 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pondering wrote: | agree with the politics, which is why I say the science is tainted...
|
The science isn't tainted. If you read the actual papers (and I reiterate my offer to give them to you), they are all very specific. None of them say anything like, "Humans are responsible for global warming." They say things like, "Between the years 1950 and 1980, there was an average x% decrease per year in pan evaporation".
They usually just give scientific facts, and don't really go into the commentary.
Like the Vostok ice core paper; it just gives objective, factual data of what the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were over the past half million years. No interpretation, no opinions, just scientific fact.
Incidentally, there are a bunch of papers which give raise for serious concern. They suggest that the situation is much more delicate than the media is reporting, and they make convincing scientific arguments.
| Pondering wrote: |
I think my basic point is...I'm very concerned about overreaction to what may be a natural cycle. I do think that human activity is A part of what's going on...a small, but potentially important part, but it calls for a reasoned response and not the "Sky is falling" approach that I feel is going on...
Maybe the motivation is that the public is hyped by everything, so to get any attention, things have to be over-the-top.
|
The public does have the attention span of a gnat... You have a point here. If they didn't scream fire, then the media wouldn't even mention global warming. Instead it would be all about, "What should you get your pet this Christmas?", and, "How much will Thomas Federlane get from his divorce settlement with Britney Spears?"
| Pondering wrote: |
Things like the Kyoto accords aren't a bad idea in principle..but in the implementation, they hold the West to a higher standard (basically asking us to take an economic loss) while the Second World (China, India, East Europe) get a buy and allowed to "catch-up" in Industrial capacity...then get them to transition to more efficient/cleaner systems... |
First of all, having just been there, I'd definitely throw India in with the third world, and not the second world.
I agree that they shouldn't get any breaks. I've never seen such environmental irresponsibility before in my entire life.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
P#s,
Fair 'nuff, but the scientists don't JUST state facts..things like the IPCC make predictive judgements based on circumstantial evidence and then state it as fact....There is an important and crucial difference...Words like "may", "if", "likely" are qualifiers...but they get glossed over...
In other news, this trend concerns me -
In Oregon (story here), the Governor wants to strip the State climatologist of his title (unpaid position) because " His opinions conflict ... but with the state of Oregon's policies."
The Gov goes on to say ""I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'" Isn't that the Governor's job?
It seems he wants the State Climatologist to say it so that it adds "scientific support" to legislation that achieve the "state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases."
What's really funny is that it is Oregon State University that gave the climatologist the title, not the State of Oregon...but the Gov wants the legislature to revoke it 
In Delaware, it's a similar situation (story here), except in this case, the climatologist is discredited because he is linked to Exxon-Mobile funded studies....
The sad part is, because the oil industry (and all industry) fund studies to present their position in the best light (tobacco did the same thing) there is a valid reason for skepticism. I'm just asking why no one applies the same skepticism to the advocates of human-induced global warming?
Now replace global warming with the Generic Topic A nad Generic Topic B. If there was active efforts to stifle points contrary to either Topic...wouldn't you be skeptical? Especially if the Generic Topics lined up along Democrat vs Republican or US vs China lines?
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
We here in Oregon just got the sad news about politics ruling science and I couldn't believe it.
Climatic warming is now a political statement not a scientific theory. Aids is another issue which has become political instead of a medical issue.
Since when do politicians make decisions about scientific/medical issues? It is a recent phenomenon. They should stay out of this arena and refrain from making statements.
I doubt there is any money attached to the title of state climatologist anyway. He is a secure professor there at OSU and cannot be fired for his opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, these are exactly the type of arguments that we should get away from. If you guys think that global warming has become too politicized, and you'd rather see scientists in charge of the science, then stop participating in the political arguments!
I propose that we get down to the pure science of climate change. I have many of the original scientific papers about climate change, and I would be more than happy to share them with you.
Since climate change is such a massive issue, let's first just try to find the scientific answer to the following question:
If humans had never existed, then what would the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentrations be?
Note that this is not a question about global warming. It is purely a question about CO2 concentrations.
This is not a difficult question to answer, and scientists have the answer.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If humans had never existed, then what would the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentrations be? |
how do we know what they were before humans existed?
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
If humans had never existed, then what would the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentrations be?
Note that this is not a question about global warming. It is purely a question about CO2 concentrations.
This is not a difficult question to answer, and scientists have the answer. |
Actually, it is...it's also impossible to determine...
