Mann overboard! ‘robust debate’ edition

There is a grweat editorial in the Columbus Dispatch by Jay Amrose about the abuse of the legal system by Michael E. Mann and his legal actions to try to stifle debate. More on that below, but first, the history of Mann in the context of debate.

Michael Mann once famously said that ‘robust debate’ was a good thing in science:

Mann_robust_debate

Source: [ https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/139734953742188546 ]

Also from Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed, he declares that ‘robust debate’ is only good when it’s not with a “denier” scientist or on a network he doesn’t like.

mann_no_spencer

Source: [ http://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/316260453770723328 ]

And Mann himself is no stranger to libelous speech in the context of “honest debate”, as the climategate emails show: (bold mine)

From: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s

Phil, I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud. You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc… Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too… talk to you soon, mike

Jay Ambrose at the Columbus dispatch writes of the latest episode from “robust debate” Mann:

[Libel] is hard to prove, which is how the court wanted it. In the written decision, Justice William J. Brennan observed, first, that error is inevitable in broad-based argumentation, and then, employing eloquence, made it clear we don’t want the fear of courtroom retaliation to rob us of the kind of public debate we need: “uninhibited, robust and wide open.”

Now come those who would render it a meek whisper. Supported by errant judges, Michael Mann, a climate scientist, is pursuing a libel suit with targets including Mark Steyn, an unbelievably talented and thoughtful writer, and National Review, a terrific magazine.

Mann is well-known for his “hockey stick” graph maintaining that temperatures on this earth were roughly level for eons and then shot up dramatically because of greenhouse gas emissions. Although his graph came in for some lambasting criticism, a significant number of researchers have agreed with his results, even if some questioned aspects of his methodology. He himself has been fiercely antagonistic toward scientists on different pages, referring to the exceptional Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology as a “serial climate misinformer.”

You would think someone dishing it out that way could take it, but a chief thrust of the Mann suit is that Steyn, in a blog for National Review, used the word fraudulent to describe some of Mann’s work. There are lots of researchers backing Mann up, one judge says, as if that legitimizes the suit. There are also researchers who seriously question his work, and the law says the suit can go on only if Steyn was in doubt. Why would anyone assume he was?

There is a ton more here there’s not space to explore, but the short of it is that a vital principle has as much as been ignored and what’s at risk is conceivable ruination of a superb journalist, the demise of a fine magazine and a major deterrence to uninhibited, wide-open speech. Even if Mann should lose the suit, the expensive defense process is itself punishment, as Steyn has written.

Read it all here, and props to Jay Ambrose for making himself the next target of the wrath of Mann.

Let us hope that Steyn prevails, and that his victory comes with a nice big fat legal bill that the loser (Mann) has to pay. Though, I doubt that Mann himself will be financially damaged, as he has the full backing of the Climate Science Legal Offense Defense Fund.

If that gets tapped out, he can always ask Tom Steyer for money.

 

About these ads

54 thoughts on “Mann overboard! ‘robust debate’ edition

  1. ‘Steyer made his fortune as managing partner of Farallon Capital, a San Francisco-based hedge fund that has invested in companies developing tar oil sands in Canada, as well as an oil pipeline company. When he departed Farrallon in 2012, Steyer said he asked his former hedge fund to “green” his investments by segregating his money into a separate fund “free of ecologically unsound investments.” ‘

    Par. For. The. Course.

  2. Has Roy Spencer ever said he denies evolution? If not, doesn’t he have a libel case. I don’t think he does, but a person like Mann would think so.

  3. An opportunity for the judiciary to show it’s independence from the executive. One can but hope.

  4. I wonder if Judith Curry ever got an answer to her question about why Mann was nominated as an AR3 lead author before he actually completed his doctorate?

    One of the many Mannian mysteries in the world!

  5. Who would dare call a man who credits himself with a Nobel Prize a fraud? Oh wait…that claim was fraudulent.

  6. Bloke down the pub says:
    the judiciary….independent from the executive,

    Don’t hold your breath, I think you’ve been down the pub to long.

