The Ten Most Disturbing Scientific Discoveries

What a load of utter rubbish. This is hype/spin to get more taxes out of people for those who are already richer than most people imaginings will ever take them...

The Framingham Study does not prove what you say it does, and your entire paragraph for item number four sounds like it should come from a tabloid instead of the Smithsonian Magazine.

The original Framingham report states in part:

"In undertaking the diet study at Framingham the primary interest was, of course, in the relation of diet to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). It was felt, however, that any such relationship would be an indirect one, diet influencing serum cholesterol level and serum cholesterol level influencing the risk of CHD. However, no relationship could be discerned within the study cohort between food intake and serum cholesterol level.

In the period between the taking of the diet interviews and the end of the 16-year follow-up, 47 cases of de novo CHD developed in the Diet Study group. The means for all the diet variables measured were practically the same for these cases as for the original cohort at risk. There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group…"

And:

"With one exception there was no discernible association between reported diet intake and serum cholesterol level in the Framingham Diet Study Group. The one exception was a weak negative association between caloric intake and serum cholesterol level in men. [As to] coronary heart disease–was it related prospectively to diet. No relationship was found."

Those are disturbing, unless of course they are not true.

For instance, Lets say the universe exists within an infinite space. How far to the edge in any direction is it from the earth? The answer would be infinity. Since the distance to the edge of infinite space is infinity in all directions, the earth is the center of the universe. Of course more precisely so are you.

Forget how far to the edge of matter comprising the visible universe that is a limited question. I say, how far to the edge of a PLACE TO BE. How far can you travel before you cease to be? Can you travel far enough from the light of the visible universe so as to look at it and see only the twinkling of a star? Or even not be able to see it at all. Get back to me with your disturbing news when you know the answer to that one.

#1
"Scripture said that the Sun revolved around the Earth,..."

No it does not.

Copernicus & Galileo proposed that the earth is not the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM, & they were right.

Modern science has no idea where the earth is located in reference to the center of the universe.

#7
I'll believe that when I see evolution actually produce a higher form of life from a lower form. Prokaryotic cells have a generation time of 20 minutes, so using selective pressures over a few years to turn them into eukaryotic cells should be both easy and cheap.

#9
Climategate - most evidence was either fraudulent, or built on fraudulent evidence.

It is disappointing that Smithsonian would run an article which offers theory as fact.

In the case of the Earth’s location in the universe, the scholars of the day used direct observation of the passage of the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies to theorize that we were the center. Copernicus challenged the majority opinion and offered proof that Earth revolved around the sun, yet most scholars insisted his ideas were absurd.

Thomas Jefferson relied upon direct observation to conclude that mastodons roamed the frontier.

The assumption that humans are, have or are capable of changing the climate comes from a consensus of ‘experts,’ based upon direct observation. These scientists offer charts to show how temperatures rose as the industrial age began and keeps rising. And they’re right, or were. It is, or was. Until eleven years ago, the temperature was climbing. Then it stopped and has dropped. Global Warming quickly became Climate Change. Same game, different name.

The Copernicus of the 21st century have found proof that when the time period was increased to millions of years, instead of a couple centuries, high CO2 levels occurred often over the millenniums and during ice ages, too. The idea that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere has been changed since scientists uncovered evidence of a process that sequesters the excess before it causes the atmosphere to overheat. Others discovered that the amount of solar radiation is the primary determining factor in the Earth’s temperature.

Like the consensus in Copernicus’ day, today’s Climate Change scientists have their reputations, their professorships, their research grants at stake. It may take several generations for the truth to sink in

None of the Ten disturb me i enjoy the gift of life and take one day at a time.

Referencing #10, Newton's gravitational constant G is equal to the speed of light squared divided by the linear mass of the universe. If the universe is expanding, meaning that the radius is increasing, then the linear mass is decreasing. If the linear mass decreases, the gravitational constant increases so that the universe will have more gravity and hence be pulled together. This is similar to the tornado where there are environmental oscillators with a range of temperatures and frequencies. This changes Planck's constant so that space-time moves out of dimension. This brings in low density, low-speed-of-light hyperspace energy into the tornado such that the light speed is 1 meter/second with a .078 kg/m linear mass. Thus G goes from 6.673200002*10^-11 to 12.8. This increase in gravity pulls the tornado in to create a tighter spiral giving the tornado its characteristic funnel shape. The same should happen to the universe which means that the universe will not become cold and desolate, as suggested by the author above.

And its all will go on for ever. That;s life.

Regarding #7.....you may consider yourself to be descended from apes, but I do not. You, nor I nor any other human is a descendent of apes. "Everything we've learned....supports his great insight"----no proof exists. Evidence can't be found for something that is untrue.

Ridiculous article, fraught with stupid science.

I think this is amazing. I like that Smithsonian is branching out and offering people the choice to decide what is disturbing and what is not. As far as science goes, I don't know anything about it, I'm still a teenager, so I've got plenty of time. Who am I to say it's wrong or right? For the most part I believe everything here, but that's because of what I see with the media and everything. This is good. :) And I prefer to not be too disturbed by everything here. My life will end eventually, and while I prefer it be later rather sooner, I know there's nothing I can do to stop it. So just enjoy what we have now, and don't worry about disturbing issues that rarely affect you personally anyways. :)

Bad article, even worse comments.

The universe is not infinite, it is infinitely expanding. If you can't tell the difference between the two, please go back to school and try not to fall asleep during class this time.

Humans ARE apes, whether you willfully ignorant, arrogant, religious nutcases believe it or not. In fact, your behavior only reinforces the notion that you are apes.

I don't know how many photos of the Arctic icecaps disappearing it will take before the deniers realize that the climate IS CHANGING. They'll probably still have their fingers firmly shoved into their ears when Antarctica becomes habitable to humans and the equator no longer is.

In short, the only people who would find the items on this list disturbing are the people who were ignorant, arrogant, or stupid enough to believe otherwise in the first place. The rest of us are going "Duh!" And as long as the majority of humanity falls into the ignorant, arrogant, or stupid category, we are ALL royally screwed. Thanks guys!

@Beth Rowell

Gravity IS a FACT despite Newton's THEORY of gravity being superseded by Einstein's THEORY of gravity. This does not (or would not ever) mean that gravity is not FACT (i.e. does not occur), merely that our understanding of HOW it happens was incorrect.

Similarly, evolution IS a FACT. If Darwin is ever proved wrong (which seems highly unlikely, far less likely then our understanding of the mechanisms of gravity, for instance), all that would imply is that evolution occurred by SOME OTHER mechanism, as evolution DID happen. It's the HOW it happened that's the THEORY, not the FACT that it DID happen.

There is as much proof supporting evolutionary theory as there is supporting electrodynamic theory, aerodynamic theory, atomic theory, the theory of heliocentricity, cell theory, germ theory, musical/acoustic theory, spherical Earth theory etc. etc. etc. etc.

If you would like to dismiss evolution as being "just a theory!", or perhaps "it's hasn't been proved!" then I suggest you also discard all of these above THEORIES.

Which would mean; no electricity or electrical appliances whatsoever, no planes/race-cars/high speed trains, no computers, no nuclear power, no modern medicine/anti-biotics/modern hygiene, no songs/guitars/pianos/violins, and what's more we would believe that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it (presumably the ancient Egyptian god Amon-Re out for a joyride in his chariot of fire).

