web analytics

Jones and CRU exonerated by parliamentary inquiry

Written By: - Date published: 12:07 pm, April 11th, 2010 - 31 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

The site was down last weekend, so this event did not get reported. Gareth at Hot Topic posted this and it is reposted here with permission. Like most of the denialist assertions, ‘climategate’ was just selective spinning, but the refutation as usual gets less media coverage than the spurious accusations.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the disclosure of climate data by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has just been released [PDF, via DeSmogBlog], and it clears Phil Jones and the CRU on all charges. From the press release:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—’trick’ and ‘hiding the decline’—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The report calls for greater transparency and availability of climate data. Committee chairman Phil Willis said:

What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.

More coverage at the Guardian, Times Online, The Independent and New York Times. Prepare for a deluge of spin from the denialist camp: Benny Peiser, head of Lord Lawson’s shiny new British sceptic think tank (you may remember Lawson refusing to disclose his backers when questioned by the inquiry — so much for transparency) is already on the job, as the the Guardian discovered: ‘It doesn’t look like an even-handed and balanced assessment. It looks like an attempt to whitewash and I fear it will be perceived exactly as that. I fear this will backfire because people will not buy into it.’ And of course Benny’s already out there doing his best to create that very perception. No ‘fear’ involved, it’s the impression he wants to create.

31 comments on “Jones and CRU exonerated by parliamentary inquiry ”

  1. Turn off the TV 1

    The one good thing about this whole sorry saga is that the opponents of action on climate change have now been shown to be what they are. They’ve overplayed their hand and now everyone knows what cards they have

  2. I wish that I could agree with you TOTT but the wingnuts will be back. They are quite silent right now but I am sure they will be back.

    They do not debate the issue rationally, they look for the slightest chink in the most ephemeral of issues, pound it for what it is worth and then claim that the science is wrong and the globe is not warming.

    It seems to me that creationism type counter science is spreading throughout science and that humankind is in for a rough time.

    • Clipbox 2.1

      I think its quite a sweeping statement to say that climate denier’s science can be compared to the scientific ideas that creationists use to argue against human evolution. Even the winner of The Prime Minister’s Science Prize 2009 Dr Jeff Tallon is himself a creationist and I don’t think you could doubt his scientific ability.

  3. Pascal's bookie 3

    I think its quite a sweeping statement to say that climate denier’s science can be compared to the scientific ideas that creationists use to argue against human evolution.

    No it isn’t. They use very similar types of arguments. “Peer review is biased against us” “look at this statement signed by x number of scientists speaking outside their field”, “AGW/Evolution says x (when it doesn’t)”.

    Even the winner of The Prime Minister’s Science Prize 2009 Dr Jeff Tallon is himself a creationist and I don’t think you could doubt his scientific ability.

    Yeah. that sort of thing. I’m sure Dr Tallon has awesome scientific ability, but if he thinks the science doesn’t point to human evolution, then on that matter, he’s left his scientific ability at the door and is using something else in it’s place.

  4. Clipbox 4

    That’s a bit of a cop out to say a scientist would just leave his science at the door when you know that scientists always use evidence to back up their arguments. I’ll leave this at his article. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10616394&pnum=3

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1

      That’s a pretty awful piece.

      For example, he claims that it is incredibly unlikely for various complex biological structures to have appeared purely by chance. Evolutionary theory actually explains how these things happen. It isn’t by chance. Things are selected by darwinian processes. The search space for a new form isn’t ‘all possible forms starting from scratch’, but ‘slight modifications of existing forms’. This is a rough and ready description for sure, but so is his article.

      Leaving that aside, the article is more a defensive piece about whether or not the existence of God is probable or not. I don’t see him explicitly stating that he doesn’t believe humans evolved from other lifeforms. Maybe he does believe that, but this article doesn’t show that.

      “creationism’ is a broad church. Some believe in theistic evolution, with the creator merely kicking the whole thing off, and setting the scene, as it were, for the universe to unfold with us in it. Others like some so called ‘biblical literalists’, believe in ‘special creation’ with humans being created by God in our current form.

      • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1

        But anyway, the article is a good example of the sorts of things both AGW and evolutionary deniers write, ignoring the screeds of evidence to focus on an argument from incredulity*, so thanks for that.

        http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

        *He argues that the only way for the universe to be as it is,
        is if there are x number of other universes,
        where x conveniently = too many for him to accept;
        therefore, “why, it’s just absurd”.