  7. If you can not argue the facts then attack the presenter. In other words Mann could not defend his data and methods so he went to court with Steyn but then Steyn fought back and wanted to go to DISCOVERY which meant that Mann would be required to produce his works and evidence – BOOM HE WOULD BE DESTROYED – he then sought a delay in the trial.

    Better to be thought a FOOL that to be proved in court that you are one. JMHO

  8. If I hack your computer and read your private emails and find you have called me a fraud then is that defamation? It is a private conversation between friends and should not reach the public domain. So who does the publishing – it is surely the hacker and those that republish the private communications.
    If You post that I am a fraud in the publically read blog/tv/papers you have published that defamatory remark to the public. As such my status has been harmed and that IS defamatory

    REPLY: Folks, pay him no mind. Mr. Mike Tuppen is just mad because he got outed in the climategate emails (partly because he launched his own FOIA requests), now run along and archive this on that “climate and stuff” blog nobody reads, and please be sure to add your usual derogatory remark. – Anthony

  9. Whoever taught the climate scientists about the word “robust,” should be hung, drawn and quartered.

  10. Don’t forget, you can support Mark Steyn and his fight against the “climate mullahs” by purchasing something or just buying a expire-never gift certificate here .

    Keeping Mark free, solvent and able to keep writing is just as important as doing proper science.

  11. There is an abuse that was left out. Mann is trigger-happy about starting suits, but then he prevents them from going to trial. Mann has no risk of losing that way. He wins if there is no trial. He shuts down free speech and he forces the people he sues to pay huge legal bills to prepare for the trial, but the trial never comes. Kafka comes to mind.

  12. This case is a scary test of America’s commitment to free speech. The worry is Mann has found acquiescent jurors, some of questionable ability, stuffed into the court by sinistras. But this isn’t the most troubling aspect. American society has been moved evermore leftward by the constant pressure of a co-opted, PC imbued, K-12-PhD education system, national institutions, immigration policy, immigration non policy…. This has moved the right-wing leftward, too. Is the new electorate prepared to accept a Ronald Regan type president. Not a chance. To get in, the right is going to have to find a “pink” Republican who will determine much of the legislation already enacted is perhaps ‘too big to fail’. This new right-wing will be the equivalent of what once was the Democrat’s part of the spectrum, continuing the slide.

    Not only has climate not warmed in the lifetime of those who have just reached voting age, they have been under the constant tutelage of those imbued with PC thinking. Your speech will be free as long as you don’t say anything that’s ‘not nice’ or even controversial. The disciplining of the ‘not nice’ and controversial will be the main work of the SCOTUS if Mann wins this case. Imagine the docket even a few months later.

  13. Mann has stated that warming hasn’t ceased, it’s “just slowed down” (as in “stopped”),
    which, as I see it means he is a “climate denier.” Time to call the climate alarmists
    “deniers of the new reality.” or “deniers time-warped in the 20th century”

  14. I wish a Federal legal complaint would be filed against the AGU in District Court 1 (DC) regarding their use of membership dues to fund the “Climate Legal Defense Fund” i.e. MEM.

  15. thefordprefect says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
    ////////////////

    My thoughts for what it is worth:

    For the purpose of argument lets assume that calling someone a fraud is libelous (it might not be – and it may also be true), it becomes libelous as soon as the thought is uttered. At that stage, it is published. It matters not that you may say it to a friend. Saying something libelous to a friend is publication, in precisely the sme manner as saying something to a stranger.

    The hacking of the computer is merely the obtaining of evidence that the libel has taken place. The hacking of the computer does not create the libel, the libel was created by the exchange of ‘private’ emails in which libelous comments were made.