In fact to dismiss any scientific theory as "unproven" you can pretty much leave your house right now in nothing except your birthday suit and perhaps a small stick for poking grubs out from bark, go live in a cave and use some nice dry leaves as toilet paper for rest of your life. Perhaps then, and only then, you wouldn't be outing yourself as being a giant hypocrite and scientifically illiterate, by claiming that something was "just a theory".

The FACT of the matter is; you're an ape, I'm an ape...

... DEAL WITH IT.

I'm going "Duh!"

(Why are consequences always disturbing for some types?)

It would seem many insecurities have been exposed. People seem to be focusing on specifics of what may be incorrectly worded, worded differently than they would word it or may be against their beliefs. Yet they seem to be missing the sutble point of the article. Knowledge, though empowering, can and usually does, cause us to question our selves and our beliefs.

In the human lifespan, some 70 to 80 years, does any of this really matter?

As soon as I read something in a piece decrying man (Mann?) made climate change I tune out. A year ago the global warming priesthood merely seemed naive, but after the CRU e-mail revelations, it's remaining members have passed naive and are now simply foolish

These comments prove that these discoveries are disturbing. The vast majority of people are too indoctrinated by religion or other dogmas to want to accept evidence so far removed from what they've been raised to believe.

"we misinterpret information to support our preconceptions"

The author was right -- for some of us, at least.

While there isn't much hard science, or "proof" of any of these topics, obviously that isn't the intent.

Each of these topics are the prevailing theories from the scientists of today in their respective fields. Evidence of how much they disturb people is obvious from the comments section.

Naturally, some refinement of these theories will take place as time goes by. However, they chances they are flat-out wrong are very slim indeed.

In a few more centuries it seems the people of today who deny climate change, evolution, and science in general, will get lumped into the same category as Pope Urban. What is fiercely debated today will turn into tomorrow's common knowledge.

wow

do you know how fast the speed of light is? trying to go that speed squared IS impossible. there is no way on earth it can be done

Well then how come we don't just face it and do industries and decisionmaking to support both the earth and ourselves as she changes, soften the fall, rather than hasten it exclusively like we do. Isn't there a way we can just do something instead of watching it all slip away in slow mo? Put away the devices and get our hands dirty. Environmental Battleship Admirals, Global Earth Healthcare professions, whence graduate students like this? Should I take a more activist role or keep my day job so to speak...

Thank you Mike. Very glad to see another person trying to get traction against the dietary nonsense that gets spouted out on a consistent basis.

Smithsonian - Deeper research is always appreciated. A number of other studies on diet that are held in high esteem have either been debunked (e.g. the seven countries study - exposed as selection bias) or have such weak statistical correlation (e.g. nearly all of the current dietary studies) that sending the data and conclusions to any statistics professor would have them rolling on the floor in stitches. Please be an advocate for actual science, not a supporter of cheap statistical studies that, in the end, are just observations.

I thought this was an interesting article in fact, that takes a look at some discoveries that disturbed the contemporary society - may be we are not "disturbed" by the story of Copernicus, but global warming is a controversial issue for us, whether it exists or not. The drawback of the article is that the author has taken a somewhat easy layman approach (sometimes fanciful - "...everything in the universe will ... a whimper") to scientific issues that deserve a more critical and analytical style of presentation. But I suppose some discoveries enumerated here do justify the title. On the whole an entertaining article, but not accurate scientifically on all the points.

Very interesting article and discoveries. They make you think: which are true, which are theorical, and which are false? Just thinking about the universe being infinite (which is my belief) can be mind-boggeling. If you just stop and think about there being no end to whichever direction you go leaves a very intense feeling inside. Makes me feel like my mind is tiny and not capable of processing such information. And also shows me that we are a lesser being, with God being the Creator of All.

Thomas Jefferson relied upon direct observation to conclude that mastodons roamed the frontier.

Did he directly observe mastodons roaming the frontier?

One point about the earth, or at least our galaxy, being the center of the universe. If the Big Bang expanding model is correct the same conclusion could be made by observers on any other galaxy even one billions of light years away. Most people don't realize how truly strange the universe really is.

Roz, Beth,et al.

We are not descended from monkeys or apes. We are one species of ape, descended from a common ancestor with other species of apes. Our common ape ancestors are descend from a common ancestor with monkeys (they took two different evolutionary paths), they are descended from a common ancestor of prosimians, who share a common ancestor, with a common ancestor, with a common ancestor, and so on and so on, back to the primordial soup, back to the formation of the earth, back to the formation of the solar system, back to the formation of our galaxy, back the the formation of the universe, back to the Big Bang, and before that? who knows, but it had nothing to do with a god, or higher power, or aliens, or a giant flying spaghetti monster (well possibly the last one). As for proof and facts. There are libraries and museums full of them. You should go check them out, take some classes, and actually educate yourself.

Anyone notice that the climate deniers now have exclusively adopted the techniques of the religious fundamentalists?

The "arguments" against climate change are identical in form and content to the "arguments" against evolution and cosmology.

There are what, a total of one response that might point out a potential factual error in an item in the list (i.e. it would require some research to determine if it were true or false).

In the rest of responses criticizing items in the list, you could pretty much substitute "climate change" for "evolution" or "big bang" and they'd all still read the same.

It's an interesting progression where a potentially legitimate question like "how do we know this?" or "what evidence is there for this?" becomes phrased as "it contradicts our religious or political dogma and is therefore a de facto falsehood".

I thought the list was interesting only in its ordering. The fact that climate change, the only item in the list that is potentially a grave threat to our species, is listed near the bottom after many discoveries of only philosophical or personal consequence.

That's a really sad indicator of the state of "modern" society.

Overall an excellent article, although I think I would have listed #8 on a separate list of the 10 most disturbing human behaviors. As to the comment by another reader that global warming stopped 11 years ago, that isn't supported by the evidence. 1998 was a very warm year (there was an El Niño), but the long-term warming trend is "catching up" again ... just look at the latest NOAA report about the warmest April on record!

It's very disturbing to read a piece like this and then see all the ignorant, angry commenters thumping their chests and trying to assert their dominance. More evidence that we're in the ape family, eh?

The climate is changing, it's a fact, we can observe it. We think we're the ones causing that change. But guess what? Even if that were wrong, we would need to make the EXACT SAME CHANGES. Why? Because what we think is causing climate change - fossil fuels, using too much and recycling too little - is not sustainable. Eventually the oil will run out, eventually there won't be room for all the garbage, eventually there will be too many people and we will no longer be able to squander as much per person as we do now in the richest countries. We have two choices; one is to keep chugging away right up until the end, then watch society fall apart when everything's used up. The other is to work hard now, make some minor sacrifices, and get ourselves into a sustainable society that can afford to grow. Getting mad because you have an emotional investment in being anti-environmentalists is just irrational and self-destructive; it's the kind of thing I expect from my eight-year-old, not adults. I don't care how much Al Gore makes you mad - I don't like the guy much either, but I don't use that as an excuse to ignore reality for a comfortable fantasy. I'd rather not have to do the work to wean us off petroleum and our wasteful lifestyle, but sometimes you have to quit whining, roll up your sleeves and get to work!

