Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 4628)

[depodoc]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.094.781 von rv_2011 am 04.05.09 23:10:27

Tu mal nicht so scheinheilig.
Damit es wirklich wärmer wird und die sehnslichst erwarteten Katastrophen auch wirklich eintreffen, würdest du doch sogar in die Kirche gehen und beten.

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.094.551 von jetlagged999 am 04.05.09 22:37:44

Na ja - da bricht sich Mrs. Phillips aber gewaltig einen ab um aus dem Ruch des Kreationismus zu kommen, in den sie sich selbst gebracht hat.

Immerhin: Sie stellt klar, dass Hard-Core-Kreationismus nicht mit Naturwissenschaft vereinbar ist.

Für die Soft-Core-Variante "intelligent design" will sie das immer noch nicht gelten lassen - obwohl auch die ein direktes Eingreifen eines außerhalb der Natur stehenden Gottes in die Natur (unter Umgehung der Naturgesetze) postuliert. Sie bezweifelt weiterhin, dass die Evolution ein allein auf den Naturgetzen beruhender Vorgang ist - auch wenn sie sich persönlich nicht ganz festlegt.

Für ihre völlig inkompetenten Äußerungen zur Klimaproblematik gibt das kaum wesentlich neuen Einsichten: Sie schwafelt über Dinge, von denen sie nichts versteht.

[AdHick]

Warum fällt mir jetzt die Bibel ein (Frauen sollen ihre Klappe halten)?
Ich denke, Ahnungslose jedweden Geschlechts sind gemeint.

[AdHick]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.094.551 von jetlagged999 am 04.05.09 22:37:44

"not a scientist, not a philosopher"
Ist offenkundig.
"trying not to make too many mistakes"
Guter Wille ...

Ok, aber was heisst "too many" ??

[jetlagged999]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.089.649 von rv_2011 am 04.05.09 14:18:00

Die Antwort von Melanie Phillips auf die an sie gerichteten Diffamierungen und Pöbeleien von rv und for4zim, die ihr nicht vergeben konnten, dass sie 1) die Thesen der globale Erwärmung-Propheten Hanson und Mann in Frage gestellt und 2) sich positiv zur Intelligent Design-Theorie geäußert hat:

The secular inquisition
Monday, 4th May 2009

The response to my post below on Intelligent Design has provided illuminating and revealing evidence of the ignorance, confusion, distortions, irrationality and malice that characterise this debate. For those who appear to assume I am part of some cosmic Christian conspiracy to destroy science and deny the laws of nature, let me first of all gently enlighten you: I am an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist, not a philosopher, not a subscriber to any kind of -ology but a mere journalist who has always gone wherever the evidence has led and, trying not to make too many mistakes, has formed her conclusions and her opinions from that process.

I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a faircrack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.

One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science and creationism comes out of Biblical literalism. This provoked Charles Johnson on LGF to accuse me of being either duped or dishonest. Johnson – who has become unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months -- says I am wrong to say that ID is based on science rather than on religion, and wrong to say that it is different from Creationism.

The first thing to note is that the distinction I was drawing was not between ID and religion but between ID and creationism. Creationism holds that the universe was literally created in six days or -- through ’young earth’ Creationism -- that it was created in a few thousand years; either way, it flies in the face of the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Therefore Creationism is inimical to science. But few religious believers in the west subscribe to this literalism, as opposed to belief in a Creator which is common to all of them; Christianity and Judaism (even more so) promote the idea that Genesis is a poetic metaphor.

Since ID holds that some vague kind of intelligent force must have been behind the creation of the universe, there’s surely very little difference (and considerable overlap) between ID proponents and the vast majority of mainstream religious believers – amongst whom are numbered many scientists who have no difficulty reconciling their scientific knowledge about the universe, and the evolution of life within that universe, with belief in an ultimate Creator who kick-started the whole process.

So what’s the big hullabaloo about? ID proponents are said by the Charles Johnsons of this world to deny evolution. But this is not so. Creationists deny evolution. But ID proponents say over and over again they are not Creationists and accept many aspects of evolution, in particular that organisms develop and change over time.

