By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US

akuma587 on 12 July 2008

Anytime this stuff goes to the court, the creationist/intellegist design people get slaughtered. Its as simple as that.

The "scientists" are always able to present their case so much better it isn't even funny.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 July 2008
mrjuju said:

To Bubbles: Kazz is just to dern quick lol

 

No, I am just not so arrogant that I will ignore the work of men and women who have dedicated their lives to researching the climate and the effects mankind has on it just because I don't like what they have to say. Honestly, can you picture doing that to any other profession? Your doctor says "you have an infection" and you say "Nah, feels more like a cold, you don't know anything, you're a liar". An architect says, this wall needs to be at a 92 degree angle to bear the weight and you say "Pssh, I know better, I'm going to put it at a 84 degree angle, stupid architect".

These are SCIENTISTS, not taxi drivers, not pizza delivery boys, not senators, they are men and women of science. They have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. If a VAST majority say that there is a damn good chance that we are harming the environment, then I say, let's listen. I mean seriously, what is the worst thing that can happen if we try to lower our carbon footprint a little?

Tell you what, actually read a global warming paper. The whole thing... and if you've had the least bit of scientific training you'll understand they are using a correlational sample without accounting for controls. Even if you don't have scientific training... you should know why that doesn't work.

Besides which... global tempeture change has been incrimental while our CO2 emmissions have been exponential. All it takes is a little statistical training and you should begin to see the problem.

Though as for what's wrong with it? Lets take Smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you... lets say someone along the line said "Smoking causes liver disease".

Would that be ok? To lie to people just so they do something that would be better anyway? I refuse to live by means such as that.

Furthermore you have a problem in that by thinking cigarettes cause liver disease... everyone ignores the actual cause of liver disease... since no further study is allowed on it outside of cigarettes correlational effect with liver disease.

The problem is that nobody is looking at possible factors of global warming like the sun... or the changes in the carbon sink system.

In otherwords nobody is looking for an actual solution.

Science is always this way... there is conventional knowledge based on a best guess, then it is overturned.  However since money and politics have invaded this wing of it, it's impossible to overturn even with the faulty logic beign fairly obvious.



Soleron on 12 July 2008

 

Dear All,

The evidence for global warming is basically the following. You can disagree on individual data sources or the validity of various models, but the following points are well established and are not controversial in any way:

i) The presence of greenhouse gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere indisputably raises average global temperatures.

ii) In the past there has been a significant degree of correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and average temperatures/climate patterns.

iii) Recently there has been both an unnaturally fast climb in average temperature, and an unnaturally fast climb in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The correlation between these rises is similar in degree to many historical events.

iv) An unnaturally fast climb in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would cause undesirable effects like increased frequency of natural disasters, rising sea levels, habitat loss, loss of diversity, food production losses and reduced fresh water availability. Most climate models suggest these effects will become severe within the average lifetime and will last for a long time.

Therefore: human activity (large increases in greenhouse gas output mainly due to the use of non-renewable hydrocarbon fuels) is causing average temperatures to rise unnaturally fast.

Therefore: to avoid this change in the climate and thereby avoid the effects in iv), humans need to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.



Kasz216 on 12 July 2008
Soleron said:

 

Dear All,

The evidence for global warming is basically the following. You can disagree on individual data sources or the validity of various models, but the following points are well established and are not controversial in any way:

i) The presence of greenhouse gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere indisputably raises average global temperatures.

ii) In the past there has been a significant degree of correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and average temperatures/climate patterns.

iii) Recently there has been both an unnaturally fast climb in average temperature, and an unnaturally fast climb in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The correlation between these rises is similar in degree to many historical events.

iv) An unnaturally fast climb in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would cause undesirable effects like increased frequency of natural disasters, rising sea levels, habitat loss, loss of diversity, food production losses and reduced fresh water availability. Most climate models suggest these effects will become severe within the average lifetime and will last for a long time.

Therefore: human activity (large increases in greenhouse gas output mainly due to the use of non-renewable hydrocarbon fuels) is causing average temperatures to rise unnaturally fast.

Therefore: to avoid this change in the climate and thereby avoid the effects in iv), humans need to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.

When you include water vapor in the greenhouse gas model human CO2 is insignificant. That's the problem. Most scientists don't include water vapor... and nobody can explain why. Water Vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.

The real problem looks more to be a problem with the carbon sink system when you take this into account.  Be it that, or something effecting the system as a side effect.

Similar rises and falls have happened in the planets history... where there were no humans or outside forces to change greenhouse gas emissions.



MrBubbles on 12 July 2008
mrjuju said:

To Bubbles: Kazz is just to dern quick lol

No, I am just not so arrogant that I will ignore the work of men and women who have dedicated their lives to researching the climate and the effects mankind has on it just because I don't like what they have to say. Honestly, can you picture doing that to any other profession? Your doctor says "you have an infection" and you say "Nah, feels more like a cold, you don't know anything, you're a liar". An architect says, this wall needs to be at a 92 degree angle to bear the weight and you say "Pssh, I know better, I'm going to put it at a 84 degree angle, stupid architect".

These are SCIENTISTS, not taxi drivers, not pizza delivery boys, not senators, they are men and women of science. They have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. If a VAST majority say that there is a damn good chance that we are harming the environment, then I say, let's listen. I mean seriously, what is the worst thing that can happen if we try to lower our carbon footprint a little?

 

If this doctor tells me my arm is broken, when it clearly isnt, should i take his word for it?  If they architect demands his building to be made out of bananas...should i go along?

