is
greater than that amount of change.

And you can tell us why you think that the temp
change is "barely" detectable, do you think that the scientists are
lying or just that if the numbers are not large then we should ignore
it?

I think that enviromental extremists are reading more into the
scientific data than is justifiable by the historical record.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html
"Over the last 150,000 years, CO2 levels have closely paralleled
temperatures. However, detailed analysis indicates that CO2 levels often
rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature did. That means
climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse.
Climate has been both warmer and colder in the past, before significant
fossil fuel use. From about 900 to 1300 AD, for example, the climate was
warmer than it is today. A 500-year cooling followed, then a warming
trend since the mid-1800's.
The 20th century surface temperature record shows three trends: First, a
warming trend of about 0.5 C, peaking around 1940. Next, a cooling trend
occurred from 1940 until the late 1970's, followed by the recent warming
trend. But 80% of the CO2 from human activities was added to the air
after 1940. That means the early 20th Century warming and the mid-
century cooling trends were largely natural, not CO2-driven.
Computer simulations of human-made global warming predict significant
temperature warming not only near the Earth's surface but also from one
to five miles altitude, in a layer called the lower troposphere. But
NASA and NOAA records show that the temperature of the lower troposphere
varies as a result of natural factors. No meaningful human-caused
warming trend - as forecast by the computer simulations - can be found."

It sure seems to me that if it is detectable it is detectable.
What you would like to say (if you were using the same hat you pretend
to wear when dealing with creationists), but it would contract the
evidence, is that the measured rise is less than the margin of error.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/100101E.html

You are behind the times, you know. Even the administration has
accepted that global warming is happening and, tentatively I think,
that human actions were a cause.

So you believe in politicized science?
And as for hurricanes:
http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/eu-environmentalism-score-another-
one.html

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2CB625BB
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
User: "Matt Silberstein"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:30:54 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125495171.f51d1884703c426aaa625d9f21875d70@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125491379.1217615a722fedfabf6989ac15dc3118@teranews> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low lying
flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on gay
people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a well-known
process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


Your ability to understand the material better than the scientists in
the field is impressive.


I read both the supportive and the critical material. My ability to
comprehend scientific articles is adequate to the task.

How about you tell us why the models are
"*very* shaky".


Because the models are extremely sensitive to variations in parameters
that are not determined well enough. A slight change in parameters like
"atmospheric reflectivity" can change the outcome from burning hell to
iceworld and yet the standard error of that parameter in the model is
greater than that amount of change.

And why do all the scientists involved get this wrong? How about some
numbers and a paper reference, it sure seems like the authors or the
reviewers would catch something like that.

And you can tell us why you think that the temp
change is "barely" detectable, do you think that the scientists are
lying or just that if the numbers are not large then we should ignore
it?


I think that enviromental extremists are reading more into the
scientific data than is justifiable by the historical record.

Of course you are reasonable and they are all extremists.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html

Ah, a peer reviewed site, none of that politically influenced nonsense
for you.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 09:43:31 AM
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ccfbh1dtjobvv3k0avhe1c3ee14oa2kdr1@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125495171.f51d1884703c426aaa625d9f21875d70@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125491379.1217615a722fedfabf6989ac15dc3118@teranews> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low
lying flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on
gay people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a
well-known process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


Your ability to understand the material better than the scientists
in the field is impressive.


I read both the supportive and the critical material. My ability to
comprehend scientific articles is adequate to the task.

How about you tell us why the models are
"*very* shaky".


Because the models are extremely sensitive to variations in parameters
that are not determined well enough. A slight change in parameters
like "atmospheric reflectivity" can change the outcome from burning
hell to iceworld and yet the standard error of that parameter in the
model is greater than that amount of change.


And why do all the scientists involved get this wrong? How about some
numbers and a paper reference, it sure seems like the authors or the
reviewers would catch something like that.

What would be the point? You don't read long articles anyway.

And you can tell us why you think that the temp
change is "barely" detectable, do you think that the scientists are
lying or just that if the numbers are not large then we should
ignore it?


