Our Oceans are Under Attack

As to "science" owning an exclusive on truth, I'll offer a single example, but could cite 100s.
Until Hubble discovered the expanding of the universe, science taught the universe was static and eternal.

Hubble proved the universe had a beginning. The expansion was traceable from a single point. And measurable time.

Hmmm!
Seems the creationists knew the universe had a beginning thousands of years in advance of modern scientists. And they are willing to quote their ancient source for the information.

Science is not infallible nor does it refute faith. More and more evidence of 'design' is discovered by science daily.

 

As to climate change.
That is NOT your message. It's a straw man, but the only argument that has validity.
You have little opposition that climate is changing. Always has and is changing.
Because climate is changing does NOT lend credibility to anthropogenic carbon as the CAUSE of climate change.
But, I understand.
Since you can only offer presumptuous suppositions in support of man made carbon being the culprit,
you'd rather prove climate change (easy) and infer you must be right about your other assumptions as to cause.
Wrong.

In atheist arguments, their tactic is offer a plausible explanation how things COULD occur naturally, and claim that eliminates God.
It doesn't. And doesn't mean their scenario happened.
Offering plausible explanations how a teeny, eensy, fraction of, while total co2 =only 400 parts per million, a tiniest bit of human co2 might cause global warming, does NOT mean that it DOES happen that way.
Water vapor is the 95% dominant greenhouse gas, and NOT tied to co2 or caused by humans!
Total human influence on warming from all emissions is about a quarter of 1%.
Negligible and insignificant. Human co2 only has a tenth of 1% influence on warming. Even less significant!

Ya'll are too enamored of your rhetoric and think it actually means something.
It just supposes!
And no proof! ie: Proves nothing!
And not accepted by the majority of Americans.
Regardless of affiliation.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ience-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it

Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it
With its roots in the tobacco industry, climate science denial talking points can be seen as manufactured doubt.

The Denial Machine

For more than 15 years Soon has been a key part of the globe-spanning industry producing doubt about the science of climate change.

There are four main cogs that make up the machinery as I see it - conservative “free market” think tanks, public relations groups, fossil fuel organizations and ideologically aligned media.

Occasionally over the years, the hood on the climate denial machine has been lifted to reveal its hidden workings.

As I wrote for The Guardian last week, in 1998 a leaked American Petroleum Institute memo detailed how a dozen fossil fuel lobbyists, think tank associates and PR professionals had come together for a mass scale misinformation project on climate science.

The memo claimed that “victory” would be achieved when “uncertainties” (read: doubt) became part of the conventional wisdom among the public.

As detailed in my piece, many of the same individuals continue to work in the climate science doubt production industry while defending fossil fuels.

But this wasn’t the first or the last time that internal documents have shown how the fossil fuel industry and ideologues work together to produce doubt on climate science.

In 1991, for example, a group of coal utilities devised an advertising and public relations campaign that would also recruit scientists to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”.

The actual tobacco playbook

The campaign to sow doubt and discredit science to maintain industry profits was one honed by the tobacco industry during its fight against the science linking its products with cancer.
Documents obtained by US lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the 1990s and 2000s are now housed in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

Among the many thousands of documents, is Bad Science: A Resource Book – described in Merchants of Doubt as a “how-to handbook for fact fighters”.

Produced by the tobacco industry to help any industry fight any legislation that responded to scientific findings, this was a representation of big tobacco’s playbook in written form.

The book provided soundbites and ready-made talking points to arm any industry fighting regulation.

Think tanks?

At the time of the Oregon petition, Willie Soon was affiliated to the George C. Marshall Institute, one of the earliest US free market think tanks to take up climate science denial with the help of fossil fuel funding.

This week, another free market think tank, the Heartland Institute, issued a statement on behalf of Soon, who claimed his funding had never influenced his work and that he had always disclosed his financial backers when asked.

Of course, Heartland continues to defend the tobacco industry in it’s online “Smoker’s Lounge” and claims the public health community’s “campaign to demonize smokers” is based on “junk science”.

There is a network of these think tanks across the world, and they play a key role in producing doubt as part of what should be seen as a public relations effort that serves the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry

In the book Merchants of Doubt (released as a film this week) authors Naomi Oreskes (an actual Harvard professor) and Erik Conway explain that some of the same individuals and think tanks who had worked with the tobacco industry had moved on to climate science denial.

 

Psuedo-science needs exposing and refuting whenever it appears.

"
Best Answer: As far as I remember science doesn't prove that cigarettes cause cancer. Scientifically you would say there is a correlation. That means if you look at the numbers people who smoke more also happen to be more likely to get cancer. There's a relationship between the numbers which is pretty good evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

An example is if someone did a study that if you drink coffee there is a higher chance you'll get cancer, but it may be something else entirely. If I drink coffee I'm more likely to drink creamer with it too. The creamer might be what's actually causing it, but you would still see a correlation between the coffee and the cancer.

For example, it may not be the tobacco it may be the extra nicotine added in by the factory. However, it is likely that cigarettes do cause cancer because they've done enough studies on it, but if you were attempting to be really specific you'd have to say there is much evidence, but like everything in life you can't be 100 percent sure. To get proof you need to do a controlled experiment in a lab instead of just a study

The effects of cigarettes simply take too long to do the needed controlled experiement on a human being, but I don't think that's really needed anyway. "

Many heavy smokers are also heavy drinkers and eat poor improper diets.
Since the VAST majority of smokers do not get cancer.....

"Based on United States statistics, the lifetime risk that a man will develop lung cancer is 7.62%, or 1 in 13 people. For women, lifetime risk is 6.61% or 1 in 15. The lifetime risk of a man dying from lung cancer is 6.26% or 1 in 16, and 4.99% or 1 in 20 women will die from the disease. Clearly these numbers would be higher for people who smoke and much lower for people who have never smoked.
Studies in other countries have broken down the risk further to differentiate between never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers.

In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:
•0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)
•5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)
•15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)
•24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)" http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm

...it's pretty difficult to justify demonizing tobacco when statistics have not been gathered for the additional life style aspects of those who did get cancer(diet,alcohol).

My best guess is people who are offended by smoking look for science to back their agenda to outlaw it.
AND they aren't particular about the quality of the science.

Same as doomsters and human carbon.

Pseudo-science seems the norm among those seeking to control others.
And claiming over simplified causes to complex problems.

Too much watching of Saturday morning cartoons when they were kids?
Should of been out hunting, fishing, playing ball.
Learning REAL values!

 

irrationalnumber wrote: "The creationist battle against evolution remains fierce, and more sophisticated than ever."

Evolution was debunked and destroyed as a theory only 5 years after Origin of Species was published, by no less an honored true scientist, than Louis Pasteur himself.
Pasteur demonstrated by experiment that (frogs from mud, maggots in rotten meat) spontaneous generation of life did NOT and could not occur. Life came only from parents, Kind begetting kind.
Evolution depended on this dead myth of spontaneous generation for the existence of the simplest creatures that then supposedly evolved.
It was the common belief of Darwin's era.
Many more parts of evolution have later been proven wrong, but it is still taught today in public schools as THE unique truth!

Pseudo-science is tough to eradicate.
Because it's adherents have HUGE faith.
Evolutionists believe something came from nothing without cause!
That takes some powerful believing in the unseen!

 

OH! Schools teach only truth? Government runs schools and determines a large part of curriculum? Government never lies?
Logic: If A and B are true, and then C is true.
but If C is false, either or both A and B must be false.

 

Veggie burgers may soon rule the land.

http://www.eater.com/2015/2/16/8048069/un-says-veganism-can-save-the-world-from-destruction

Can a vegan diet save the world? According to a new report from the UN, the answer is "yes." The Guardian writes that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty, and the worst impacts of climate change." The report notes that the Western preference for meat- and dairy-heavy diets is "unsustainable," especially as the population is expected to grow to 9.1 billion by 2050.

The report adds that "animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals." Plus, livestock raised for meat consumes a large portion of the world's crops and a lot of freshwater. Currently, agriculture, "particularly meat and dairy products," account for 70 percent of the world's freshwater consumption. It also accounts for 39 percent of the globe's total land use and 19 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Importantly, as the population grows, the impact from agriculture will substantially grow as well, thanks to the the increasing consumption of animal products. The report notes that "unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives."