What they don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything. ID proponents say the idea that science can account for everything – the doctrine known variously as materialism or scientism – flies in the face of reason and evidence and seeks to commandeer the space previously reserved for the unknowable, or religion, which can sit very comfortably alongside science, as it does for so many.

Those who have imbibed evangelical atheistic materialism with their mothers’ milk, however, find it impossible to get their heads round this. Shouting from the rooftops that ID is not science but camouflaged religion, they react so viscerally precisely because ID does come out of science and talks its language. After all, if people are evil and bonkers for believing in an intelligent creator, why aren't religious believers in a Biblical intelligent Creator also evil and bonkers?

The answer is that it is the science that is seen to be evil and bonkers. While materialist fundamentalists can deal with religious believers by scoffing they are in a separate domain altogether from the real ie scientific world, the suggestion that science might itself arrive at the conclusion that there are limits to what it can understand is a heresy that directly threatens the materialist fundamentalist closed thought-system -- and therefore must be stamped out.

Refusing to accept that science and religion can be complementary -- and indeed feed each other --because religious faith is out to lunch, they cannot grasp that ID is a metaphysical idea that comes out of but stands separate from science, in that science leads here to an idea with which by definition it must abruptly part company. Instead they insist that the two must be fused – and when that proves impossible, they cry victory.

As Charles Johnson asks on LGF:

If ‘intelligent design’ is really based on science, why have their advocates failed to produce any scientific evidence for that claim, despite millions of dollars worth of funding and years in which to do it? Instead, ‘intelligent design’ proponents spend all their time on public relations. Where are the peer reviewed studies? Where are the experimental proofs that can be duplicated by other scientists? Answer: nonexistent.

Well of course they are non-existent -- because ID is not in itself a scientific discovery. It is rather an inference from scientific discoveries. Looking at the complexity of the created world, it says the evidence points inescapably to a guiding intelligence as the cause of that complexity. It is an idea, a conclusion to a chain of observation and thought. When people demand proof of this idea, what they are actually demanding is proof that an ‘intelligent designer’ exists. The fact that there are no peer-reviewed studies (!) demonstrating the existence of such a cosmic ‘designer’ provokes this yah-boo response. But it is obviously no more possible to prove the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ than it is to prove the existence of the Biblical God.

ID is thus a paradox. The whole point is that it states that the ‘intelligent designer’ it posits as the only logical inference from scientifically verifiable complexity cannot be known through scientific means. This is because the essence of the ID idea is that there is a limit to science beyond which it cannot go, since science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God nor any kind of ‘ultimate designer’ of the universe which thus stands outside that universe and its laws. That is where science stops and faith begins.

ID makes space -- as the result of science -- for belief in a creator, whether this is a deistic being (conveniently vague) or the Biblical God (uncomfortably moral). That certainly takes us into the realm of faith. Indeed, as already noted it takes us into pretty much the position occupied by many believers in Biblical religion – but it does so through the route of science. And that’s the incendiary point. For the idea that faith might actually be informed by science sends the materialist fundies totally and completely ape -- as Darwin might have said. (Atheists! Joke alert!!)

Charles Johnson quotes Phillip Johnson, who he dubs the ‘father’ of the ID movement’, and another ID proponent, the mathematician and philosopher William Dembski, as saying variously that ID is really about religion and philosophy rather than science and can serve to clear the ground for Christianity. This, says Charles Johnson, proves that ID is based on religion. But of course it proves no such thing. ID certainly takes adherents into the territory of religion and philosophy -- but through the route of scientific reasoning. And the fact that certain evangelical Christians have spotted the potential of ID to restore Christianity to the public sphere, and have formulated a strategy to capitalise upon that potential, does not mean that ID is actually a religious movement.

But the materialist fundies cannot accept this. Believing as they do with perfect faith that all dissent from their world view is heresy, they assume that ID can be nothing other than a conspiracy to smuggle religion back into the public sphere under the heavy disguise of science. And not just religion but Creationism, the Biblical, literalist, science-denying, dinosaurs-never-existed full monty.