I think that enviromental extremists are reading more into the
scientific data than is justifiable by the historical record.


Of course you are reasonable and they are all extremists.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html


Ah, a peer reviewed site, none of that politically influenced nonsense
for you.
[snip]

Ah, another of those long articles that you don't read?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
User: "Matt Silberstein"

Title: Warming, was Re: Intelligent Design 31 Aug 2005 11:42:53 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:43:31 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125499414.c698ae855fc661c7c67f3e33c7098e95@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ccfbh1dtjobvv3k0avhe1c3ee14oa2kdr1@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125495171.f51d1884703c426aaa625d9f21875d70@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125491379.1217615a722fedfabf6989ac15dc3118@teranews> wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:9a6bh119tuuapldn5v7qjpr6hhd74bs8rq@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:14:22 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:os5ah1pe5vatto507mt3qb9mouhtld5pj1@4ax.com:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Nature is gonna do what it does, and we can't predict it with
100% accuracy, no matter what we do. No amount of praying is
gonna stop a hurricane in its tracks, nor stop a volcano from
erupting...


God hates people who build on earthquake faults and in low
lying flood plains in hurricane country.


Have you seen any comments about Katrina being caused by sinners
somewhere? Surely some religious crackpots have blamed it on
gay people or abortionists by now, haven't they?


Any number of environmental crackpots have blamed it on Global
Warming. It's about the same thing.


Except that global warming is actually happening and the formation
of larger and stronger hurricanes over warmer water is a
well-known process.


Except that the environmental crackpots go from a barely detectable
temperature trend to blame human industry for the outcome, on the
basis of some *very* shaky computer models, with a faith that would
rival that of the fundiest fundies.


Your ability to understand the material better than the scientists
in the field is impressive.


I read both the supportive and the critical material. My ability to
comprehend scientific articles is adequate to the task.

How about you tell us why the models are
"*very* shaky".


Because the models are extremely sensitive to variations in parameters
that are not determined well enough. A slight change in parameters
like "atmospheric reflectivity" can change the outcome from burning
hell to iceworld and yet the standard error of that parameter in the
model is greater than that amount of change.


And why do all the scientists involved get this wrong? How about some
numbers and a paper reference, it sure seems like the authors or the
reviewers would catch something like that.


What would be the point? You don't read long articles anyway.

No, I don't read the long pointless articles you recommend then the
first several items don't support your claim. I stopped reading the
page you gave because it was not good news, not because it was long.
And I won't read an entire web site at your recommendation because
supposedly there is some item on some page that supports you. You have
to give something a bit more precise than a domain name.
But I do find this interesting, Fred. You and I frequently give
references to creationists when they doubt science. And we both ask
for references when they make claims against the science. But for some
reason you are unwilling to supply me with any appropriate references.

And you can tell us why you think that the temp
change is "barely" detectable, do you think that the scientists are
lying or just that if the numbers are not large then we should
ignore it?


I think that enviromental extremists are reading more into the
scientific data than is justifiable by the historical record.


Of course you are reasonable and they are all extremists.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html


Ah, a peer reviewed site, none of that politically influenced nonsense
for you.
[snip]


Ah, another of those long articles that you don't read?

I read it, it was not interesting. Robert Gumbine's article in
talk.origins was more useful and appropriate. There does not seem to
be a global warming increase in hurricanes. We are just in a cyclical
increase (which is something, but still a concern). The models do not
get sufficiently detailed to say much about the number of hurricanes.
This makes sense to me, hurricanes, storms in general, are an issue of
difference in temp, not absolute temp. If the global warming increase
leads to a larger difference between the poles and equator we would
expect more storms, if it led to an increase in difference between
equator and some other area we would expect more storms. But if it led
to a decreased difference (because the poles increased more rapidly
than the equator) we could see a decrease in the number of storms. I
have a vague memory of some prediction of an increase in storm
activity, but that was from several years ago (and the models are much
better now) and the memory is very vague anyway. I also remember
reading that the poles are warming up faster than the equator, so that
should potentially decrease the number of storms.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
User: "Robert Grumbine"

