Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Soot Experiment

-
Global warming alarmists want us to believe that CO2 concentrations are rising, the rising CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm and the warming atmosphere is causing glaciers and ice caps to melt.

However there is another mechanism that can melt snow, ice, glaciers and ice caps- soot. Get the reflective stuff dirty and that dirt traps the heat from the sun's rays.

There was a show on the Discovery Channel about global warming- a pro AGW show. One scientist was in the Arctic demonstrating the albedo effect. Below freezing temps and nice white snow. He then laid down two 2'x2' pieces of cardboard- one was white and the other was black. The white one stayed the same as the ambient and the black one rose to over 90 degrees within a couple minutes.

He wanted to demonstrate that having no Arctic ice cap to reflect the sun's rays then that will add to the over all global temperature.

What he demonstrted was that dirty snow gets warm and warm snow melts.

So this is what I did. I took the ash from my pellett stoves and spread it over my unshoveled back walkway- over two feet deep. I did it half way down, leaving the other half pristine white. That was a few weeks ago.

Now the sooted half is melted down to the walkway and there is almost 2 feet of snow left on the other half.

Exposed to the same temperatures, exposed to the same amount of sunlight, the sooted half melted so much faster it is easy to conclude the cause and effect relationship.

The point being it isn't the CO2 and by focusing on CO2 we are missing the root cause.

Take a close look at glaciers. Find one that is pristine white and melting. Good luck finding one that white.

58 Comments:

  • At 10:45 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Wow JoeTard, you are one impressive IDiot.

    First you overturn all of modern biology with your 'ticks like watermelon' blockbuster.

    Then you falsify 150 years of evolutionary evidence by calculating the CSI of a cake.

    Now you destroy 100 years of solid climate research with some dirty snow in your back yard.

    Tell us JoeTard, why hasn't a shining genius like yourself won a Nobel Prize in science yet?

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow Thorton you're stioll an ignorant piece of shit.

    The tick thing doesn't overturn anything but your ignorance.

    Measuring the information of a cake doesn't do anything to evolution.

    And there isn't anything called "solid climate research".

    As a matter of fact what I did was follow the lead of a climate scientist and a little common sense.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey has anyone won a Nobel Prize for anything to do with the theory of evolution's claims?

    Why not?

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard: Hey has anyone won a Nobel Prize for anything to do with the theory of evolution's claims?

    You mean besides Urey, Watson, Crick, and a few hundred others?

    Really JoeTard, you IDiots need to read some of the actual scientific literature for a change instead of that swill from Lacey Cuntskin at the DI.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    You mean besides Urey, Watson, Crick, and a few hundred others?

    BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    Harold Urey won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of heavy hydrogen.

    Watson and Crick won it for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.

    Nothing to do with the claims of the theory of evolution.

    IOW you are an ignorant piece of shit just as I have been telling anyone who will listen.

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey has anyone won a Nobel Prize for anything to do with the theory of evolution's claims?

    Why not?

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.

    Also the 2009 Physiology or Medicine Nobel prize went to Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase". Szostak has since worked on the evolutionary aspects of this discovery, seeking explanations for how chemistry became biology in Earth’s earliest days.

    Any similar credentials for *any* ID proponents?

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.

    It's so indispensable no one can produce positive evidenc for its claims.

    OM:
    Also the 2009 Physiology or Medicine Nobel prize went to Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase".

    Nothing to do with the claims of the ToE.

    OM:
    Szostak has since worked on the evolutionary aspects of this discovery, seeking explanations for how chemistry became biology in Earth’s earliest days.

    And still no positive evidence to support the theory's claims.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger OM said…

    That's right Joe. They just give Nobel prizes out for nothing.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    They just give Nobel prizes out for nothing.

    They do? Obviously they don't give out Nobel Prizes for supporting the theory of evolution.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Nothing to do with the claims of the ToE."

    How do you know that? From the title of the work or from an intense study of it? Given that's what you've said about every example ever presented to you, who's more likely to be wrong? You or dozens of other people who've tried (and failed) to educate you?

    If the authors of the work, who won a Nobel, say that evolution was an integral part of that work and entire topic then who are you to say any different? And they have said that.Just go read for a few minutes on what they did. What they went on to do.