        That is an argument to be sure, but it’s not a scientific one, and it should be noted that there may be other ways for the universe to be as it is beyond the ‘conveniently absurd number of universes thesis’. He also gives no reason why the existence of God is any less absurd than the existence of other universes. A rather telling miss seeing we know, at least, that things rather like universes do exist.

        • tsmithfield 4.1.1.1

          Hi Pascal,

          Multiverse theory has been advanced as an explanation for how the finely tuned universe we exist in came about:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

          However, this theory involves replacing one scientifically untestable entity (God) with an infinite number of scientifically untestable entities. If we were forced to choose between multiverse theory and the existence of an intelligent originator as an explanation for the existence of the current universe (which we aren’t) then on the basis of Occams razor, then the intelligent originator theory would have to win out.

          • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.1

            We already know at least one universe exists though T. The God hypothesis needs the existence of a whole new class of unknown entity.

            If you see more batshit that can be created by a single bat, and already know that one bat does exist, Occams razor would suggest imaging many bats over a single batshit breathing dragon.

            • tsmithfield 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I’m not sure that analogy works any better, PB. The multiverse is supposed to be composed of universes that each have their own distinct properties. Therefore, a more accurate way of stating your analogy would be to say that because we know a bat exists we can say an elephant exists. Thus, from the point of view of testability, I am not sure that you can rely on the existing universe to point to the existence of other universes that are fundamentally different to the one we exist in.

              Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to argue a theistic position here. My view is that science can demonstrate how things work, but not the why. The why ends up being a faith issue as it is untestable. People will either accept a theistic explanation or not.

              Given that multiverse theory is ultimately untestable because we can’t leave our existing universe to observe others, then multiverse theory is at a similar level except it requires more entities.

              Look at it this way. Imagine you have been put in front of a firing squad. You here the guns go off, but awake to find yourself alive. It would not be a very satisfactory explanation to hypothesize that there must be an infinite number of universes, and in one of those universes people survive firing squads. A more concise explanation would be that the shooters were bad shots, or some other more plausible explanation.

              • Pascal's bookie

                Bats have their own distinct properties. Elephants do not produce batshit.

                I’m not relying on the existence of this universe to point to the existence of other universes that are fundamentally different to the one we exist in. I am just saying that this universe exists. We know from that that universes are definitely in the set of things we know exist. This is not the case with gods.

                It’s not a difficult point.

                Your analogy with the firing squad somehow manages to miss it however. It would only be analogous if I took it for granted that people survived firing squads and one day some clever clogs discovered that the laws of physics allowing for that survival needed to be just so. Sure, I might think ah there must be god what set things up just so, praise be.

                But we know better, because we live in a different universe from that other me proving the multiverse theory within the analogy.

              • tsmithfield

                As I said, I don’t want to try and argue for the existence of God, persue. But rather whether a multiverse explanation is a more parsimonious explanation than a God one.
                (or some other single cause for the beginning of the universe for that matter).

                So far as the multiverse is concerned, this is tied into string theory. String theory proposes the existence of all sorts of unprovable entities. For instance, branes, and extra dimensions. As I understand it, the requirement for extra dimensions has been added because without them the theories don’t work. Depending on the version of string theory being considered, the number of required extra dimensions can vary. Under some string theory explanations I have read, the collision of a brane from another universe with the brane from our own supposedly caused the big bang. However, again, such a collision has never been observed or never can be.

                The fact that in string theory unprovable entities are being stacked on unprovable entities makes it fairly tenuous as a theory for everything.

              • Pascal's bookie

                None of which makes it a less parsimonious explanation than ‘God dunnit’.

                God’s traditional description includes being able to create a multiverse, a pony, and a bag of chips, ex nihilo; just by thinking it. I can’t think of anything less parsimonious than that.

                Even if I could, God simply out-do it in any case. I think that’s in one of Anselm’s proofs.

          • NickS 4.1.1.1.2

            I’m going to be on a /facepalm roll tonight…

            No, ID is not the simpler hypothesis, as you need to go through all the various questions that arise from such a hypothesis, vs the competing hypothesis in order to quantitatively work out which one’s simpler…

            Which it doesn’t take much thinking to realise the issues with the two concepts you mention above are deep, but more so that ID involves lots of special pleading and appeals to teology in order to justify itself, where as it’s competitor here goes more along the lines of “insufficient data/theory work/beer imbibed/technological constraints”. Which in terms of ye olde science, is somewhat better, but still plagued by speculation and lack of supporting evidence. Then there’s the parallel to abiogenesis vs ID, which it doesn’t take a degree in molecular biology to figure out the reasons why the ID hypothesis is a giant load of sh*t….