    Of course whether evidence obtained by hacking of a computer can be relied upon, is a different issue. Evidence obtained in that manner, may be regarded as illegitimate, and the Court may not entertain it. In these circumstances, the libel has taken place, but there is no probabtive evidence that it took place such that the action for libel would fail due to lack of evidence. .. .

  16. At least one case of fraudulent research has led to federal prosecutors filing charges against a scientist who falsified data leading to millions in grants. The A.P. story, by Ryan J. Foley, appeared in June 25, 2014 Bay Area News Group’s San Jose Mercury News. Although this involved National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, it should serve as a warning to researchers in other fields [such as climate research]. The article states:
    “It’s an important case because it is extremely rare for scientists found to have committed fraud to be held accountable by the criminal justice system,” said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which tracks research misconduct.
    “It’s a pretty extraordinary case involving clear, intentional falsification,” added Mike Carome, a consumer advocate and director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “The wool was pulled over many people’s eyes.” Carome noted that [the researcher’s] misconduct wasted tax dollars and led to researchers chasing a false lead. He said such cases also undermine the public’s trust in researchers.
    Iowa State has agreed to pay back NIH nearly $500,000 for the cost of [the researcher’s] salary.
    Investigators say former Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han has confessed to spiking samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise. After years of work and millions in NIH grants, another laboratory uncovered irregularities that suggested the results–once hailed as groundbreaking–were bogus.
    [Han] is facing four counts of making false statements, each of which carries up to five years in prison.

  17. What you’ve written and discribed Gary is exactly what Australia is wrestling with right now.
    After removing the socialist left government, we are now struggling to undo the damage they have done.
    The further advancement they have made into our lives in six short years of government is truly frightening.
    They had so integrated themselves into all bodys of “control” before they acheived government.
    I might add stealing goverment on promises of an ongoing “utopia”.
    Once in, it was oh so simple to ramp up the spending on their ideology.
    From universitys to government and its accompanying public service.
    To state funded media which is little more than a propoganda arm for the socialist left.
    None of this happened over night.
    All that was in place before they launched their “assault” on the people.
    Once they had hold of the purse strings, all hell broke loose.
    The pace with which they plunged this country into debt when we had none and tieing us to future debt is staggering.
    Your Obama government is running down the very same road.
    America should be very afraid.

  18. Ken White at Popehat has been following the Mann case for some time. His most recent post is from May 2, 2014 and has links back to earlier writings. Ken writes in a clear, informative and entertaining style from the point of view of a practicing defense attorney.

    http://www.popehat.com/2014/05/02/d-c-court-of-appeals-agrees-to-hear-merits-of-anti-slapp-appeal-in-michael-manns-defamation-case/

    “[W]inning in court generally requires competent representation, which is ruinously expensive for normal people. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s true.” ~ Ken

    In this context, Michael Mann is not “normal people.”

  19. “It is a private conversation between friends and should not reach the public domain. ”

    Looks like the imperfect ford is F.O.R.D.

    Defamation requires “publication.” When you send a defamatory statement about another person to others than the one you are defaming, that constitutes publication. Any every time an email is sent, it is considered a new publication. Every one who has a role in the publication of that email may be liable.

    http://communications-media.lawyers.com/libel-slander-defamation/email-defamation.html

    Nice try, but no matter who else might or might not be liable, the original sender most certainly is. And who’s going to sue the re-printers of the e-mail?

  20. re: post by: thefordprefect says: June 28, 2014 at 9:41 am

    If I hack your computer and read your private emails and find you have called me a fraud then is that defamation? It is a private conversation between friends and should not reach the public domain. So who does the publishing – it is surely the hacker and those that republish the private communications.

    There is no evidence that anyone “hacked” a personal computer with the ClimateGate emails. What’s more, I believe that emails written on public university computers during working hours are NOT “private” and are in fact subject to FOIA laws. Whistleblowers are also protected.

  21. Toto says:

    June 28, 2014 at 9:53 am

    ===========================================

    Steyn has counter sued, and Mann cannot dismiss that.