Title: Re: Warming, was Re: Intelligent Design 01 Sep 2005 09:56:24 AM
In article <j1nbh113hrabehuehjh7haejb524lo3aek@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:43:31 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125499414.c698ae855fc661c7c67f3e33c7098e95@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ccfbh1dtjobvv3k0avhe1c3ee14oa2kdr1@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125495171.f51d1884703c426aaa625d9f21875d70@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in

[snip]

I read it, it was not interesting. Robert Gumbine's article in
talk.origins was more useful and appropriate. There does not seem to
be a global warming increase in hurricanes. We are just in a cyclical
increase (which is something, but still a concern).

Perhaps not _just_ that, but we don't have enough data to say
otherwise.

The models do not
get sufficiently detailed to say much about the number of hurricanes.
This makes sense to me, hurricanes, storms in general, are an issue of
difference in temp, not absolute temp. If the global warming increase
leads to a larger difference between the poles and equator we would
expect more storms, if it led to an increase in difference between
equator and some other area we would expect more storms. But if it led
to a decreased difference (because the poles increased more rapidly
than the equator) we could see a decrease in the number of storms. I
have a vague memory of some prediction of an increase in storm
activity, but that was from several years ago (and the models are much
better now) and the memory is very vague anyway. I also remember
reading that the poles are warming up faster than the equator, so that
should potentially decrease the number of storms.

Or not. The poles are indeed warming faster than the equator,
particularly the Arctic. So that term is satisfied. While our
intuition suggests that this would lead to a decrease in storms
(large scale low pressure systems, vs. thunderstorms) it appears
that our intuition is wrong again, and there is in fact no such
decrease observed (yet, at least).
The one change of this sort that _has_ been observed, at least
for the US and China (thunderstorm-heavy countries with large
populations and observing networks), is that thunderstorm intensity
and frequency has increased over the past (?) century. This means
more events with large rainfall rates in short periods, increased
flooding, increased erosion (probably, not studied afaik), and
increased death from the flooding. It should also translate to
greater drought susceptibility as the high rainfall means less
of the water soaks into the ground. Tom Karl is an author
to track on this.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
User: "Matt Silberstein"

Title: Re: Warming, was Re: Intelligent Design 01 Sep 2005 11:50:41 AM
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:56:24 -0000, in talk.origins ,

(Robert Grumbine) in <11he5kof1fuom6a@corp.supernews.com> wrote:

In article <j1nbh113hrabehuehjh7haejb524lo3aek@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:43:31 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125499414.c698ae855fc661c7c67f3e33c7098e95@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ccfbh1dtjobvv3k0avhe1c3ee14oa2kdr1@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1125495171.f51d1884703c426aaa625d9f21875d70@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fk9bh1ls517ksudiobp89m4hg5tkcq6qi2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:29:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in

[snip]

I read it, it was not interesting. Robert Gumbine's article in
talk.origins was more useful and appropriate. There does not seem to
be a global warming increase in hurricanes. We are just in a cyclical
increase (which is something, but still a concern).


Perhaps not _just_ that, but we don't have enough data to say
otherwise.

The models do not
get sufficiently detailed to say much about the number of hurricanes.
This makes sense to me, hurricanes, storms in general, are an issue of
difference in temp, not absolute temp. If the global warming increase
leads to a larger difference between the poles and equator we would
expect more storms, if it led to an increase in difference between
equator and some other area we would expect more storms. But if it led
to a decreased difference (because the poles increased more rapidly
than the equator) we could see a decrease in the number of storms. I
have a vague memory of some prediction of an increase in storm
activity, but that was from several years ago (and the models are much
better now) and the memory is very vague anyway. I also remember
reading that the poles are warming up faster than the equator, so that
should potentially decrease the number of storms.


