Theory of Evolution

[Jesus]

Oh, and there aren't any scientists that don't believe in global warming as a result of fossil fuel use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about these 17,000 scientists?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What kind of scientists? I noticed a few of them were medical doctors, some were biologists, others had a phd in law, chemists working in all kinds of different areas like geneology etc etc.

 

half of the names i checked out didn't even show up in a google search, other than on that petition.

[metadigital]

Oh, and there aren't any scientists that don't believe in global warming as a result of fossil fuel use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about these 17,000 scientists?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You will always find heretics, and in fact science needs them to shake it up regularly.

 

I would be interested in the motives of these 17200 people -- why are they all American, for a start?

 

Don't be fooled by the "scientist" label, either; that doesn't grant them immunity from the fallibilites of regular humans, like pride, arrogance and greed; there were more than enough "scientists" who were prepared to argue that there was not "absolute proof" that smoking leads to lung cancer -- there still are, and from a certain pov, they are correct. (A very pendantic pov, but there are precious few certainties in science: absolute zero and the speed of light and a few laws.)

 

The signatories are agreeing:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

I have been reading New Scientist and Scientific American for the last dozen years or so, sometimes every week, and always occassionally, and they have consistently argued that statements to the effect of this one are wrong and dangerous.

 

For instance:

"... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. ..."

How would a reduction of greenhouse gasses harm the environment? Everyone agrees that there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now than ever (since the Archean era ended), so reducing them can only take us back to a state we have already been in (simplistically speaking).

 

How would it hinder science? Science does not require fossil fules. Science is the application of ingenuity to a given seemingly intractable problem to provide a useful method to circumvent it. Science is just as valid and vibrant determining a renewable energy system than, say, refining the existing fossil fuels.

 

What's more, at some point we will need to generate power in a renewable fashion, because we won't be near the traditional energy sources (the sun, the oil and gas reserves, the oxygen of the atmosphere, etc). I have no respect for this petition because it is -- even for a circumspect analysis such as this -- disingenuously erroneous.

[Nartwak]

What kind of scientists?

 

It's expressed in the link, Lord.

[213374U]

Don't be fooled by the "scientist" label, either; that doesn't grant them immunity from the fallibilites of regular humans, like pride, arrogance and greed

The same can be applied to those who are convinced that greenhouse gases emissions are responsible for the global warming. Alas, there are nothing more than theories on either side, since it's difficult to find definite proof or conduct experiments.

[metadigital]

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON

 

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 **** George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

 

George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

 

Summary

 

To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

 

This is not true. In fact there is good evidence that there used to be a lot more Oxygen in the atmosphere and that this was good for us aerobic organisms, giving us vim and vigour beyond that which we have now. Also, it is true that plants photosynthesise carbon dioxide, but more biomass doesn't mean sustained biodiversity or crop yields; indeed both may fall.

 

The biggest danger is that we don't know how much the Earth can take. It has a history of two stable states, ice ages and the warmer periods like now. One strident warning is Venus; it is not inconceivable that the Earth could be turned into another Venus if given a big enough push in that direction. (It would require a lot, though, so it is not a probable risk.)

 

There are all sorts of planetary systems that might be affected by greenhouse gases, including one I can't remember the name of right now, but is something to do with ionic trasnformations in the atmosphere that will not function if the ambient temperature rises by ten degrees or so.

 

The highest probablility for change is the Gulf Stream, which -- if it stopped working, would make the British Isles (and possibly the southern coastal Unitd States') climate drop by as much as 5

[213374U]

This is not true. In fact there is good evidence that there used to be a lot more Oxygen in the atmosphere and that this was good for us aerobic organisms, giving us vim and vigour beyond that which we have now. Also, it is true that plants photosynthesise carbon dioxide, but more biomass doesn't mean sustained biodiversity or crop yields; indeed both may fall.

The key being the underlined word. You don't know for sure. Nobody does, as a matter of fact. And how is biodiversity relevant here? For as long as animal and plantlife balance isn't altered by the extinction of species, biodiversity is nothing but a flourish.

 

Also, while you say that the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere used to be greater than it is now, I believe that during warmer periods there were greater concentrations of CO2. I can't say for sure, but I think I read something about that.

 

 

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change is a good article to refute the 17000-odd signatories in the petition.