            Also, it’s worth noting that any origin of the big-bang theory is at this stage highly speculative (hello Penrose…), and that string theory is not even wrong.

            • NickS 4.1.1.1.2.1

              I have, it’s neat per the blackhole hypothesis, but I still find it highly speculative 😛

          • lprent 4.1.1.1.3

            You obviously haven’t run across the evolutionary multiverse…

        • NickS 4.1.1.2

          It’s also a massive argument from ignorance that fails utterly to examine seriously any competing explanations, let alone think quickly over what is life, let alone the line of (just as flawed) reasoning “that because humans are outnumbered by black holes, thus the universe is fine tuned for producing blackholes”.

          Though of course, it must be all about us, because otherwise we have no purpose 1!!!1111!
          /sarcasm

          • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.2.1

            I like Douglas’ line about the puddle that thinks the hole in the ground it rests in was fine-tuned just for it.

            Such a special puddle.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2

      And that article proves that his scientific ability is lacking. It doesn’t matter what the chance of something occurring randomly is. The lower the probability doesn’t prove that there’s a god, it just proves that there’s a lower probability.

      He is, quite simply, using the low probability to justify his own beliefs.

  5. Minami 5

    It’s quite irrelevant to bring the issue of creationism into the climate change debate.
    Climate change is measurable, creationism is something we cannot measure directly.
    That’s the difference between experimental science and observational science.
    The evidence of always the same, it is the interpretation of it that is disagreed upon. The issue of creationism will need more space than this forum provides. Just bear in mind that evolution, even though it’s part of the modern scientific framework we have been taught, is still a theory. Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

    • NickS 5.1

      /The Stupid, It Burns

      …creationism is something we cannot measure directly.
      That’s the difference between experimental science and observational science.

      /facepalm

      Not this again…

      All experimentation does is allow us to directly influence what’s occurring within a system of interest, of which we then observe the results, and a lot of the time we don’t have that luxury and rely purely on observation + thinking, of which you’ve evidently failed to think here, because otherwise I wouldn’t have this crap to deal with.

      Anyhow, the issue with observational vs experimental science is that it fails to realise that it’s not that difficult to pick up real patterns straight from purely observational data. Which is how Newton etc were able to figure out quite a bit of astronomy, and Darwin & Wallace were able to notice and develop initially their concepts of evolution and natural selection. So the question then is why privilege one over the other? If it’s possible, and indeed practical to merely observe and produce scientifically valid conclusions why put experimental science over observation science?

      The answer I would say is that experimental sciences allow us control and a deeper ability to prod and deal with a system, and thus is easy to think that it lords over observational science, which misses entirely the fact that observational science is still just as possible of being as scientific as experimental science. And then there’s prodding merrily at the the justifications for the criteria used to judge one as better…

      But to the point, it’s a bet easier to side step (Nick is hungry, plus needs sleep) it for the moment, and note that what experimental science allows us to do is further refine and look at the hypothesises we’ve formed from observational data, but that it’s not a necessary thing for something to be considered “science”. Which in terms of your argument brings up the lulzy note that climate science is primarily observational, particularly for gaining information about past climate and how the atmosphere and surface indicators are reacting, which is then used to generate models which are tested against new data as it comes in. The actual experimental stuff is mostly small and doesn’t cover a hell of a lot, which makes the whole thrust of your post rather contradictory in terms of evolution vs creationism vs climate change.

      Also, we can observe evolution directly (google talk.origins), although it doesn’t take much thinking to realise the ahistorical nature of science*, i.e. science deals with the patterns events leave on the world around us, aka evidence (like time series stuff in high school physics, or patterns of geological units that indicate a fault), this whole “direct observation” meme is the result of human stupidity and rhetorical bullsh*t. In that it ignores completely how we go about observing, but also that we’re typically directly observing past patterns, whether they be fossils or gene trees, and thus we should be able to directly observe the patterns creationism should have left. Which we don’t see any evidence of for the claims of young earth creationism, let alone (un)Intelligent design claims when it comes to stuff like frontloading or Dembski’s fail-tastic No Free Lunch theorem because they don’t exist. As the a priori assumptions guiding them are fractally wrong, but will never be thrown out because their tied to a belief system that’s fundamentally delusional.

      …it is the interpretation of it that is disagreed upon.

      lolwut?

      You’re ignoring the lovely, widespread tendency of creo-bots to ignore anything that’s inconveniently in the way of their conclusions and merrily cherry pick the available evidence. Which if you tried to pull off during while doing a MSc or above, would get thee metaphorically lynched….

