Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

I believe in science. But not everything that CLAIMS to be science, IS.
The science of phrenology for example.
http://www.phrenology.org/intro.html

[powerabout]

I thought climate change was the first religious based science?
Scientist says its real and good things happen to them.
Scientist says its doesnt exist and bad things happen to them
so thats proof surely!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

I believe in science. But not everything that CLAIMS to be science, IS.
The science of phrenology for example.
http://www.phrenology.org/intro.html

That's a bit of a stretch; climatology doesn't just 'claim' to be science. It's considered a legitimate science by the rest of the scientific community, and scientists in other fields accept its methodologies and results.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

Again with the specious political ploy to distract from the science of climate shift. Yup, the politicians are crooked, whats new. Climate shift on the other hand is solid science, a deadly threat, and a must fix.

Crap!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by powerabout

I thought climate change was the first religious based science?
Scientist says its real and good things happen to them.
Scientist says its doesnt exist and bad things happen to them
so thats proof surely!

Nope. Cliimate change had to get in line to be branded a religion. That's the first thing opponents do with any beliefs they don't like.

Go talk to the creationists, for example. They've been accusing people who accept evolution of worshipping at the altar of Darwinism for as long as I can remember....

[powerabout]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

More crap. Even Darwin believed in Creation. He just wanted to figure out how God did it.

simple, God started after the big bang with a single cell and Darwins theory did the rest and here we are

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by powerabout

simple, God started after the big bang with a single cell and Darwins theory did the rest and here we are

I deleted that post because Darwin said he is an agnostic. I guess he'll be sure pretty soon.

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”
Charles Darwin

But he also said this:
“It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. . .
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Charles Darwin

[hoytedow]

So Darwin at least at some point, whilst being an evolutionist, was also a Creationist.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

So Darwin at least at some point, whilst being an evolutionist, was also a Creationist.

Evolution is just a description of a process. If someone wants to say it's a process set into motion by God, who's to prove him wrong?

But I was using the conventional and common definition of creationism, which denies evolution completely.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Creationists are people who pay $24.95 apiece for tickets to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where "Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers." And believe it depicts reality....

[troy2000]

More on the Creation Museum, from Wikipedia:

Each permanent employee must sign a statement of faith indicating that he or she believes in young Earth creationism and the other teachings of Answers in Genesis. These include "Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation", "the only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman", "the great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event" and "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." When applying for work a written statement of one's beliefs is required along with résumé and references.

In other words, you can't work there unless you're willing to say, "my mind is made up; don't try to confuse me with facts."

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Well, as I keep saying. We'll wait and see. The next 3 to 5 years should tell us which way is up.

You might be surprised, but I've read everything I can find on BOTH sides of the issue, that wasn't blatantly ridiculous. And still reading.

As soon as I read, CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. I know that's false and stop reading.
On the 'deny' side, as soon as I read lizard men or something similar, I stop reading.

On the warmists side, this series of essays was in depth, interesting, and made the fewest extravagant claims. Untill the final predictions. They lost it there!
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

Honestly Job- I have no horse in the race.

I work as all do and will meet what challenges that come my way as best as I can.
Global warming, cooling, ozone holes.. whatever.


What brought me to these threads years back was a feeling of absolute dismay that many felt it necessary to directly assault the findings of science.
I was raised by a naturalist, have my degree in ecology and trust without limit that our best chance of understanding our world will come from the efforts of dedicated individuals who work over their lifetimes to push the limits of our knowledge forward.
These workers are found in all walks of life from dedicated amateurs to research scientists working in universities and commercial establishments.

The understanding we gain through their efforts helps to lead us towards better solutions to the challenges facing our societies.
We live as it were barely above the campfire energetically- we simply burn things to get our energy and provide our transportation. The waste we produce in our energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors is abysmally high.
We need I believe to advance our processes in order to sustain our populations and increase the standard of living for all as we continue.
Efficiency is the key to our future I believe. Energy losses, waste byproducts all need to be better controlled to net higher gains out of our limited resources and to lessen the burden these waste products represent to the environment.

As you say- the truth will out on this issue. What is at risk is a continued tension in our societies over science which thwarts direct utilization of the information we gain from our research communities. I won't say it is the best of us as I find our strength lies in all walks of life and with all vocations. We do however have a opportunity to advance our societies in needed ways by availing ourselves to the best information we have as it becomes known.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Evolution is just a description of a process. If someone wants to say it's a process set into motion by God, who's to prove him wrong?

But I was using the conventional and common definition of creationism, which denies evolution completely.



Creationists are people who pay $24.95 apiece for tickets to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where "Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers." And believe it depicts reality....

Can you prove it didn't depict reality? Maybe you have some videotape of the real Garden of Eden that will refute the theme park version. Or maybe you have a newspaper article dated 4000 BC. Right now all you have is theory, just like AGW.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Can you prove it didn't depict reality? .

Sure can- I'm surprised you haven't asked before...

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by bntii

Sure can- I'm surprised you haven't asked before...

I was asking Troy so don't get all froggy!













I'm waiting.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Can you prove it didn't depict reality? Maybe you have some videotape of the real Garden of Eden that will refute the theme park version. Or maybe you have a newspaper article dated 4000 BC. Right now all you have is theory, just like AGW.

The world is over 4.5 billion years old. Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. Homo Sapiens, the modern human race, is about 200,000 years old. Those assertions aren't just fuzzy theories or wishful thinking; they represent the conclusions of scientists who've been studying the geological and fossil record for generations now.

If you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago instead, and there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, we might as well quit right now.