    Or just put your fingers back in your ears and shout "lalalalal" if you prefer. I know which is the more amusing!

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How do you know that?

    You have failed to make YOUR case. You just spewed something as if it has some meaning.

    Tell us how their Nobel Prize winning work supports the claims of the theory of evolution.

    OM:
    Given that's what you've said about every example ever presented to you, who's more likely to be wrong?

    I have supported that claim also.

    All you do is ignore what I wrote as if your ignorance means something.

    OM:
    You or dozens of other people who've tried (and failed) to educate you?

    You guys are ignorant and liars. Ignorant people cannot eductae other people.

    OM:
    If the authors of the work, who won a Nobel, say that evolution was an integral part of that work and entire topic then who are you to say any different?

    ID is not anti-evolution.

    Did they say blind, undirected chemical processes were integral part of that work?

     
  • At 4:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Did they say blind, undirected chemical processes were integral part of that work?"

    Yes.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Did they say blind, undirected chemical processes were integral part of that work?"

    OM:
    Yes.

    Liar.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical process can account for chromosomes, telomeres, nor the enzyme telomerase.

    Their work seems to be pretty useless for your position's claims.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "There isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical process can account for chromosomes, telomeres, nor the enzyme telomerase."

    How does ID account for those things?

    "They were designed"

    Wow, that's real useful.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "There isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical process can account for chromosomes, telomeres, nor the enzyme telomerase."

    OM:
    How does ID account for those things?

    So your "answer" is to try to change the subject?

    And yes saying something was designed is very useful. Archaeology and forensic science proves it is useful, or are you claiming these are useless venues?

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "and yes saying something was designed is very useful. Archaeology and forensic science proves it is useful, or are you claiming these are useless venues?"

    Yes, that's right. However Archaeology and forensic science don't just leave it there as you do. They provide some further details. Such as how it was created (the edges of bones that have been chopped can tell you what tool was used to chop it) and who the bone belonged to (male, female, what species, what age when they died, how well nourished they were).

    So you can only claim analogies with those sciences when you come up with the same level of *evidence* and *detail* that they do. Simply saying "something was designed" is easy to do. Those sciences are called sciences for a reason. And ID is not called science for the very same reason.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    However Archaeology and forensic science don't just leave it there as you do.

    Your ignorance is showing again.

    OM:
    They provide some further details.

    They do what they can. However even you have said that an arsonist can be found given the lack of a cause.

    We still don't know how Stonehenge was created.

    So as I have been saying for decades- reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question.

    And THAT is what ID is all about- the detection and study of design(s).

    That also fits in with archaeology and forensics. And your blathering is still meaningless.

    BTW your position doesn't have any evidence nor detail. Therefor by YOUR standard it ain't science.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "We still don't know how Stonehenge was created."

    Yes we do. By Humans. With tools. What tools and which humans are open to debate but there's no doubt that it was humans.

    "And THAT is what ID is all about- the detection and study of design(s)."

    And what has the last decade of such study determined? That "some things were designed". Wow. That's some level of detail right there.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So as I have been saying for decades- reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question."

    You know, that's really laughable.

    So if you've been at this for "decades" what scientific determinations have you come to about

    A) the nature of the designer
    B) the specific processes used

    ?

    Anything at all you can share? How about "the designer must have had really small fingers to be able to manipulate DNA"?

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "We still don't know how Stonehenge was created."

    OM:
    Yes we do.

    No, we don't.

    OM:
    By Humans. With tools.

    That doesn't say HOW.

    "And THAT is what ID is all about- the detection and study of design(s)."

    OM:
    And what has the last decade of such study determined?

    A lot more than the previous 150 years of blind watchmaker research has produced.

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That doesn't say HOW."

    Neither does ID.

    "A lot more than the previous 150 years of blind watchmaker research has produced."

    Such as?

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "So as I have been saying for decades- reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question."

    OM:
    You know, that's really laughable.

    It is a fact of life.

    And if you are too stupid to understand that fact of life then you are too stupid to discuss science.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That doesn't say HOW."

    OM:
    Neither does ID.