  22. BTW in Australia me thinks Palmer has really done the dirty on Gore et al. It seems he has completely fooled the whole AGW industry there.They have no carbon tax and no ETS smart move. NO wonder he made millions… NOT a dunce as it appears. He was always either a denier or skeptic of AGW. It seems the AGW scam may actually tumble before we thought it would (years)

  23. ” Although his graph came in for some lambasting criticism, a significant number of researchers have agreed with his results, even if some questioned aspects of his methodology.”

    What is the serious, scientific defence of the graph which leads a significant number of researchers to agree with his results? I’ve only ever see defence based on character assassination of critics. I really want to see the scientifically rigorous defence.

  24. I got no problem with folks investing in green tech. Got ZERO problem with people wanting to divest from “dirty” energy.

    I have HUMONGOUS problems with the government forcing the issue, giving the likes of Solyndra my money, and then shrugging when it disappears etc.

    The greenies who ask me “what’s wrong with trying to have a cleaner planet?” do not even begin to get it – or they’re liars on par with Obama and his ilk, who know they’re engaging in criminal activity with public monies.

    Invest in whatever you like. Develop whatever you want. Just don’t ****ing do it with my tax money! And then act like you’re doing me a favor.

    And then complain about “big oil” who at least PAYS taxes AND produces things I willingly buy and use.

    Thugs.

  25. “has Mann released his meta data and modeling code yet?”

    Of course not. Silly you.

  26. -Tom Trevor says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Has Roy Spencer ever said he denies evolution? If not, doesn’t he have a libel case. I don’t think he does, but a person like Mann would think so.-

    Caling someone a denier is like calling someone a Yankee Doodle. Or it’s slogan
    Roy Spencer “crime” as far as lefties are concerned is he is Christian- a Christian who is
    openly a Christian and who a scientist.
    The Left is filled ignorant and racist people who are Anti-American and anti-Christian. The Left
    imagines that are superior human beings. And the 80% of Americans are have some kind of christian faith are the main problem with this world [as far as the lefties are concerned].
    So majority of Americans are the threat, or if everyone would simply stop having silly beliefs which include “outdated morality” then the world would a better place.
    Yankee Doodle, wiki:
    “As a term Doodle first appeared in the early seventeenth century,[4] and is thought to derive from the Low German dudel or dödel, meaning “fool” or “simpleton”. The Macaroni wig was an extreme fashion in the 1770s and became contemporary slang for foppishness. The Macaronis were young English men who adopted feminine mannerisms and highly extravagant attire, and were deemed effeminate. ”

    So British army were sing songs about Americans being sissies. By rejecting the British Empire
    which was at one of the world’s superpower, how could independence be anything other than being misguided and silly?

    Science has always been about challenging the orthodox, that is not what is meant by he slogan
    denier, it’s suppose to suggest that one is Holocaust Denier. Which is historical event, which was well documented. The main lesson of Nazi totalitarian State, should be mostly about totalitarian states. Hell, not paradise is the result of a State with total power.

  27. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:52 am
    Don’t forget, you can support Mark Steyn and his fight against the “climate mullahs” by purchasing something or just buying a expire-never gift certificate here .

    Alan Watt, is everyone certain that state escheat laws don’t come into play here, even with “expire-never” gift certificates?? Because I think they would. Mark Steyn could be in for a real nasty surprise in a few years.

    IANAL…. But if I were Mark I would seriously check this out and make sure I’m not setting myself up for another legal battle.

    Cheers!

  28. Has Roy Spencer ever said he denies evolution? If not, doesn’t he have a libel case. I don’t think he does, but a person like Mann would think so.

    Why yes he has, and has stated that he is more inclined to believe in “intelligent design”, which as the judge in Dover v Kitzmuller remarked was simply disguised and repackaged creationism – a religious belief not a scientific one.