Or not. The poles are indeed warming faster than the equator,
particularly the Arctic. So that term is satisfied. While our
intuition suggests that this would lead to a decrease in storms
(large scale low pressure systems, vs. thunderstorms) it appears
that our intuition is wrong again, and there is in fact no such
decrease observed (yet, at least).

In typical scientific weasel wording I will claim that this does
decrease the number of storms, there is just something else increasing
it. ;-)


The one change of this sort that _has_ been observed, at least
for the US and China (thunderstorm-heavy countries with large
populations and observing networks), is that thunderstorm intensity
and frequency has increased over the past (?) century. This means
more events with large rainfall rates in short periods, increased
flooding, increased erosion (probably, not studied afaik), and
increased death from the flooding. It should also translate to
greater drought susceptibility as the high rainfall means less
of the water soaks into the ground. Tom Karl is an author
to track on this.

The more you write, the more I wish I had gone into meteorology. It is
just fascinating. Regarding the above I wonder how much
deforestization has to do with this. Not just the increased erosion,
which is obvious, but maybe more storms as well. You mention in
another post that surface wind speed matters and the winds are faster
over grasslands than over forests. Wow, this stuff if interestingly
complex. I mean, this is just heat exchange and air/water movement
(and biology is just imperfect replication and differential
reproductive success), but wow, it is fun.
Or maybe it is fun right now so I can pretend to ignore the horrible
events happening.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
User: "Robert Grumbine"

Title: Re: Warming, was Re: Intelligent Design 01 Sep 2005 02:53:41 PM
In article <irbeh1hip23h57houd7alb4v0aoargd3qg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:56:24 -0000, in talk.origins ,


(Robert Grumbine) in <11he5kof1fuom6a@corp.supernews.com> wrote:

In article <j1nbh113hrabehuehjh7haejb524lo3aek@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]

I read it, it was not interesting. Robert Gumbine's article in
talk.origins was more useful and appropriate. There does not seem to
be a global warming increase in hurricanes. We are just in a cyclical
increase (which is something, but still a concern).


Perhaps not _just_ that, but we don't have enough data to say
otherwise.

The models do not
get sufficiently detailed to say much about the number of hurricanes.
This makes sense to me, hurricanes, storms in general, are an issue of
difference in temp, not absolute temp. If the global warming increase
leads to a larger difference between the poles and equator we would
expect more storms, if it led to an increase in difference between
equator and some other area we would expect more storms. But if it led
to a decreased difference (because the poles increased more rapidly
than the equator) we could see a decrease in the number of storms. I
have a vague memory of some prediction of an increase in storm
activity, but that was from several years ago (and the models are much
better now) and the memory is very vague anyway. I also remember
reading that the poles are warming up faster than the equator, so that
should potentially decrease the number of storms.


Or not. The poles are indeed warming faster than the equator,
particularly the Arctic. So that term is satisfied. While our
intuition suggests that this would lead to a decrease in storms
(large scale low pressure systems, vs. thunderstorms) it appears
that our intuition is wrong again, and there is in fact no such
decrease observed (yet, at least).


In typical scientific weasel wording I will claim that this does
decrease the number of storms, there is just something else increasing
it. ;-)

Probably no weasels involved. Now just figure out what that
something else might be, and you've got a very publishable paper.

The one change of this sort that _has_ been observed, at least
for the US and China (thunderstorm-heavy countries with large
populations and observing networks), is that thunderstorm intensity
and frequency has increased over the past (?) century. This means
more events with large rainfall rates in short periods, increased
flooding, increased erosion (probably, not studied afaik), and
increased death from the flooding. It should also translate to
greater drought susceptibility as the high rainfall means less
of the water soaks into the ground. Tom Karl is an author
to track on this.


The more you write, the more I wish I had gone into meteorology. It is
just fascinating. Regarding the above I wonder how much
deforestization has to do with this. Not just the increased erosion,
which is obvious, but maybe more storms as well. You mention in
another post that surface wind speed matters and the winds are faster
over grasslands than over forests. Wow, this stuff if interestingly
complex.

First rule of climate (as opposed to weather, for which we can
narrow the field some) is:
Everything affects everything else.
There is just about nothing that can be eliminated with confidence*.
For the forests, for example. On one hand, it is true that the
forest increases the friction, so might be expected to decrease
storm formation. On the other, forests are wetter than grassland
for the same reason+. So, when you have an incipient storm, does
the growth suppression by friction outweigh the growth augmentation
from the moisture source? Dunno. I'm sure that it ultimately
depends on landscape (which is, itself, modified by the forest
and hydrological feedbacks), moisture supplies, the species of
trees and underbrush in the forest (in terms of how effective
they are at blocking winds vs. evapotranspiration of leaves augmenting
water transport to the storm), vs. how dark they are (dark forests
heat up more -> more tendency for upwelling air, etc.), vs. ...
probably several more things that don't occur to me right off.
+ A literary example is _Girl of the Limberlost_, by Gene
Stratton Porter. The Limberlost was a swampy forested area in
NE Indiana. The forest was levelled, and the area is now non-swampy.
* A Big Name Scientist, name not coming to me at the moment,
took on the position of head of the UK Met Office, figuring that
he could do/lead much better predictions/forecasting models.
Then he sat down with the governing equations and observations
of the weather and discovered that, contrary to every situation
he'd looked at in developing his (well-deserved) reputation as
a Big Name Scientist, you couldn't throw out _any_ of the terms.
He then quit.

I mean, this is just heat exchange and air/water movement
(and biology is just imperfect replication and differential
reproductive success), but wow, it is fun.

Meteorology/oceanography/glaciology/climatology are outstanding
fun if you like tangled webs that matter to day to day life. If
you like 'elegant' simple systems, they're very ugly.
One arm is fluid (air/water/ice) dynamics. It is intrinsically
nonlinear even at the best of times. If you let there be a
boundary present (like, say, the surface of the earth, or winds
blowing on oceans), then you've got turbulence involved. Turbulence
is one of the great unsolved problems in science.
Another is radiative transfer, another of the great unsolved problems.
Some fairly trivial cases can be solved, but their notable for their
rarity and triviality. All the energy driving the climate (or weather)
is derived from the sun, so first you have to get (model) the solar
energy correctly through the atmosphere in spite of the fact that
you don't know important terms like the aerosol distribution. Then
you have to correctly the much longer wavelength terrestrial radiation
back through the atmosphere. This, being about the same size as
cloud drops, ice crystals, and aerosols, and because it occurs at
the same wavelengths as the atmosphere is emitting/absorbing, gets
horrific. Further, the atmospheric particle absorption/emission
will depend on the exact size and shape of the particles. A 10 micron
ice crystal does not emit/absorb the same as the equivalent water
droplet, and in fact will emit differently if it is a needle versus
dendrite vs. sector plate vs. ...
Of course you also have to include the chemistry of the radiatively
important gases, which themselves depend on the particulates present
for a number of important cases (ozone hole, for instance).
You also have the heat transfer problem with a condensing medium --
clouds. Cloud droplets/ice particles are very important to the radiation,
as mentioned above. The heat release is sort of simple to deal with,
excepth that it also depends on how, exactly, you are forming droplets.
Different results for a lot of small droplets vs. a few larger ones.
It also depends on how you're (turbulently) mixing with the environmental
air.
In addition to there being no neglectable terms, there are no
neglectable scales (length or time). Something is happening dynamically
at all length scales from sub-millimeter (the turbulent dissipation
scale) to planetary scale.

Or maybe it is fun right now so I can pretend to ignore the horrible
events happening.

Perhaps. But an awful lot of meteorologists (vs. 'weather
personalities', who may or may not be meteorologists) get started
because of the destructive power of weather. The subject is
interesting because it is _real_. You can know people who were
injured or killed by what you're studying, and our incomplete knowledge
of what you're studying.
Apropos that concept, though not relevant to the example at hand,
is that some work I've done using remote sensing methods developed
by friends at NASA is helping save lives every year. My role
mostly 'just' being to be in a pl