(05-01-2013 12:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:56 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I see where people are coming from when they say the Earth goes through temperature cycles. Because the Earth does go through cycles.

I don't see where people are coming from when they deny evolution. Especially when they say that "micro-evolution" is real, but not "macro-evolution". You can't get "macro-evolution" without "micro-evolution". If just shows how willingly stupid some people are.

I would not call people of faith stupid...but...I tend to agree. It still though is a theory. I am open to being shown that it is not valid.

The "just a theory" line almost always get me, because a scientific theory is not the same thing as a laypersons definition of a theory. Evolution is a fact and a theory.


Also, on another note, the earth is not cooling. The average temperature is rising. I don't know how that could even be up for debate. I can see how you could be confused by a cooling trend in one area of the planet, but the earth is still warming overall. It's really not a debated occurrence. The Forbes article above does not represent the consensus of modern science (and contradicts actual evidence).

Facts shouldn't require a concensus. You shouldn't be able to debate facts. Cooling relative to what? 20 years ago? 100? Much longer than that and we weren't measuring much of the earth's temperature... merely the most populated spots... which could just as easily been seeing something that was completely counteracted by what was happening at the less populated spots... resulting in a completely different "global" temperature.

(05-01-2013 01:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  So we'll just ignore ice cores, weather balloons, ocean buoys, and weather stations? Scientists record temperatures using a bunch of methods concurrently. Temperatures are recorded literally everywhere, because scientists make sure not to rely on the same kind of measurement. They have to think about every possible explanation as to why their hypothesis could be wrong, and other scientists try to replicate their studies. Scientists get mad brownie points for discrediting each other's studies.

You're comparing the global temperature, which I suspect we are pretty close to being able to measure for the past 50 years or so... with the temperature in major metropolitan (land) areas (with 3/4 of the earth being ocean) from perhaps 50 to 200 years ago... with a calculation of the mathematically probable temperature of the polar ice caps and the Himilayas from a few thousand years ago.

(05-01-2013 07:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I remember liking Hambone's take on this issue. I'm pretty sure this was his take. Yes, it's happening. What can you realistically do to make a difference. Start there.

Nicely done, Mach... so close I can't take much issue with it. I might have said, let's assume that it is rather than yes it is... but I don't recall. For the purposes of a solution, it doesn't really matter if it is happening if you don't have a means to do anything about it... and your posted solutions as well as others (clean air) probably go a long way towards that solution without requiring a panic and spending untold sums to accomplish an unknown goal. I attack energy on a "national security" basis... so I'd support your goals. Others would support it on an environmental front, and still others on a carbon emissions front... so let's go!

(05-01-2013 01:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I'm done with this issue. I'm getting negative rep for being a "liberal troll". I'm not even a liberal. Our country is screwed.

(05-01-2013 12:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:49 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...ng-crisis/

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

"The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?"

The comment section of this article shoots holes through what is being implied.

You are flat out not very good at analogies.

(05-01-2013 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I'm done with this issue. I'm getting negative rep for being a "liberal troll". I'm not even a liberal. Our country is screwed.

When you've been here longer, you'll learn to take it with a grain of salt. Especially when you learn a little more about who neg rep'd you. He's a world class flaming troll and nothing more.

Coming from a know nothing like you I consider that a huge compliment! Thanks pal!

(05-02-2013 01:16 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:49 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...ng-crisis/

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

"The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?"

The comment section of this article shoots holes through what is being implied.

You are flat out not very good at analogies.

Are you slow, or did you just miss the quotation marks? It's from the comments, and the analogy has nothing to do with the validity of the rest of the statement.

The analogy sucked. It doesn't really matter who made it, you quoted it as though it were something intelligent that deserved quoting.

(05-02-2013 02:56 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  The analogy sucked. It doesn't really matter who made it, you quoted it as though it were something intelligent that deserved quoting.

Who cares if the analogy sucked? That's not the point.

(05-01-2013 12:53 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Like I said before, predictions are not evidence of climate change. They are just predictions.

Predictions are evidence. It's how a theory is tested. It's how we know that Einstein's theories are better than Newton's. It's why we are spending billions of dollars building ever more powerful colliders to find ever smaller particles. Because it doesn't matter what the math says, what matters is what actually is.

And what is matters in the climate-change context is not whether the earth is getting warmer but the extent that human activity is contributing to it. A theory that results in demonstrably wrong predictions is an inadequate theory and right now that's all we have. That's not just limited to the doomsayers either. Neither the deniers nor the lukewarmers have theories that can make accurate predictions either. The climate is simply too complex for our current capabilities.

(05-02-2013 06:51 AM)jh Wrote:  And what is matters in the climate-change context is not whether the earth is getting warmer but the extent that human activity is contributing to it. A theory that results in demonstrably wrong predictions is an inadequate theory and right now that's all we have. That's not just limited to the doomsayers either. Neither the deniers nor the lukewarmers have theories that can make accurate predictions either. The climate is simply too complex for our current capabilities.