    Which goes to show that academics can be storied and rigorous in one area of science and be completely clueless in another. Roy Spencer demonstrates that as part of a long list of scientists and academics with wacked-out theories and belief systems.

    Of course, you have someone like Michael Mann being clueless in his own area of supposed expertise…

  29. Amusing.

    A daughter coached high school debaters.
    She tells me that some competitions required the team to be able to take either side of a subject.
    That’s much to ask in general, but I think they were graded on their ability to organize and present an argument.

  30. thefordprefect says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:41 am

    If I hack your computer and read your private emails and find you have called me a fraud then is that defamation? It is a private conversation between friends and should not reach the public domain. So who does the publishing – it is surely the hacker and those that republish the private communications.
    If You post that I am a fraud in the publically read blog/tv/papers you have published that defamatory remark to the public. As such my status has been harmed and that IS defamatory

    Something tells me you wouldn’t extend the same consideration to Donald Sterling.

  31. The “Climate Science Defense Fund” is backing Mann’s legal bills. Reminds me of the “Council on Foreign Relations”, Bilderberg Group, Knights Templar, or some other shadowy political / business / religious group… (or maybe all three)

  32. Someone who was or had made a genuine mistake, would save himself all the trouble of court cases and accept it and make amends to data. But a fraud will go on believing his own lies to the very end or bankrupsy? One tree doesn’t make a forest, everyone in archaeology knows dendrochronology will monitor a particular trees growth but mainly from the point of view of environmental conditions that trigger tree growth. But if one was to go 100 yards away and get the same or different species of tree, the results can be quite different.

  33. Mann is undoubtedly the best “live” argument in favour of scepticism for CAGW – rock on Mann keep kicking own goals.

  34. Toto says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:53 am
    There is an abuse that was left out. Mann is trigger-happy about starting suits, but then he prevents them from going to trial. Mann has no risk of losing that way. He wins if there is no trial. He shuts down free speech and he forces the people he sues to pay huge legal bills to prepare for the trial, but the trial never comes. Kafka comes to mind.
    ——————————————————————
    Not so this time.
    Mark filed a counter suit in which he is demanding Mikey go to discovery.
    I believe Mark has filed a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
    Even if Mikey drops his suit Mark can go forward.
    Mark wants to stop Mann and his litigation BS.
    I’m grinning while I’m typing.
    cn

  35. Probable cause is the reason that most search warrants are issued (or should be). Given that a group of scientists have among themselves put forth such theories that are untested, tried to silence others, and generally tried to effect political change based on those theories, is hacking into those emails to find out what the scientists were really after that much of crime? Which law enforcement is responsible for policing scientific research, and who decides? This entire endeavor by the IPCC and associated organizations has opened a Pandora’s box. We have, by law a separation of church and state, will we need a separation of science and state? In fact many have called the science of AGW a cult and religious doctrine. Debate is ok as long as it is not heretic. And if reality differs from the mantra, then the leaders are tasked with fixing the perception of reality. Is that what we are witnessing? Take some more LSD, I’m sure that door opens somewhere.

  36. JP: The problem with evolution is how do we get from amino acids to DNA. As far as I know, no one has a clue or even a good guess. Once we have DNA evolution works rather well. One big question with DNA is why do we have a digital storage in an analog world? Presently, the belief of evolution and/or intelligent design are religions: there are no solid or proven scientific facts to support one or the other.

    We do know DNA life can evolve within the limits of DNA. Yet we are still searching for a bridge species which we have not found yet! We have no examples of pre-DNA life, no example of bridge species yet the Mitochondrial DNA shows such a path. Other than that, no other hard evidence has been found.

    So the belief that evolution has been proven is a “religion”. I grant you that it is the best theory going, but I will not concede that it has been proven by any standard. We also know intelligent design works since we are using now using it. GMO anybody? But to claim we are creators would be absurd since we are only using DNA as it is. We are only modifying what is there just like the DNA evolution process. Intelligent Design cannot be proven by any standards which means it will always be unscientific. Its biggest problem is who created the creator? So, until you can give me the answer as to how the amino acid to DNA process problem works and is proven, do not think you are not touting a religion. Because the question as to where life comes from is far from answered.