    That is because that isn't ID.

    However your position doesn't say HOW.

    Your position doesn't have anything. And that bothers you.

    Good.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That doesn't say HOW."

    Neither does ID.

    "A lot more than the previous 150 years of blind watchmaker research has produced."

    Such as?

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Everything we know from transcription to translation, including overlapping genes and alternative gene splicing.

    Both the Human Genome and ENCODE projects have supported the claims of ID- the specification runs deep. And all you can do is choke on it.

    Just look at this thread- we have thortard chiming is with irrelevant bullshit and then fires back with pure raw ignorance.

    Then we have you chiming in off-topic (as usual), spew something, fail to support it and now you derail the thread to try to distract from the fact that you are full of shit.

    Soot melts white snow even when the temperature is below freezing and the white snow is not melting.

    This is what is causing the problems with melting glaciers and ice caps.

    If you have something to say about that then go ahead- otherwise piss off...

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Both the Human Genome and ENCODE projects have supported the claims of ID- the specification runs deep."

    supporting a claim is one thing, generating new science is another. And according to you "specification" is "it makes proteins". LOL.

    ID cured many genetic conditions lately? No.

    Is ID likely to help come up with any cures in the future? No.

    Is ID helping expand our knowledge of DNA and how life works? No.

    So if you are happy with general claims that anybody can make being supported then I guess ID is the thing for you!

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    supporting a claim is one thing, generating new science is another.

    And teh design inference will generate new science- ie the questions you keep asking that have nothing to do with ID- the who and how.

    OM:
    And according to you "specification" is "it makes proteins".

    That is ONE specification. And that is because what is required to make proteins.

    OM:
    ID cured many genetic conditions lately?

    ID isn't the current paradigm so it hasn't had a chance.

    OTOH your position hasn't cured anything.

    OM:
    Is ID likely to help come up with any cures in the future?

    Absolutely- just as archaeology and forensic science helps come up with answers, so will the design inference.

    OM:
    Is ID helping expand our knowledge of DNA and how life works?

    Absolutely, and it will do even more once it becomes the accpted paradigm.

    OTOH your position has accomplished absolutely nothing.

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Absolutely, and it will do even more once it becomes the accpted paradigm."

    And when will that happen? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the soot keeps building up the melt-down will occur sooner rather than later.

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    No, Joe, when will ID be the accepted paradigm?

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The thread is about soot vs CO2.

    If you can't follow along nor stay on-topic then fuck off.

    Or better yet , seeing you want to make this personal, meet me and let's get it over with.

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Or better yet , seeing you want to make this personal, meet me and let's get it over with."

    I've told you before - I don't swing that way!

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Piggyback."

    Yeah, because energy asks information if it would like a piggyback ride and it just hops on.

    "Stored on pages and disks and personal memory"

    How? How do you take some energy and add information to it?

    I guess this is much the same as asking how the "designer" acted. The designer designs. Information piggybacks onto energy. Don't ask any more questions!

    "energy can't exist without information."

    But information can exist without energy, or so you claim. How odd.....

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I don't know- what is your point?"

    The point is that you make strong claims but then when asked about the entailments of those claims you don't know the answers. This puts your other claims of knowledge about similar issues into some significant doubt. To say the least.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What an asshole- you can't stay on topic and you can't respond in the proper thread.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The point is that you make strong claims but then when asked about the entailments of those claims you don't know the answers.

    But you ask irrelevant questions. And when pressed for their relevance you dance away.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Or better yet , seeing you want to make this personal, meet me and let's get it over with."

    OM:
    I've told you before - I don't swing that way!

    Liar- Then why are you making this so personal?

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Then why are you making this so personal?"

    Am I? Is asking questions making it personal then? Why is that?

     
  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, you are.

    Ya see the questions you ask and the way you ask them say that either you are making this personal or you are just an asshole.

    I say both apply. Also the questions you ask could be easily answered if you just go out and read the pro-ID literature.

    Then there is the fact that when I post about what is actually being debated you just blow it off.

    You are a willfully ignorant intellectual coward.

     
  • At 4:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    " The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes. "

    If that's true then one wonders why you have not commented on the "anybody got any predictions about frontloading" thread on TT?

    http://telicthoughts.com/archaios/#comments

    3 comments so far. None from you.

