Recently, a peer-reviewed paper outlining a scientific argument against the Global Warming consensus was co-written by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. According to Dr. Spencer, real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models that increasing carbon dioxide causes cloud formation to exacerbate warming. The study of the same 10 years of data from the same satellites used by UN climatologists suggest that clouds are actually causing a “cooling effect” due to increased CO2, not the reverse. The paper does not refute an increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere due to mankind. It draws the opposite conclusion from the data than does the climate alarmists—the clouds are “doing their job”.
Dr. Spencer made a profound statement during the following video that applies to all areas of science: Scientists can look at the same set of data and sometimes draw opposite conclusions (This difference can be attributed to their differing worldviews):
Scientific disagreement on the interpretation of data is also highly pronounced in Darwinian Evolution. There is a growing number of scientists that are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution based on their own evaluation of data.
My own view agrees with the skeptics of Darwinian Evolution on the basis that, for decades, evolutionists have taught in schools that life “must have” begun by the formation of the first simple single cell, from which all higher life forms that we see today developed or evolved. Unfortunately, Scientists have now rejected this “origin of life” hypothesis from the theory of evolution. How could the origin of life hypothesis ever have been serious science if it is now rejected by evolutionists? How can evolutionists expect us to reasonably accept the concept that evolution theory is sufficient to explain the “development of higher, more complex life forms arising FROM the FIRST CELL” if evolutionary processes are insufficient to explain the origin of the first cell?
The origin of life hypothesis has been deleted from evolution theory simply because there is no consensus on how life first began, short of fantasies about alien life seeding from outer space—a notion that is currently being popularized by the History Channel. Does this sound like good science, or science fiction?
Given the same set of data from the geological record, the following video illustrates that a different interpretation of Darwinian Evolution is in order. Does the fossil record really indicate “gradual change over time” that gave rise to higher, more complex life forms from earlier, more simple organisms?
Consider that all hypotheses formed from data are based on one’s worldview, but what shapes one’s worldview? Could a life-long, constant diet of flawed, one-sided, un-provable hypotheses presented as almost irrefutable truth not shape our worldview?
In my view, it certainly has…
For this reason, it is imperative that Academic Freedom bills should be enacted in states to provide both sides of a scientific debate for ANY controversial scientific theory, not just Global Warming and Evolution.