      Just bear in mind that evolution, even though it’s part of the modern scientific framework we have been taught, is still a theory. Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

      /facepalm

      Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is, all the theory is about is the about how evolution occurs, much like how the theory of gravity describes how gravity works….

      And I’m too tired to finish this off, so I’ll leave it to further cluebatting tomorrow, since there’s a good deal of stuff to talk about or link to on the fact/theory stuff, which people seem to universally suck at understanding. Actually, I still have a post from 08 on this one, might just post it right here since it was a good one.
      ___________________________
      *…and this is one thing I need to rifle through a pile of philosophy/history of science papers/notes for. Or write a blog-thing post on, when ever it is I finally get it up and running.

    • NickS 5.2

      Me sick, but on the fact vs theory account, here’s a somewhat lucid post* I wrote last year when another creo-bot brought this up, see the first part:
      In which a Dolt is mocked and philosophy of science cluebat is deployed…

      And I’ll chuck in the requisite wikipedia link:
      Evolution as Theory and Fact
      Which links to other discussions, if anyone wants a bit more to read.

      Also, while by brain’s running on milo:

      Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

      Nice, but the problem is that in order to first question something, generally in science you have a set of interesting observations that can be built into a solid argument that indicates a given theory, hypothesis, law and or accepted methodology is wrong. The road though is generally “fun” fun as in the British definition which involves “character building” and messiness, although you might get lucky and find a gaping hole in the literature to use and attack from.

      Generally though, the stuff your building your argument from needs to be scientifically valid, which generally means avoiding informal/formal argumentative fallacies and importantly fitting in with the rest of the network of scientific knowledge, bar that which you’re challenging. Of course, with creationism, particularly the young earth and intelligent design varieties, there’s typically keystone fallacies associated with them, and then there’s the massive clashes with very well established lines of scientific knowledge, all of which is based off religious truth claims, rather than empirical evidence, per the standard examples.

      Which makes the general thrust of your concluding point rather f*cking hilarious. Not that I’m expecting you to reply though, since you seem to think PB is easier to deal with

    • NickS 5.3

      Lets try this again, and apologies to Iprent if it double posts…

      Me sick, but on the fact vs theory account, here’s a somewhat lucid post* I wrote last year when another creo-bot brought this up, see the first part:
      In which a Dolt is mocked and philosophy of science cluebat is deployed…

      And I’ll chuck in the requisite wikipedia link:
      Evolution as Theory and Fact
      Which links to other discussions, if anyone wants a bit more to read.

      Also, while by brain’s running on milo:

      Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

      Nice, but the problem is that in order to first question something, generally in science you have a set of interesting observations that can be built into a solid argument that indicates a given theory, hypothesis, law and or accepted methodology is wrong. The road though is generally “fun” fun as in the British definition which involves “character building” and messiness, although you might get lucky and find a gaping hole in the literature to use and attack from.

      Generally though, the stuff your building your argument from needs to be scientifically valid, which generally means avoiding informal/formal argumentative fallacies and importantly fitting in with the rest of the network of scientific knowledge, bar that which you’re challenging. Of course, with creationism, particularly the young earth and intelligent design varieties, there’s typically keystone fallacies associated with them, and then there’s the massive clashes with very well established lines of scientific knowledge, all of which is based off religious truth claims, rather than empirical evidence, per the standard examples.

      Which makes the general thrust of your concluding point rather f*cking hilarious. Not that I’m expecting you to reply though, since you seem to think PB is easier to deal with

  6. Minami 6

    “creationism’ is a broad church. Some believe in theistic evolution, with the creator merely kicking the whole thing off, and setting the scene, as it were, for the universe to unfold with us in it. Others like some so called ‘biblical literalists’, believe in ‘special creation’ with humans being created by God in our current form.

    This is entirely correct, and it illustrates the fact that humans have fallible theories. Just because there are many versions, this doesn’t mean that one isn’t closer to the truth. Creationism has a biblical basis that addresses the origin of life and from that, critiques evolution. Evolution addresses the process, but cannot point to any origin.

    “the article is a good example of the sorts of things both AGW and evolutionary deniers write, ignoring the screeds of evidence to focus on an argument from incredulity”
    The evidence is always the same, it’s the interpretation of such evidence that is disagreed upon.

    Debating creationism vs. evolution will never be solved in this manner, as is evident by the number of academic papers out there both supporting and denouncing evolution and creationism.
    You have addressed a very small part of the debate which I think you well know, will not convince any current creationists out there, it’s best to agree to disagree at this point in time.