    It's funny but when the opportunity to talk science comes up on the ID side everything goes quiet. I would have thought that given how oppressed you claim that ID ha been you would jump at the chance to stake your claim.

    And of course there's http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org another dead ID site where nothing happens. I guess the Darwinists are oppressing people so much that they can't contribute to a Wiki either. It's amazing how well those Darwinists can infiltrate computers, to the extent that peoples work on ID just does not get to the destination. Well, that or they are not doing it at all, take your pick!

     
  • At 4:59 AM, Blogger benjamin said…

    I'll come fight you, Joe Tard. Where do you live?

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It's funny but when the opportunity to talk science comes up on the ID side everything goes quiet.

    Nice projection asshole.

    I take it that is all you have.

    OM:
    I would have thought that given how oppressed you claim that ID ha been you would jump at the chance to stake your claim.

    We have staked our claim.
    OTOH your position offers nothing.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    benjamin:
    I'll come fight you...

    OK- whenevr you come to New Hmpshire just post the hotel\ motel you are staying in and I will be there as soon as I can.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Nice projection asshole.

    I take it that is all you have."

    So prove me wrong! Go comment on that thread, make some ID predictions!

    "We have staked our claim.
    OTOH your position offers nothing."

    Yep, that's right. That's why ID is doing so well.

    "OK- whenevr you come to New Hmpshire just post the hotel\ motel you are staying in and I will be there as soon as I can."

    Better stock up on the lube benjamin.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have presented an ID hypothesis complete with prdictions. Others have done so also.

    OTOH yo cnnot produce a testable hypothess for your position.

    You are a coward and a tosser.

    You think yor ignorance means something- you are beyond pathetic.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "I have presented an ID hypothesis complete with prdictions. Others have done so also."

    So go test your predictions. What are you waiting for? Go contribute to that thread at TT then, give them the benefit of your insight.

    Oh, that's right, your "predictions" are things like "DNA will be found to be more complex then we think right now" or "Most DNA will not be Junk".

    "OTOH yo cnnot produce a testable hypothess for your position."

    That's right. I guess I'd better write all those scientists who have produced such and tell them they are mistaken - Joe says it, I believe it. Nuff said.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "OTOH yo cnnot produce a testable hypothess for your position."

    OM:
    That's right. I guess I'd better write all those scientists who have produced such and tell them they are mistaken -

    Strange how you cn't find one and reproduce it here.

    IOW you are lying, again.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So go test your predictions. What are you waiting for?

    Tested them and they have passed.

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Oh, that's right, your "predictions" are things like "DNA will be found to be more complex then we think right now" or "Most DNA will not be Junk".

    Nope. But keep guessing.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Tested them and they have passed"

    Sure you did. Now what? What's next then?

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Strange how you cn't find one and reproduce it here."

    Yeah, funny that. Perhaps you can give me an example of what such a test would be? What test would you consider as evidence for "my position" then?

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Strange how you cn't find one and reproduce it here."

    OM:
    Yeah, funny that.

    No, it's expected. You and your ilk are all bluster.

    Ya see, maggot, the proper way to refute ID is to actually produce and support a tstable hypothesis for your poition. Yet you can't so you need the courts and Nazi thought police to hold others back.

    And now on to your cowardice:

    Perhaps you can give me an example of what such a test would be?

    It's YOUR position fuckbrain. If you cannot provide a way to test it then go back under your rock and stay there.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Ya see, maggot, the proper way to refute ID is to actually produce and support a tstable hypothesis for your poition."

    If ID is not anti-evolution like you keep claiming why would finding evidence for my position refute ID?

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If ID is not anti-evolution like you keep claiming why would finding evidence for my position refute ID?

    I have been over that- many times. You choose to ignore it- why is that?

    Then there is
    What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?
    - but you will ignore that too.

    Do you think your willful ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Do you think your willful ignorance is meaningful discourse?"

    Do you?

     
  • At 3:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Do you think your willful ignorance is meaningful discourse?"

    OM:
    Do you?

    No, I don't think your willful ignorance is meaningful discourse.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home