And the same goes with evolution - you're getting all worked up over an imaginary man in the sky. Worse yet, he's a character in a book written thousands of years ago by some primitive folks living in a desert! It's time to let go and face the facts, folks. We don't really have time for you to indulge in these satisfying personal fantasies - we've got work to do!

Let's not forget all the amazing discoveries that religion has given us. Oh, right..there aren't any. Does science get it wrong sometimes? Sure. But science continually questions it's prevailing theories. Religion questions nothing and has a history of fighting new knowledge and discoveries. How many people has science put to death because someone didn't have "faith" in their "beliefs"? I'll take science thank you.

I am very glad to see the rebuttals to your 10 Scientific discoveries. It is great to see the intelligence of your readers. It is sad to comment that the readers seem to be better informed between the differences of fact and theory.

Those who deprecate the fact that humans descend from creatures of lower intelligence such as apes further illustrate that we have a long way to go. However, as a childless woman I have less concern than my friends who have grandchildren. I attempt to live one day, one moment at a time and honor the human brain who understands zen.

Nice collection of facts. But some do not fit the scope (like sacrifice/cannibalism) and many other are left. But still a very good article.

On dark matter, dark energy, I'd like to educate the readers here that this is not science yet, the hypothesis is at a very-very early stage. A Wisconsin based scientist already found answer to some of the dark matter; it is nothing but black-holes that are small and do not form centers of galaxies. The discovery is confirmed but it is not clear yet how much dark matter can be accounted for from this. Perhaps there are multiple explanations for dark matter. And one of the explanations could also be our incomplete understanding of gravity itself which gave the reason to believe there is more matter. Similar goes for dark energy. Being unexplainable force doesn't necessarily mean it is a new force. Incomplete understanding of gravity plays a role here as well. And also the possibility of a known force at unexpected place and in unexpected form. Basically scientists are using dark matter and dark energy as umbrella terms for unexplained phenomenon. Just like 1000 years back we would blame every unexplained mystery to GODDIDIT, and some people still do. Not implying that scientists are superstitions, just an analogy how today's mystery is tomorrows science.

In short we are not sure that the known mass of the universe is only 4% of the total mass, and probably it isn't, but if we apply our today's knowledge that is what it comes out to be mathematically, perhaps because the knowledge is incomplete.

Since when has the global weather conditions on earth ever been static?

I do believe in one constant for the past millions of years is the earth has either been entering an ice age or leaving one.

So now some claim we had global warming, the solution: socialism and the Government take over the economy.

...now we have global cooling, the solution: socialism and the Government take over the economy.

Hrmmm.

I totally agree with Tenebras' comments on May 17, above.

Hey, we could just say, "It's all a lie!" But, that would not be any fun. Pondering the mysteries of the Universe is one of the most satisfying and fulfilling activities of Humankind. Thanks for an article (and all the commentary) that made me stop and "ponder" about all these issues for awhile. For most of them, the final word has not been said. Let's all keep the dialog coming.

Glaciers have melted, then advanced and covered the top third of the globe, then retreated and advanced again -- many times in recent geologic time -- without the intervention of man. They will continue to do so, regardless of what man does or does not do. Global warming advocates have lied, cooked the books and left out important evidence (like the medieval warming period and the little ice age.) Their credibility, and yours, is highly suspect.

If the author believes that the "Bible teaches the earth is the center of the universe," why not cite the chapter and verse?

The only thing that disturbs me about this article is the responses to it.

How can humanity be smart to figure all these things out, and yet morons have access to computers and (presumably) some sort of credibility in society?

No matter who or where you are you are as infinitely far frmom the edge of your universe as anyone else.

Some months ago my wife and I were in New York City and visited several museums including the Rose Planetarium of the New York Museum of Natural History. We saw the incredible presentation explaining the earth, our universe, and the unknown number of other universes that exist "out there". Our universe is a piddling little thing occupying a trivial amount of space in our universe. Out there in space there are no dimensions. No up, no down, no east, no west, no beginning, no ending

ad infinitum!

I am amazed that the Smithsonian, a publication that I always considered to be very reliable, would print a list with so many fallacies.

The title is a bit sensationalist, but the responses are even more so. Evolution is a fact until you find a better explanation - and prove it. You can't? Then I guess evolution is it.

And "Joseph on May 14,2010", your supposition "For instance, Lets say the universe exists within an infinite space" is inevitably incorrect. The universe is the be-all and end-all. There is nothing outside it. It stretches as dimensions do. And for there to be a 'centre' of the universe, there would have to be something there holding it together. That would be impossible. The universe isn't a bubble, it is an amorphous shape. etc etc etc.

Please research your theories, everyone, and don't rely on the Bible. It isn't a definitive source. When you do, come talk to me.

The most unsettling discovery here is the fact that most people who comment on these pages are terminally stupid. Go away and learn why a scientific theory cannot be described as 'only a theory'. A scientific theory is as a working model constructed with the very best available data. It isn't a hypothesis. It isn't a guess. You can't disprove it by saying, 'I don't believe in it' or by stating that an ancient manuscript said it's not true. You must provide a better model or valid evidence as to the original theories shortcomings - valid evidence, not silly stories about rocks and watchmakers, or stupid jokes about whether your granddad was a monkey.

The word 'fact' is an absolute, science doesn't deal in absolutes because, in the real world, they don't actually exist; that's the only reason scientific statements don't use the word 'fact'. Only religions talk about absolutes, i. e., 'this is so because scripture says it is.' Look at the trouble that attitude has led to in history each time it was discovered that something in scripture was discovered to be dead wrong.

I apologise if this comment appears inflammatory, but it's time people woke up and smelt the coffee.

Nice article! I gave up on the comments after about the first 25 or so... The willingness of religious misguided people to open their mouths in the US is amazing - in Australia they generally talk only amongst themselves because they know they'll get laughed at. And you can tell how entrenched their thinking is. What are they doing on the Smithsonian website?

I wish I was smart enough to know which bits of science are correct.

Hmmm... Digital computer? Cool. The cancer treatment that saved my loved ones? Cool. The technology that kept my Boeing in the air? Cool. Evolution? No way, stupid scientists!

This is a very superficially researched article for mag with as strong a reputation as Smithsonian's. (No mention of those little things called parasites nor, for instance, of the fact that DNA 'evidence' can be manufactured.) Here are a few contributions I can offer from my browser's Bookmarks list:

- The flawed human body - http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/New_book_examines_the_flawed_human_body.asp

- Several other animal species (including non-mammals) have been found to have what were formerly considered uniquely 'human' traits - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html

- Most life forms on Earth may be ultimately nonsustainable - http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#k

- In the wake of the hype about cloning animals, the scientists doing that work remark that a human clone would be "uglier, sicker, and dimmer" - http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18319

- Primitive life forms were merely self-sustaining energy-transfer entities - http://www.physorg.com/news148050302.html

- Among all known living things, only a jellyfish is truly 'immortal' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

@B. J. Sims

You asked where in scripture an earth-centric view is mentioned. While biblical interpretation can (and does) vary, these references were the ones used against Galileo:

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text (depending on the translation) stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.

From the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei


Personally I find the microbes to be one of the most disturbing. Given the speed of global travel, the rate of evolutionary change in bacteria and viruses, and enough time, it adds up to an equation that almost guarantees a new disease emerging which will cause a catastrophic death toll sometime in the future.

Since no one seems to care about our ancestors being cannibals and ritual sacrifice, I submit another disturbing scientific discovery to replace it: the Yellowstone supervolcano! (& the recent series of miniquakes the past few years) Sure, it dwells on a geologic time scale, but it's still a massive time bomb that will someday destroy most life on the planet, with nothing we can do to stop it.

Speaking as a scientist, educator and someone who has read the whole bible and studied it, what is most disturbing here is the number of people that are collasally ignorant of the contents of the Bible, science and math.

Yes, evolution is real. Yes anthropogenic climate change is real. Yes, the Bible does make statements that directly lead to the conclusion that the earth is flat, at the center of universe, and the the sun and stars travel around it. It also says many other things that are clearly factually wrong and only a perosn ignorant of science or the Bible or both could think otherwise. The Catholic Church, Martin Luther and John Calvin all condemned copernicus as blasphemous. While Saint Augustine thought it was biblically impossible for people to live on the other side of the earth even if it was round.

If you don't know who these people are. If you don't know the history of the reaction of various churches to scientific discovery. If you have not read the Bible cover to cover and thought about what each verse says and its implications. If you have not passed college level courses in biology, cosmology, or climatology. If you have not read the Bible from cover to cover. Your opinions are uninformed and you need to realize you are babbling nonsense. Go back to school and stop pretending your know better than the experts.

John, the trolls lurking in the comments section of the Smithsonian provide a much-needed counterweight to rational thought.

Or at least a counterweight.

What's unfortunate is that they ruin the discourse over at Scientific American as well! (Or maybe it's just one troll with multiple aliases.)

the ignorant comments here are hilarious. reality wasn't made for humans. that's probably hard for some people to accept

I'm not disturbed by any of this. If anything this guy is just showing how little we actually know and how little control we actually have in the grand scheme of things.

However, I do think it's funny how this guy claims man made global warming is now a "scientific discovery" while the people behind this argument are making a fortune off of this kind of ignorance.

Interesting article. It should inspire genuine humility. Although evolution seems to be factual, and religion has generally been an evil influence I still believe in God based on scientific evidence. The evidence is the writers who claimed to see miracles including the raising from the dead of various individuals. I guess one might choose to believe it was only hallucination or pure deception, if you wish.

What surprises me about the climate change deniers is that they don't seem to realize that every time they start up their car they contribute to pollution, that the smokestacks they see spew pollutants into the atmosphere, and that the so-called "climategate" nonsense is being propagated by the National Chamber of Commerce, members of Congress who represent energy producing states, and a whole host of organizations that are backed by energy companies. An investigation by the British House of Commons has concluded that the scientific data supporting climate change is valid. Surely by now, it would seem that some of the deniers would ask themselves about the motives of these front groups, and whether these groups have the deniers best interests at heart. Industries will invariably place profits above everything else. We only have to look at what has happened recently with coal mine disasters in West Virginia and China, at the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the effects of mountaintop mining in Appalachia to see evidence of man's impact on the earth and/or its' effects. Our continuing greed and demand for power through mining and drilling for oil will eventually be our downfall, unless we begin developing alternative sources of energy in the present. If one wants to look at it from the POV of Christianity, one could conclude that God gave us only one planet on which to live, and we are its' caretakers. Where will the billions of earth's residents go if we sit idly by and let life on our planet become inhabitable?

Hmmm. And I thought intelligent people would be reading the Smithsonian site. Based on some of these addled comments, that does not seem to be the case at all.

Thanks for the article and the commentators for ample proof that many of the discoveries are indeed disturbing. Predictably the most disturbed are those whose belief systems have been challenged. Sensibly we aren't commenting on our human sacrificing/cannibalistic ancestors. We are tactful when it's needed.

Some of us, in defending the science, have used the word "stupid", i.e., "lacking intelligence or common sense". If true of some please be kind... they can't help their affliction.

It's probably more accurate to describe the comments/commentators as "ignorant". A responsible person can fix ignorance.

Echoing HughMcB & Deb: people observe facts and science attempts a meaningful explanation (theory) as to cause. They are always a work in progress. Newton and Darwin proposed elegant theories explaining the facts of gravity and evolution. Their theories have since been refined in the light of new discoveries/facts. To my mind Darwin's theory explains evolution at a deeper level. It describes an underlying process. Newton's theory merely quantifies the macroscopic effects of gravity. We still don't have a tested theory explaining how gravity works.

I have sympathy for those beholden to a religion which forbids them thinking outside the scope of their chosen sacred text. Should these people appreciate the real world they are at risk of losing their social and family context as "unbelievers". They are also risking the wrath of God in that they are willingly denying the facts of His creation in favour of books written for/by people who had yet to discover most of what we now know. Even worse is that they are teaching this blinkered faith to children which implies (according to Jesus) they would be better off in a mill pond with a millstone around their neck. It takes true courage (or ignorance) to live this way.

First of all, to the hard-core science types above, the Smithsonian is not known in my academic circles as an authoritative scientific force, it is an institution that tells the story of America and does so from a specific perspective, to a specific audience. It is no less biased than any other state-run museum. However, it fulfills an important role in interpreting to a generalized audience, and it tends to do that job well even if they aren't good at spelling out all the details. Their job is largely to tell a narrative rooted in something approaching accepted facts and make it accessible and acceptable to the audience.

Secondly, I want to second the post by Ian above. "Theory" is not (or at least should not) be used lightly in science. If it is referred to as "theory" then there is no competing hypothesis that does a better job at explaining specific observations.

Thirdly, I would like to the "Climategate" folks out there that in report spanning thousands of pages, a handful of facts were incorrect. I guarantee you that I can pick up a textbook and find a dozen factual errors in there. And yes, the scientists involved were concerned about where to publish their articles. Science is incredibly political, I've heard of fistfights at certain conferences over bruised egos.

In addition, I know from the time I spent on several listservs with some of those doing environmental studies that the published reports are often far more conservative than what many investigators believe to be the case. Environmental change and climate change are very real, driving one another and becoming increasingly destabilizing in the geopolitical realm. At least three countries I know of have censored information by visiting scientists, threatening them with arrest and barring all further field work if they publish what they actually observe.

According to modern cosmology, the universe has no center. A useful analogy is that our 3 dimensional universe is like the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon. Draw the universe on the balloon and then inflate it. The galaxies get further apart. This is the expansion of our 3d universe. The surface of the balloon has no center. All points on the surface of the balloon are the same and are getting further apart from all the other points on the surface.

Saying something is true doesn't make it true. A large, large majority of this is based on hogwash and unproven science. Why would Smithsonian put their name on such garbage to besmirch their own name and credibility? This should be in snopes. Or is it already there? It's good for a laugh, but that is about all.

I find all comments interesting at least we are exercising our muscle between the ears and not sitting and watching TV.
I'm a little disappointed in some of the people that think they are superior to everyone else, I have found that the people that think they know it all in reality know far less than they realize.

Most of the people posting here have a pretty poor understanding of science, including Aaron (close but no cigar). All seem to see the adjective 'scientific' as a label of authenticity. Please remember that science is a method by which you avoid fooling yourself. It will not stop someone from conning you.