  7. Pascal's bookie 7

    I certainly agree that creationists aren’t likely to be swayed by anything I say. But that’s not really the point. Creationism is not scientific. For creationists who are biblically based (and this is by no means all of them, eg Vedic Creationism is based on the Hindu creation myths), their belief is one based on a ‘revelation’ that they believe to be true.

    I have no particular interest in changing their religious view, but you cannot argue that biblical creationists who base their views on a revelatory theory of truth are being scientific about it. They simply are not. They interpret the evidence first and foremost to fit into what they already believe to be true, if it doesn’t fit it is either ignored or denied. What is known is that what they believe to be true (the revelation) will remain what they believe to be true.

    As an example of the type of thing ‘special creation’ type creationists ignore, I’ve never seen one address some of the things we see when we compare human chromosomes to those of other apes.
    This will again be rough and ready, but I’m pretty sure the guts of it is correct.

    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the other apes have 24. This causes no problems for creationists of course, because their theory doesn’t predict anything. Whatever we find is what God created.

    For evolutionary theory however this difference in number requires an explanation. As the theory says we share a common ancestor, then the difference must be accounted for. This accounting allows for predictions about what we might find when we look.

    If we share an ancestor with the other apes then humans have either shed a chromosome pair, two chromosome pairs have fused, or the other apes have gained a pair. of the three options the middle one is most likely and is so the best place to start looking. (This is because losing all the info in a pair of chromosomes would likely be catastrophic, and the chances of all the other apes gaining a pair seems like a less fruitful avenue for research.)

    Lo and behold, when we look at our chromosomes there is a pair that is formed out of the fusion of two other pairs. This can be seen because the ends of chromosomes have distinctive patterns that serve as marking points, and they have central patterns that mark where the pair are joined. These (now redundant) markers for the old pairs of chromosomes can still be seen in the new fused chromosome pair. Further, when you look at what the old pairs would have looked like, they correspond to those of the other apes, just as the theory would predict.*

    In a further ‘coincidence’ there are sometimes replication errors that have little or no effect. A large chunk of ‘data’ might be transcribed backwards, as it were, with all the info still present but just put down in reverse order. In humans there is a particular bunch of several thousand base pairs that has been replicated this way at some time in our history. the info does appear in the other apes, but in us it is in reverse order.

    That’s no big deal, but what is a big deal is that the exact some bunch of info has also been affected the same way in chimps. The same random but ineffectual transcription error, in the same place on the genome is present in chimps as in humans, but not in other apes. just the sort of thing you wold expect to see if we had common ancestors with the apes, and if we shared a more recent ancestor with chimps than we do with orang’s.

    Creationism doesn’t have much to say on this, it’s just irrelevant to their concerns. As you say, we can agree to disagree, but to pretend that both sides are just interpreting the evidence in scientific ways but getting different results is nonsense.

    None of this is about whether or not God exists by the way.

    *Creationism has no explanation for why these redundant markers exist. It doesn’t need one. If they didn’t exist, their theory can say that’s how god made us, as they do exist, they can say so what? There was a fusion. The point is that with evolutionary theory if those markers didn’t exist, the theory would be in deep shit, as there would be no viable explanation for why we have 23 pairs as opposed to 24. One side makes robust predictions that can disprove their theory, the other just points to a revelation and forces reality into it.

    • Minami 7.1

      It’s interesting that you mention how it is unscientific to interpret evidence based on previous knowledge – such as the bible. However observational science – working out events that happened in the past – assumed the use of previous knowledge, namely the scientific paradigm of Darwinism – when interpreting the same evidence.
      In addressing the similarities between the ape and human genome, I’d like to point to some of the arguments in “The Answers Book” – written by Ken Ham,Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland.
      Edited by Don Batten. (All prominent academics, honours in BSc or Phds) It’s important to point out that this is one of the many views being articulated, as there are many other theories out there.
      You are wrong to say that creationists aren’t concerned with the views that you hold. Christian apologetics societies exist so that we have answers for these sorts of issues.
      Just because a view differs from yours, it doesn’t mean that it’s unscientific. Just like Clipbox pointed to the credibility of great scientists, it’s important to see we don’t have all the information. Other people do the research and summarise it for us. We don’t know the complete process and therefore cannot deem it scientific. This is true for both creationist research and conventional scientific research.
      I’d like to recognise that you’re obviously very well-read on the subject, and that if you put out a book one day on the subject, I’d very much love to read it, and provide my own views countering yours. Active debate and discussion is the way by which science and knowledge progresses in out search for truth.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

        and provide my own views countering yours.

