Compare and contrast:
"Intelligent design is a demonstrable consensus amongst the scientists with a specialization in ID science, and is thus universally accepted, and not amenable to some wag asking why if it is intelligent design we have vestigial organs."If there was any such thing as a scientist with a specialization in intelligent design, I'd be happy to compare and contrast. I might as well compare and contrast with a unicorn.
See, real scientists actually publish reproducible research in refereed journals.
Cappadocius, you have just become my personal hero. *hugs*
Let me rephrase my point. A meta-studies of all available research have shown a consistant consensus for more than 30 years.
|
My favorite data set for this topic.
People on both sides of this topic get very dramatic and very excited, raising arguments and being, generally, very impolite, without the benefit of any supporting scientific data--so here's some data to chew over.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In regards to the original topic, I saw a great doom and gloom article the other day about the cycles of the sun. It suggested that there could be solar storms in our near future which would emit such enormous EMPs that they would fry most electronics on Earth.
EVERYONE PANIC!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
In regards to the original topic, I saw a great doom and gloom article the other day about the cycles of the sun. It suggested that there could be solar storms in our near future which would emit such enormous EMPs that they would fry most electronics on Earth.
EVERYONE PANIC!
I've been watching reruns of Dark Angel in preparation. I'm prepared to live off-the-grid in a gritty/urban/punk/post-apocalyptic setting. I've been preparing all my life for it. (So, who's going to start the PbP?).
|
I've been watching reruns of Dark Angel in preparation. I'm prepared to live off-the-grid in a gritty/urban/punk/post-apocalyptic setting. I've been preparing all my life for it. (So, who's going to start the PbP?).In regards to the original topic, I saw a great doom and gloom article the other day about the cycles of the sun. It suggested that there could be solar storms in our near future which would emit such enormous EMPs that they would fry most electronics on Earth.
EVERYONE PANIC!
I just finished watching the Dark Angel series for the first time. Speaking as a rural boy, a couple of things struck me. Firstly, the writers were most definately east coast liberals with no real knowledge of 'middle america.' Secondly, when the crash comes, us country folks will have it all over the city folks when it comes to survival. :)
But other than that it was a good show.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I've been watching reruns of Dark Angel in preparation. I'm prepared to live off-the-grid in a gritty/urban/punk/post-apocalyptic setting. I've been preparing all my life for it. (So, who's going to start the PbP?).In regards to the original topic, I saw a great doom and gloom article the other day about the cycles of the sun. It suggested that there could be solar storms in our near future which would emit such enormous EMPs that they would fry most electronics on Earth.
EVERYONE PANIC!
I just finished watching the Dark Angel series for the first time. Speaking as a rural boy, a couple of things struck me. Firstly, the writers were most definately east coast liberals with no real knowledge of 'middle america.' Secondly, when the crash comes, us country folks will have it all over the city folks when it comes to survival. :)
But other than that it was a good show.
I recall a few episodes where they got out of Seattle but it has been about 6 or 7 years since I saw season 2. That was in Season 2, right?
Anyhow, I wouldn't know how accurately they portrayed 'Middle America'; the furthest south I've been (in the U.S.A.) was northern New York State (unless you count Guam).
|
|
If there was any such thing as a scientist with a specialization in intelligent design, I'd be happy to compare and contrast. I might as well compare and contrast with a unicorn.
See, real scientists actually publish reproducible research in refereed journals.
There are very much people with degrees from accredited universities who declare they have a specialization in intelligent design, whether you are aware of them or approve their claims or not.
As for reproducible results, I am not aware of any control earths that have been used to prove anthropogenic climate change over a hundred year span. Do they have unicorns?
|
|
Cappadocius, you have just become my personal hero. *hugs*
Because he failed to refute a criticque of an improper statement you made?
Let me rephrase my point. A meta-studies of all available research have shown a consistant consensus for more than 30 years.
That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".
Who let the dogs in?