  37. Mark Luhman, you should study more as Many years ago, scientists recreated amino acids using a simulated lightening bolt. I think your judgement is not right at all, there are many papers and studies, that have simulated that all life came from a form of algae or slime. During a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.
    It has also been suggested that meteorites can carry some form of frozen bacteria. If there was intelligent design promoting this, it would not have taken so long to terra-form the planet to support even the basic forms of so called life. Thank plants for supplying us with oxygen. Also human DNA is present in many life forms including fungi. Obviously and believe it or not, the chimps and gorillas have more of our DNA as we are primates. But would you believe whales have a good dose too. It has been an interesting study that shows the early human and primate embryos have gills, and early primate fetus’ of chimp and human babies look identical in early months. All life comes from a common source billions of years ago, but environmental conditions selected who would survive and evolve and why others became extinct.

  38. One of my long lost creationist friends argued with me that we shared DNA with chimps. So being sarcastic I sent her a letter with a picture of a family of chimps with the caption, “Some scientists state we share 98.5% of our human DNA with chimps. ….. Thank God for that 1.5% so Viva la difference!

    ..’

  39. O/T.Of course there could be ET interference too! LOL. Bored with TV last night, I hunted out an old video to watch. ‘Arrival’ with Charley Sheen. ET’s had landed and were increasing greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and our temps were rocketing. The aim was they were suited to higher CO2 and nitrous oxides and hot temps, Some important people were aliens who dictated our atmospheric greenhouse gases, they had taken on human form. (of course) however, cold weather killed them off. I wonder if all these pseudo AGWs got the idea from Hollywood. LOL, well one alien said to Charley, ‘What we are doing in 10 years would take you 100 years to complete, if you can’t look after your planet you don’t deserve to live here..” The mind boggles, eh? All the pseudo explanations of how we can reverse global warming? Or even prove it it is actually happening?

  40. Mark Luhman,
    “One big question with DNA is why do we have a digital storage in an analog world?”
    Where did you get the idea that the world is analog? The world [universe] is quantum.
    Most of the comment was ignorant. Point after point you got wrong.

  41. I would literally pay admission to see Mann debate Curry or Lindzen. But we all know that little mann won’t engage with someone in climate science that isn’t part of the “consensus” circle-jerk.

  42. Mark Luhman says:
    June 29, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    “So the belief that evolution has been proven is a “religion”. I grant you that it is the best theory going, but I will not concede that it has been proven by any standard…”

    Antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs’ are clear evidence of evolution, they weren’t around 40 years ago, they have evolved from bacteria that were not resistant, except all the less resistant ones were killed early in the infection and treatment, the patient feels better and stops taking the antibiotics before all the bacteria are killed, leaving only the mutations that resisted the antibiotics to multiply and pass on their mutation, after a number of cycles of this we have ‘superbugs’.
    It is in order to prevent this that antibiotics always carry the warning “please finish the course”

  43. Barbara Skolaut says:“has Mann released his meta data and modeling code yet?”

    He has offered on his website a MatLab program for downloading and data, with the assurance that you can see for yourself that you will get the same result he does. Of that I have no doubt.

    But it won’t be a full fledged GCM or Earth Model; such things require enormous computing power.

  44. Mark Luhman says some stuff revealing he’s a leftwinger in rightwinger cloak. Way too many instances of “we” give away your true colors. It is the secret handshake of Groupthink.

    “The problem with evolution is how do we get from amino acids to DNA.”

    One-A-Day Multiple Vitamins work pretty well ;-)

    “As far as I know, no one has a clue or even a good guess.”