Spot on.

(05-02-2013 06:51 AM)jh Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:53 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Like I said before, predictions are not evidence of climate change. They are just predictions.

Predictions are evidence. It's how a theory is tested. It's how we know that Einstein's theories are better than Newton's. It's why we are spending billions of dollars building ever more powerful colliders to find ever smaller particles. Because it doesn't matter what the math says, what matters is what actually is.

And what is matters in the climate-change context is not whether the earth is getting warmer but the extent that human activity is contributing to it. A theory that results in demonstrably wrong predictions is an inadequate theory and right now that's all we have. That's not just limited to the doomsayers either. Neither the deniers nor the lukewarmers have theories that can make accurate predictions either. The climate is simply too complex for our current capabilities.

That's another problem I see. People are throwing out good science based on a lack of perfection. This is a fallacious way of thinking. Scientists will never have all of the answers, but they can get closer to the truth. The picture slowly get's clearer, but there are always people who will claim that it's all junk because the picture is still in progress. It's a dangerous way of thinking.

Also I'd really like to know what you think is "wrong". Scientists make predictions based on probabilities, not yes or no. Especially when dealing with complex systems.

(05-02-2013 02:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  That's another problem I see. People are throwing out good science based on a lack of perfection. This is a fallacious way of thinking. Scientists will never have all of the answers, but they can get closer to the truth. The picture slowly get's clearer, but there are always people who will claim that it's all junk because the picture is still in progress. It's a dangerous way of thinking.

Also I'd really like to know what you think is "wrong". Scientists make predictions based on probabilities, not yes or no. Especially when dealing with complex systems.

You're actually pretty wrong here, DMAC. Nobody is throwing out good science. What they are throwing out is an expensive solution (that doesn't actually show to solve anything) to a problem that we can't even really identify or predict.

I was watching a show the other day talking about the big bang. Something new was discovered that cause him to think that rather than a big bang that started off expanding quickly and was now slowing, that it was actually slow and is accellerating. He then said, while still a theory, we are one discovery at CERN away from completely revising what we have all grown accustomed to accepting as fact. He wasn't talking about climate change, but the statement is still true.

Any decent OBJECTIVE scientist would tell you that the probability that we are right about earth's history is virtually nil... because a series of 90% probabilities doesn't result in a 90% probability... but a 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9.......... probability, which approaches zero if you go far enough back. Darwin proved that no matter how unlikely that two identical things would create a unique third thing, it was precisely those unlikely events that evolution was all about.

The way I see it, SOME scoentists are throwing out objectivity for fame or money.

(05-01-2013 03:22 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 03:17 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 02:30 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 02:19 AM)Claw Wrote:  I'm going to give you a little observation. When you get old like me, you can use it.

Every single end-of-the-world scenario I have heard in my life has turned out to be false.

Global warming is just another one - like the guy with a THE END IS NEAR poster on the corner. The only difference is who is saying it.

We all believe this stuff because we want to believe it. It makes "our time" more special than everyone who lived before us. Well, it's not. Just like you look at young love differently once you're grown, you'll look at the doomsday scenarios differently when you're old enough to have seen more than a few of them come and go.

You're ignoring a MASSIVE distinction between real science and doomsday nutjobs. Real science is a rigorous process, and is what has made the last century possible. Doomsday nutjobs drink poisoned koolaid or steal people's money.

I have no idea how you can possibly see the two as similar.

You realize that the exact same scientist went through a "rigorous process" in the 70's and 80's and actually decided claim we were entering a "mini ice age". Now the earth has warmed ever so slightly and the ice caps are going to melt and we are all doomed unless we give in to green technology and carbon credits.

No one dismisses that the earth is warming, but everyone SHOULD be skeptical of MAN MADE global warming because of the scumbags involved in pushing it like Al Gore.

As far as I've read, there was never a consensus about a mini ice age.

All the crops were going to die due the hole in the ozone layer. And we were all going to die from skin cancer.

In 1979, my university physics teacher showed how calculations proved the world would run out of oil before the year 2000.

Oh, and we were at "peak oil" just a couple of years back - before North Dakota ,Texas shale, etc...

Did you know they just discovered a new radiation belt around the Earth? 50 years into the Space Age, and they just now discovered it.

Nothing could live in a radioactive zone - before the wildlife in Chernobyl proved that to be far from the truth.

I do want to amend my original statement that none of the "end-of-the-world" scenarios in my lifetime have come to pass.

The reality is that none of the 'end-of-the-word' scenarios in the history of the world have come to pass.

I'll bet the trend vs global warming. The odds are strongly in my favor.

Some good points all throughout this thread. Makes you think.
I figure man may have some effect on climate change, but negligible compared to other factors.

(04-30-2013 10:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Many people reject man made global warming and evolution to varying degrees. Some say global warming is in no way effected by humans, and some claim that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution doesn't occur. Some people claim that scientists are flat out wrong. Both concepts are well supported, so why is it still an issue?

Because they're not well supported.

Next question?