When you do investigate the science behind AGW you quickly encounter huge flaws. Climatology is a new scientific discipline that many older Atmospheric Physicists have serious contempt for, and sends most geologists running for a bucket. AGW is far from a scientific fact.

This brings me to Evolution. Please just shut up about it! Charles Darwin died a Christian. The Catholic Church proclaimed (in the 19th century) that his work showed the how wonderfully complex Gods creation was and most protestant priests agreed. The only issue has been atheists trying to use science to debunk God, without which I doubt that there would have been such a backlash against Evolution.

Evolution is the construction of a theory that is still in progress. There is so much evidence for it that there is no scientific alternative, but its not without flaws. I can see myself as more than an animal without going feral at the thought of a distant cousin in a zoo somewhere, so can you.

Which brings me to my last point, which is that atheists are as religious as anybody who believes in God. Please do not get fooled into thinking science is a substitute for religion. It is such a clumsy way of working out the truth that despite all the advances in technology derived from science, you can not equate science with fact. It doesn't work that well in any science other than Physics, and completely useless for everything else.

What a disappointing article.

When I'm at the supermarket I sometimes pick up tabloids and magazines at the checkout to read the silliness for a chuckle. But I don't want smithsonianmag.com to publish the same kind of thing.

I come to this site to learn and get information. I'm not here to read drivel.

An example

>> There have been mass extinctions in the past, and we’re probably in one now. <<

Is that fact / opinion / conjecture / speculation?

Comments decry the reality of dire, human-caused climate change, insinuating cynical political agendas. Yet there is no reason to believe Earth's rising temperature will drop in the future, and the current CO2 level is correlated with and caused a vastly different climate in the past.

"You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "Prior to the Industrial Revolution [and over the last 800,000 years]... the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million...But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend...
"'The last time carbon dioxide levels were...as high as they are today...global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher..., there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,' said the paper's lead author.
"'Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history.'"
--http://www.physorg.com/news174234562.html Oct 8 2009

The content (more explanation at the link) and source here should give any person cause for grave concern about consequences for all life on Earth given current and ongoing human activities. Ideological or emotional disbelief does not refute compelling scientific findings or suppositions about what humans ought to do now.

Some thoughts:

For certain disregard all comments with misspellings...those who comment should know better, where have these people been!

Several comments have indicated the thoughts of many are widely divergent and that is fine.

Many have suggested some of your comments engendered by this article are lacking in the schooling necessary to form a cogent opinion about anything. I agree!

Give me science over religion, always!

Climate change may be due to human action, or it may reflect natural changes that have occured over the past many millions of years. Many people prefer to believe that it we cause it - because then we can hope to cure it; others prefer to belive it is natural - because then it's not our fault and we don't have to be guilty.

Either way - the cause is not the issue.

What is the issue is that it is happening. The world is getting warmer. The change in global climate will have a huge impact on the world - in terms of species extinctions, in terms of food production, in terms of flooding (New York, Washington, London, almost the whole of Holland, lots of Denmark, Bangladesh, etc etc. - and countless millions of human lives are under threat.

We seem to spend all of our efforts in trying to rebottle the genie - that may help if it's our fault, but our best efforts are going only a very little way, and if it's natural then our efforts won't help at all.

What we need to do is to work out how to respond to what is pretty much inevitable. How do we cope with the results of a warmer climate, what plans are in place to deal with mass migrations of people displaced by starvation and flooding, how to we minimise disruption to food supplies.

The governments of the world do not seem to be addressing these questions, perhaps they should?

I think that the argument about climate change is not about whether it is happening or not, but about whether it is man made or not, and that is still not a FACT, and I am not even sure if I would classify it as a theory, since there is too many disturbing incidents that have tainted the so called evidence. A person can be Christian and still not deny the theory of evolution, since it does not contradict anything that we hold to be truth. Since evolution only is an observation of the evidence for change and does not have a way to answer WHY there is change and WHY we are, Who we are ETC. This is the realm of Theology and not biology. The two can be held to be true without contradiction. As to Galileo his censorship by the Catholic Church, the Church only would not declare that his conclusions were true, which they were not, since there is no evidence that either the Earth or the Sun is the center of the UNIVERSE. There was definitely more to it than that and personal problems that should not have been included in the judgement he received, but this is only a discipline issue with the Church and not a dogmatic proclamation as is always inferred in the attacks from those who want to attack the Church.

Thank you so much for reminding us that these ideas are indeed "disturbing" - and let's not forget it. And yet some modern readers find them to be no longer disturbing, but ordinary and obvious. That is what they have become over time, and we forget the effort and struggle that went onto the forging of the great ideas.
So just think of it: a generation from now, some other facts, such as global warming and evolution-based medicine will be seen as obvious. And folks then will be very superior and smug when they remember the old denials. Like Galileo's critics, the past deniers will seem laughable and futile. But now there will be a new dimension - the denials will have brought tragedy upon our descendants, because we waited too long to do the only right thing. "If only the ship had slowed down in those conditions, but they were all having a good time, etc." So future people may well despise us, as blind greedy beasts low on the evolutionary ladder. Ironic, because we think we are smart and know how to party with no consequences. Of course, many alive today will never experience them, human lifespan being what it is. Whether this matters to you depends. . . . . . ..

Very interesting comments. As for the case for climate change by man produced CO2, the believers are not making their position very well. If they trust the fact that man has created such devastation, they they should get sterilized. After all, less humans equals less emissions.

Fewer humans, Sam, not less humans. Let's add cows, too. Fewer cows = less methane and Co2. Some things about climate change we know as fact: the oceans are warming, coral reefs are dying, and the glaciers and arctic ice cap are shrinking. If we can help by passing less gas, I'm all for it.

We have lost a great deal of integrity in the scientific community as science today is not governed by my lifelong desire to find the truth even if it means living in a shack and eating beans and cornbread. Today's scientific work is so dependent on millions of dollars of grant funds that expecting the truth to come out is like expecting a politician to vote his heart instead of selling his soul to the highest bidder. We live in a world of sell-outs, some to religious dogma, some to the dollar and some to the latest craze in movie stardom. It seems no one has integrity anymore to search for the truth even though it may be uncomfortable. For the most part this article and the comments are both hogwash. Oh for the days of a simpler life.

I've been impacted by evolution in my short 40 years of life. At one time there was a tour available at Mammoth Cave (Kentucky) that allowed you to take a mini cruise on the lake in the 'basement' of the cave. The blind fish were one of the attractions but since we can't see in the dark, the tour was lit with artificial light. They no longer offer this particular tour because the fish's eyes started growing back. I'm no scientist, but this was proof enough for me.

After 80 years, maybe my observation is dimming, but I have traveled much of our globe, camera in hand. I went back to Glacier Park two years ago, and it had 25 fewer glaciers than it did when I was there as child. This year the businessmen in the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization published a report available to you, as a plea for mankind to treat global warming seriously, since the Park’s glaciers are fast melting and the organization fears loss of its tourist business. I went to Patagonia this year, and the guides all commented on the melting glaciers of the Andes, and we saw the retreats, and learned how the melts adversely effecting fresh water. I live in Florida, where the water levels of our Withlacooche Preserve on the Gulf are rising ever so bit, but enough to kill the root systems of the Red Cedars and the trees. I could go on with other experiences. This month’s National Geographic’s feature story is about the warming of Greenland. We can hide and not believe any of this is happening. It probably won’t affect our lives. But I am reminded of the admonition, we didn’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. That’s a bid debt.

Look around evolutionary is still taking place, and some are barely out of the trees. China is the biggest nation and polluter. Do you think we can get a third world country to get on board with cutting down on carbins??? Doubtful.

if you feel like these type of scientific observations are ridiculous or even insulting to your personal intellect, then the real question is why are you even reading this article?

Wow,
This is the first time I'd ever surfed over to Smithsonianmag.com. The replies to this article really disturbed me; until I realized that at the Nations museum one was probably going to get a broad representation of American opinion; and many Americans are rather undereducated.

I suppose I'll surf back at least few times more, to get the lay of the land. I just won't read the comments. In this way I can pretend that my fellow citizens understand simple things like relativity, cause and effect, and natural selection i.e. sixth grade science.

MODERN THEORIES ON THE UNIVERSE REST ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS NOT TESTED MUCH LESS PROVEN: NAMELY THAT ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION (LIGHT FOR EXAMPLE)DOES NOT LOSE ENERGY (WHEN VIEWED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FRAME OF REFERENCE) AS IT TRAVELS FOR MILLION OF YEARS. THE RED SHIFT IS ATTRIBUTED TO VELOCITY OF THE EMITTING SOURCE. EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT OCCURS IF THE PHOTONS LOSE ENERGY. I FIND IT STRANGE THAT THE LIMITATION OF THE THEORIES ARE NEVER MENTIONED.

Re #5 E=mc^2. Citing a number like 34,700,983,524 without units is meaningless. In this case the units are miles^2/sec^2. If you chose your unit of distance to be one hundred million meters, the speed of light would be 3 and the multiplier would be 9.

Most of the comments here are, to put it mildly, goofy as a cross-eyed git. Amazing how many people think the duty to question means never facing any fact that challenges their bizarre prejudices. And evidently a lot of folks only read sites like this in order to work themselves into a frothing snit. Dare I suggest they also find Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck worth their attention?

Don't usually comment, but some of this is incorrect or the author has demonstrated limited understanding.

I do believe in evolution, but no where does it claim that we are descended from apes. Even the big bang theory claims something was created from nothing. The only supposition here I would put money on is #6. Memories, like history, are subject to interpretation.

The 'theory'of evolution is that, just a theory, no proof available, just as creation is a theory (if you have poor understanding of the chicken or the egg thing)? I don't understand how evolutionists can discount creation so readily. How did the evolution cycle start? Is it just a never ending circle. I really don't get it, everything had to start somewhere.
Please prove me wrong, don't give me the atom turned into this and that etc...where did the atom come from..there's no answer.

Before we are humans, we are monkeys, we should all behave like monkeys, then humans. Money has no meaning to a monkey. It has all the meaning to humans. All the conspiracies lead to one thing the loss of monkeys.

Humans are not apes. We are primates.

Whew! The amount of ignorance shown here is *scary*. The -willful- ignorance is the really ugly part to me. These people could learn the reasons for the scientific consensus with a simple Google search, but they prefer to wallow in their ignorance rather than face the unpleasant ideas.

Yes, The Theory of Evolution is a theory - A 'theory' is the best you can get in science! It is also the ONLY theory that aligns with the millions of individual bits of evidence that the scientific establishment has collected over the last 200 years. 'Creation' is NOT a theory. It has been soundly falsified many times, unless you want to be so wishy-washy as to say that God 'created' in a manner indistinguishable from the Theory of Evolution. Sorry, you don't get to call Creation a Theory. It ain't!

I can't believe that people are still harping on 'Climategate'. Absolutely NOTHING that came out of those emails put the slightest doubt on any of the extensively-documented studies that make up the scientific consensus. There's no there, there, and to see people STILL trying to make it look like some sort of revelation.. Well, I suppose that the comments are proof that at least SOME people will listen to even the most obvious of lies if they align with what they WANT to believe.


If we agree with the scientific consensus on AGW, we should get ourselves sterilized? So anyone who's managed to educate themselves enough to understand WHY the scientific consensus is what is is, those educated people should be sure not to reproduce, rather than trying to fix the problem or create a legacy for their offspring - nope, they should all just die! That'll solve everything! - Until the increasing climate change starts to cause enough trouble that even the willfully ignorant can't ignore it anymore, but by then it'll be too late, all the educated people will have died off, and THEN where will the rest of you be? Who cares about the future, right?

And what is this about 'Darwin died a christian'?

"Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views )

Why is it that the so-called christians can never seem to be honest in their cites and quotations? Why do they constantly make claims that can be show to be false with a couple of minutes Googling of the current scientific consensus - On practically any and all matters they bring up?

'By their fruits ye shall know them', and it was those very-visible fruits that showed me the way out of religion and superstition. Their shining example has been just what I needed to show me WHY science is so much more trustworthy and efficacious than religion and superstition, and for that at least, I have to thank them all.

Well...don't believe everything you read...Global warming is really about global control instead of climate. Man is nowhere close to apes...I'm not a monkey's uncle and never will be! There's no proof at all for evolution and is the "great Lie", in fact in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermal dynamics! I'm fearfully and wonderfully made...but I think God I'm not a Liberal socialist atheistic Over educated moron than must light a match to the the sun, or the son! That's the problem with too much education...The more degrees you have the dumber you get and then you want others to pay you a salary for it! Gp get a real job and learn to work...don't sit around and think stupid thoughts and try to convince the rest of the world how smart you are....I love the smithsonian, but I hate the evolution lesson they keep forcing down your throat!
Gee Get a life and grow up!!!

In the Bible it says: God Knows All!
The World will always will be the same, people how-ever will change or leave as the world goes on and on into the future as it's self and just doing what it naturally does, something to that scenario! The prophecies though are very much coming true. I would suggest reading what the Indians have said about our future and what some of our great seekers of the future have also talked about...Almost all that they spoke of is happening, but people won't see this, they just ignore the Truth.In the Bible it says the water will turn red..Well, The B.P. Oil Guys did just what it is prophesied!Oh yes!...The Pole Shift!...well That last earthquake we had moved that city some ten feet! Yep, I would say it's the beginning of the Pole shift and who is going to be next?Also The Ring of Fire is also doing what was said also....Oh yes and greed and control well!...You know that is here and is not going away! Yep! Stuff is happening, so open your eye's folks and yes!... somewhere over that rainbow out there, we have friends?Enemies?in space or maybe visiting us and that truth will also be told too maybe!

I find it quite shocking that this article is on a website of this nature. Whilst all of the items have some measure of accurate theory to them, this is seriously sensationalized.

And then:

"..—a smidgen of plutonium is plenty—to create enough energy to destroy a city..."

Energy cannot be created! You learn about this in junior school science class. How in the name of hell can you publish a comment like that on a supposedly scientific website?

I'm incredibly disappointed!

It is frightening and stupid, blinkered and backwards Americans are.

What, no quantum mechanics?

What? How come everyone is bashing and arguing over this? I believe all of this is true and if you don't I feel sorry for you. Some people are saying certain things are impossible... since when?
I don't know, maybe it's good to argue. It might help us evolve. As long as you don't fear. We may all die tomorrow but do not fear.

I already knew when reading the article what the comments would mostly be about: evolution. The blissfully ignorant persistently denying any evidence of it, while sticking to a 2000 year old book based on fictional figures... deal with it! We're all descendants of apes and we should be proud to have made it this far!

People that do not or will not understand science should never, never comment upon the findings of science.

There is no reason to get blue in the face because we share a commnon ancestor with other creatures. It is a scientific CERTAINTY, not a matter of faith.

For those of us that respect faith, and share the need to reach toward God, and desire to touch that Mystery, have a little humility......you seem to find in your Biblical prophecies more reason to hate than to walk humbly with your God.

However, pardon us if we get a bit blue in the face at the kind of wilful ignorance that continues to deny the increasing scientific CONCENSUS that human activity is causing possibly catastrophic climate change. For those of us that are not in thrall to right wing ideologies or "scientists" concerned with the welfare of oil/coal/gas corporations, we know that your wilful ignorance is blocking the path to change and that ALL our children and grand-children, indeed all life on earth, will pay the price for humanity's stubborn wilful greed & stupidity.

Wow!!! The article was certainly very appropriately titled...

After being fascinated by reading through the comments, it is hard to add anything more. I do enthusiastically commend those people who made rational, fact based arguments and raised valid points about the facts cited in the article.

However, I do feel that ignoring the overwhelming evidence for global warming and it's effect on climate or the fact of evolution of microbes and their effect health and not think through the implications for our children and grandchildren is grossly irresponsible for us as citizens of this planet.

It is also important to remember that the Holy bible is not a scientific text...

The war between scientists and believers is an unnecessary contrivance. Feel free to lament the feebleness of my feeble mind as I pray for you. I am unbothered.

SARS came from fruit bats. NOT from eating civets. Displaced fruit bats from the great fires on Java and Sumatra in the late 90s ended up in SE Asian agricultural areas where their guano was consumed by hogs and chickens. This has been establshed by several independent sources. The original finding by New Zealand researchers.

All you over-educated types with huge egos explain this. Supposedly all our solar syatem was created from one source. How come only this planet has myriads of life forms, an eliptical orbit, and huge amount of water, seasons and a rather stable temperature. look at the rest, poisonous air if any, horrible heat or terrible cold, little water or frozen solid, and no life of any kind seen so far. To think this just "happened" all by itself shows ignorance and arrogance. Because most animals have similar skeletons proves nothing. Like begets like, something that cannot be denied. The so called "missing link" will never be found because it does not exist. Some have used various animal bones along with human ones to construct and present to children their "theory" as fact. Desperation !So we are to believe that black people, white people, asians, all came from some mutated ape. This planet is unique because it was made to be that way, and our eco system is always changing. Dinosaurs were quickly removed from Earth because humans could never have survived otherwise. Changes had to be made. It has been already stated after much calculation, that if we humans parked every car and truck, it would have less that .o4% difference to warming or cooling.

Bible?

"In the beginning Man created God"
That's all you need to know.

Do we have technology , I guess we do(?), that hovers silently in the sky as a bright orange light and then moves up into sky on a diagonal line fast and disapears. The object then comes back with in about 30 seconds and does this again? Any answers Definitely intelligent not a natural phenomenon

The great thing about being a sceptic is that you don't have to pass any exams. I doubt that most of these commentators could survive any undergraduate upper division class in the hard sciences.

I agree with what is been said here, except for #7. From what I read in cutting edge science literature, there is more and more evidence that random evolution can not explain the evolution of the cosmos within the current time frame. Some suggest that the energy that gave birth to the big bang constitutes a "potentiality" -- which is still a mystery, just like "dark energy" is still a mystery. However this potentiality, which manifests according to conditions, would represent the part Darwin called "evolution." In any case, without falling for "creationism," it is considered arrogant in a post-modern world to state Darwinian evolution as factual knowledge. A "source" of potentiality and its manifestation through "evolution" are not two contradictory notions. They are complementary.

For all of you fevered bible thumpers who feel the need to post, please. We know you believe in your powerful imaginary friend. We know that belief makes you "explain" evolution or climate change away with wild conspiracy theories about fabrication of evidence (though, evidence doesn't mean very much to you anyway, does it?).It's just easier to convince yourself that all these wicked athiestic scientists are out to conspire with their "theories", just to get your goat (why, one can only speculate).

But deep down...come on, deep down, you know this is bunk, and your ideas have been debunked. But, I realize it's hard to accept a harsh reality where mankind is not (if not the geographic, at least the conceptual) center of the universe. I know because I was there myself as a child. I know it's easier to stick your fingers in your ears and wish it would all go away. But the world is awesome. The elegance of natural selection is awesome. The improbability of life on this particular sphere of rock is awesome. Your relationship to the other species (and yes, other primates) is awesome. Don't blow it off - embrace it and consider it for all its wonder. It's much richer than the alternative, and has the additional advantage of being reality.

Did the smithsonian post this artical to test us??? dont always believe in what you read!

Where do you get your information? Numbers 9 and 10 totally contradict each other. You say we've already changed the climate for the rest of this century and then go on to say the universe is made of stuff we can barely begin to imagine. If it is then how on earth can you say WE'VE created global warming and changed the climate. What a bunch of bunk! I thought the Smithsonian was supposed to be a trustworthy source of information. I'm beginning to believe what everyone says - scientists will say anything to receive more funding! Shame on you Smithsonian!

Science vs Christianity?
What of the other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Coptics, Muslims & Mormons?
Not to mention the Bhudists, Hindus, Taoists, etc?
OK - so I win no spelling bees either.

Reading all these irrational criticisms of the above article just proves to me how true #6 really is...

"...Our cognitive failings are legion: we take a few anecdotes and make incorrect generalizations, we misinterpret information to support our preconceptions, and we’re easily distracted or swayed by irrelevant details."

"Concubines were sacrificed in China to be eternal companions" Or perhaps to eliminate any possible claims to the throne by the sons of former concubines.

#11

If people's comments online are in ANY way a representation of the how the human race truly is, we are doomed.

People start attacking other people unprovoked in comments on a Smithsonian page? Jesus.

An interesting article that took fact and sewed it together with doomsday rhetoric with a thin thread of truth.

Too bad scientific fact and theory were not differentiated taking an article which could have been an entertaining "opinion" piece on several scientific facts ( as I hesitate to say they are all actual discoveries as some are merely theories) and turned them borderline irrelevant by making them fantastical and sensational.

Still I read it, which either says a lot for you or against me. :)

The level of c02 has gone up in my life time. So some one said ( maybe he said ) it has not gone up at all in thousands of years? A lot of scientists are said to have said things about global warming. Only they say they never said that there was not global warming. Someone is lying, MANY SOME ONES! WITH LOTS OF MONEY!

In seeking truth it is important to remain "open to evidence" no matter what "side" you are on (I hate to put it that way, but many comments posted demonstrate angry competitiveness). There is no place in scientific study for judgemental name-calling and "know-it-all" attitudes. I observe that we humans need to step up to our "intelligent" responsibility to be good stewards of the rich resources our earth provides us. No other species, yet, has the capacity to make decisions based on knowledge acquired leading to consequenses with such global importance. I have relished perusing the comments made with thoughtful provocativeness, but nastiness from some certainly overpowered whatever clever point was attempted. As with politicians, I request you promote your point without debasing your opponent's position.