    7 billion people on Earth and you are reasonably sure no one has a clue or a good guess. I have both (and I’m still religious). It has to do with polar molecules that naturally stick together. When you unzip DNA into strands in a soup of suitable molecules, the right ones — and only the right ones that are complementary — will attach thus reconstituting the double strand.

    DNA and its simpler cousins are polymers, more or less, long chain molecules. Their assembly is inevitable and the simpler the assembly the more frequent will be the experimental assembly. Eventually an assembly exists that can replicate. Strictly speaking it won’t be alive, but then, neither is a cell — a little chemical laboratory doing many chemical reactions.

    “Once we have DNA evolution works rather well.”

    Well then it’s a good thing I have DNA so that I can evolve. But you have it backwards. DNA slows down evolution because it is resistant to mutation. What stimulated evolution is sexual reproduction, not DNA per se.

    “One big question with DNA is why do we have a digital storage in an analog world?”

    I have no idea why _you_ have it. All of my storage is analog. Consider my disk drive – the magnetic domains are “analog”. In my high school days using a NAND gate as a cheap, extremely high gain amplifier was popular. It’s all analog. The reason for using digital is “noise immunity” and it is sort of the same with DNA.

    “Presently, the belief of evolution and/or intelligent design are religions”

    Your mileage obviously depends on your definitions. Doubtless many people accept scientific proclamation in the same blind obedience way as they receive religious proclamations (witness mild hysteria over global warming that hardly anyone has the resources to replicate for themselves).

    “We do know…”

    I *wish* you would QUIT saying “we”. It is already clear that what I know differs from what you know.

    “We are still searching for a bridge species which we have not found yet!”

    I suspect you need to try a bit harder, but what if you do? You’ll just move the fence.

    Some things are not going to be found and yet are true. You seek to prove God, or at least place it on the same level as evolution. Don’t do that. Self-willed things can choose to be proven but of course there’s a catch-22.

    “We have no examples of pre-DNA life”

    Nor will there be. It decomposed a few hundred million years ago.

    “I will not concede that it has been proven by any standard.”

    Hooray for the First Amendment. I am free to believe or disbelieve what I choose and so are you.

    “We also know intelligent design works”

    No, WE do not. If I asked 100 people how intelligent design works, will I get 100 identical answers? Unlikely. There is no WE.

    “Its biggest problem is who created the creator?”

    Thomas. But I think a line from “Time Bandits” may be surprisingly relevant — “I created myself”. Circular. Eternity in a circle.

    “do not think you are not touting a religion.”

    I’m not sure how to parse this but fortunately I don’t need to. I will think whatever I want. There is a God, AND there is evolution, the details of which are being worked out. The bible says the EARTH brought forth every living thing. Yep, right there in black and white. NO “ex-nihilo” poof magical creation. God saw that it was good. That’s about it for direct participation.

  45. There is a natural force or the natural order of things that defy definition, but let’s face it, the ancient homo sapiens including us, changed religious beliefs to suit their social/economic/political conditions. One of the main sources of their beliefs was that some unknown power say ‘God or Allah’ was capable of raining down wrath on those disbelievers. If they followed the path of enlightenment or pious belief, they could blame a lot of our human weaknesses on an unknown invisible power over our welfare generally. They missed the point while controlling the masses, we have no control over the weather and climate, we can’t stop volcanoes or earthquakes, hurricanes, cyclones or typhoons,tsunamis, the sun’s orbit, and it is weather than kills us. Including many natural events that we can say fall into the realm of mother nature or father nature. I believe that an understanding of physics can dispel a lot of silly nonsense about AGW.
    But we can work with nature, not try to change it. And improve fertility for growing crops etc. With a growing population our food sources are becoming strained, and if it gets colder it will get worse. As one of my late lecturers once repeated Prof.Mike Morwood. “humans propose but nature deposes” Unfortunately we humans have been able to overcome this by sensible adaptation but some third world countries are wondering why they are not as rich as industrialized countries. We are running scared at the present time of what the future holds if a cold period happens again.

Comments are closed.