And so, spraying distortions and false assertions in every direction, they claim that Phillip Johnson is the begetter of ID, that the Discovery Institute is a Creationist front where the whole infernal movement was hatched, that its leaked ‘Wedge’ document revealed the deep conspiracy to foist Christianity upon an unsuspecting world, and that the school textbook Of Pandas and People at the centre of the seminal court case Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District had started life as a Creationist textbook and then been surreptitiously altered to pretend it was teaching ID instead – all proving that ID is in fact a conspiracy to smuggle Creationism into American schools, camouflaged as its scientific antithesis.

Like all conspiracy theories, this one is characterised by irrationality, distortion and hysteria. Assuming that there was indeed dirty work at the Creationist crossroads over Of Pandas and People – so what? One sneaky attempt to get round the constitutional bar on teaching religion in public schools doesn’t prove that the whole ID movement was a Giant Creationist Conspiracy.

If there was an intellectual begetter of this movement, it was surely the biochemist Professor Michael Behe, whose book Darwin's Black Box in 1996 expounded the theory of irreducible complexity. He is not a Creationist. Other exponents such as Phillip Johnson explicitly renounce Creationism. As he explained in his book Wedge of Truth in 2000, he wanted to make use of the scientific and philosophical idea of ID to split science from the materialist fundamentalism that had driven it to make hubristic claims to knowledge which it could not reasonably support. Far from denying science, he wanted to restore it to what he believed to be the realm of reason and observable evidence – and thus make space once again for religion.

To be sure, he and others at the Discovery Institute (which says it promotes religious pluralism rather than Creationism, and which refused to get involved in the Kitzmiller fight) were excited by what they thought were the prospects this would open up for a new stage in the culture wars. But while there is room for debate over that agenda, it is dishonest and really quite irrational to claim that this showed ID was invented as a pretext to wage it and smuggle back Christianity into the public sphere.

To repeat – I have no particular brief for ID. I am not in a position to judge whether its arguments about ‘irreducible complexity’ and the logic of intelligent design are soundly based or not. But I do know that the attempt to shut down this debate runs against every principle of rationality and scientific freedom; and that the claim that it is rooted not in science but in religious fundamentalism is a falsehood designed to smear and intimidate people into silence.

It’s the fact that it did come out of science that prompted the philosopher and celebrated former atheist Antony Flew to became a deist -- because, as he said in his book There is a God, the laws of nature presuppose an infinite intelligence; ‘...this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science’.

It’s why Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University and a self-described ‘secular humanist’, has argued

that the way ID's practitioners approach the debate means they are actually engaged in a scientific enterprise. But he draws the line at Creationism because, he says, it has abandoned the scientific method: ‘Those guys are basically teaching the Bible as science.’ For Fuller, religion and science are compatible. He complains that evolutionary theory is being taught as dogma. It needs a ‘critical foil’ and ID satisfies that function as well as anything else.

Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my post makes all too plain.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3587356/the-secul…

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.087.286 von rv_2011 am 04.05.09 09:09:14

Nachtrag:

Im AR4WG1-Report geht es um die physikalischen Grundlagen, also u.a. um die Entwicklung der Niederschläge in den verschiedenen Weltregionen.

Um die Auswirkungen auf die Menschheit geht es im AR4WG2-Report.

Dort werden in [urlKapitel 3: Freshwater resources and their management]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter3.pdf[/url] und im zusammenfassenden Kapitel 20 die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf die Wasserversorgung ausführlich diskutiert. Auch dort konnte ich deine Tabelle nicht finden. Für die verschiedenen Szenarien werden in [urlKapitel 20, S. 824]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter20.pdf[/url] für die 2080 unter verstärktem Wassermangel leidende Bevölkerung folgende Zahlen genannt:

Millions of people exposed to increased water resources stress (Arnell, 2004)
Szenario A1FI: 1256
Szenario A2: 2583 to 3210
Szenario B1: 1135
Szenario B2: 1196 to 1535

Detailliertere Angaben stehen in Kap. 3;
Die von dir gepostete Tabelle kann ich da auch nicht finden, dafür die folgende Zusammenfassung (S. 194):

Table 3.2. Impact of population growth and climate change on the
number of people (in millions) living in water-stressed river basins (defined as per capita renewable water resources of less than 1,000 m3/yr) around 2050 (Arnell, 2004b; Alcamo et al., 2007).