Oh, that. Yes, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the many examples of widely accepted theories throughout History that had most of the scientific community behind them and in the end, were proven wrong. Sorry, no amount of reputed scientists defending a theory are going to turn it into a law without proof.

 

 

[metadigital]

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change is a good article to refute the 17000-odd signatories in the petition.

Oh, that. Yes, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the many examples of widely accepted theories throughout History that had most of the scientific community behind them and in the end, were proven wrong. Sorry, no amount of reputed scientists defending a theory are going to turn it into a law without proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was just to show that the original article, with its mere 17000 signatories, was nothing more than significant statistical blip.

 

Time and evidence will tell whether we can all party on fossil fuels until the price is too much and it is blindingly obviously more economically viable to use other power sources ... or if that is a catastrophic laissez faire mistake of biblical proportions. I for one hope for the former scenario, because I doubt whether anyone is concerned enough to make any significant changes to energy policy.

[WITHTEETH]

Well I was at a christian site forum, and have been thrown out for debating evolution... that really pisses me of. they weren't even making a debate besides with the mutation information decrease(that there was no increase). i proved them wrong then they grabbed their torch and pitchfork and i was declared a heretic. i was booted.

This disturbs me whem people want to stop talking. thats when things get ugly.

[metadigital]

Well I was at a christian site forum, and have been thrown out for debating evolution... that really pisses me of. they weren't even making a debate besides with the mutation information decrease(that there was no increase). i proved them wrong then they grabbed their torch and pitchfork and i was declared a heretic. i was booted.

This disturbs me whem people want to stop talking. thats when things get ugly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely: violence is the result of a breakdown in communication.

[WITHTEETH]

I see your quote is from 1984, i just started reading that last night.

[taks]

This is not true. In fact there is good evidence that there used to be a lot more Oxygen in the atmosphere and that this was good for us aerobic organisms, giving us vim and vigour beyond that which we have now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that statement is false, i'm sorry to say. co2 levels were much higher in the past than they are now. even global warming activists admit this... that does not mean that they aren't rising, but they still haven't reached the levels (not even close) of several million years in the past (even more recent than that).

 

taks

[taks]

That was just to show that the original article, with its mere 17000 signatories, was nothing more than significant statistical blip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it is not.

 

see, almost all global warming articles and theories start out with the phrase "nearly all scientists agree the earth is warminig and human activity is the cause." this statement is patently false. the "nearly all" statement is just thrown in without backing and the rest of the world just falls in lock step "it must be true, they said it on the news!"

 

most scientists do not agree. i dare you to show any evidence they do.

 

taks

[SteveThaiBinh]

that statement is false, i'm sorry to say.  co2 levels were much higher in the past than they are now.  even global warming activists admit this... that does not mean that they aren't rising, but they still haven't reached the levels (not even close) of several million years in the past (even more recent than that).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be interested to know your source for that, and some more about it. What did the Earth look like when carbon dioxide levels were higher? Would it have been able to support the kind of human activity we see today?

 

Part of the problem is also that the rate of change now is so great. While the Earth may be able to adapt to slow, steady changes, that doesn't necessarily mean it will do as well with the very sudden changes that we're bringing about.

 

If global warming causes the Gulf Stream to stop, and the temperature of the UK drops by several degrees suddenly, can we sue the US government?

[Archmonarch]

In case anyone didnt get Steve's reference, the lapse of the Gulf Stream is theorized to possibly cause a new Ice Age.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Carbon dioxide is just part of the crap we've been dumping into our atmosphere for the past century or so. There's all the other pollutants that have been going into the air or in the water (there's a dead area the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to pollution from the Mississippi) since the Industrial Revolution, the steady growth of the human population and the destruction of all the forest areas and wetlands that are supposed to do the cleaning up for us.

Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem now that is only going to get worse has their head in the sand.

[213374U]

Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem now that is only going to get worse has their head in the sand.

Who said anything about cutting down the jungles and the dumping of toxic substances? That's obviously a problem but it is not what is being debated here since it has nothing to do with the possible adverse efect of greenhouse gas emissions.

[cewekeds]

If Carbon dioxide isn't that bad how come heath offices advise people with lung problems to stay indoor. Do we need to dump more crap into the air for us to breath? Now theres talk about making coal the next energy source. Sure I think the west coast has great sunsets but is it worth all the heath problems people get?

