Some Climate Change Survey Questions I’d Like to See

August 4th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

PushPoll
Nothing rouses my ire like biased survey questions which load the dice in favor of a specific answer. Seldom do I ever see well-phrased survey questions. Probably because the people who pay for the surveys want the results to come out a certain way.

So, since the other side of the global warming debate likes to ask such inane survey questions (like Does your company acknowledge the threat and challenge of climate change as companies like Walmart, CocaCola, Apple, Google, AIG, Swiss Re, NRG, Unilever and others have done?, here’s a few survey questions I’d like some people to answer.

Maybe some of our politicians. Or Al Gore.

In the interests of providing some balance to a clearly unbalanced situation, here are the first four that come to mind:

1. Do you deny that climate has always changed, even without the help of humans?

2. Do you trust climate models to tell us the future, even when none of them predicted the recent 17+ year stoppage of global warming?

3. Do you believe severe weather has gotten worse from climate change, even though the IPCC (and observations) show that it hasn’t?

4. Do you support EPA regulations on power plants that will increase electricity costs and hurt the economy, even though they will have no measurable effect on future global temperatures?

I should have been a pollster.


91 Responses to “Some Climate Change Survey Questions I’d Like to See”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Entropic man says:

    No, you shouldnt have been a pollster.

    Each of your questions contains the type of loaded subtext you complain of.

    1) This uses the standard denier meme that the existance of past natural change precludes the possibility of anthropogenic change.

    2) Some of the climate models did project the pause. The underlying denier meme that models failed to predict the current climate is false.

    3) Argument from authority. I find it curious that a denier is using the IPCC as an authority when you spend considerable time attacking its output. You can’t have it both ways.

    4) Both of the statements are propoganda statements which cannot be justified by evidence.

    • thanks for playing The Obvious Game, Entropic man.

      • benpal says:

        ‘Entropic men’ seem to get caught easily.

      • benpal says:

        I guess Entropic man didn’t want to answer the questions.

        • Old Huemul says:

          @benpal says:
          “I guess Entropic man didnít want to answer the questions”.

          Or simply the poor sod lacks a sense of irony –a common ailment among the politically correct.

          • Peter Yates says:

            Maybe the poster’s handle is ironic because entropic can mean: “a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration”, and: “a lack of pattern or organization; disorder”. (….//dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropic)
            Perhaps those scenarios are in mankind’s future if the cost of energy becomes far too much, especially for the developing nations.
            For at least two decades it seems that we have been running on the spot while trying to reduce the human emissions of a life-giving gas, and experimenting with expensive, inefficient, and unreliable sources of energy like wind and solar power.
            All those millions of dollars would be better spent developing energy sources that are affordable, efficient, reliable, and acceptable to people that lean towards ‘green’ politics.

      • Rick Adkison says:

        Reel him in!!!! Fish On!! !!!!!

    • KuhnKat says:

      Entropic Man,

      you will never need a doctor to give you a colonoscopy, just tell him what you see…

    • Martin A says:

      Entropic Man!

      I’m ashamed of you!

      • alphagruis says:

        Entropic Man is a ridiculous pleonasmÖlike wet water

        Since, like all dissipative structures, man, in order to maintain his ordered state, necessarily produces entropy and exports it to the environment.

        Yet global warmists like Entropic Man have achieved a remarkable feat. In spite of producing and exporting a lot more entropy than ordinary man they nevertheless destroy more and more order rather than increasing or merely maintaining it.

    • Satire is not highly developed in the Na’vi culture.

    • Phyte On says:

      Oh brother. Entropic man, are you for real? Sigh.

    • KR says:

      Entropic man’s comments are right on target.

      1. Climate has changed before, and we are responsible for most of the current changes.

      2. Individual models _do_ reproduce the current ‘hiatus’, see Risby et al 2014. The average doesn’t, but note that averaging models removes short term variability. And that observed climate is an individual instance, not an average.

      3. Extreme temperatures are now significant (Hansen et al 2012), and there is every expectation that other weather factors will rise to statistical significance with additional warming.

      4. BS and BS – We are already paying unaccounted prices for CO2 producing power (health and pollution, even if you don’t account for warming). Shifting power to renewables will cost us less as a society than current practices. And wrt total CO2 levels, the US is one of the major contributors, with economic influence around the world – and every little bit helps.

      Dr. Spencers questions are the climate change equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife” – they are “Loaded Question Fallacies”.

  2. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    It seems to me one question that should be asked of the entire AGW community would be:

    Do you deny the role all GHG’s (especially non-condensing ones) have in increasing the rate at which the earth’s atmosphere radiates heat energy to space?

    After all if the atmosphere contained only nitrogen and oxygen radiating in the microwave band-widths ~10^9-10 hz (wavelegnth ~10^-2 m) it must take considerable longer for the atmosphere to radiate energy to space (and thus cool) than say CO2 radiating in the infrared band-widths ~10^13 hz(wavelegnth ~10^-5 m)!

    Have a great day!

    • rossbrisbane says:

      John,

      You say:

      Do you deny the role all GHGís (especially non-condensing ones) have in increasing the rate at which the earthís atmosphere radiates heat energy to space?

      You have actually failed as you ASSUME an making an ASS out of YOURSELF and ME that this is not ALREADY calculated into climate models!!

      Fail: despite this assumption of yours the Earth continues to warm globally. Put it on the table Roy and stop obfuscating.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi rossbrisbane (from the mind down-under),

        You blathered:

        “You have actually failed as you ASSUME an making an ASS out of YOURSELF and ME that this is not ALREADY calculated into climate models!!”

        Hmmh! Please reread the statement. Notice I didn’t assume anything. I merely asked a question. However, it seems you have ASSUMED the models have already included such facts in their calculation. It seems you have managed to make an unwarranted ASS-UMPTION and failed to comprehend basic text all in one paragraph! Since you seem to get a lot of exercise leaping to conclusions, it will be interesting to find out what unwarranted claims you leap to next!

        Have a great day!

  3. Fulco says:

    A few years ago there was concensus about the future of climate.
    Models were declared mature and policies where build on it.
    Then nature decided to go left where models turned right.
    Oeps what’s next… Models were reshaped to fit natures whishes and consensus and mutarnity reestablished well, no…
    Either nature got it wrong or the models got it wrong, my guess…
    Nature got it wrong for there was concensus and models where matured.

  4. Hi Roy
    Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that climate change is not due to man. Even assume it is not even happening and the present trend will simply reverse. There are still a raft of reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel.
    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
    William

    • Roy Spencer says:

      yes, William, we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But the replacements don’t yet exist. You cannot simply legislate new forms of energy into existence.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Roy and William Hughes-Games,

        If as you both seem to contend, the earths’ hydrocarbons simply remain as primarily fossil fuel leftovers from past ages, the peak oil plateau long since past as far too many delude themselves then you shouldn’t have to wait long for humanity to find alternatives since there’ll be little choice. The entire CAGW drama then remains a farce, the entire legislative network of drilling regulations completely pointless and any political action meaningless since physically few hydrocarbon pockets remain to be tapped. However, if Gold and others prove correct as experimental data verifies, the earth continuously produces methane & likely other alkane, hydrocarbons in abundance the debate and the whole legislative framework can be seen for what it obviously appears to be a naked act of political aggression against the equal and legitimate claims/rights of all U.S. citizens to access the nation’s resources.

        Have a great day!

        • Tim Jenvey says:

          We’ll the Russian scientists certainly appear to support Gold or visa versa. Lots of abiotic stuff on Titan so why not here on earth.

          Think of the politics and business conundrums that will be the result of acknowledging this.

          Regular folks with cheap unending supply of energy. Wow they might take over.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Tim Jenvey,

            You mentioned:

            “Lots of abiotic stuff on Titan so why not here on earth.”

            Yeah! Venus contains large quantities of methane too, after all it’s a VOLCANIC GAS!!! The more recent pseudo science nonsense claim now peddled involves the assertion that methane is MOSTLY a fossil fuel or of biological origin (laughter). Really? Who canvased the interior of the earth to determine this? I have not read anywhere that natural gas typically lacks the carbon 13 isotope, but that doesn’t mean pseudo myths won’t continue.

            Have a great day!

      • Joel Shore says:

        “You cannot simply legislate new forms of energy into existence.”

        Actually, if you believe in the power of markets then you would tend to believe that with the correct price incentives, the markets can do wonderful things.

        Unfortunately, it seems that conservatives only believe in the power of markets when they are left completely “free”, i.e., uncorrected for externalities.

        • John K says:

          Hi Joel Shore,

          You asserted:

          “Unfortunately, it seems that conservatives only believe in the power of markets when they are left completely ďfreeĒ, i.e., uncorrected for externalities.”

          You’ve claimed this before and people being what they are you’ll always be able to find someone with their “externalities” showing and unaccounted for including most likely yourself. The rub remains that the left usually does little to nothing rational about the externalities observed like protect lives and property but merely coerces human action to favor some parties at the expense of others (wasteful corporate subsidies to “green” companies like Solyndra) or circumscribes human action and liberty in the mindless belief that banning or artificially increasing the costs associated with the human use of environmental resources will somehow cure the planets ills ( bans on oil drilling and/or pipelines and carbon taxes absurdities come to mind).

          What has the left done to combat any number of environmental ills from soil depletion, toxic waste runoff into rivers, streams, oceans, aquifers, etc., ocean acidification due to human produced waste (and I’m not refering to CO2) and many, many more? Nada mas! Probably shouldn’t complain though, it will only encourage the incompetent and despite the propaganda typically SELF SEEKING lefties to BAN something common place irrelevant and likely beneficial (like carbon) or restrict someones harmless activity (like Carter’s restrictions on when you could ,purchase gasoline) and as usual accomplish little or nothing!

          Have a great day!

          P.S. – Just to be fair to lefties I probably should point out that in Los Angeles/Santa Monica I heard somewhere that they did manage to fund a multi-million dollar study to study solutions to the enormous quantity of toxic sludge deposited from the LA river into Santa Monica Bay & concluded after some time and expense it would simply cost too much to do anything at all! Power to the people and dealing with those nasty externalities! Err… Of course some of those people obtained a nice chunk of change to draft a multimillion dollar study promoting a deliberate plan of inaction! Some people are more equal than others in this here ANIMAL FARM!

        • “Unfortunately, it seems that conservatives only believe in the power of markets when they are left completely ďfreeĒ, i.e., uncorrected for externalities.”

          Conservatives generally don’t believe in wish fulfillment, no. They are even conservative about the power of markets.

        • more soylent green says:

          Do you understand that attempting to legislate (or more accurately, regulate) new forms of energy into existence is the exact opposite of letting the markets work?

          In fact, you’ve taken two very different things and tried to make them the same.

          You can’t legislate new laws of physics or chemistry into existence. You can’t legislate human understanding of the laws of nature into existence. You can’t legislate making technology practical and affordable into existence.. Is this easier for you to understand?

      • rossbrisbane says:

        Oh but they do. No electricity bill for two years now. Will be ramping up coupling a 10kw System to battery storage by 2020. INDEPENDENT of the electrical grid – this will a major trend by 2020 in every major developed country around the globe. Solar Panel technology is increasing four fold for same panel size. Check your own technologies. Wind Power also works in our southern states. Now all we got to do is stop trashing our resources on wasteful invented and contrived consumerism and use the resources we have now wisely to do it now rather then LATER. Turn the the Swords (coal) in plow shears (Renewables RIGHT NOW!

        • Lewis Guignard says:

          One must suppose you built all the devices you use with solar or wood power and that nothing was delivered by truck, using roads liquid hydrocarbons for fuel and that those who manufactured the wire from mined minerals did so with solar power alone. Or that the wood or brick you used to build was processed with hydrocarbons.

          Further when repairs and replacements are required, what will you do then? And how do you eat, do you use a shovel and hoe or a tiller? Or do you buy from the store which has deliveries and supplies which need liquid hydrocarbons for their manufacture and delivery?

          Even if you use a shovel and hoe, how do you think they were made?

          Renewables are nice, but they didn’t come into existence first and for the foreseeable future, will depend on coal, natural gas, nuclear and oil for their continued use.

          Have a nice day!

  5. I would say the persistence of weather patterns has increased since 2007. This due to a more meridional atmospheric circulation which many studies linked to low prolonged solar activity.

  6. George Applegate says:

    It’s comical that these PR companies think there is such a thing as climate change denial. I guess it’s like weather denial. These are the same dimwits that will eventually bring us “it’s got electrolytes.”

  7. stevek says:

    An honest press would be asking these questions to the pro agw folks.

    Typically the answers are obfuscation.

  8. Sven Mills says:

    Multiple Choice question:

    Do you believe that Big Oil, Climate Change-Denying Shills are:

    A) Evil?
    B) Nazis?
    C) Evil Nazis?

  9. John says:

    1. Do you deny that climate has always changed, even without the help of humans?

    I do not deny that. Climate is always in flux.

    2. Do you trust climate models to tell us the future, even when none of them predicted the recent 17+ year stoppage of global warming?

    I do not. Climate is no more predictable than the stock market.

    3. Do you believe severe weather has gotten worse from climate change, even though the IPCC (and observations) show that it hasnít?

    I do not.

    4. Do you support EPA regulations on power plants that will increase electricity costs and hurt the economy, even though they will have no measurable effect on future global temperatures?

    I generally support EPA regulation of power plants. There are reasons other than carbon/climate to regulate fossil-fuel power plants.

    • Santa Baby says:

      “4. Do you support EPA regulations on power plants that will increase electricity costs and hurt the economy, even though they will have no measurable effect on future global temperatures?

      I generally support EPA regulation of power plants. There are reasons other than carbon/climate to regulate fossil-fuel power plants.”

      Yeah like
      “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.Ē — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001”

      • John says:

        No, more like the fact that the Clean Air Act and regulation of coal-fired power plants has reduced acid rain in the United States by about 65% since the mid 1970s.

        If you want to see what lack of regulation on power plants really looks like go spend some time in Beijing,

        It is important to have cheap energy, but we need to include the back-end cost of energy production not just the front-end cost. Unregulated burning of coal would result in cheap energy, but to the detriment of agriculture, fishing, and forestry to name a few other industries.

        • rogercaiazza says:

          I am confused. The issue in the US is that with the EPA rules you cannot build a coal-fired power plant without carbon capture and sequestration. I don’t think that is a proven technology and it adds enormous cost. The alternative would be a super-critical and thus more efficient and less carbon intensive plant, coupled with all the latest and greatest control technology for SO2, NOX and Hg. That option is certainly regulated but still would be a relatively cheap alternative to diffuse and intermittent renewables or nuclear.

          • John says:

            Agree 100%

            Carbon capture requirements increase cost in return for questionable benefits and I don’t support them.

            Controls on other pollutants such as sulphur, lead, etc. have proven and ascertainable benefits and I support those controls.

            Point being that not all regulation is bad.

  10. stevek says:

    The greenies only have themselves to blame as they killed nuclear power. It is the one viable solution if agw actually is a big problem.

    • Jake says:

      THIS is the elephant in the room for these people …..

    • Joel Shore says:

      Actually, the main thing that “killed nuclear power” in the U.S. (which still does produce about 20% of the electricity in the U.S.) is that it could not compete economically with fossil fuels, which were being heavily subsidized (both directly and indirectly by not correcting externalities).

      In France, where fossil fuels are more expensive, nuclear power produces over 75% of the electricity.

    • Santa Baby says:

      Don’t any of you all get it?

      “If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
      Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine”

      Chavez Copenhagen 2009 “the real reason for us to be here is to rid the world of kapitalism”

      ďAffordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.Ē ó John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001″

      Don’t you get it? They, the leftist, want to rid the world of something they don’t like?

  11. KevinK says:

    William wrote;

    ” There are still a raft of reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel.”

    Perhaps, perhaps not. But what is historically proven is that government policy cannot “wean us off” technologies (i.e. fossil fuels) that are cost effective, risk balanced and life giving.

    We did not get the telegraph by taxing the pony express, we did not get the Model T by taxing horse manure. And we will not get “the perfect energy source (non-polluting, endless, safe, free, etc. etc.) by taxing the current energy sources.

    Governments (and corporations and universities)cannot FORCE INNOVATION. A decree from a King cannot make a 200% efficient solar cell exist. Although some deluded folks believe that that is all it takes.

    If you raise the cost of electricity by 500%, IT WILL NOT change the basic physics (maximum possible efficiency, etc.) of PV solar cells.

    So, In your line of work do you schedule the “breakthroughs” for the mornings, or after lunch time ?

    Cheers, Kevin

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Kevin K,

      Great points. Please read my statements above. Keep in mind if the earth’s hydrocarbons really are primarily “fossil fuels” their exists little rationale to “wean” ourselves off them since we will soon run out anyways. You’d do well to keep in mind that the entire hydrocarbon policy debate structure appears from a scientific viewpoint entirely suspect!

      Have a great day!

      • KevinK says:

        Hi John, I do not comment much on the assumed/alleged nature of “fossil fuels”, since it seems one of those “Lunatic Alert” hot button issues.

        I do observe that one of our prior presidents was “certain” that we would be all out of fossil fuel reserves by 20 years ago (or so). I remember watching him on our BLACK AND WHITE TV with his solemn explanation, (The “Moral Equivalent Of War”, or MEOW).

        Yet, all this time those fossils have been hard at work on our behalf to increase proven reserves, good little fossils they are, so considerate.

        Cheers, Kevin

        • John K says:

          Hi KevinK,

          Yeah! Unfortunately speaking scientific fact these days will almost always push someone’s “lunatic” alert, especially where money, politics and promoting fables for dollars gets involved!

          The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
          H. L. Mencken

          This quote gets a lot of mileage-with good reason!

          Have a great day!

          • bernie says:

            “…hobgoblins…”

            “Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of hobgoblins or fairies, and canvas particularly the evidence? I never knew anyone, that examined and deliberated about nonsense, who did not believe it before the end of his enquires.”

            Quote from David Hume (1711-1776), pre-eminent Philosopher and Historian, from the period of the Scottish Enlightenment.

      • more soylent green says:

        Define “soon.” How many centuries is on your timescale? Are you using “soon” in the geological sense, or soon as measured in human lifetimes?

        If the former, than yes, we will be out in the blink of an eye. If the latter, then we’re talking many, many lifetimes — hundreds of years.

    • RH says:

      “We did not get the telegraph by taxing the pony express, we did not get the Model T by taxing horse manure.”

      Sorry, but I’m going to have to steal this statement for my own use.

  12. DA says:

    “2. Do you trust climate models to tell us the future, even when none of them predicted the recent 17+ year stoppage of global warming?”

    a) Climate models don’t predict, they project.

    b) There hasn’t been a “17+ year stoppage of global warming.” Cowtan & Way show 0.17 C of warming over that time. UAH LT Ė Dr Spencerís own dataset — shows 0.12 C. Heís often written that RSSís data is running cool Ė so why is he now citing it?

    c) NOAA ocean heat content shows a great deal of heat transfer in the last 17 years. How did that happen if global warming “stopped?”

    d) Climate models calculate the equilibrium state, not short-term states. They solve a boundary value problem, not an initial value problem. They do not do a good job predicting ENSOs and other ocean cycles, and do not pretend to simulate surface temperatures over short intervals.

    e) However, models that happen, by chance, to align with recent ENSOs show more pause-like temperatures than do other models:

    “Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase,” James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. OíKane & Naomi Oreskes, Nature Climate Change (2014).

    f) The current slowdown in average global surface temperature isn’t even as slow as the one in the 1990s:
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-lesser-of-two-pauses

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @DA “a) Climate models donít predict, they project”.

      They used to predict until expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, shamed the IPCC into changing ‘predict’ to ‘project’. Gray pointed out the obvious, that an unvalidated model cannot predict anything.

      “Cowtan & Way show 0.17 C of warming over that time [past 17 years]”.

      That’s odd, the IPCC must have missed that one. They claimed no warming, calling it a hiatus.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Projector – “a person who forms projects or plans; schemer”.

      Slightly archaic but apropos to those who would split hairs over the difference in meaning between predicting and projecting.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Robert Austin “Slightly archaic but apropos to those who would split hairs over the difference in meaning between predicting and projecting”.

        You missed the point of my post. The IPCC had to use ‘project’ because ‘predict’ does not apply to an unvalidated model. You cannot use an unvalidated model to predict anything.

        The IPCC uses the term ‘project’ in conjunction with the word ‘scenario’. They use models to project possible climate scenarios.

        This is not about splitting hairs it is about the IPCC projecting possible climate scenarios while inferring that they are predicting future climates.

        In other words, the IPCC is about smoke and mirrors.

        In TAR, the IPCC made a definitive statement about climate predictions. They claimed that future climate states CANNOT be predicted.

        There’s a very good reason why they use the word project and you have to read the fine print to see what they are up to.

  13. crakar24 says:

    A question to be posed in Australia,

    If we where to replace our existing coal and gas 24/7 power generation with an alternative, which would you prefer.

    A, Fission (Uranium)
    B, Fission (Thorium)
    C, Hydro
    D, One million wind turbines accompanied by one million roof top solar PV systems, backed up by a series of strategically placed gas fired power stations used as spinning reserve.

    Note: There is a blanket ban on nuclear technology of all kinds in Australia (we can mine it and sell it to all bidders but we dare not use it) and the greens have not let us build a dam since the 1970’s.

    Regards

  14. Ray says:

    “2. Do you trust climate models to tell us the future, even when none of them predicted the recent 17+ year stoppage of global warming?”

    I believe that they did find one model which predicted that, but they only found it after it happened, so it wasn’t really a prediction.

  15. Stephen Richards says:

    Joel Shore says:

    August 4, 2014 at 8:17 PM

    Back with your usual crap, you and entropic man. I am ex councillor in france so probably have a little more knowledge than you of our pays.

    General de Gaulle ordered the building of nuclťare because oil reserves in france were thought to be small (fracking tech did not exist at that time). He understood the strategic nature of energy and wanted to control his own. We now supply all of central europe with nuclťare power even those that don’t want nuclťare.
    Sadly we have the ultra left socialists in power now who want to close half our nuclťare and pose 7 million EV points around the roads of our country.

    They, as a party are made of idiots such as you and entropic.

    We now have reserves among the largest in europe IF we use modern tech to extract. Unfortunately that would rob the socialists of their ability to control the people.

    It costs Ä 8000 to registre a 2ltr, 42 mph car for use on our roads. A tax imposed by the left.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Stephen,
      I confirm your point and I add that being Italian, we are worse than you here on the other-side of the Alps.
      We democratically banned the nuclear plants thanks to two referendums, one done after the Chernobyl disaster (which wasn’t a true accident, but a silly experiment done by silly bureaucrats) and the other done after the Fukushima accident, which was a great demonstration that even a second generation nuclear plant such that is very safe despite a magnitude 6.6Mw earthquake, but the media depicted it as a demonstration of nuclear danger, so we placed all our nuclear projects in the grave forever.
      No matter we buy at high costs the (nuclear generated) energy from you in France and from Swiss to satisfy our industrial needs, because our “smart” bureaucrats are all going to kill any industry here, meanwhile they state that they are all heavily working to “create” new jobs…

      Fundanomics in progress!

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

      • raynard says:

        Massimo says:

        “Fundanomics in progress [in Italy].”

        With newly minted Science degrees and enticing offers, I migrated TO Italy in February 1967 and FROM Italy in October 1967. I saw that the country was about to embrace wrong thinking – permanently.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi reynard,
          despite I’m proud to be Italian, I must admit that you are absolutely right, and with the years nothing (or almost nothing) better happened here respect to 1967.
          I know a bunch of good people here, but I sadly know that there are many (maybe too many?) people who are corrupted minds and who believe in very bad ideologies based on anything other than what one can call good sense.

          Have a great day.

          Massimo

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Massimo PORZIO,

        You stated:

        “…after the Fukushima accident, which was a great demonstration that even a second generation nuclear plant such that is very safe despite a magnitude 6.6Mw earthquake, but the media depicted it as a demonstration of nuclear danger, so we placed all our nuclear projects in the grave forever.”

        Hmmh! From what I’ve read the Fukushima reactor still hasn’t been contained and remains in what many call “meltdown” status even now 2 yrs after the disaster. Btw, I’m not against nuclear power, especially more modern ones that take advantage of the thorium cycle (including molten salt reactors/liquid fluoride thorium reactors). However, I don’t believe it to be a cost free panacea and I’m against nuclear projects that pose too great a threat to life and property like placing a old style water reactors on a coastline where tsunamis are known to take place. The tsunami caused most of the damage, not the quake. In the case of France nuclear power works very well but they have a 20-30 yr lead on most everyone in the processing of nuclear waste, which unfortunately Jimmy Carter made illegal when he was in office. Bush junior made it legal again but France and other countries have had all that time to develop technologies the U.S. shunned.

        Thanks for your post and have a great day!

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi John Kl,
          yes I know about the Fukushima core meltdown, which means that the reactor can’t be turned off because the moderator bars are locked there not fully in place. Anyways this doesn’t mean that the reactor is emitting any dangerous radiation outside the reactor housing.
          The real problem here in Italy were the media that trumpeted the alarmist point that the plant was pushing radiation in the whole northern Pacific Ocean, missing the point that light water is a good radiation moderator.

          Chernobyl reactor was a fully different issue because in that case the core melted after having fully ejected the moderation bars because of the positive feedback induced by the evaporation of the light water used instead of heavy water in those low cost reactors.
          So now it is burning at full power under the cement sarcophagus.
          But in that case it wasn’t an accident but a silly experiment to demonstrate that the plant was safe even when there was no power from other external plants to supply the light water coolant pumps.
          They disabled all the automatic emergency circuitry and the alarm lasted for about 45 seconds before the point of no return.
          An experiment that unluckily miserably failed.
          In this case is valid the saying that tell that “the man is not killed by the gun, but by the hand of the killer who activate the trigger after aiming him”

          AFIK up today, there are many more people killed by dams faults than nuclear plants faults.

          By the way, yes you are right, the Fukushima plant was damaged by the consequent tsunami not by the earthquake.
          My point was and still is that I find very silly give the choice of ban a technology to ignorant people (me comprised of course) via referendums. And our politicians just do that because they were sure of the results of the poll.

          There are experts in the field who work into those nuclear plants, which all rely on the safety of them. They are betting on their own lives, I don’t believe that nuclear engineers are all foolish masochists, don’t you?

          Have a great day in lovely LA.

          Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thank you for your reply. You mentioned:

            “Anyways this doesnít mean that the reactor is emitting any dangerous radiation outside the reactor housing.”

            Hmmh! Perhaps I’m misinformed but a recent CNN news presentation claimed that Japanese authorities informed them the radiation levels near the facility (i.e. – outside the reactor and the plant itself) remain at such high levels that 4 hours of unprotected (i.e. – not wearing protective clothing) exposure will result in death. In addition, I’ve come across other reports that the water used to cool the reactor fills their containment tanks and apparently has ample amounts of radioactive particulates. Moreover, so much radioactive water has accumulated that they periodically release it into the Pacific Ocean where it then wafts westward to the U.S. Pacific coast line from Washington on down to my neck of the woods in sunny California!

            You further stated:

            “My point was and still is that I find very silly give the choice of ban a technology to ignorant people (me comprised of course) via referendums. And our politicians just do that because they were sure of the results of the poll.”

            Personally, I don’t believe in BANNING technologies. Carter’s attempt to stifle nuclear waste reprocessing only prevented the sensible re-use of existing waste that subsequently sat in some underground storage facility for decades awaiting apparently some Frenchman to figure a better way of handling it.

            You then stated:

            “There are experts in the field who work into those nuclear plants, which all rely on the safety of them. They are betting on their own lives, I donít believe that nuclear engineers are all foolish masochists, donít you?”

            Nope! Nuclear engineers do their best with the material and regulatory structure available to them. Which only means as knowledge increases better choices will hopefully be made!

            Thanks again and have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi John Kl,
            first of all, thank you too for your post.

            I’m not a nuclear engineer, just one electronic engineer but when I read some reports the first thing I ask myself is why they don’t tell us the measurements they did and exactly where they did them.

            That is, instead of give alarmist messages such as “[the radiation] remain at such high levels that 4 hours of unprotected (i.e. Ė not wearing protective clothing) exposure will result in death”, why don’t they report where they measured and how much they read on the Geiger counter indeed?

            Maybe I missed some reports, but for what I know, in Fukushima plant only one man died because of an accident during the first recovery operations, and one had a foot exposed to radiation because his protective wear was damaged. But that exposure was not more dangerous than keep his foot for one day at the direct sunlight in a hot summer day.

            About radioactive water particulate.
            I mentioned Chernobyl because in that plant they silly used light water instead of heavy water as inner core coolant. The dangerous in doing that is exactly because not like the expensive heavy water, light water absorbs the radiation and works as a moderator. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not telling it works as well as the moderation bars, but absorbs radiation well.

            You can find the water halving thickness in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection

            As you can see light water is almost 1000 times better than air and it performs just 18 times less than lead in shielding nuclear radiation (see the “Shielding” paragraph almost at the middle of the page).
            By the way, AFIK, Japanese are still in progress to deal with the uranium extraction from the oceanic grounds, because it seems that there is a good resource of that nuclear fuel there.

            For this, I’m not so scared about that “oceanic radioactive pollution”.

            You also wrote “Moreover, so much radioactive water has accumulated that they periodically release it into the Pacific Ocean where it then wafts westward to the U.S. Pacific coast line from Washington on down to my neck of the woods in sunny California!”
            If this was a so dangerous malpractice, why shouldn’t the US government instruct even a little complaint against Japan at the UN?
            They do that, simply because it is safe.
            Otherwise, why don’t they do a sarcophagus as the Russians did in Chernobyl?
            Fukushima is not minimally dangerous as Chernobyl, they could do it easily and in a better safe environment.
            What I guess (yes it’s just a guess), is that they are just trying to recovery the precious fuel which is burning there.
            One day maybe that they finally decide to bury it into the sarcophagus.

            I remain on my point, radioactive dangers are easily detectable by today well available Geiger counters, so let me see the measurements and you convince me.
            It’s so easy ūüôā

            I’m not sure what did you mean with: “Nope! Nuclear engineers do their best with the material and regulatory structure available to them. Which only means as knowledge increases better choices will hopefully be made!”
            What I was saying is that all the nuclear engineers I heard talking about nuclear plants were very convinced of their safety working there.

            “Personally, I donít believe in BANNING technologies. Carterís attempt to stifle nuclear waste reprocessing only prevented the sensible re-use of existing waste that subsequently sat in some underground storage facility for decades awaiting apparently some Frenchman to figure a better way of handling it.”
            I was not writing about you, I was writing about the Italian government, I’m sorry if I lead you to think so.

            By the way, maybe you are not aware of what you where doing some years ago in California…
            See where some people had eat during they parties!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PCJETpBv4A

            It seems that the red pigment was nonetheless than uranium 235 oxide!

            Who knows if the dangerous radiation outside the Fukushima plant is more or less than those the people who had eat in those dishes was exposed those days?

            We are living in a radioactive world! ūüėČ

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi John Kl,
            being an incorrigible skeptic of anything I hear or read, but having the (bad?) habit of rethink the issues later, I missed to highlight you a detail about your: “a recent CNN news presentation claimed that Japanese authorities informed them the radiation levels near the facility (i.e. Ė outside the reactor and the plant itself) remain at such high levels that 4 hours of unprotected (i.e. Ė not wearing protective clothing) exposure will result in death.”

            So let me resume the issue:

            1) the radiation is so high that “remain at such high levels that 4 hours of unprotected” (i.e. Ė not wearing protective clothing) exposure will result in death”

            2) This radiation is “near the facility”, so not inside it.

            But, stop one moment, count by ten and think like I did by yourself: what a wonderful protective clothes they have that an easy to build, few inches thickness wall filled with lead (or better depleted uranium) couldn’t be built around the reactor in these last two years?

            More:
            “Iíve come across other reports that the water used to cool the reactor fills their containment tanks and apparently has ample amounts of radioactive particulates. Moreover, so much radioactive water has accumulated that they periodically release it into the Pacific Ocean”

            Well if that particulates were so dangerous why don’t they centrifuge the suspension and separate them from water?
            It’s so easy to do, they already do it to regenerate their nuclear waste.

            Try to answer those two questions above, and by my point of view, don’t worry, compared to the last centuries we are luckily living in a better world.

            Anyways I would be clear that I agree with you that if there is a viable better way to get energy form the atom, it must be preferred.
            For example some years ago I read about a new generation nuclear plants based on temperature dependent radioactive permeability ceramics which should give the reactor the safety of the passive negative feedback against thermal meltdown.
            Unluckily the German scientist who invented that ceramics had to migrate to South Africa to continue his experiments because the green German government of that time decided to shut down the atom in Germany.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • John K says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thank you for all your replies. I’ll have much to respond to later but for now I’d like to clarify something I stated above. I stated:

            “Personally, I donít believe in BANNING technologies.”

            This statement should be taken with an important caveat. Please know that I refer to technological development conducted in a moral and ethical manner. Technology should respect the lives and property of others and/or their Creator. For example, Nazi hypothermia experiments would probably be contraindicated. Personally, I don’t believe in the creation of human/animal chimera’s either. Please let me know your thoughts.

            Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi John Kl,
            “Technology should respect the lives and property of others and/or their Creator.”
            I absolutely agree with you about that.

            “For example, Nazi hypothermia experiments would probably be contraindicated. Personally, I donít believe in the creation of human/animal chimeraís either. Please let me know your thoughts.”
            I’m probably more restrictive than you on that, because I’m absolutely contrary to heterological reproduction too.

            Also, IMHO there are too much “scientists” who still looking for the eternal life. Despite I’m Christian, I’m essentially an evolutionist and under this point of view life must finally end to give space to new life of eventually modified (adapted) subjects. Death is fundamental for the evolution, that is for the adaptation, that is for the survival of species.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thank you for your thoughtful replies and I agree fully with your skepticism. From what I’ve read, as you mentioned the Fukushima reactor’s core apparently did not melt-down and the radiation levels from all 7 reactors seem mild at best some 10% of the Chernobyl disaster. Many reports like the following link support this narrative:

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328566.500-dont-compare-fukushima-to-chernobyl.html#.U-PRnuNdVWI

            However, the small chance that the reactors can start up again exists and some have claimed evidence of it.

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20322-are-nuclear-reactions-restarting-at-fukushima.html#.U-PVs-NdVWI

            Personally I don’t find the article too convincing, but the possibility exists and since we should question all the information we receive I will continue to do so. Regarding the particulate levels you claimed:

            “Well if that particulates were so dangerous why donít they centrifuge the suspension and separate them from water?
            Itís so easy to do, they already do it to regenerate their nuclear waste.”

            You also made a good point asking why wouldn’t the U.S. government deal more aggressively towards Japan if in-fact has deposited enormous quantities of radioactive water into the Pacific.

            First, centrifuges will prove expensive on a moments research. Nuclear power companies don’t get paid much to clean water prior to disposing it in the Pacific. Those centrifuges have much more valuable potential that would possibly need to be scrubbed to provide proper Pacific hygiene. Btw, from what I’ve read (including the links I provided) the particulate level (Strontium 90 for example) of the water dumped in the Pacific at Fukushima falls within the range commonly found in lakes and streams found elswhere in the world. If true, there exists little reason to worry.

            Second, personally I don’t put too much stock in what the U.S. government will do in times of crisis especially given current world events. It seems to me incumbent on citizens to keep informed testing the information they receive and their sources.

            On another topic you stated:

            “Despite Iím Christian, Iím essentially an evolutionist and under this point of view life must finally end to give space to new life of eventually modified (adapted) subjects. Death is fundamental for the evolution, that is for the adaptation, that is for the survival of species.”

            Hmmh! As a Christian I believe God created the world but for the generality of life on the planet I’m more of a devolutionist. Imo, this accords better with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (from order to chaos given much of destructive human action). Someone told me a comparison had been recently made between the body compositions of today’s top athletes and farm laborers in past era’s. The farm workers from past eras had larger bones and stronger muscles. Imo, the world we’ve created doesn’t appear to me the fantasist technological utopia many have made it out to be. You may also note the reduction in size of many animal species over time. Even in the case of humans biblical text indicates longer life spans for some in past eras as well.

            Have a great day!

  16. MikeB says:

    How to get the answer you want from an opinion poll was nicely presented in this 2 minute YouTube clip. [National service was a time when all men had to spend 2 years in the army]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

  17. Threepwood says:

    I think one of the most fair and revealing questions to ask is ‘Do you think the proposed solutions to global warming are good ideas anyway, regardless of whether or not there is a problem?’

    Almost without exception the believer will answer an enthusiastic yes! This saves a lot of wasted breath debating details of the theory itself which the believer has zero interest in scrutinizing. This is why the mere consensus of a political organization is considered satisfactory evidence. Global warming is a political movement first and foremost.

  18. Entropic Man says:

    Yep, you got me.:-)

    I stopped using irony on denier websites a long time ago. The denizens therein usually failed to spot it either.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Entropic Man,

      To paraphrase the 2nd law to maybe encapsulate your situation:

      -In any closed mind the intellectual energy unavailable for useful jokes must always increase.-

      Have a great day!

      • Entropic man says:

        Actually depression got me 14 years ago. My sense of humour hasn’t been up to much since.

        • JohnKl says:

          We’ve probably all had bouts of depression at times, I know I have. I hope everything goes well for you.

          Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Entropic man & John Kl,

            IMHO depression is part of the human immunitary system.
            A depressed subject always have a reason for being depressed which is outside his/her body, so it’s illogical believe that drugs can help against depression.
            My advice to you is to deal against depression with your intelligence only, don’t use antidepressant drugs which just confuse your brain and solve nothing. Antidepressant just delay the solution of the problem, never solve it.
            If you are under antidepressant treatment, be scared about it and look for an honest doctor to help you remove the drugs before it’s too late.
            The well known recreational drug Ecstasy, which burns the brains of its users, it works not so much different than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (the SSRI, see Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft and so on).

            Many poor mothers who killed their babies were under that drug treatment, because of the so called postpartum depression. IMHO they were not guilty, it was the drug.

            Take care of you, keep your brain free to think by itself.

            I wrote the above because my mother’s brain has been burnt by that f*****g “wonder” drugs.

            Have great days.

            Massimo

  19. Joe Wooten says:

    Actually, the main thing that ďkilled nuclear powerĒ in the U.S. (which still does produce about 20% of the electricity in the U.S.) is that it could not compete economically with fossil fuels, which were being heavily subsidized (both directly and indirectly by not correcting externalities).

    Joel, what killed nuke power in the US was that we tried to build way too many plants at the same time. This stretched the heavy construction infrastructure, both human and industrial, way too thin, which caused prices to skyrocket as demand greatly exceeded supply, and quality problems as many sites used inexperienced craft, engineers, and management and paid a premium for them to boot (I know, I was there fresh out of Engineering school at UT Austin). Add to that the Carter stagflation where interest rates on bonds went sky highand you have a recipe for a financial meltdown in the business.

    If you notice, as the backlog got worked down all through the 80’s, the cost escalation of the projects still under construction went down drasticaly as resource/demand ratio increased. At the same time, quality problems at these same sites decreased as there were more experienced folks working at them now.

    The damage had been done. No utility wanted a repeat of that experience and they all refused to order any new plants for over 20 years. They had to work through the debts incurred and with the de-industrialization of the rust belt, power demand was pretty static anyway, so many utilities decided to uprate existing nukes and stretch out the lifetime of many of the older coal fired stations instead of incurring large capital expenses of a new plant.

  20. Gordon Robertson says:

    The IPCC has some great conundrums of their own.

    They admitted in 2013 a 15 year hiatus (talk about denial) in warming and in the same breath raised their confidence level that humans were causing warming by 5%.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Gordon Robertson,

      The whole notion of putting a percentage on their “confidence level” seems highly contrived and laughable. How many guys strike up conversations with women on the basis of a 95% or higher confidence level of getting lucky?!!! It must be something greater than the confidence level that some IPCC character will arrive at consensus theory supported by substantial evidence.

      Have a great day!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @JohnKL …John, it was the confidence level approach that got me started investigating global warming. I studied probability and statistics while studying engineering and the concept of a confidence level seemed to me as if it needed to be applied to real data, not opinions.

        I started on Google and one of the first hits I got was from Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor who has expertise in non-modeled atmospheric physics. He pointed out that the 2007 iconic IPCC claim, that it is 90% likely human are causing the warming, came from only 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers.

        Lindzen claimed that most reviewers in AR4 wanted to wait and see what unfolded.

        Someone else pointed out that the IPCC created the peculiar kind of statistical analysis they use and that it has more to do with gut feelings than the more certain math used to analyze real data.

        It is laughable.

        • q says:

          Hi Gordon Robertson,

          You stated:

          “He pointed out that the 2007 iconic IPCC claim, that it is 90% likely human are causing the warming, came from only 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers.”

          Hmmh! That proves to be a commonplace in science of the more modern eras. As Mark Twain noted:

          Mark Twain ó ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’

          Todays IPCC proving the validity of Twain humor over a century after the fact! Gotta love it!

          Have a great day!

  21. Steve says:

    And, a question to add:

    () Have you invented a better mouse trap than the internal combustion engine for our transportation needs, or do you know anyone who has?

  22. Martin C says:

    Ah, Dr. Spencer,
    . . . talking about how to ‘lead a survey’, and how survey’s can be set up to get the answer desired. I saw this You Tube video, it is REALLY GOOD.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

    FYI I am assuming ‘National Service’ mentioned in the video is the military draft in England . . .

  23. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi John Kl,
    I reply here because the previous post replies were too long.

    You wrote:
    “Hmmh! As a Christian I believe God created the world but for the generality of life on the planet Iím more of a devolutionist. Imo, this accords better with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (from order to chaos given much of destructive human action). Someone told me a comparison had been recently made between the body compositions of todayís top athletes and farm laborers in past eraís. The farm workers from past eras had larger bones and stronger muscles. Imo, the world weíve created doesnít appear to me the fantasist technological utopia many have made it out to be.”
    The evolution of species as Sir. Charles Darwin had explained is not about years, neither centuries, it is about generation of living subjects. The athletes’ or the farm workers’ paradigm doesn’t hold because that’s not necessary for the survivor of the humans on this environment.
    I mean, yes now for example, farmers have machineries that allow them to do their job in a less stressing way so they can have smaller bones and weaker muscles; and even if it’s not so evident, this comply with the evolutionary theory because any predominant living thing tend to maximize the results minimizing the works done to get the result, so that they reduce the risks of illness or early death.
    But, if in a near or far future the availability of the machineries will miss, then you can be sure that the humans return surely to farming the old way enlarging their bones and strengthening their muscles.

    “You may also note the reduction in size of many animal species over time.”
    This just means that their living environment has changed and that those animals may have changed their habits in hunting or escaping from their predators, any living thing is specialized in adaption.

    “Even in the case of humans biblical text indicates longer life spans for some in past eras as well.”
    Take care that especially in the old testament Hebrews used different ways to report the age of people, nobody know indeed how many solar years Mathusalem had when he died.
    For example Muslims believe that Abdul Azziz al-Hafeed al-Habashi lived between AD 1185 to AD 1859 that is about 674 Gregorian years, but we know for sure that in those late middle age/renaissance age men life span was clearly shorter than that. I write this just to highlight how sometimes religions should be interpreted and not literally interpreted.
    Said that, even if the evolutionary mechanism works, it doesn’t explain how it has begun. IMHO God could be hidden behind the evolutionary mechanism indeed.

    Have a great day.

    Massimo

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Sorry:
      “sometimes religions should be interpreted and not literally interpreted”
      Should be:
      “sometimes religions should be interpreted and not literally accepted”

      It’s 2:22 AM here ūüôĀ

    • John K says:

      Hi Massimo PORZIO,

      Thank you again for an interesting post. You claimed:

      “The evolution of species as Sir. Charles Darwin had explained is not about years, neither centuries, it is about generation of living subjects. The athletesí or the farm workersí paradigm doesnít hold because thatís not necessary for the survivor of the humans on this environment….”

      Hmmh! There exists many problems with your response. Charles Darwin’s “On the origin of the Species” (which I read years ago) argued for natural selection in nature but presented no firm mechanism by which alteration or mutation could occur. He even toyed with Lamarckian evolution which has relevance please bear with me. My observations pertaining to prior generations and modern man still hold because we now know that classical Mendelian genetics has difficulties explaining many observations. In particular, you may wish to research Alan Durrant of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, who in 1962 induced changes in the flax seed plant by means of different kinds of fertilizer. Richard Milton noted in “Shattering the Myths of Darwinism” that:

      “Durrant bred some flax plants that were larger and heavier than the parent stock and another strain that was lighter and smaller. These trends persisted when the plants were bred in successive generations. The plant breeding was carried on for more than twenty years and it was shown that when the large and small plants were crossbred , the offspring exhibited the Mendelian pattern of inheritance, proving that the change is genetic.”

      Similar experiments with animals and plants have been made. The environment does effect the genes. Stress reduction, dietary changes, the presence of a chemically altered & somewhat toxic environment may all affect our genetic future for the worse. Imo no evidence exists of humans evolving into more (i.e. superior) advanced levels. Imo, the phony missing link frauds (i.e. Java man, Nebraska Man, etc., etc. etc.) have either been proven to be intentional frauds like Piltdown man where an ape’s jaw was stuck on a human skull or to have been merely projected from a few bone fragments like Lucy as to the original nature of the creature.

      You went on concerning the reduction in the size of animals:

      “This just means that their living environment has changed and that those animals may have changed their habits in hunting or escaping from their predators, any living thing is specialized in adaption.”

      The statement for the most part proves correct with a caveat. While the environment as I’ve illustrated in previous posts has grown colder and harsher (warming only somewhat in recent millennia) the conditions have only lead to animals with reduced capacity. We don’t find improvement in form or function. As to biblical text I have found no scientific evidence of inaccuracy at all especially considering that all known dating methods require many assumptions many known to be false. Science should involve the facts and laws of nature not speculation. Moreover, one dating method Carbon 14 currently poses great challenges to the imo delusional Charles Lyell view of history. Especially, when the stuff turns up seemingly everywhere and since given an ~5700 year half life should not be substantially present in any substance older than 5-6 half lives or 30-40,000 years.

      Have a great day!

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi John Kl,
        it’s always a nice task read your interesting posts.
        In these days I’m spending my holiday here at my home workshop and I find very constructive exchange some opinions with you.
        I only hope that Dr.Spencer will be patient and he don’t complain about our off-topics arguments.

        IMHO (I’m still only an electronic engineer, so my opinion couldn’t so worthy) Richard Milton missed a point about the evolutionary theory when analyzed Durrant experiment (of which I just know today of course, that’s not my field).
        That is, mot all changes are functional to survival, so (even if I didn’t misunderstand the meaning of what you reported) I don’t wonder reading that “The plant breeding was carried on for more than twenty years and it was shown that when the large and small plants were crossbred , the offspring exhibited the Mendelian pattern of inheritance, proving that the change is genetic.Ē because both flax plants, the ones larger and heavier and the ones lighter and smaller are still compatible with the current environment.
        Take it apart, I don’t understand why an evidence of a Mendelian pattern of inheritance which proves that the change is genetic should invalidate the evolutionary theory.
        IMHO the Mendelian pattern is one way evolution can take place, but not the only one.

        You wrote: “Stress reduction, dietary changes, the presence of a chemically altered & somewhat toxic environment may all affect our genetic future for the worse.”
        I don’t agree with you only for the final “worse”.
        Take for example the human races.
        Why should Negroids developed black skin and different somatic tracts compared to Caucasians?
        Don’t they have our very same DNA? The specie is the same.
        IMHO the answer is “adaption”.
        They were the environmental conditions that triggered the differences because of the different selection that the two races have been subjected.
        But adaption takes generations and generations to work so even if our Negroids brothers live with us (I suppose you are Caucasian too, but this is not fundamental of course), they still exhibit evident differences because of the little time span. And more, it could be that even after many generation those differences still remain, because for example the black skin is not a disadvantage in our environment, black people can live easily as white people do in our western environments.

        “Imo no evidence exists of humans evolving into more (i.e. superior) advanced levels.”
        Human evolutionary propensity is not different from the one of other living things on Earth.
        Some years ago I was at a Red Cross charity party (one of those party where they collect money for the poorer).
        I remember that I was eating sat close to a foreigner and we started a pleasant discussion about his job. He was salesman for a rat-poisoning producing company in Genova (a sea city few hundreds of km south from here).
        He explained me their difficulties in continuously deal with new poisons having very quick neurotoxic capability.
        This because some rats have the peculiarity of having a very rapid orgasm so that when one male subject become aware of having been poisoned, it call for a female and mate with it so that the next generation became almost immune to that toxin.
        IMHO this could be a good example of evolution in more advanced level of life.
        Even the bacteria we know are fighting the antibiotic by evolving in new resistant forms.
        I think that it’s not so easy evaluate the presence of the evolutionary process in progress in a human life span time. Also because, many times, we bad interpret an evolutionary improvement as a regression, this because the environment is continuously changing, so the subjects are constantly fighting to survive, and many times they became very ill doing that.
        When Spanish invaded the Andean lands many Andean people died because their bodies were not prepared against some viruses and bacteria that the Spanish soldiers were already adapted to survive.
        Vice versa, many Spanish soldiers died because of their bodies incapacity to adapt to some bowel parasite against which the Andean bodies were already adapted.
        The evolutionary principle is progress everywhere, for this is paradoxically not easy to detect it.

        You wrote:
        “As to biblical text I have found no scientific evidence of inaccuracy at all especially considering that all known dating methods require many assumptions many known to be false. Science should involve the facts and laws of nature not speculation.”
        I could reverse your statement, that is “I have found no scientific evidence of accuracy at all especially considering that all known dating methods require many assumptions…” ūüėČ

        If you were looking for scientific evidence about biblical texts, then I’m very pessimistic about you could reach your goal.
        IMHO the Bible is a question of faith, never a question of science.

        Have a great day.

        Massimo

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Massimo PORZIO,

          It seems we compete for the blogs longest post. However, you raise many points I will attempt to address most of them. You stated in response to the my comments on Alan Durrant:

          “Take it apart, I donít understand why an evidence of a Mendelian pattern of inheritance which proves that the change is genetic should invalidate the evolutionary theory.”

          Perhaps my communication skills need improving. Alan Durrant’s experiment doesn’t invalidate evolutionary theory. It simply gives support to a more Lamarckian mechanism by which genetic change can take place. The neo-Darwinian synthesis relies heavily on a certain view of Mendelian genetics. Micro-evolutionary changes may be observed if one includes as examples what has been stated prior.

          Macro-evolutionary changes in morphology and/or design due to random chance have not been observed. The problem has to do with irreducible complexity. Evolutionary mutation over time is a linear accumulative process where in one mutation leads to another resulting supposedly in significant change over time. The problems exists that actual living organisms comprise many biological mechanisms that could not have been arrived at in such a manner because the system in question has many parts which all must be available simultaneously (hence no opportunity to evolve them over time) for the creature to live and reproduce. For example, the circulatory system found in mammals including humans. How do you evolve it? Let us assume for the moment you manage to evolve red blood cells and plasma to deliver them and the oxygen to the cells throughout your body. Unlucky you however then cut your thumb on a rock and proceed to bleed to death because your kind has not yet spent the million requisite years needed to evolve the ability to clot your blood. Say a Darwinian evolution fairy decides to grant you a secular miracle and you now can clot your blood. You proceed once again in another clumsy but all too human manner to scrape your knee. Poor you then proceed to die because you have not yet evolved the chemical messengers requisite to inform the brain where the cut is and you begin clotting blood in your brain. Perhaps we allow you another miracle and you now possess chemical messengers that inform your brain and body where the cut actually is. The very next cut you again proceed to die because you lack the separate chemical messengers in the blood required to let the body know when to stop clotting the blood and the blood clotting cascade doesn’t cease until your entire blood supply has clotted. The list of processes (like white blood cells for immunity etc.) and/or supposed evolutionary leaps your circulatory requires simply to function and keep you alive moment by moment proves seemingly inexhaustible on a moments reflection. Again since your body requires each process for you to live moment by moment the opportunity to evolve them over the generations let alone eons necessary for future generations to supposedly acquire them is simply NON-EXISTENT! Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” introduces the subject and covers it in depth. Please note that I’m here dealing with saltation in biological form due to RANDOM CHANCE. If I remember correctly, I think Michael Behe actually believes all life did evolve from an original super-cell that contained all the information required to produce the myriad living forms that came hence. It remains possible I’m misstating his position exactly but you can research him yourself.

          You wrote:

          “When Spanish invaded the Andean lands many Andean people died because their bodies were not prepared against some viruses and bacteria that the Spanish soldiers were already adapted to survive.
          Vice versa, many Spanish soldiers died because of their bodies incapacity to adapt to some bowel parasite against which the Andean bodies were already adapted.”

          Interesting, many times creatures die not so much because they don’t have the ability to fend it off but because they’re exposed to too much too soon. For example, if one exposes someone to an already inactivated form of the virus/bacteria one can induce immunity into people. We call that a vaccine. Had the person not had the vaccine they might die, but with the added protection they live. I thank God vaccines for many ills were available to me when I traveled to Indonesia for example. Moreover, cells have much more adaptability than most begin to realize. Not to long ago a female researcher induced bacteria to utilize arsenic instead of phosphorous in their structure with success due to the similarities between the two elements.

          You go on to state:

          “I could reverse your statement, that is ďI have found no scientific evidence of accuracy at all especially considering that all known dating methods require many assumptionsÖĒ ūüėČ
          If you were looking for scientific evidence about biblical texts, then Iím very pessimistic about you could reach your goal.
          IMHO the Bible is a question of faith, never a question of science.”

          Please note, I agree that the Bible must be taken on faith, I only point out that scientific evidence in no way confutes it.

          Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi John Kl,
            “Perhaps my communication skills need improving.”
            I admit that I have some problems following some of your points, but it is not your communication skills it’s mine!
            It seems to me that your are very informed about the matter instead, are you a professional in the field?

            I also have a lot of problems simply with the English language since I’m aged 49 and when I went to school, here in Italy, English language teaching was a very marginal course of study. I remember that we had only 2 lessons of one hour per week. You can figure out what I could learn from that…
            Anyways, I should have understood your point about irreducible complexity issue and the related example about the mammals circulatory system.

            You wrote “Interesting, many times creatures die not so much because they donít have the ability to fend it off but because theyíre exposed to too much too soon.”
            Yes, rethinking my examples about Andean and Spanish people has nothing to do with evolution. This shows up very well my ignorance in this field.
            Anyways I know the way vaccines work, but what about the rats which inherit immunity against poisoning from the parents?
            Is that something about evolution or not?

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thanks for the reply. You asked:

            “Anyways I know the way vaccines work, but what about the rats which inherit immunity against poisoning from the parents?
            Is that something about evolution or not?”

            Hmmh! Same answer as before I think. The parents exposure heightened their immune response to a given environmental stress which their progeny then inherit (Lamarckian respons). It remains an open question as to whether it could alter the expression of certain genes. For example, when mice/rat fetuses lack adequate nutrition they apparently change to a light yellow color. Apparently, the lack of food at a certain point in time alters their hormonal response & future development. Just as the nutritional input provided flax plants altered future the genetic expression of future generations one may ask why can’t toxins do the same? They very likely can do so in a positive way as you mention. Nevertheless, their lacks evidence that the genes themselves have changed in a structural way. In other words, it seems likely the toxic stress simply stimulated pre-existing genes to express a greater response to a given stress/toxin. The children didn’t evolve a new and better immune system. They simply inherited one more sensitive to a given threat. Does that make sense?

            Thanks again for the reply and have a great day!

  24. Sven-Erik Fernaeus says:

    Hi Roy,

    May I add:

    Has anyone explained to you the fancy models to predict climate change?

    I am an experienced researcher who I still awaiting a good explanation. How about less qualified responders to the surveys?

    Sven-Erik

  25. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    Your good humor is appreciated.
    But the thing is that the Hockey Stick “proved” there was no climate change until very recently, when humans started burning coal to power an industrial revolution.
    So the argument appears to remain the same; either humanity embraces socialism to save the Earth, or we perish under capitalism and ever-rising temperatures and diseases caused by warming.
    The UN is pushing to become the new world-wide socialist government.

Leave a Reply