These scientists score much larger amounts of money by proclaiming this.  The more they scare, they more they get...so they make outlandish claims.  There isnt a "vast majority" btw, just another lie, like the one that all who disagree are in pay by oil companies.

 



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
Soleron on 12 July 2008
Kasz216 said:

 

The problem is that nobody is looking at possible factors of global warming like the sun... or the changes in the carbon sink system.

In otherwords nobody is looking for an actual solution.

 

Wrong. Everybody is looking at alternative sources of global warming. Thee have been numerous independent studies of the effects of solar cycles on the climate, for example, and none of them yield numbers large enough to account for the recent warming. A lot of alternative ideas have been proposed, investigated, reported on and dismissed - often several times. Yes, all of these alternative effects added togethermay account for the warming, but the simplest hypothesis, which can account for all of the warming seen, is greenhouse gas concentrations.  Greenhouse gas concentrations have also been found to account for the majority of historical climate shifts. I think the anti-global-warming camp is looking desperately for more and more 'alternative' hypotheses to a) waste climate scientists' research money - after all, every idea is considered - so it isn't spent on looking for ways to fix the problem, and b) justify their belief that it's not our fault so they can keep profiting from the status quo.



mrjuju on 12 July 2008

Sigh, I'd like to apologize for even getting into this, I normally try to stay out of the "the big 3" (politics, religion and global warming). The only time I slip up is when I am sleepy, and indeed, I am longing for my bed (stupid morning came to soon).

Honestly, arguing about this is like fighting the sea, no one wins, and in the end you end up tired and salty...

And now, back to work. Which I'm sure within the hour will become so monotonous that I will long to be here again lol



Proud member of the Mega Mario Movement

Check out my daily drawings here and help keep me on task!

Soleron on 12 July 2008
MrBubbles said:
mrjuju said:

 

These scientists score much larger amounts of money by proclaiming this.  The more they scare, they more they get...so they make outlandish claims.  There isnt a "vast majority" btw, just another lie, like the one that all who disagree are in pay by oil companies.

 

Scientists generally do not profit from the work. They are usually employed by universities or government bodies, which are not profit-making organisations.

The "other" side, however, does have a large motivation to deny climate change - politicians don't want to pass laws that restrict companies' actions; oil and energy companies don't want to see a switch to less profitable alternatives; all companies don';t want to have to change their processes at all since change costs money.

 

If money is the argument you want to use, I would say that the deny-global-warming camp has the biggest motivation to lie.

 



Kasz216 on 12 July 2008
Soleron said:
Kasz216 said:

 

The problem is that nobody is looking at possible factors of global warming like the sun... or the changes in the carbon sink system.

In otherwords nobody is looking for an actual solution.

 

Wrong. Everybody is looking at alternative sources of global warming. Thee have been numerous independent studies of the effects of solar cycles on the climate, for example, and none of them yield numbers large enough to account for the recent warming. A lot of alternative ideas have been proposed, investigated, reported on and dismissed - often several times. Yes, all of these alternative effects added togethermay account for the warming, but the simplest hypothesis, which can account for all of the warming seen, is greenhouse gas concentrations. Greenhouse gas concentrations have also been found to account for the majority of historical climate shifts. I think the anti-global-warming camp is looking desperately for more and more 'alternative' hypotheses to a) waste climate scientists' research money - after all, every idea is considered - so it isn't spent on looking for ways to fix the problem, and b) justify their belief that it's not our fault so they can keep profiting from the status quo.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been show to correlate... though not well.

Since the tempeture rise has been incremental while man-made carbon output has grown exponential.

It's not like greenhouse gases couldn't be the cause.  However to say man-made greenhouse gases are the cause is silly.  Why would it be mostly incrimental when CO2 emissions have raised exonentially?

Isn't it possible that the carbon sink system has changed, and now more natural Co2 is being put into the air then can be cycled out.

From many causes such as things like human and animal respriration.  Or even other human factors?  Like the covering up of soil with things like cement.  (A lot of soil is known to absorb carbon.

Even if we were to cut all carbon emissions it seems likely and logical global warming would continue.

 



Kasz216 on 12 July 2008
Soleron said:
MrBubbles said:
mrjuju said:

 

These scientists score much larger amounts of money by proclaiming this. The more they scare, they more they get...so they make outlandish claims. There isnt a "vast majority" btw, just another lie, like the one that all who disagree are in pay by oil companies.

 

Scientists generally do not profit from the work. They are usually employed by universities or government bodies, which are not profit-making organisations.

The "other" side, however, does have a large motivation to deny climate change - politicians don't want to pass laws that restrict companies' actions; oil and energy companies don't want to see a switch to less profitable alternatives; all companies don';t want to have to change their processes at all since change costs money.

 

If money is the argument you want to use, I would say that the deny-global-warming camp has the biggest motivation to lie.

 

What do you think happens to a scientist who thinks global warming isn't real? What kind of university do you think he gets to work at? What if he's just an honest guy who wants to do honest climate research?

He certaintly couldn't work for Oil companies either. He's basically the Wal-mart employee with the best degree out there... either that or working for some low level college.

They have plenty of motivation.  Even some oil companies benefit.  There is LOTS Of money to be made in green fuels.  This is really true if you get the public so afraid they are willing to pay a premium because they think they'll die if they don't.

Regardless the best way to look through it is the scientific method.

I have no problems with lowering carbon footprints. I think it's a great idea for non-gobal warming reasons. However, I can't stand faulty science.

Science was better off back when it was rich men's hobbies. There it was more uncorruptable. Ironically the golden times os science seem to have been when it was mostly ignored.