        You’ve just proved that there’s no point in you reading anything. As far as you’re concerned you already have all the answers.

        BTW, there’s no such thing as “creationist research”.

        • Minami 7.1.1.1

          “You’ve just proved that there’s no point in you reading anything. As far as you’re concerned you already have all the answers.”

          I’ve proven no such thing. I’ve simply expressed that I will differ in opinion, not that I, or anyone, are correct. It’s arrogant to assume that any individual has all the answers.

          • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1

            “It’s arrogant to assume that any individual has all the answers.”

            Not sure who was doing that, I’ll look back…

            ” “The Answers Book’ written by Ken Ham,Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland.”

            You were saying?

            “If you disagree with what I’m going to say, please do not give me your opinion, because I’m not interested,” he begins. “I want to know what the Bible says.”

            Ken Ham

            http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/creation.html

            Ken Ham sure seems to think that the bible gives him all the answers.

            The Bible—the “history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence’ confirms the biblical account

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/about

            Which is exactly what I was talking about when I said this:

            I have no particular interest in changing their religious view, but you cannot argue that biblical creationists who base their views on a revelatory theory of truth are being scientific about it. They simply are not. They interpret the evidence first and foremost to fit into what they already believe to be true, if it doesn’t fit it is either ignored or denied. What is known is that what they believe to be true (the revelation) will remain what they believe to be true.

            Ken Ham goes so far as to deny that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. It’s blief, but it’s not based on science. That’s ok, no one says you have to believe what science tells us.

            It’s interesting that you mention apologetics, which is what these guys are doing. Apologetics is not about discovery of truth, but rather about the defence of an idea. Why ideas would need such things as apologetics to defend them (rather than just normal good old fashioned evidence) is a question I’ll leave you to think on.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Report shows progress on Homelessness Action Plan
    The Government has welcomed the release of the second progress report on the Homelessness Action Plan, showing that good progress is being made on every one of the immediate actions in the Plan. “Homelessness will not be solved overnight, but I am pleased to see that this plan is continuing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Arts and cultural festivals get funding boost
    One of New Zealand’s oldest cultural festivals and a brand new youth festival are amongst four events to win grants to help them grow, attract new audiences, and boost local economies.  Economic and Regional Development Minister Stuart Nash has announced new support from an incubator fund launched last year to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Govt to rev up reductions in transport emissions
    The Government is calling for feedback on a range of potential policies to eliminate emissions in the transport sector. Transport Minister Michael Wood today released Hīkina te Kohupara – Kia mauri ora ai te iwi - Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050, a Ministry of Transport report outlining ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government recognises David McPhail’s contribution to New Zealand comedy and television
    Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Carmel Sepuloni today pays tribute to David Alexander McPhail (11 April 1945 – 14 May 2021) – New Zealand comedian, actor, producer and writer. David McPhail ONZM QSM had a comedy career that spanned four decades, across both television and theatre.  “David’s contribution to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Support for drought-stressed regions fills a need
    An innovative iwi-led plan to help maintain water supply to a far North community battered by drought is set to get underway with support from the Government, Acting Minister for Emergency Management Kris Faafoi says.  “The impacts of climate change are not something that just our grandchildren will have to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • KiwiSaver default provider scheme improvements slash fees, boosts savings
    Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will be significantly better off in retirement following changes to the default KiwiSaver scheme, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark said today. The new default provider arrangements, which will take effect once the terms of the current providers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Industry leadership for our training system becomes reality
    Six new Workforce Development Councils formally established today will ensure people graduate with the right skills at the right time to address skill shortages, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. Every industry in New Zealand will be covered by one of the following Workforce Development Councils: •           Hanga-Aro-Rau – Manufacturing, Engineering ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Rotorua Emergency Housing update
    The Government has announced a suite of changes to emergency housing provision in Rotorua:  Government to directly contract motels for emergency accommodation Wrap around social support services for those in emergency accommodation to be provided Grouping of cohorts like families and tamariki in particular motels separate from other groups One-stop ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Further COVID-19 vaccine and economic support for the Pacific
    New Zealand will be providing protection against COVID-19 to at least 1.2 million people in the Pacific over the coming year $120 million in Official Development Assistance has been reprioritised to support Pacific economies in 2021 Foreign Affairs Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Associate Health and Foreign Affairs Minister Aupito William ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Statement on the escalation of violence in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Gaza
    Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta today expressed Aotearoa New Zealand’s grave concern at the escalation of violence in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Gaza. “The growing death toll and the large numbers of casualties, including children, from Israeli airstrikes and Gazan rockets is unacceptable,” Nanaia Mahuta said “Senior officials met ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Trade Minister to travel to UK and EU to progress free trade agreements
    Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O’Connor announced today he will travel to the United Kingdom and European Union next month to progress New Zealand’s respective free trade agreement negotiations. The decision to travel to Europe follows the agreement reached last week between Minister O’Connor and UK Secretary of State for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pre-Budget speech to Business New Zealand
    Kia ora koutou katoa It’s great to be here today, at our now-regular event in anything-but-regular times. I last spoke to some of you in mid-March. That was an opportunity to reflect on an extraordinary 12 months, but also to reflect on how the future was shaping up. In what ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Te Hurihanganui growing with Nelson community celebration
    Nelson is the latest community to join the Te Hurihanganui kaupapa to drive change and address racism and bias in education, Associate Education Minister Kelvin Davis announced today. Speaking at today’s community celebration, Kelvin Davis acknowledged the eight iwi in Te Tau Ihu for supporting and leading Te Hurihanganui in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Te Hurihanganui Nelson Community Celebration 
    Te Hurihanganui Nelson Community Celebration  Victory Community Centre, Nelson   “Racism exists – we feel little and bad”. Those were the unprompted words of one student during an interview for a report produced by the Children’s Commissioner in 2018. They were also the words I used when I announced the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Child wellbeing reports highlight need for ongoing action
    The Government has released the first Annual Report for the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy and the second Child Poverty Related Indicators (CPRI) Report, both of which highlight improvements in the lives of children as a result of actions of the Government, while setting out the need for ongoing action.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Formal consultation starts on proposals for Hawera schools
    Education Minister Chris Hipkins today announced a formal consultation for the future of schooling in Hawera. "Recent engagement shows there is a lot of support for change. The preferred options are for primary schools to be extended to year 7 and 8, or for a year 7-13 high school to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • He Whenua Taurikura: New Zealand’s Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism
    The Government is progressing another recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry report into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain by convening New Zealand’s first national hui on countering terrorism and violent extremism. He Whenua Taurikura, meaning ‘a land or country at peace’, will meet in Christchurch on 15 and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Hundreds of new electric cars for state sector
    Total of 422 new electric vehicles and charging infrastructure across the state sector $5.1 million for the Department of Conservation to buy 148 electric vehicles and install charging infrastructure $1.1 million to help Kāinga Ora buy 40 electric vehicles and install charging infrastructure 11,600 tonnes of carbon emissions saved over ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Apartments give new life to former Trade Training hostel
    A building that once shaped the Māori trade training industry will now revitalise the local community of Ōtautahi and provide much needed housing for whānau Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson announced today. The old Māori Trade Training hostel, Te Koti Te Rato, at Rehua Marae in Christchurch has been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Opening of Te Kōti o Te Rato at Rehua Marae, Ōtautahi
    *Check with delivery* It is a great pleasure to be here with you all today. I acknowledge Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the trustees of Te Whatu Manawa Māoritanga o Rehua Trust Board. The opening of six new apartments on these grounds signifies more than an increase in much-needed housing for Ōtautahi. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Major step to pay parity for early learning teachers
    Certificated teachers on the lowest pay in early education and care services will take another leap towards pay parity with their equivalents in kindergartens, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said in a pre-Budget announcement today. “Pay parity for education and care teachers is a manifesto commitment for Labour and is reflected ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New Zealand Wind Energy Conference
    Tēnā koutou katoa Tēnā koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te Rā No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa  Thank you Grenville for the introduction and thanks to the organisers, the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, for inviting me to speak this morning. I’m delighted that you ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Speech to New Zealand Drug Foundation 2021 Parliamentary Drug Policy Symposium
    Speech to Through the Maze: On the road to health New Zealand Drug Foundation 2021 Parliamentary Drug Policy Symposium Mōrena koutou katoa, Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, Kua tae mai nei me ngā kete matauranga hauora, E whai hononga ai tatau katoa, Ka nui te mihi! Thank you for the opportunity ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Govt to deliver lower card fees to business
    Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark has today announced the Government’s next steps to reduce merchant service fees, that banks charge businesses when customers use a credit or debit card to pay, which is estimated to save New Zealand businesses approximately $74 million each year. “Pre COVID, EFTPOS has ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government support boosts Arts and Culture sector
    Government support for the cultural sector to help it recover from the impact of COVID-19 has resulted in more cultural sector jobs predicted through to 2026, and the sector performing better than forecast. The latest forecast by economic consultancy ‘Infometrics’ reflects the impact of Government investment in keeping people in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Govt takes further action against gang crime
    The Government will make it illegal for high risk people to own firearms by introducing Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPOs) that will strengthen action already taken to combat the influence of gangs and organised crime to help keep New Zealanders and their families safe, Police Minister Poto Williams and Justice Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Thousands of MIQ spaces allocated to secure economic recovery
    Five hundred spaces per fortnight will be allocated in managed isolation facilities over the next 10 months, many for skilled and critical workers to support our economic recovery, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor say. “The Trans-Tasman bubble has freed up more rooms, allowing us to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Zealand Sign Language Week a chance to recognise national taonga
    This week (10 – 16 May 2021) is New Zealand Sign Language Week (NZSL), a nationwide celebration of NZSL as an official language of New Zealand. “We’re recognised as a world leader for our commitment to maintaining and furthering the use of our sign language,” says Minister for Disability Issues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Economic resilience provides more options in Budget 2021
    Securing the recovery and investing in the wellbeing of New Zealanders is the focus of Budget 2021, Grant Robertson told his audience at a pre-budget speech in Auckland this morning. "The economy has proven resilient in response to COVID-19, due to people having confidence in the Government’s health response to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Pre-Budget speech to BNZ-Deloitte Auckland Breakfast Event
    Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today, and to share with you some of the Government’s thinking leading into this year’s budget. This will be my fourth time delivering the annual Budget for the Government, though the events of the past year have thrown out that calculation. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Rotuman Language week affirms language as the key to Pacific wellbeing
    The first Pacific Language Week this year  makes it clear that  language is the key to the wellbeing for all Pacific people said Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio. “This round of language  weeks begin with Rotuman. As I have always  said language is one of the pillars of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Budget delivers improved cervical and breast cancer screening
    Budget 2021 funds a more effective cervical screening test to help reduce cervical cancer rates A new breast screening system that can proactively identify and enrol eligible women to reach 271,000 more people who aren’t currently in the programme. Budget 2021 delivers a better cervical screening test and a major ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • NZ-France to co-chair Christchurch Call Leaders’ Summit
    New Zealand and France will jointly convene the Christchurch Call Community for a leaders’ summit, to take stock of progress and develop a new shared priority work plan. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and President Emmanuel Macron will co-chair the leaders’ meeting on the 2nd anniversary of the Call, on 14 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New South Wales travel pause to be lifted tomorrow
    COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins says the current travel pause with New South Wales will lift tomorrow – subject to no further significant developments in NSW. “New Zealand health officials met today to conduct a further assessment of the public health risk from the recently identified COVID-19 community cases in Sydney. It has been determined that the risk to public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • March 15 Collective Impact Board appointed
    The voices of those affected by the March 15 mosque attacks will be heard more effectively with the establishment of a new collective impact board, Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment Priyanca Radhakrishnan announced today. Seven members of the Christchurch Muslim community have been appointed to the newly established Board, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • More young Kiwis supported with mental health and addiction services
    Nearly quarter of a million more young New Zealanders will have access to mental health and addiction support in their communities as the Government’s youth mental health programme gathers pace. New contracts to expand youth-specific services across the Northland, Waitematā and Auckland District Health Board areas have been confirmed, providing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New hospital facilities mean fewer trips to Auckland for Northlanders
    Northlanders will no longer automatically have to go to Auckland for lifesaving heart procedures like angiograms, angioplasty and the insertion of pacemakers, thanks to new operating theatres and a cardiac catheter laboratory opened at Whangārei Hospital by Health Minister Andrew Little today. The two projects – along with a new ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Fair Pay Agreements to improve pay and conditions for essential workers
    The Government is delivering on its pre-election commitment to implement Fair Pay Agreements which will improve wages and conditions, as well as help support our economic recovery, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood announced today. Fair Pay Agreements will set minimum standards for all employees and employers in an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Establishment of the new Māori Health Authority takes first big step
    Sir Mason Durie will lead a Steering Group to provide advice to the Transition Unit on governance arrangements and initial appointments to an interim board to oversee the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. This Group will ensure that Māori shape a vital element of our future health system, Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Cycle trails move up a gear in Central
    Work on new and upgraded cycle trails in Queenstown, Arrowtown and Central Otago is moving up a gear as two significant projects pass further milestones today. Tourism Minister Stuart Nash has announced new funding for the Queenstown Trails Project, and will also formally open the Lake Dunstan Trail at Bannockburn ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago