At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.
As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.
As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:
From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):
Eon 1: - The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. - Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate.
Eon 2: - The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units. - Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ).
Eon 3: - Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear. - Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet.
Eon 4: - The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.
Eon 5: - Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.
Eon 6: - Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.
Eon 7: - Now. Beginning of written histories.
The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet.
What do you think?
The word used in the original that was translated into English words for day, night, morning, and evening could very well be "an unspecified subjective length of time", "literally 86400 seconds", "literally 43200 seconds", "the timespan for which any portion of the sun is visible in the sky", "the interval between waking and going back to sleep", etc.
The objective reality is that Genesis is a myth written by primitive screwheads that predated the invention of scientific inquiry. Any similarity to any extant theories on the origin of the universe are purely coincidental, highlighted by human brains that are hardwired to find patterns and meaning even where genuine relationships do not exist. There is no shame in having a religion that makes no sense scientifically, provided that you can keep it separate from any matters that require rational thought grounded in observable reality.
Let the religion be what it is. Attempting to reconcile it with scientific theory is pointless, and ultimately a waste of time, because science may just discard that theory and take up another any time new data become available. Indeed, theories like the Big Bang only became widely known because they are remotely reconcilable with Genesis. It isn't the only cosmology theory capable of explaining all the available evidence, nor is it necessarily the best one. Reconciling religion with science makes as much sense as explaining the biological basis for Harry Potter.
It does not matter if religion is made-up nonsense. The important thing is the tribal sense of community one gets from knowing all the same nonsense as everyone else, and the artistic inspiration one may draw from it.
Believing one's religion is the literal truth and also believing that scientific inquiry is the best method at our disposal for understanding and affecting our universe is no more difficult than believing that Star Wars is set a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, while also believing that Star Trek is set a century or two in the future, in an alternate-history version of our own galaxy. We can simultaneously believe that all fantasy universes are separate, and never shall any two meet, and that they all somehow link together through the Stargate inside the Dark Tower.
Science and Genesis are incompatible. But they don't need to be compatible.
What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this.
The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today.
"X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses.
This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
And yet, your grandparent comment...
>the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles
[Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says.
This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver.
Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate.
Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions
EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations
I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.