A fine example of politically progressive science is Global Warming or Climate Change. We should smell a rat the instant a group of people screaming “scientific fact” are also screaming about the closed debate and hurling ad hominem insults at those who disagree with their branded conclusions. What else can paint such an obvious picture of intellectual insecurity/dishonesty?

We can read the replies here and see the examples of those who disagree and make a plausible case and bullies who disagree and resort to insults about people being apes who need to go back to school and pay better attention. Some of us did pay attention in those childhood science classes where the first rule of scientific observation is an open mind.

They forgot #11: That science itself has been devolving from discovering facts, to simply making them up data support political ideologies at an alarming rate.

By 2012 the same people who write this article will be claiming that giant rock monsters will rise from the earth and eat our children unless Obama is reelected and more funding grants are passed.

The hype about global warming could be resolved with the simple act of moving all the monitoring stations away from the cities, which are artificial heat sinks, and put them out in the normal, natural environment. Of course it will be hotter by a concrete and blacktop airport than out in a forest or a grassy meadow.

This article is full of propaganda and lies. What a waste of time.

"Climate-Gate" is over. Many scientists have looked over the data and found it to be sound. The English profs sounded bad, but thier data (aside from the doctored tree ring chart) was solid. The only Phd levels scientists or above who do NOT believe in climate change are almost always getting grants from high polluting industries or are heavily invested in oil or mining. So far 99% believe it is happening. All the junk science in the world won't give us our glaciers back or save us from the release of methane when the Arctic Ice melts. There very little grant money available these days that are not attached to finding outcomes favorable to business.

The universe is not an infinite space....

WOW! Yes it IS! NO IT IS NOT!!! LOL! How can I possibly add a unique observation to this comment conglomeration?

The article is extremely flawed and biased, but no more so than those making the comments. Evolution is certainly not proven, and does not address the actual creation of life anyway. Explain how life began, and how it could possibly grow more complex rather than submit to entropy and then I might be impressed. But you can't. What we know about life is that it is passed on from another living creature - period. We cannot prove panspermia, spontaneous generation, alien scientists or God saying "Let there be Life", so all is speculation.

EVOLUTION: Life started somehow, and turned into all you see by chains of random accidents without any input from external intelligence or design? Yeah, right.

Intelligent design is apparent in life, but who or what the designer is, and where did the designer come from are ideas beyond our comprehension or ability to answer, thus we have the arguments at hand.

The Bible does NOT teach the Earth is the center of the universe, the verses quoted may lead some to suppose such, but The Bible does not teach that idea. The Bible is not a scientific treatise, it is the Word of God to lead man to salvation.

Man made global warming is nothing but a myth by which to control us. Carbon dioxide is no pollutant, ask all the plants that need it to survive.

Now, pillory away boys. Just another Yank making you feel superior in your elite, monkey ways! Lord, Help us!

Fun article, thanks.

It has possibly been demonstrated here that there is a sort of inverse relationship between knowledge and disrespect. The comments which seem to come from those with the least degree of apprehension are also the most dismissive, featuring the greatest frequency of denigration and name-calling. Those coming from folks who appear to know what they're talking about seem, in contrast, to be the most tolerant, even conciliatory. Fascinating.

Religion and Science serve different sets of human needs from one another, and these two disciplines are not an either/or selection; neither intellectually nor spiritually. Most of the people commenting here, whether people of faith or materialists, seem not to realize this.

Even in ancient (predating the Roman empire) times, human beings seem to have understood very complex concepts, such as the precession of the equinoxes or the mathematical relationship known as The Golden Mean. At the same time, human beings (not necessarily the same individuals) also believed all kinds of things that we now consider pathetically dimwitted and breathtakingly ignorant. Generally speaking, the second category vastly outnumbered the first, and in many cases the ignorant majority carried out vicious attacks on the informed minority. Not much of anything has changed in the last 2500 years or so. Maybe longer.

Lastly, judging the intelligence of a group of people as numerous as we "Americans" are by the comments relating to one article published on the internet is not exactly a stellar methodology, if one seeks a meaningful result. If it were, we could also accurately judge the intelligence of other English speaking cultures by indicators like David Icke or Kevin "Bloody" Wilson. Fair enough?

Race and Intelligence is the Most taboo scientific study of our time.

Number Eleven.

Empty space contains more energy than mankind has used in recorded history.

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space). The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which are themselves derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. The energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated to be one trillionth of an erg [1], based on the upper limit of the cosmological constant. However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the requirement of Lorentz invariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant leads to the much larger figure of 10^107 Joules per cubic centimeter or 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

When "scientific discoveries" are used politically, they become "disturbing."

Both this article and the comments that follow demonstrate to me that in spite of all the progress we have made, and in spite of all the resistance to that progress by forces of denial, we are yet infants in knowledge.

There is much about Earth and the surrounding Universe that we have yet to learn; much of what we 'believe' we are just guessing at or approximating. Just as much of what we currently deny is simply because we have not yet developed the tools to understand.

If history is any indicator, I am certain that fully half of our accumulated wisdom will be overturned and replaced by more sophisticated models within the lifetime of our youngest members.

Live, and learn.

Biblical use that has incorrectly been assumed meant flat - the "four corners of the earth" = north, south, east and west.

There are a great many statements in the bible offering a glimpse at the genesis of this world that are right there but mostly over looked.


People are now claiming to find missing links only because truth in science is no longer required.

I think it's quite funny how people say that some scientific theories are wrong. Because that's what it is about. Science deals in falsifiability. The idea of science is to prove things wrong, not right. So, in essence, by proving things wrong, you have successful science and in turn this raises more questions. Good points on some of the things about why some theories may be wrong. But, instead of getting self righteous keep in mind that at least in science we are trying to find answers to questions. For those of you who believe in the bible, it would be appreciated if you actually try to bring some evidence to the table of why you may be right. Bashing science and providing provocative arguments to show that some theories may be wrong is one thing. But, I have never seen or heard any sort of evidence to prove the existence of God either. Mostly your answers are, "since science can't prove it wrong it is" I say, until you can prove it is it also isn't. I guess that's what we call a conundrum?

We should all respect each others opinions and stop bashing. In many respects there are things that can neither be proven nor disproved. To try and say something is right merely because that is what you believe is the inherent flaw in man. It's called pride... or ego... I believe this is what ultimately will be the downfall of us all. So use that brain wisely. Logic over emotions my friends.. logic over emotions.

i don't know which is more unbearable.. the 'logic' of the deniers - or the smugness of the adherents ..

It's too bad the monkeys writing responses to the contrary don't recognize themselves as true apes. Enjoy the coming new deserts and jungles as the earth warms beyond recognition. Record global temperatures, while meaningless by themselves today, are indicative of things to come. The deniers rely on the myth of a god who will not let the earth change because he would not destroy man again. My aching .... Good luck as the world changes around you and you wait in vain for the mythical man to save you.

Yes the bible does say the sun revolves around the earth.
http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter03

the good thing about climate change is that true or fancy, we will never know as the very climate that is changing will probably make us extinct too. It's a moot point...doesn't matter. Fossil fuel companies have too much power for anything to change enough for us to even TRY to control the trajectory of climate. So, we'll pass from the scene with all the other organisms that are going before us! We'll never know!