Global warming robots fail, or is it the scientists?

This is slightly outside the scope of this blog, but I found it humorous enough to post. Global warming is a loaded topic I purposefully avoid, although once or twice I have given my opinion on the matter. If it weren’t for my interest and thoughts published here from time to time dealing with sustainable living I wouldn’t be bothering, but . . .

My blogging friend Tim Jones over at Old World Swine alerted me to an amusing NPR spot via this entry. The NPR story is called The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat. The story begins with this paragraph:

    Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

Even before Tim pointed it out in his post, my mind arrived at the same conclusion: “Or it could mean there is no such thing as global warming.” NPR, which I listen to almost daily — and enjoy listening too — is unashamed about its biases. I’ve learned to digest their stories with this in mind, though it’s sad that an investigative journalistic organization such as public radio doesn’t even seem to attempt a more balanced kind of reporting.

In other global warming related news, the Southern Baptist Convention recently launched a website dedicated to care of creation, The Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative. Read their positions here. The following explains my own viewpoint on global warming and care of the environment, taken from a comment I made on Think Christian’s report of the SBC’s new policy:

    My problem with global warming is that the data they draw from is very limited — esp. if you’re of the mind that the earth has been around for millions or billions of years. So temperatures have gone up a fraction of a degree in the last 150 years (basically during the history of meteorological science); they may go down a fraction of a degree over the next hundred years.

    That said, I personally believe every believer should do their best to steward the earth God gave us. The word “sustainable” has significantly clearer implications IMO and is less politically loaded than “environmental,” so this is the term I default to. Regardless of any global warming, we who are charged with stewarding this planet ought to do our best. Our best does not include stripping it of its resources (unsustainable vs sustainable), living wastefully and frivolously by producing and mass-consuming disposable products (and my definition here is broad) etc etc.

Lastly in this rambling post, I will dare to broach the topic of Intelligent Design. Actually, I’m going to mention a new Ben Stein documentary that broaches ID. The film is called Expelled: No intelligence allowed. I was privileged enough to see a screening of this film while in Nashville last week. The premise, as laid out in the trailer, is that academic and scientific freedoms are being squashed by the old guard in order to protect their own personal convictions. I mention this because the same thing seems to happen in discussions about global warming. Those who, in our frightened (read “tolerant”) and politically correct society, dare to suggest that global warming has yet to be established are lampooned or just ignored.

I mentioned this same documentary in a previous post which I lived to regret; I got into a somewhat protracted conversation with a scientist who took issue with my personal belief in Creation as well as Ben Stein’s movie. The conversation was civil but completely off topic, and thus I wish at this point I would have let the second commenter’s comment hang (or used a different example in my post to begin with). At one point this person used the term “mockumentary” to describe Expelled. Just to clarify, the film is nothing of the sort if the commenter was at all using the word denotatively. Look for Expelled in theaters April 18th.

Advertisements

About pcNielsen
Paul Nielsen founded The Aesthetic Elevator late in 2005. He owns a piece of paper, located somewhere in his house (not on the wall), stating that he earned a B.F.A. from the University of Nebraska around about 2001. While there, he studied studied architecture, graphic design and ceramics, graduating with a degree in studio art. Paul presently serves as communications manager for a small non-profit doing their print design and marketing. He spends as much time sculpting in his studio as possible — which is not nearly enough. Visit his website at pcNielsen.com.

3 Responses to Global warming robots fail, or is it the scientists?

  1. Benjamin Franklin says:

    Without discussing the specific pros and cons of “Intelligent Design”, to me, this films’ main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God, or is a Darwin dissenter is being “expelled” is false at its core.

    In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. “But they are afraid to report them”.
    Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

    That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

    Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been “expelled” in any fashion for his belief in God.

    The movie tries to make the case that “Big Science” is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some of the Discovery Institute’s “martyrs”.

    Carolyn Crocker “expelled”? – No.
    Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she “fired” for daring to bring God into research? – No. She was hired to teach Cell Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools’ curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

    Guillermo Gonzalez “expelled”? – No.
    He was not granted tenure. The film doesn’t bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

    Richard von Sternberg “expelled”? – No.
    Sternberg continues to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn’t bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

    This movie attempts to influence it’s viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

    If a scientists’ research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn’t because the scientist either believes or doesn’t believe in God or Darwin, it is usually because they are producing bad science.

  2. TAE says:

    BF said: This movie attempts to influence it’s viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

    This is, perhaps, a fault of many modern documentaries that also try and entertain. I recently watched Michael Moore’s Sicko and thoroughly enjoyed it as a film, but my wife (a journalist) pointed out correctly that it was hardly a pure documentary. Further, when I asked one of my British friends what she and others in the U.K. thought of the NHS, she outright contradicted Moore’s thesis. And I’m much more likely to believe my friend who’s grown up in England, even if I would prefer to believe the statements made by the film.

    Other more “straight” documentaries such as March of the Penguins may be more factual, but frankly most are very dull — at least the penguin film was quite boring. I don’t know why it got so much attention. We live in a culture that expects to entertained, for good or for bad.

    I’m not a part of the scientific community and can’t lend any additional comments affirming or discrediting Expelled. My own interest in this film stems from personal experiences where people on both sides of the issue engage in mudslinging instead of bona-fide discussion. My hope is that this film, as it does at least in part clearly intend to do, opens up avenues of communication that have been shut down for years for whatever reasons. I know you probably won’t agree with me on this per your above statements, but I can’t ignore my own observations from within both secular and churched environments.

  3. Pingback: Who hears a Horton? « Conscious, and Occasionally Organized, Ramblings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: