|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Here's his full quote:
Quote:
“Your mom is asking about evolution. You know, that’s a theory that’s out there; it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools — because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
He told that to a six year old kid. Do you remember what we were taught in first grade science? Animal types, the solar system maybe, and he expects a 6 year old to be able to think critically and objectively, and weigh the options of creationism vs evolution? He couldn't decide which shirt and pants to wear this morning more than likely ...
I'm more concerned about "Mom" putting her 6 year old in this position. As you said, he can't decide which shirt to wear, and his loving mother throws him into something like this. You don't make your kid a pawn. What a witch (it rhymes with what I think of her.)
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Is it a misstep if that's what he really believes? I'd rather he be honest about his beliefs than hide behind "the game," as you put it.
it's a misstep if he believes creationism is taught in public schools in Texas. it is not.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I agree with you Divot, it was cowardly. But that has no bearing on Perry's ignorant comment. He still said it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Is it a misstep if that's what he really believes? I'd rather he be honest about his beliefs than hide behind "the game," as you put it.
it's a misstep if he believes creationism is taught in public schools in Texas. it is not.
Ah, I see.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Found this today on my stroll around the blogs i frequent. Quote:
The way some of the media report on climate change can be simply stunning. For example, an opinion piece in The Financial Post has the headline "New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans".
There’s only one problem: that’s completely wrong. In reality the study shows nothing of the sort. The evidence, as far as the limitations of the experiment go (that’s important, see below), do not show any effect of cosmic rays on global warming, and say nothing at all about the effect humans are having on the environment.
What did you do, Ray?
OK, first things first: why should we even think cosmic rays might affect climate? There are several steps to this, but it’s not too hard to explain.
We know that clouds form by water molecules accumulating on seed particles, called condensation nuclei. The physical processes are complex, but these particles (also called aerosols) are suspended in the air and water droplets form around them. The more of them available, the better water can condense and form clouds (although of course this also depends on a lot of other things, like how much water is in the air, the temperature, the height above the ground, and so on).
Cosmic rays, it turns out, may play a role in this too. They are subatomic particles that zip through space at high speed. We are bombarded by them all the time, in fact! They hit atoms and molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere, depositing their energy there. This affects aerosol formation rate, and therefore might affect cloud formation. Clouds are bright and white, and reflect sunlight. Therefore they affect global warming.
So the whole idea goes like this: the more cosmic rays there are, the more aerosols are made, the more easily clouds can form, the more sunlight gets reflected back into space, and the less global warming we get. It’s controversial, for sure (Discover Magazine interviewed a proponent of this idea in 2007) but worth looking into.
ConCERNing clouds
In practice, the actual connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation is really hard to determine. So a group of scientists at the European particle lab CERN decided to test the basics. They created a cloud chamber, bombarded it with cosmic rays, and examined the results. They found two very interesting things:
1) The number of aerosols created went up vastly as the particles blasted the chamber. That would seem to indicate that cosmic rays really are tied to global warming. Except…
2) The actual total number of aerosols created was way below what’s needed to account for cloud formation. Sure, there were more aerosols, but not nearly enough.
In fact, in the abstract of the paper itself, the authors state:
However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid [i.e. aerosols] are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.
Let me be clear: there may yet turn out to be a connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Perhaps cosmic rays are the first step in a many-step process that enhances aerosols via different methods, making enough to trigger clouds. It’s possible, and since they created a lot of aerosols in their rig it’s worth pursuing.
However, this study shows that under the conditions of the experiment, the effect of cosmic rays by themselves is too low to trigger cloud formation at the rates actually seen in our atmosphere. What is very clear is that any claims at this time that cosmic rays definitely affect global warming are baloney. As the authors of the experiment say, this is a good first step but there’s a long way to go to understand this problem, and as the website PhysOrg reiterates, "Though this most recent experiment doesn’t really answer the question of whether cosmic rays are having an impact on our weather, it does open the door to more research."
Not just a river in Egypt
So why did the Financial Post run with a headline that says the exact opposite of what the study actually found? They’re not alone, either; the Telegraph has a blog filled with similar dubious statements about the study (mostly quoting from the Financial Post blog, so take that into account). The claim they both make is that some of the science was suppressed, but that’s thin air. And it’s certainly not enough to state with certainty that cosmic rays affect our climate.
And my irony gland explodes every time I hear a global warming denier say that the science has become politicized (as the Financial Post OpEd piece did, and as Rick Perry does). Ya think? The problem isn’t the politization of global warming (since by its very nature the changing climate affects everyone, and is therefore a concern of politics), it’s the attacks on the science based on politics.
The Sun is out
A lot of global warming deniers try very hard to connect global warming to the Sun. In this case, the thinking is that Sun’s magnetic field affects how many cosmic rays hit the Earth — in times of lower solar activity, the Sun’s magnetic field doesn’t protect us as well from cosmic rays, so we should see more clouds at solar minimum and therefore cooler temperatures. During higher activity, the Sun’s field protects us better, so there should be fewer clouds, and more warming.
The problem here is two fold: there doesn’t appear to be a large variation in Earth’s temperatures with solar activity*, and also that temperatures are rising extremely rapidly in the past 100 years, when solar activity has been relatively normal.
I researched this quite a bit for my book, "Death from the Skies!" It seems like an amazing idea, and well worth investigating, that cosmic rays could affect us so much that our weather might change due to them! But what I found then, as it still seems true at least for now, is that if cosmic rays do have an effect, it’s very small, and not nearly enough to account for either the suddenness or the amount of rise in temperatures the Earth has seen in the past century.
We may know more about any alleged connection in the next few years, but be very, very wary of anyone claiming with certainty that the Sun is causing our temperature rise, or that global warming is due to cosmic rays (or in this case, the lack thereof).
As I’ve said before, here are the facts:
The Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Link
If you'd rather not read a blog, you can go here, and read physorg.com's take on it. Needless to say, it shows the financial post article to be what it is; an overblown, sensationalistic and extremely biased account of the journal article that takes extreme liberties with the data.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Needless to say, it shows the financial post article to be what it is; an overblown, sensationalistic and extremely biased account of the journal article that takes extreme liberties with the data.
So ... pretty much like every article that agrees with the global warming theory? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
the most important part of that I found to be the end Quote:
As I’ve said before, here are the facts:
The Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Aside from the last sentence which is a needless poke (one of my pet peeves is that those needless pokes almost always accompany these articles from both sides), I agree with those facts.
the issues most people have is about the how much we can control the future climate changes and the prognostications into the future from the sensationalists on the global warming side (both sides have them). claims that in the next 50-100 years the Earth will be nearly uninhabitable killing off 90% of the population:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
the most important part of that I found to be the end
Quote:
As I’ve said before, here are the facts:
The Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Aside from the last sentence which is a needless poke (one of my pet peeves is that those needless pokes almost always accompany these articles from both sides), I agree with those facts.
the issues most people have is about the how much we can control the future climate changes and the prognostications into the future from the sensationalists on the global warming side (both sides have them). claims that in the next 50-100 years the Earth will be nearly uninhabitable killing off 90% of the population:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp
Good reply.
Question for the scientists: If the earth is some 4 billion or so years old, first of all - is this the first time earth has warmed? (hint to the answer right here: NO)
Next - if the earth is however many billions of years old - and "we" are now saying that earth is warming over the last century - that's 100 years - what the hell is pointing to man made global warming???????
Why did the earth temp rise and fall in the last 1000 years? The last 5000 years? (after all, science tells it's true, right?)
Why are some scientists now predicting an ice age? Why is it global warming now - when, in the 1970's I remember being scared to death about the scientists telling us of a coming ice age - they were "sure" of it. Now, in this earth that's billions of years old - we change our mind in a matter of 40 years?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
My biggest issue with it, is that all of these "predictions" are based off of computer model simulations, that seem to change every year they get new results.
As any programmer can tell you, you can massage data to output any "result" that you want to see, and they are trying to simulate something as complicated as an entire planet's ecosystem. This is like them running simulations of Madden, and saying the Browns are going to win the Super Bowl in a few years because they tweaked the data and managed to get past winners correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Needless to say, it shows the financial post article to be what it is; an overblown, sensationalistic and extremely biased account of the journal article that takes extreme liberties with the data.
So ... pretty much like every article that agrees with the global warming theory?
Does that make it right?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
ARCH... Quote:
Next - if the earth is however many billions of years old - and "we" are now saying that earth is warming over the last century - that's 100 years - what the hell is pointing to man made global warming???????
one cannot rule out other causes. however, common sense also dictates that we recognize what has happened in the last 100 years. industrialization and population explosion has to have some consequences, correct? how dire are they? i don't know enough about climate science to say. it depends on the tolerance limit of our planet's ecosystem to our assaults. it no doubt has the ability to buffer human impact, but to what degree?
Quote:
Why are some scientists now predicting an ice age? Why is it global warming now - when, in the 1970's I remember being scared to death about the scientists telling us of a coming ice age - they were "sure" of it. Now, in this earth that's billions of years old - we change our mind in a matter of 40 years?
without having the experience from 40 years ago, my simple guess would be that we LEARNED new things...what science "tells us" is dated by the time we hear it, let alone 40 years later. i don't see the problem here.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
This is like them running simulations of Madden, and saying the Browns are going to win the Super Bowl in a few years because they tweaked the data and managed to get past winners correct.
what if you ran the Madden simulation 100 times and the Browns won the SB in 88 simulations? it may be not be worth betting your house on, but i'd buy playoff tickets on those odds.
the problem, as you pointed out, is whether the simulations take all/enough of the right variables into account. there is no way to know this immediately. the problem is the endgame. we can wait until the simulations prove predictive or not...but if they do, it's too late. it's gambling...
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Question for the scientists: If the earth is some 4 billion or so years old, first of all - is this the first time earth has warmed? (hint to the answer right here: NO)
The earth has been everything from a molten mass to a snowball with a miles thick crust of ice.
Quote:
Next - if the earth is however many billions of years old - and "we" are now saying that earth is warming over the last century - that's 100 years - what the hell is pointing to man made global warming???????
Your question shows your ignorance, and is why you shouldn't be coming to any type of conclusion in this topic matter. Are you willing to listen ABD? Seriously, I'm going to spend some time on this. Please read it, digest it, think about, then ask me questions. I want you to learn this.
Quote:
Why did the earth temp rise and fall in the last 1000 years? The last 5000 years? (after all, science tells it's true, right?)
Why were there differences in climate and weather in the past? Good question. It's primarily because of alterations in the composition of the atmosphere. But also involves, in small proportions, the overall presence of carbon using vegetation and other organisms that are heavily involved in the other chemical cycles of the atmosphere. Other smaller roleplayers are the sun, placement and terrain of the continents, oceans and ocean currents. Notice that first part? The atmospheric composition, the parts that make it up, were different in the past, so the climate was different. We know that the atmosphere was composed of different percentages of chemicals in the past, we have techniques to measure it. Can track climate through the fossil record. That's one of the reasons we know that altering the composition of the atmosphere, by dumping in tons of carbon dioxide into it, we will affect the climate. It's direct cause and effect. When you change the parts, the machine works differently.
Quote:
Why are some scientists now predicting an ice age? Why is it global warming now - when, in the 1970's I remember being scared to death about the scientists telling us of a coming ice age - they were "sure" of it. Now, in this earth that's billions of years old - we change our mind in a matter of 40 years?
How many scientists are predicting an ice age now? Very few, and as far as i know, their science is dubious at best.
Anyways, the 1970's was the start of our first foray into climate science. We were getting computers smaller than houses, we had satellites for weather, we had the beginnings of portable electronics. When the first data came in, it did look like the earth was getting cooler, because it was for that short time of observation. However, that represented a small dip in the overall upward trend of the earth's temperature. We still didn't have the capability to catalogue all the previous temperature recordings across the globe, let alone have a program that could analyze it all. But, towards the end of the 1980's and into the 90's we were able to start this process by way of more powerful computers coming online daily as well as more satellites, and better electronics overall. The same is true now, our computers are much more advanced now than even 5 years ago. With this new computing power comes better ways, more precise ways, to model, test and observe the climate and how it acts over decades. So, how did we change our mind in 40 years? We got more data! It's that simple. The previous data wasn't wrong, it was just incomplete. Heck, it will never be completed to be honest, but we do have enough data to start making predictions of how the climate could change and how it may affect our civilization. All of this new data points to a warming globe. And the only piece of the puzzle that's changed over the past 100 years is the massive amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from human activity. And yes, we can tell native (carbon-cycle made) carbon dioxide from man-made carbon dioxide. There is literally nothing else that has presented itself as a potential candidate to describe this warming trend we're going through.
The media had a field day with this incoming ice age thing back in the 70's, but if you read the journal articles, you'll see that the actual scientists themselves said nothing of the sort. It was sensationalistic and misleading; a good cover story to sell papers and magazines. But, it was ultimately untrue because they took so many liberties with what the research said. I'm sorry that you feel cheated about this scenario, and you obviously felt strongly about this since you bring it up any time science is brought up and hold it up as the reason you don't believe science as a valid method for basing one's beliefs, but scientific theories are built over time and with many experiments. You shouldn't blame the theory for failings of the media, you shouldn't disbelieve it because they interpreted it wrong at the very beginning.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I felt you inferred it, yes.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
there is no way to know this immediately. the problem is the endgame. we can wait until the simulations prove predictive or not...but if they do, it's too late. it's gambling...
Or we can destroy our economy now, in the name of global warming, and find out all these predictions are wrong later. I actually have no problem what-so-ever with putting in place some global restrictions on a per factory basis. The problem has always been, the treaties they come up with are an absolute joke. It usually amounts to the United States getting slammed with all kinds of restrictions ... India and China getting a free pass on pollution because they are "developing" ... European countries avoiding any major downfall because they are too small individually to be considered major pollutors ... and the US asked to foot the bill for other countries that can't afford pollution controls. I mean, if this is REALLY a major problem, shouldn't they be asking ALL countries to play by the same rules?
It's not going to do us a whole lot of good to "set the example", and tank our economy while India and China continue to pollute anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
It's not going to do us a whole lot of good to "set the example", and tank our economy while India and China continue to pollute anyway.
I agree. How does this impact the truth of the scientific theory though? If the candidates don't believe in global warming/climate change because they're afraid that an admission of truth will result in massive restrictions across the country, how absurd is that?
Again, ultimately, this denial of global warming/climate change and the theory of evolution is based on either A.) ignorance or B.) illogical thought process. I'll vote for someone who seeks out knowledge and is willing to admit they were wrong, Gov. Christie of New Jersey just did this a few months back; ignorance can be cured. However, I wont vote for someone who's unwilling to learn opposing viewpoints or can't make a logical decision. The current cohort of candidates seem to be of the latter grouping.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Question for the scientists: If the earth is some 4 billion or so years old, first of all - is this the first time earth has warmed? (hint to the answer right here: NO)
The earth has been everything from a molten mass to a snowball with a miles thick crust of ice.
Due to????? Thanks.
Quote:
Quote:
Next - if the earth is however many billions of years old - and "we" are now saying that earth is warming over the last century - that's 100 years - what the hell is pointing to man made global warming???????
Your question shows your ignorance,
Good answer. Quote:
and is why you shouldn't be coming to any type of conclusion in this topic matter. Are you willing to listen ABD? Seriously, I'm going to spend some time on this. Please read it, digest it, think about, then ask me questions. I want you to learn this.
I want to learn. Problem is, science can't show anything other than the earth is currently warming. Just as it has how many hundreds of times in the past? Just as it has cooled how many times in the past? Thanks.
Quote:
Quote:
Why did the earth temp rise and fall in the last 1000 years? The last 5000 years? (after all, science tells it's true, right?)
Why were there differences in climate and weather in the past? Good question. It's primarily because of alterations in the composition of the atmosphere. But also involves, in small proportions, the overall presence of carbon using vegetation and other organisms that are heavily involved in the other chemical cycles of the atmosphere.
Alterations in the composition of the atmosphere? So, that's happened for thousands of years, huh? Overall presence of carbon that are heavily involved in the "OTHER CHEMICAL CYCLES OF THE ATMOSPHERE." Seriously? So, other things are involved?
Quote:
Other smaller roleplayers are the sun, placement and terrain of the continents, oceans and ocean currents. Notice that first part? The atmospheric composition, the parts that make it up, were different in the past, so the climate was different. We know that the atmosphere was composed of different percentages of chemicals in the past
Kinda what I've been saying, not? The earth changes. Always has, always will.
Quote:
, we have techniques to measure it.
And I'll bet they're foolproof, right? Like recording temperatures on the roof's of buildings, right beside air conditioners, right?
Quote:
Can track climate through the fossil record. That's one of the reasons we know that altering the composition of the atmosphere, by dumping in tons of carbon dioxide into it, we will affect the climate. It's direct cause and effect. When you change the parts, the machine works differently.
So, in the past, say 1000 years ago, why did the earth warm and cool?
Look, the only thing that has changed is we are now better able to detect the smallest of changes in any thing. It proves nothing. If man made global warming were provable - we'd hear about it. As it is, all we have is theories - and really not even theories, we have guesses, based on what people put into their computers.
Quote:
Quote:
Why are some scientists now predicting an ice age? Why is it global warming now - when, in the 1970's I remember being scared to death about the scientists telling us of a coming ice age - they were "sure" of it. Now, in this earth that's billions of years old - we change our mind in a matter of 40 years?
How many scientists are predicting an ice age now? Very few, and as far as i know, their science is dubious at best.
Yet the "man made global warming" theory is MORE than dubious?????? Come on - you're better than that, aren't you?
Quote:
Anyways, the 1970's was the start of our first foray into climate science.[/quote
I see. So really, the 70's were the start of all this. Got it. So, since the 70's, we've gone from imminent ice age, to global warming, and we're headed back to ice age. Those damn computers....
Quote:
We were getting computers smaller than houses, we had satellites for weather, we had the beginnings of portable electronics. When the first data came in, it did look like the earth was getting cooler, because it was for that short time of observation. However, that represented a small dip in the overall upward trend of the earth's temperature. We still didn't have the capability to catalogue all the previous temperature recordings across the globe, let alone have a program that could analyze it all. But, towards the end of the 1980's and into the 90's we were able to start this process by way of more powerful computers coming online daily as well as more satellites, and better electronics overall. The same is true now, our computers are much more advanced now than even 5 years ago.
New computer, old computer - it spits out what is put into it - it just does it faster. Bad data in - bad data out.
So far, you've done nothing but make excuses for the science that was taken as fact, but now you say is wrong because of some other factors - computers amongst them. Tell me again why what YOU know to be true is true? Because science says so? As you have said many times - science is the art of guessing, then trying to prove it with tests, then guessing again, on and on. (and I don't mean guessing in a negative way - just the first word that came to me.......here's a hypothesis, we'll run with that till we prove it wrong)
Quote:
With this new computing power comes better ways, more precise ways, to model, test and observe the climate and how it acts over decades.
But, with these new computers we're so much better - but we still input old data. Hmmmm - doesn't seem scientific to me. But, I know - we can go get an ice core from 5000 years ago and tell exactly what the weather was back then, right?
Quote:
So, how did we change our mind in 40 years? We got more data! It's that simple.
And I'll bet that in 30 years, all this "man made global warming" crap will be laughed at. But not until some people get very rich off it.
Quote:
The previous data wasn't wrong, it was just incomplete. Heck, it will never be completed to be honest, but we do have enough data to start making predictions of how the climate could change and how it may affect our civilization. All of this new data points to a warming globe. And the only piece of the puzzle that's changed over the past 100 years is the massive amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from human activity. And yes, we can tell native (carbon-cycle made) carbon dioxide from man-made carbon dioxide. There is literally nothing else that has presented itself as a potential candidate to describe this warming trend we're going through.
The media had a field day with this incoming ice age thing back in the 70's, but if you read the journal articles, you'll see that the actual scientists themselves said nothing of the sort. It was sensationalistic and misleading; a good cover story to sell papers and magazines. But, it was ultimately untrue because they took so many liberties with what the research said. I'm sorry that you feel cheated about this scenario, and you obviously felt strongly about this since you bring it up any time science is brought up and hold it up as the reason you don't believe science as a valid method for basing one's beliefs, but scientific theories are built over time and with many experiments. You shouldn't blame the theory for failings of the media, you shouldn't disbelieve it because they interpreted it wrong at the very beginning.
So, the only thing that has changed over the last 100 years is man made pollution. Got it.
Why were there ice ages, and warming, and ice ages, and warming, over the last 10,000 years or so?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
Well if that is his point, then that's great but why does he limit it to republicans when we currently have a president who has no idea what a functional economic theory is and his own "critical thinking" causes him to enact policies which have proven to have been failures before and he calls it his "logical conclusion" that perhaps trying things that have failed in the past will work THIS TIME?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
Well if that is his point, then that's great but why does he limit it to republicans when we currently have a president who has no idea what a functional economic theory is and his own "critical thinking" causes him to enact policies which have proven to have been failures before and he calls it his "logical conclusion" that perhaps trying things that have failed in the past will work THIS TIME?
Umm...........because he's a democrat. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
EXCL... so our economy can get worse?  seriously, though, i agree with you. the fact that taking no action is a gamble doesn't make it bad, but let's just not lie to ourselves about inaction being risk-free. and yes, if the solutions aren't global, they aren't solutions at all. the thing that bothers me the most about the our choices is that we must either cede more power to the ineffectual federal government or to corrupt big business. in either case, regular folks lose, IMO. personally, i'm not an alarmist on the issue. i am of the opinion that advances in technology will provide us the ability to halt, or even counteract, any atmospheric problems. i'm more concerned about species loss due to deforestation and water pollution, as this is an irreversible consequence. a strong argument can be made that this will have a significant economic impact, in addition to the altruistic environmental protection.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
ARCH...
while you responded to DAYZ detailed info, point by point, you haven't responded to me. do you honestly deny that humans are having a significant impact on our planet? is it not unprecedented?
we know that these major climate fluctuations have occured over LONG time periods. now, we are seeing dramatic changes over a very short time-frame. what noone can answer, to my knowledge, is whether these short-scale fluctuations have always been happening, or whether this represents a new, significant trend that will get out-of-control (think exponential curve). i can recognize that maybe they've always happened...can you admit that maybe this is a unique event?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
There have certainly been short-term climactic fluctuations, plenty of documentation for that. Some evidence also shows that changes in long-term climate trends may happen in much shorter time periods than previously thought.
We should also define "short-term", and "long-term", as these involve time-periods and scales running into thousands and millions of years. A single human lifetime would be a "micro-term" when looking at Geologic Time.
Looking at a 20-year time period in the climate is kind of like analysing a player's career based on just one single play. It could be an average play, a rare (or common) bad play, or a common (or rare) good play. It could be the play of a lifetime, or an ungodly bad screwup. You need a bigger sample size
The planet is showing evidence of being in a warming trend. Whether or not this is man-made, or even man-affected, is debatable. There definitely does appear to be a bias towards demonstrating this, and against refuting it, among the academics, most likely related to funding availability.
Just recently there was a post about hard data showing that the earth is radiating away, or losing, far more heat than any of the models had used as their input data. Meaning virtually all of the warming models are incorrect. Now SFAIK these were simple energy readings that are nearly impossible to interpret any other way, but because they contradict the current fashionable thought they are not getting much attention.
Now to put this in the context of the original post: That does NOT mean that this new data means the earth is not getting warmer, it means one thing and one thing only, which is that more heat is leaving the planet than previously thought. Just as what Perry said is accurate, Evolution IS a theory, and there ARE gaps in it. He did NOT say that the theory was totally invalid. Neither did he say that global warming is NOT occurring, he cast some doubt about the "man-made" aspect of the current theory, which IMO is accurate. I did NOT like his comment about teaching Creation in the school system, however.
A decent volcanic eruption or undersea methane release can dwarf Man's input into the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
I was an adult in the 70s. There were multiple warnings of global cooling, New York and London will be underwater, etc., etc. Let's not pretend that science was so backward then that we were still bleeding patients to cure diseases. We had been to the moon and back.
Amazingly, we know more now than we did 40 years ago. I assume we will know even more 40 years in the future. I'm glad that people weren't finding a way to heat up the earth in the 70s.
Niles Eldredge, Stephen J. Gould, Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and Steven Rose argue that we are still missing something big, and that natural selection does not explain the full complexity of evolution. This is not all "settled" science.
As Richard Feynman said, I would rather not know the answer, than be positive of the wrong answer.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
do you honestly deny that humans are having a significant impact on our planet? is it not unprecedented?
...
i can recognize that maybe they've always happened...can you admit that maybe this is a unique event?
Of course it is unprecedented. We have millions of years of climate changes, ice ages, droughts, storms, floods, fires, volacanos, earthquakes, meteors, etc. We have studied and researched these events and I believe we have a reasonable understanding of a lot of it. We have 200 years worth of information regarding our progressively industrialized civilization and so far, the earth hasn't done anything that it didn't do before as a result of some naturally occuring events except maybe it is doing it a little bit faster. Each and every time the earth has responded back to some kind of state of equilibrium. Which I anticipate that it will again.
I do not like the alarmism of climate change advocates and if you think about it, climate change scientists have created a perpetual industry because the climate will always be changing, for better or worse, and they will always have something to be freaked out about.
If we can cool our houses without CFCs, then that is wonderful, if we can make peppy cars that drive nice, are safe, and get 45 mpg, that is also great, if we are not dropping chemicals and raw sewage into our water sources, that is fantastic. I'm all for protecting our environment and taking reasonable and responsible steps to do so. It's a shame that the fringe environmental wackos are the ones that get all of the press because they very much remind me of the religious folks that stand on the corner with their "Repent, the world will end tomorrow" signs...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Just to add ..... every single thing people do affects the planet in one way or another.
Start a fire to stay warm, affects the planet.
Running your furnace (or AC) affects the planet.
Dying and being buried affects the planet.
Being a breathing entity affects the planet.
Going from 400,000 people to 4 billion people on the face of the Earth affects the planet.
Clearing and farming land affects the planet.
Clearing and replanting forests to prevent forest fires caused by buildup of leaf, needle, and branch droppings that turn to kindling affects the planet.
Volcanoes affect the planet.
Driving to work affects the planet.
Using your computer affects the planet.
Manufacturing products affects the planet.
Flushing the toilet affects the planet.
Making dinner affects the planet.
Building houses affects the planet.
Using a stove and oven to cook food affects the planet.
Every thing we do affects the planet in one way or another. The question is, how do we manage the risks, and what, truly, are the risks? Is the planet truly getting warmer because of our actions, or is it part of a natural cycle? Is it a combination of factors?
If someone like Al Gore was truly serious about global warming, then he would ask for the lights to be turned down, and the AV or heat to be turned off whenever he spoke, He could easily tell people to come appropriately dressed. He would not fly to hell and back on a private jet when commercial flights are readily available. I know that he gets "off-sets" ..... but if it were truly that important, then he would take absolutely no chances, and would take the off-sets, PLUS take the least impactful form of transportation. Taking the credits and trade offs is a political concern and public relations consideration ...... not a truly "green" position.
Mankind impacts the environment simply by existing within it. We impact it simply by taking steps to survive. We impact it simply by living.
Frankly, I'd just as soon go on living.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
Niles Eldredge, Stephen J. Gould, Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and Steven Rose argue that we are still missing something big, and that natural selection does not explain the full complexity of evolution. This is not all "settled" science.
no problem with that. but admitting we don't know the full truth should not detract from what we do know. find evidence INCONSISTENT with natural selection. i am forced to repeat this often, even in my own lab...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
and while i respect Feynman, that is easier said than done. it is a struggle every day to question one's own beliefs and assumptions of how things work.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
It's a shame that the fringe environmental wackos are the ones that get all of the press because they very much remind me of the religious folks that stand on the corner with their "Repent, the world will end tomorrow" signs...
worth repeating.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
i forgot this... Quote:
Each and every time the earth has responded back to some kind of state of equilibrium. Which I anticipate that it will again.
i agree, to a point. how much can any system buffer changes? it is not a limitless amount, it depends on the system. the toxins from my cigarette can be absorbed by the system...the radiation from nuclear war cannot (at least in a way tolerable to human life). where is the threshhold? we don't know.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
i agree, to a point. how much can any system buffer changes? it is not a limitless amount
I disagree...It is limitless.....It will come to an equilibrium. Energy cannot be destroyed it can only be changed from one from to another. and just because that equilibrium isn't the one we envision nor desire or in the timeframe we can comprehend it in....it doesn't mean it hasn't done so or is not doing so. Who is to say that in a Million years that life would not regenerate on Mars??? We know that water once flowed we have even found signs of microbial life in the ice. But as we see and understand it...Mars is basically dead. You know what tho.... we are such ignorant and pompous intellectuals with our infantessimally (sp) small timeframe of understanding of our universe and life in general. We have accomplished great things in that short timeframe....But we have swelled egos.
And that goes for MUCH of the scientific community....You know, I am 100% for science especially when backed by a moral philosophy(the whole Jurassic Park question focused on could but never bouthered asking should)..but that is another topic....I am 100% for science. Because science is OPEN MINDED. The quest for knowledge NO MATTER WHERE IT LEADS........But that is not what leads nor drives science and scientists today. Today "Science" is driven by MONEY and POLITICS. In as such it is corrupted. Because science is now geared towards preconcieved notions and only accepting evidence as fact if it fits your preconceived notion. That Notion is what will be paid. A counter result will not. And in so doing Any voice of opposition is villified by people who are supposed to be OPEN MINDED.
We don't have real science today.....we have the Spanish Inquisition....The results are already determined....they will make the data fit however possible. There is data out there....alot of it is gathered by honest people too...but instead of using the data to create a hypothesis....many try to manipulate that data to fit their theory.
There are still real scientists out there....unfortunately we don't hear their voices above the roar of the armored trucks full of cash that pay for the studies.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Without getting into any specifics regarding Climate Change (which I don't personally care about anyway), the author does bring up a good point regarding "beliefs" vs "science", particularly if they conflict. For example... It's not a stretch to say that Republicans (generally) hold the Bible to a more factual, higher regard in their day to day activities than the . They go to church more often than liberals/Dems. They tend to try to live by the ideals and lessons more. Or try to...no one is perfect. The Bible teaches creationism and that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. So this puts a Bible-believing Republican in a pickle. Do they "connect" with their constituent base by taking every word of the Bible as fact, in spite of the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence/data to the contrary or do they go against what the Bible says and alienate their "fan base"? No one really has the option to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe and which they don't. (At least I don't remember attending that sermon  ) To be a Republican means no flexibility in your beliefs when it comes to things like this (again, a general statement). Science be damned if it goes against the Bible. Or if it goes against any core Republican principle. Even though the writer doesn't mention the Bible specifically, I believe this is a valid part of what he is saying. It IS damn scary if a serious candidate for our highest office isn't flexible in his position on such things. On the other end of the political spectrum (I'm an equal opportunity finger-pointer) maybe this is why Dems are seen as flip-floppers? Their beliefs aren't as stringent and can change easier over time, which can be just as frustrating and scary. So even though the writer doesn't go down this rabbit hole, his point is a valid one.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?
I don't think that the Bible and science are incompatible. When the Bible speaks of God creating the Earth in a day ..... well, what is a day to God before the Earth exists? What is a day to God overall?
I believe that the Bible was written before people could ever hope to comprehend concepts like "2 billion years", so it was put into understandable terms. Could you imagine trying to explain 2 billion years to people 3000 years ago? It would be incomprehensible.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The Bible teaches creationism and that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old.
i was raised in a god-fearing family who believed in creationism AND evolution. most Christians don't take every single word of the Bible literally. 7 days in the eyes of God could be millions of years in our eyes afterall.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
this game is too brutal to watch closely, so i'm back here. PETE... Quote:
It is limitless.....It will come to an equilibrium. Energy cannot be destroyed it can only be changed from one from to another. and just because that equilibrium isn't the one we envision nor desire or in the timeframe we can comprehend it in....it doesn't mean it hasn't done so or is not doing so.
ok, yes. more precisely, i should've said is that is not limitless in terms of reaching an equilibrium which is tolerable to humankind.
Quote:
But that is not what leads nor drives science and scientists today. Today "Science" is driven by MONEY and POLITICS. In as such it is corrupted. Because science is now geared towards preconcieved notions and only accepting evidence as fact if it fits your preconceived notion. That Notion is what will be paid. A counter result will not. And in so doing Any voice of opposition is villified by people who are supposed to be OPEN MINDED.
We don't have real science today.....we have the Spanish Inquisition....The results are already determined....they will make the data fit however possible. There is data out there....alot of it is gathered by honest people too...but instead of using the data to create a hypothesis....many try to manipulate that data to fit their theory.
