|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. July 2008 22:19
Dave
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2005/08/09.html
Try the above link out for another perspective on Spencer. Frankly, I think he is a quack.
I also suggest that you "Google" James Hansen who has been called the "godfather of global warming science." Unlike Spencer, he doesn't fancy himself to be an expert on evolution too. I don't feel that Hansen is nearly alarmist enough to suit my fancy and "I hate being right."
I am sure you will dredge up someone else in support of your denial of the obvious. For you, the notion that you might be wrong about ANYTHING is quite impossible.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but he overlooked the human brain."
Konrad Adenauer
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A Davison
[ 15. July 2008, 03:42: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. July 2008 19:34
I call your attention to the following link-
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/564#comment
Enjoy and respond here, there, my blog or somewhere - anywhere! Speaking on behalf of my distinguished predecessors, not an atheist or a religious fanatic among us, we are tired of being ignored by both factions of this ridiculous debate, a debate that should never have taken place.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. July 2008 23:06
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/#comments
Please note that David Springer is now defending Roy Spencer on Uncommon Descent rather than responding here where I with others have challenged Spencer's credentials. This is typical Springer. He goes out of his way to avoid mentioning my name, a most cowardly tactic. I predict he will say nothing more here for probably a month or so at which time he will erupt again like old faithful, casting aspersions, making snide remarks and behaving like the pompous blowhard he has been for as long as I have known him.
I have no more respect for David Springer than I have for Paul Zachary Myers and for the same reasons. They use exactly the same tactics, pretending they have no real adversaries and treating all with whom they differ with transparent contempt.
Neither Freeman Dyson nor Roy Spencer have any credentials as climatologists. The only reason Springer cites them is because they share his adamant refusal to recognize man's major contribution to global warming and climate change.
I can't wait to see who he will conjure up next in support of his intractable posture, a posture he summarizes with his arrogant "I love being right." Those are not words from a scientist. They are the words of a profoundly insecure intellectual tyrant, of a person incompetent to judge the natural world objectively.
"It is abhorrent to me when a fine intelligence is paired with an unsavory character."
Albert Einstein
You want fine intelligences paired with unsavory characters? Try Paul Zachary Myers and DaveScot/David Springer. At least Myers uses his real name.
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned.... A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 17. July 2008, 00:43: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. July 2008 01:57
Dear John,
quote:
I have published on all these matters so I am not quite certain what you are driving at.
What I really meant was that a book is necessary that explains Proscribed Evolution - In fact "Prescribed Evolution" is a catchy title. Your publications and the manifesto would form the basis. You could also explain the SMH. A major problem at the moment is that there is nothing in this line that is accessible to the public. It could have quite an impact.
Kind regards. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2008 05:54
Thank you very much.
I will be delighted to consider a book as soon as I am approached by an interested publisher. In the meantime I am quite content to let my published papers, especially the peer reviewed ones, speak on my behalf. At present I doubt very much if there are any publishers willing to present my heresies. What I hope for is the publication some day of my collected evolutionary papers, a day I am likely no longer to be extant. By not having a book published I won't have to endure the scathing reviews I am certain it would evoke from both sides of this idiotic debate, a debate that has produced absolutely nothing of significance with respect to the great mystery of organic evolution.
Besides I feel that internet publication is now just as valid as any other form of written communication and offers the advantage of instant response to ones critics, assuming one has any! So far I and my sources are not allowed to exist in the contemporary highly polarized atmosphere which blights any rational discussion of our origins. Why else am I denied voice on virtually every major forum? Thank God for "brainstorms." Long may it last, even as David Springer has found it necesssary to describe it as "obscure." I am now also posting at Denyse O'Leary's Overwhelming Evidence which I take to be a good sign. Springer probably regards that forum as "obscure" as well.
As a current example of my position I refer you to -
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/564#comment-2019
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 18. July 2008, 08:14: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. July 2008 15:53
Dear John,
Thanks.
1] quote:
a debate which has contributed absolutely nothing to the understanding of our origins
Should one expect this debate to produce any science? The debate is surely a non-debate in the first place. The science is firmly in favor of the PEH. The important thing is to get the public to see this. You will never convince die hard Darwinists.
2] I don't understand the issue of crossing humans with chimps. Humans have one less chromosome than chimps and thus surely, even if there was a hybrid, "it?" would not be fertile? This is the reproductory isolation expected in the SMH? I think you are concerned over the theological consequences of a hybrid?
Kind regards,
Chris
[ 18. July 2008, 16:21: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2008 19:03
Chris
Of course the hybrid would be sterile for the same reasons the mule is sterile. It is because humans and chimps differ only in the arrangements of otherwise homlogous chromosome segments. These are precisely the differences that distinguish the horse from the donkey. Such difference make a normal meiosis impossible but they need not interfere with a normal ontogeny.
The reason I propose that such crosses should be made is because it would still the Christian Fundamentalists who continue to deny the reality of a past evolution. Their position is just as unrealistic as that of the Darwinians who believe everything was an accident. I have presented my views at Overwhelming Evidence as I noted previously. I am having a dialogue with Patrick whoever that is. That is a step forward for me as I have been ignored, banished or denigrated by both sides of this crazy debate.
Humans are animals and it is time they should be regarded as such. Like dogs, they come in a variety of temperaments, temperaments with a firm genetic basis. Some, like P.Z. Myers and David Springer, are nasty, incorrigable, egomaniacal mongrels and should be treated as such. They have no class.
I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of my views as I learned long ago that is a waste of time. I am only interested in presenting my convictions wherever I am permitted. That is all any real scientist has ever wanted to do. There is no place for argument or debate in matters of science. Can you imagine Mendel trying to convince someone about anything? He knew better which is why he published his findings in his own journal. That is exactly what I am doing on my blog and anywhere else I am allowed to speak. The truth is not subject to debate or even discussion. It never has been and never will be.
"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo
As for theology, I don't have much of a theology. I will say this however. There is no more reason to assume monotheism than there is to assume a single origin of life. As a matter of fact, I find that more than one Creator is fully compatible with the real world just as I find several creative events to be fully in accord with what we really know from the fossil record and from organic morphology.
Based on what we really know for certain, I support Leo Berg's appraisal as perfectly reasonable -
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousand of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis, page 406.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 18. July 2008, 20:22: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. July 2008 05:25
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/no-smoking-hot-spot/#respond
I see that David Springer has dredged up another denier that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. This time it is David Evans who WAS a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Why is he no longer a consultant?
If climbing CO2 and H2O vapor levels are not the primary cause of global warming and climate change, then what, pray tell, is the cause? Is it sunspot cycles, variations in solar output, or random fluctuations? Surely there must be a cause or are we to believe that both poles are not melting, precipitation is not increasing world wide, coral reefs are not bleaching, the pH of the ocean is not dropping, the salinity of polar seas is not decreasing, tornados are not increasing in frequency and strength, glaciers are not retreating and sea levels are not beginning to rise?
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 21. July 2008, 06:41: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 21. July 2008 07:01
John,
Shrugging off Spencer as a quack is the best you can do? Figures.
Let me restate the "quack's" qualifications for you again:
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.
Quack my ass. This guy has a PhD meteorology, has worked in the field all his life at NASA and University of Alabama. He's as qualified as any man alive in the area of global warming.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 21. July 2008 08:08
John,
The south pole is NOT melting. You're confusing the western antarctic peninsula, which extends outside the antarctic circle, with the whole continent. The peninsular ice sheet has been shrinking for 150 years - since the end of the "little ice age". It contains less than 1% of the total ice mass of the entire continent. The very fringes of Antarctica near the coastline are generally getting slightly warmer, due to close proximity with the ocean. The oceans have been getting warmer for 400 years too. The warming trend reverses inland. It's getting colder at the actual south pole and the total ice mass on the whole continent is increasing.
[ 21. July 2008, 08:13: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. July 2008 10:31
Spencer is also a self styled expert on evolution but then so are you. The reason the south pole is not melting as fast as the north pole is because most industrial nations are located in the northern hemisphere. If you continue to deny anthropogenic global warming and climate change, that suits me just fine. I know how much that means to you. You "love being right" and we wouldn't want anything to disrupt your fantasy. It was not only I who considered Spencer to be a quack as you can gather from -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/#more-567
This is the same source that dispensed with Freeman Dyson as I earlier reported here. I'll bet this guy Evans will also prove to be a questionable source by the folks at RealClimate. You sure can pick them.
I love it so!
RealClimate is a highly credible forum where real professional climatologists talk largely to one another. So far your sources aren't faring too well in the opinion of the professionals. I can't wait to see who you come up with next.