Baseline (1995): 1,368 | 1,601
2050: A2 emissions scenario: 4,351 to 5,747 | 6,432 to 6,920
2050: B2 emissions scenario: 2,766 to 3,958 | 4,909 to 5,166

Estimates are based on emissions scenarios for several climate model runs. The range is due to the various climate models and model runs that were used to translate emissions scenarios into climate scenarios.


Im Summary for Policy Makers, S. 11 findet sich dieser Text:

Freshwater resources and their management

By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availability
are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics, some of which are presently water-stressed areas. In some places and in particular seasons, changes differ from these annual figures. ** D10 [3.4] Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy
precipitation events,which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk. **N[WorkingGroup I Fourth Assessment Table SPM-2,Working Group II FourthAssessment 3.4]
In the course of the century,water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, wheremore than one-sixth of the world population currently lives. ** N [3.4]
Adaptation procedures and risk management practices for the
water sector are being developed in some countries and regions
that have recognised projected hydrological changes with related
uncertainties. *** N [3.6]


Wann lernst du endlich, deine trüben Quellen zu überprüfen?

[GregoryHouse]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.087.333 von rv_2011 am 04.05.09 09:16:25

Ja und wenn er jetzt noch wüsste, wie die letzte Eiszeit ins Laufen gekommen ist, nämlich mit dem Transport von warmen Wasser durch den Golfstrom nach Skandinavien, was dort zu mehr Schnee usw. geführt hat, dann wäre er vollends verwirrt und sein zweidimensionales Gehirn würde platzen. Also erzählen wir ihm das lieber nicht.

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.086.786 von depodoc am 04.05.09 00:19:43

Da unsere 100 ppm CO2 gleichmässig auf der Erde verteilt sind, müssten bei irgendeiner erwärmenden Wirkung
dieser 100 ppm auch an beiden Polen eine gleichmässige Erwärmung, bzw. Schmelze, zu messen sein.

Das ist völliger Unsinn.

Erstens ist die Erdoberfläche sehr heterogen aufgebaut, wodurch sich regional zeitweilig auch paradoxe Effekte (lokale Abkühlungen) ergeben können. Entscheidend ist die Entwicklung des Energiegehalts.

Zweitens: Wenn dein Argument richtig wäre, würde es auch für natürliche Einflüsse wie Veränderung der Sonnenstrahlung gelten.


ps: Hast du inzwischen den Energieerhaltungssatz verstanden?

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 37.086.842 von derwelsche am 04.05.09 02:40:41

#11598

Die Grafiken der anderen Datensätze sehen sehr ähnlich aus.
Nirgends wirst du einen Rückgang der Meerestemperaturen für mehr als einige wenige Jahre entdecken können.


#11599

Wenn du etwas über den IPCC-Bericht aussagen willst, solltest du erst mal reinschauen - und nicht falsche Aussagen aus dritter Hand zitieren.

Im "[urlSummary for Poliocy Makers]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf[/url]finde ich weder deine Tabelle noch die von dir behauptete Aussage!

[derwelsche]

Was ist das denn

Das IPCC verkündet in ihrer politischen Zusammenfassung das genaue Gegenteil von dem, was ihre eigenen Daten aussagen.

Unter key impacts wird darauf hingewiesen, daß bei weiter steigenden Temperaturen hunderte von Millionen Menschen zusätzlich unter Wassernot leiden werden Das ist meines Erachtens eine eindeutige Aussage.

Was aber sagt die zugehörige Datentabelle?

http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/200809_goklany_blog2.jpg

Nur Szenario A1 HadCM3 2025 geht von einem "Increase in stress" aus. Alle anderen Werte zeigen ein "Decrease in stress"

Jungs, ich bezeichne sowas als verarsche hoch drei