Someone pointed out the doggie door.
|
There are very much people with degrees from accredited universities who declare they have a specialization in intelligent design, whether you are aware of them or approve their claims or not.
One, Liberty University is accredited. Two, do these people have degrees in anything remotely resembling a subject that could be applied to anthropogenic climate change? I get really tired of seeing Engineers signing off on these "teach the controversy" petitions. Three, I'm aware of the big names, the standard bearers y'know, and not one of 'em publishes anything resembling research on the subject in a refereed journal. Just off the top of my head, Guillermo Gonzalez is an astrophysicist; Ben Stein is an attorney; John Wells is a geologist, physicist, and Moonie; and Michael Behe, who is a molecular biologist whose claims of irreducible complexity are not especially borne out by his own work.
You know why? Because Intelligent Design isn't a scientifically falsifiable claim. Replying to "Evolution explains this, this, and that." with "Nuh uh." isn't an acceptable rebuttal in science. You wanna say, "That's stupid", then science is going to ask you to produce a testable alternate hypothesis.
As for reproducible results, I am not aware of any control earths that have been used to prove anthropogenic climate change over a hundred year span. Do they have unicorns?
However, you can look at records of environmental activity from before and after human civilization, you can compare environmental activity before and after industrialization over large areas, you can do the MATH on how the various chemical reactions caused by and physical properties of the products of human activity will bear out in the real world. You can track over the last century the increasingly high acidic content of sea water that is caused by large amounts of carbon accumulation, and can point out that the only way for gaseous carbon to get into sea water is via atmospheric effects. You can observe the heat dome microclimates that form over cities, and track these effects in the developing world as cities grow and become more like the Western world's. Only the ignorant can then claim that these microclimates have no effect on the atmosphere and weather systems surrounding them; you can SEE pressure systems, precipitation, wind movement all deformed by these things.
The overwhelming weight of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic climate change and against intelligent design. Denial of both of these facts is denying that the Titanic is sinking as the icy water laps around one's ankles.
|
|
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".
That's how science works. Evidence is discovered, experiments are conducted, terms are revised for accuracy. It does not work by going "nuh unh"
Global Warming is still a thing, as average global temperatures are increasing; however, by referring ONLY to "global warming" in these discussion, it ignores the larger and potentially more dangerous effect. Folks who aren't well-versed in climate science can dismiss the whole effect with a simple "It was super cold this winter, and so global warming is a myth." - the entire concept anthropogenic climate change encompasses global warming, but also explains why there're more hurricanes now than ever before, the acidification of the oceans, and possibly the fungal plagues causing both amphibian and bee populations worldwide to plummet.
It is the best explanation for the evidence we've got, and rather than stomping their feet and saying "No way!", I'd like to see those folks who dissent do some research to prove all that mountain of evidence on the other side is wrong. As a matter of fact, there are some folks who are doing research and they've got some interesting preliminary findings on the subject. But in no way has anyone "slam dunked" the case against it.
|
|
One, Liberty University is accredited. Two, do these people have degrees in anything remotely resembling a subject that could be applied to anthropogenic climate change?
You seem confused.
Just because a quorom, or even all, scientists in a particular field agree on a particular hypothesis or theory, it in no way constitutes part of the proof of the hypothesis or places the theory above being questioned.That is what is being asserted for "anthropogenic climate change", and by your standard that makes it junk science.
However, you can look at records of . . .
No, you demanded reproducible experiments.
Until you produce additional earths to test these theories, or retract that requirement, looking at records is insufficient to meet your requested requirement.Now you are pulling a bait and switch to try and secure a double standard of proof. That parallels with the demands made by the supporters of ID are . . . striking.
The overwhelming weight of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic climate change and against intelligent design. Denial of both of these facts is denying that the Titanic is sinking as the icy water laps around one's ankles.
The weight of evidence was supposed to be overwhelming in favor of global warming, but now it has been downgraded to anthropogenic climate change.