Last year the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation said that food production would have to increase globally by 70% by 2050 to feed the world's surging population. The panel says that efficiency gains in agriculture will be overwhelmed by the expected population growth.

 

soylent green. Made out of greeners?

 

Public schools and universities have been propagandizing vile untruths since the hippies took them over.

 

Evolution has been taught in US public schools long before hippies existed. Between creation and evolution, all possibilities are covered.
No matter how ragged and shot full of holes evolution is, it's all atheists have.
Pathetic

 

It is exactly what you and Yob are doing to this thread with your derailing propagandizing, paranoia, bible bashing, hidden agendas, conspiracy theories and hate mongering.

Hoytedow I have placed your vitriolic trolling on ignore

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/yes-climate-change-has-a-hand-in-the-california-drought/

But rainfall isn’t the only factor that contributes to drought. The heat of the day sucks moisture out of the soil, helped along by blowing winds. Boost either of those factors, and you’ll need more rainfall to keep the drought account from going in the red. Since the globe is warmer now than it was a century ago and California is part of that globe, it’s fair to guess that climate change isn’t helping.

To cut to the heart of the question, a group of researchers led by Lamont-Doherty’s Park Williams designed a study to quantify the contribution of global warming to the current drought.

Using a number of weather observation datasets that provide good coverage of the state back to 1901 (and through 2014), they found no long-term trend in precipitation. Climate models don’t predict that precipitation should be decreasing in California because of climate change either, so the researchers focused on temperature.

They calculated potential evaporation and plant transpiration rates as well as a metric for drought conditions. Then using four different estimates of the anthropogenic contribution to increasing temperatures, they estimated the portion of the current drought that can be blamed on anthropogenic warming.

In their paper, Williams and his colleagues conclude, “Anthropogenic warming has intensified the recent drought as part of a chronic trend toward enhanced drought that is becoming increasingly detectable and is projected to continue growing throughout the rest of this century.”

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ew-on-ocean-science-care-more-and-invest-more

The ocean is by far the oldest feature of the planet, far older than any of the granite continents, but unexpectedly the basalt ocean floor is far younger, and continuously being renewed by processes that no one knew anything about until the mid-1960s, nor even witnessed until the mid-80s. The sea is the birthplace of all life on Earth. Every feature of all animal, plant and reptile life on land has evolutionary origins in the saline depths half-a-billion years ago, and the sea still represents the greatest single living space on the only planet known to be home to any life at all.

The ocean is the origin of the planet’s rainfall, the distributor of its heat and the arbiter of its climate. A distinguished scientist once calculated that the Gulf Stream delivered the thermal energy of 27,000 power stations, to keep Britain 5C warmer than its latitude might dictate. The sea is the most important thing on Earth, and the exquisitely thin but vast layer of the ocean where water and atmosphere meet is where the most vital processes take place. But almost the entire ocean surface is now polluted with plastic wastes. One 2015 study calculated that 8m tonnes of plastic waste flow from the land to the sea every year.

The life beneath it is being hunted or fished to near-extinction: the count of whales, dolphins, sharks, rays and turtles has fallen by 75% and some species, such as the so-called common skate, have been reduced by 99%. Greenhouse gas emissions from human industry are making the seas ever more acidic, bad news for the corals and shellfish that have evolved to exploit the precise chemistry of the seas, and probably for many of the fish that depend on the reefs and mollusc beds. Deep-sea oil-drilling threatens one kind of pollution; deep-sea mining – for cobalt, manganese, gold and silver – could make things worse. There are new and ambitious attempts to create automaton observatories to monitor the seas and map the current. They have evocative names like Argo and represent new ways to observe what is going on either in the top 2000 metres or the deep-sea bed, but they are only a beginning, and funding for such science has always been precarious.

 

Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh: only love can save us from climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/zen-master-thich-nhat-hanh-love-climate-change

 

..... except for the minor *fact* that we know evolution happens, because even in our lifetime we've seen it happen with bacteria. Also crossover genes carrying resistance to pesticides et al.

So while I'm a skeptic WRT AGW, I frankly think you're a raving lunatic when it comes to evolution. I don't care, though - I long got used to the fact that people like you can't be brought to examine their inbuilt prejudices and biases. I blame it on your upbringing.

Oh well - back to working in the shop, coffee break is over.......

PDW