I expect now that you will probably repeat your spiel on Uncommon Descent. Be sure to omit this time, as you did before, the name of the person to whom you are responding. Your tactics are cowardly and shabby. If you had a shred of common decency you would invite me to challenge you on your own turf. That I will be happy to do any time Dembski makes the offer with the provision that you will not ban me at at your whim as you have twice in the past. You know what I mean -
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
[ 27. July 2008, 13:23: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. July 2008 12:45
David "I love being right" Springer. Now don't just disappear again like you usually do.
What and where is this "hot spot" that Evans can't seem to find, this proof that CO2 is not causing global warming? I don't get it. Please explain that for me and I assume others as well who are not experts in climatology and global warming. And see if you can do it without being snide and condescending for a change.
Thanks.
"Mankind fiddled while earth burned."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 22. July 2008 20:45
John,
How do you arrive at the conclusion that Spencer is a self-styled expert on evolution? He wrote one article giving his opinion on it and that opinion was that intelligent design is no more or less "science" than evolution by random mutation & natural selection. He said both were largely articles of faith. Lots of people who aren't experts and don't style themselves as experts give their opinions on things.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with his very real, recognized expertise in climate research. Why are you so desperate to somehow smear Roy Spencer? Just because he doesn't happen to agree with you?
You are on the wrong side of the global warming controversy. I hope you live long enough for me to rub your nose in it when it's all over. It won't be long now. There hasn't been any further warming for 10 years despite the rate of manmade CO2 pouring into the atmosphere getting larger each of those years, no amount of effort has found the greenhouse signature, and more & more scientists are confessing there's no actual evidence that CO2 has had any significant influence on climate change. Sunspot activity influencing stratospheric cloud formation is probably the culprit. We should know soon enough because sunspot cycle 24 is shaping up to be one of the least active since the Maunder Minimum 800 years ago which marked the beginning of the little ice age. Get ready for some old time winters up there in Vermont. I'm in upstate NY for the summer. Nice & cool here.
The "hot spot" is a signature that greenhouse warming is happening vs. something else. The greenhouse signature is when the greatest amount of warming is observed at an altitude of 30,000 feet over the tropics. It's never been detected. The greatest amount of warming is near the surface. That's something other than heating from greenhouse gases. All this time the global warming hysterics have been blaming inaccurate radiosonde temperature readings but no amount of trying to implicate the instruments has made that excuse credible. The instruments are fine and the signature is simply missing. The heating is greatest at the surface and it's concentrated in the northern hemisphere.
Heating at the surface is caused by either more sunlight and/or darker surface. Both are probably combined as causes for most of the heating between 1980 and 2000. High sunspot activity has been implicated in the inhibition of cirrus cloud formation. Cirrus clouds reflect sunlight back into space before it can reach the ground. The second factor, a darker surface, is the result of humans burning wood, coal, and diesel. These fuels produce a lot of black carbon soot unless smokestack and exhaust filters are used (only the U.S. has laws requiring particulate filters). Third world countries are the worst as they still use slash & burn agriculture, heat their houses with wood and coal, and run a lot old smoky diesel engines. This particulate carbon can only travel a couple thousand miles from the source before it settles to the ground. Most of it is generated in the northern hemisphere and guess what, soot travels just enough to make it from where it's burned onto the surface of northern hemisphere glaciers and permanent snow cover where it darkens the surface and makes the snow melt faster. Adding insult to injury the crap floats on top of the melting snow just getting darker and darker instead of getting rinsed away. Ask anyone who's lived next to a highway in a cold climate with lots of 18 wheelers going by. I grew up next to such a highway in upstate New York. The snow up to about 20 feet from the road damn near turned black on top when it melted. Or ask anyone who lived in the Los Angeles area in California before they mandated emission controls on vehicles how long a white outdoor windowsill remained white. I lived there too back in 1970s and 1980s. Anything that sat outside gradually turned black over the course of a few years and it didn't really matter how close you were to a highway.
One last thing that has skewed the data is the urban heat island effect. We have satellites that monitor temperatures all over the globe now but those have only been up since 1979. Temperature data from before then can't be trusted for accuracy down to a tenth of a degree per decade - even without the heat island effect there is still instrument error and human error. Plus the surface thermometers distribution is skewed around where the most people live so that much of the globe wasn't covered and we can't calculate a global average. So we don't have an accurate enough baseline to say how much warmer it is now than anytime before 1979 on a global average down to a few tenths of a degree.
But you won't need to bother with any of the above. If the sunspot hypothesis is correct you're going to directly experience some major global cooling real soon now. We'll be returning to those bitter cold winters of the 1960's where the only time in the winter months you see any green grass is maybe a few short days during a January thaw.
[ 22. July 2008, 21:34: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