There are still real scientists out there....unfortunately we don't hear their voices above the roar of the armored trucks full of cash that pay for the studies.
i have a big problem with what you say here. i think you have not clue what you are talking about if you think anywhere near a majority of scientists are driven by $ and politics. are you aware of the current funding situation for most basic science? it is terrible. hell, even translational/clinical research in the biomedical field is financially underserved, save cancer, which is way overserved. and it certainly doesn't sound like you have any understanding of how grant-based funding works. $ is awarded on preliminary results and a sound plan. grant renewal has virtually 0 to do with whether the hypotheses were bourn out...i.e. it has to do with the production, not the content.
i'm not accusing you of anything, but it sounds like you read a handful of stories about big pharma and unscrupulous investigators, and made this generalization. most scientists are overworked and underpaid. the lone perk for university researchers (which i think should be done away with, coincidentally) is tenure. government scientists less overworked, industry less underpaid. like any other field, there are vain folks...but this tends to manifest in self-promotion, not wealth accumulation.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
dna...I know far more than you can possibly imagine....and it never ceases to surprise me the ignorance and narrow mindedness that highly intelligent people can have. It is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it is a gift. It allows them to function outside of the crap that most others have to deal with and accomplish things those others never could. But it also blinds them....Do you think everyone in your industry is altruistic???? Look, you said it yourself...funding is terrible...and when money is scarce...those who produce the desired results will get the most funding and the most exposure to further their careers. And WHO is the largest funder of science in this country???? The US GOVERNMENT. So don't tell me this is not political.
I have plenty of experience with research whose results were extremely valuable but did not meet the expected (or I should say "desired") outcomes...and funding is cut. I have plenty of experience with Project Managers, number crunchers, bean counters, or whatever you want to call them, extrapolating and manipulating my data every which way to Sunday to make them say whatever they wanted them to say.....all in the name to save funding.
That was in the past and I work in data now and I see it every day now.....they don't care about what the data says...they care about what they can MAKE IT SAY....Because it is about MONEY and POLITICS....if the data doesn't say the right thing.....the MONEY goes away and so does the POWER that goes with it...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?
I don't think that the Bible and science are incompatible. When the Bible speaks of God creating the Earth in a day ..... well, what is a day to God before the Earth exists? What is a day to God overall?
I believe that the Bible was written before people could ever hope to comprehend concepts like "2 billion years", so it was put into understandable terms. Could you imagine trying to explain 2 billion years to people 3000 years ago? It would be incomprehensible.
If you follow the New Testament, it starts out with the genealogy of Jesus. I've never personally done the math on it but a close friend of mine, who was raised in Christian private schools from K-12 and has studied the Bible in depth over many years, mentioned to me that it is inferring about 7-10 thousand years. Which is still a very conservative estimate considering the Bible mentions that people lived MUCH longer back then. Moses died after, what, 750 years or something? Is that something people couldn't comprehend?
Again, this is the problem. What parts do you take literally (Earth created in 1 day) versus what you don't. You can't pick and choose what people "back then" could comprehend and what they couldn't. That infers that the Bible is fallible and therefore God is feeding us a line of bull. I'd love to see Rick Perry say that on stage somewhere.
I certainly agree that the Bible and science and co-exist if you are flexible in your beliefs. Yes, I believe in the Big Bang theory but I believe God had a hand in it and Genesis sugar-coats it all. That's just how I feel. But I have yet to see any Republican candidate who would sway from normal "Christian" beliefs if it contradicted with the Bible if taken as factual. So in this regard, I tend to agree with the writer on this point: Beliefs take a higher priority than science if they had to choose.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Again, this is the problem. What parts do you take literally (Earth created in 1 day) versus what you don't. You can't pick and choose what people "back then" could comprehend and what they couldn't. That infers that the Bible is fallible
it doesn't infer the Bible is fallible, just that there are different ways to interpret the passages (i.e. people are fallible in their interpretations)
that's why there are hundreds of different forms of christianity. people get to a particular passage or passages that create a strict belief and then someone else comes along that reads it completely differently and they split off and form a different sect.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I have a question about why this issue appears to be reported so one-sidedly... when addressing the rumor that he is a Muslim, this is an Obama quote from the campaign: Quote:
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate."
So after he cleared that up, evidently that was enough to satisfy the media because I do not remember ANYBODY in the media trying to pin him down or ask him "gotcha" questions like, "Well if you have been a devout Christian for so long, then how old do you feel the world is?" "As a devout Christian, do you believe in creation or evolution?" nobody ever asked him if in his Christian family if his wife "submits to him." Why has nobody asked him if he believes homosexuality is a sin? Why has nobody asked him if he believes abortion is a sin? Republicans who profess their faith get beaten with these questions on an almost daily basis...
Since the media loves to play this game of "Let's try to make the republicans look like backwards Bible thumping hicks," why is the game one-sided? Are they afraid that if they ask those same questions of the democratic president (or candidate) that a lot of his support from Bible believing democrats might slip away? Where is the headline "After 20 years of attending Christian church, Obama says the Bible is wrong on creation"?
So are Bachmann and Parry and Palin using religion to play to their base, abso-freakin-lutely... and they get called on it every day... Obama uses it to keep a large chunk of his democrats, especially black southern democrats, behind him and NOBODY says a word...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Because, as I said before, being a devout Christian is part of the Republican core. It's not with Libs/Dems. Libs/Dems never claim to make any sort of decision based on faith. They keep it more personal and to themselves where Republicans are more open about their faith guiding their decisions and policies. I think it makes sense to ask these questions more of Republicans because faith holds a higher meaning to them. At least publicly.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans against science
|
|