Any data they have modeled starts with an assumption that "all other data being static" then what would the CO2 levels be...
but it's a multivariate problem...Humans HAVE changed the face the Earth (settlement, deforestation, irrigation, etc) so...the question is moot.
It also implies that the Earth would be better off without us...2 issues underlie that implication 1) self-loathing and 2) personification of the Earth as a sentient being. I don't follow either line of thinking 
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
Actually, it is...it's also impossible to determine...
|
It may be impossible to determine the EXACT concentration with EXACT accuracy, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you to tell me what the CO2 concentration would be if humans had never existed. We have a VERY good idea about what the answer to this question is.
| Pondering wrote: |
Any data they have modeled starts with an assumption that "all other data being static" then what would the CO2 levels be...
but it's a multivariate problem...Humans HAVE changed the face the Earth (settlement, deforestation, irrigation, etc) so...the question is moot.
|
Pondering, I understand why you might think this, but it really isn't. You don't know where I'm going with this. Please humor me.
| Pondering wrote: |
It also implies that the Earth would be better off without us...2 issues underlie that implication 1) self-loathing and 2) personification of the Earth as a sentient being. I don't follow either line of thinking |
No, none of this has anything to do with my question. It really doesn't. You don't know where I'm going with this.
Seriously, just play along with my stupid game for a second. I'm telling you that I can prove to you that we know the answer to the question and that there is no scientific argument against the answer.
I can give you the paper which implies the answer. Do you want me to send it to you?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ha...180ppmv...
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pondering wrote: | | 2 issues underlie that implication 1) self-loathing and 2) personification of the Earth as a sentient being. I don't follow either line of thinking |
me neither...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | | ha...180ppmv... |
Not bad, lone. The answer is usually considered to be a little higher, but not bad!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If humans had never existed, then what would the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentrations be? |
According to your 'science' is this even possible? Humanity would have evolved anyway wouldn't it?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | lone-traveler wrote: | | ha...180ppmv... |
Not bad, lone. The answer is usually considered to be a little higher, but not bad! |
tell you the truth P123,
I looked up that word "atmospheric CO2 concentrations".
I found this sciencemag.org..I think..that was last night.. and I read through the whole page and didn't understand one word until it came to talking about 160,000 years ago...There was a chart and it began around 180ppmv, and then it went into all the things to take into consideration that adds to that.
I figured if man was around 160,000 years ago, he couldn't be doing too much damage.. 
So anywho...I cheated..  
still, today it's what over 330ppm?
There was another website I looked at..don't remember..looking at my history..
And it said that instruments to be able to determine these measurements began in the 1800's sometime, and it showed a graph with how it began excelerating around the 1940's.
But if we didn't have instruments to determine before the 1800's, then how do we know that this isn't just a cycle?
We can tell by ice cores where it may have originated, and see where it actually was when they first made the instruments, and where we are today.
But there really isn't a way to determine how frequent or severe these changes may have occured from 160,000 years ago to the 1800's..is there?
so is it possible that this is natural? That every so many thousands of years there is a spike in the CO2?
See what trouble men get us into..
LOL..
making me think..
science..it's what's for breakfast...
maybe that's how ice ages occur...everything burns up and then when there's nothing left to burn it freezes over..and the only thing keeping us from ending up like one of those cold dead planets is the sun and our own inner core?
heavy stuff..
Have a good day
Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | If humans had never existed, then what would the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentrations be? |
According to your 'science' is this even possible? Humanity would have evolved anyway wouldn't it? |
I'm just asking a simple question: pretend that aliens came down a million years ago and abducted all of the humans. What would our atmospheric CO2 concentration be today.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: |
So anywho...I cheated..
|
No Lone; you didn't cheat! You did EXACTLY what you were supposed to do! You went out and found the answer.
Good work, and you are SPOT on with the ice cores. I have the original Vostok Ice Core paper. Do you want to see it?
| lone-traveler wrote: |
still, today it's what over 330ppm? |
No, today it's over 375 ppm, and going up steadily!!!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmmmm...strange....polar icecap melting is not unique to Earth...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
Why could this be?
1) It has more to do with our solar system's location in the universal spiral?
2) It has more to do with solar activity (increased radiation from the sun?)
3) We produced SO MUCH CO2, that Haliburton has been secretly using the Space Shuttle to send it to Mars?
4) It's George Bush's fault.
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