[213374U]

If Carbon dioxide isn't that bad how come heath offices advise people with lung problems to stay indoor.

The same reason they advise people with lung problems not to go mountain climbing. Does that mean that the air at great heights is toxic?

 

[alanschu]

I think humans are a bit arrogant to think we are having as much influence as we claim to have over the climate. Weather has been doing wierd **** for millenia.

 

 

Many of the same scientists that predict global warming were the same people predicting an upcoming Ice Age. And now with climate acting so bizarre, it's no longer being referred to as global warming, but climate change. There's still anticipation of a Little Ice Age in some circles.

[cewekeds]

At great heights the air has very little oxygen or carbon dioxide but thanks for trying. So the reason are different because there so much carbon dioxide its hard to breath oxygen. But Keep telling your self that we can still use fuel that is very bad and companies will avoid research for cleaning burning fuel or ways to get away from oil altogether.

[alanschu]

People aren't alerted to stay inside because of high carbon dioxide levels.

 

There's much worse stuff emitted into the air than carbon dioxide. That smoky haze you see in big cities, is NOT carbon dioxide.

[metadigital]

This is not true. In fact there is good evidence that there used to be a lot more Oxygen in the atmosphere and that this was good for us aerobic organisms, giving us vim and vigour beyond that which we have now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that statement is false, i'm sorry to say. co2 levels were much higher in the past than they are now. even global warming activists admit this... that does not mean that they aren't rising, but they still haven't reached the levels (not even close) of several million years in the past (even more recent than that).

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How far back to you want to go? If you go all the way back 3 billion years, there was zero Oxygen in the atmosphere, and almost every organism was anaerobic.

 

There has also been a period of higher O2 level.

 

Ok, I certainly can't produce proof that global warming is due to human activity or even bad for the planet, but the overwelming evidence supports these hypotheses. But to deny that the weather has changed as a result of greenhouse gas content rising seems to me to be churlish.

 

The data supports this trend hypothesis. You may be correct that it is a coincidence, is within normal variance, or a result of increased solar radiation, or the end of the little ice age, but I disagree with that conclusion.

 

Certainly it behooves us to be prepared, because the last thing 6 billion people need is another event like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

[metadigital]

That was just to show that the original article, with its mere 17000 signatories, was nothing more than significant statistical blip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it is not.

 

see, almost all global warming articles and theories start out with the phrase "nearly all scientists agree the earth is warminig and human activity is the cause." this statement is patently false. the "nearly all" statement is just thrown in without backing and the rest of the world just falls in lock step "it must be true, they said it on the news!"

 

most scientists do not agree. i dare you to show any evidence they do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have already stated that every issue of New Scientist for the last five years, almost without exception, has some further comment to this effect. That's a lot of re-inforcement, on a weekly basis, for a half-baked theory with no support. I see no evidence to the contrary, apart from your exhortations and a single petition signed by 17000 US citizens.

 

Are you really suggesting that burning fossil fuels has not significant effect on the Earth?

 

If nothing else, the insistance on making people think about the consequences of their actions can only be a good thing.

[metadigital]

Who said anything about cutting down the jungles and the dumping of toxic substances? That's obviously a problem but it is not what is being debated here since it has nothing to do with the possible adverse efect of greenhouse gas emissions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cutting down the jungles, like the Amazon, and burning the wood for heat, is one of the major issues to solve. I dred to think of northern South America looking like Saharan Africa, to say nothing of the impact on the globe.

 

And why should China, for example, adopt clean energy practises when the occident refuses to increase their energy production and product disposal costs?

[metadigital]

Many of the same scientists that predict global warming were the same people predicting an upcoming Ice Age.  And now with climate acting so bizarre, it's no longer being referred to as global warming, but climate change.  There's still anticipation of a Little Ice Age in some circles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The outcome is not known, but the state of polution and the globe is not.

 

For a while, climate models (because there are so many variables) were unable to determine if the greenhouse gases would create a barrier that prevented solar radiation getting to the Earth, or keep it from escaping.

 

I don't see any governments preparing to re-freeze the ant/artic and Greenland ice shelves if they melt.

 

Just buy some land a few meters above sea level.