One might reasonably begin to be more than a bit skeptical of continuing claims to "absolute" anything from the scientists making such claims.That's how science works. Evidence is discovered, experiments are conducted, terms are revised for accuracy. It does not work by going "nuh unh"
How exactly do you conduct an experiment when you cannot have any controls or multiple tests?
Global Warming is still a thing, as average global temperatures are increasing; however, by referring ONLY to "global warming" in these discussion, it ignores the larger and potentially more dangerous effect.
Then why did scientists ignore those larger and potentially more dangerous effects for so long by just harping on global warming?
Folks who aren't well-versed in climate science can dismiss the whole effect with a simple "It was super cold this winter, and so global warming is a myth." - the entire concept anthropogenic climate change encompasses global warming, but also explains why there're more hurricanes now than ever before, the acidification of the oceans, and possibly the fungal plagues causing both amphibian and bee populations worldwide to plummet.
More hurricanes that ever before?
Do please produce your evidence for the number of hurricans in 1420. In 1066. In 476. In 88 B.C. In 340,738 B.C.When you can possibly produce such with absolute accuracy and certainty then you will have a reasonable claim. Until then you are working exclusively on projections, and the data is not universally accepted by all climatologists, despite assertions otherwise.
It is the best explanation for the evidence we've got, and rather than stomping their feet and saying "No way!", I'd like to see those folks who dissent do some research to prove all that mountain of evidence on the other side is wrong. As a matter of fact, there are some folks who are doing research and they've got some interesting preliminary findings on the subject. But in no way has anyone "slam dunked" the case against it.
No, it is the best explanation that you like.
But please, do tell, just how much research you have done on the subject to be able to assert this so conclusively. Are you in fact a climatologist that has been studying this for 30 years? Have you examined all of the opposing research, and performed tests to refute it all? Or are you just relying on reports and assertions by others, and demanding everyone accept the same conclusions you have accepted?
Cappadocius, you have just become my personal hero. *hugs*Because he failed to refute a criticque of an improper statement you made?
In fairness, you argument didn't need dealing with. It is obviously false to anyone who knows more than a smattering of biology. Simply put, intelligent design advicates are not publishing. This is because their work on the subject does not stand up to the rigors of Peer Review. The number of actual biologists who have signed 'the decent from darwin' is so small that their is a several hundreds as many serious academics who would be classed as holocaust deniers
In other words, I.D. is a joke idea whose tiny number of serious proponents do not publish.
You are comparing a movement, which is the definition of an academic joke to a cross-disciplinary specialism made up of ten of thousands of publishing scientists across the world.
The original statement is valid because climate scientists are a legitimate authority on the subject of climate change.
Let me rephrase my point. A meta-studies of all available research have shown a consistant consensus for more than 30 years.That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".
Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality. Just a staggering majority, though not as staggering at the consensus with regards to evolution.
Now let see. "Fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus." Ah, so your complaining that the scientific process is working the way that it is ment to.
It is the fact that scientific theory is able to change and adapt that makes it worthwhile. Having come to understand that the Net out come of green house gases may be something other simple warming is itself evidence that the consensus is being shifted.
Also, the introduction of Anthropogenic into the name is a sign of how far the consensus has moved toward human influence being a major factor.
|
|
Just a thought, and I admit I'm not a scientist. Is it possible that the Sun is older then we thought and is showing it's age by becoming a K class star?Possible, but unlikely without our understanding of stellar evolution being much more incorrect than folks would ever admit to. :)
I would. I like it when I'm wrong - it means that I just learned something.
As I recall, stars don't change their class by much during their time on the main sequence, and when the Sun starts to reach the end of its life then it will swell into a red giant.
We have found rocks 4 billion years old. We can measure the mass of the Sun and its composition quite well. From these we can calculate a hydrogen burning time of 10 billion years. So it is a safe bet that the Sun is not that much older than we think for this to be the start of the Suns death.
However, to take the question more generally, could this be the start of a phase in the Suns behaviour that we have not observed before, such as the Sun becoming a variable star? Possibly. It is a threat? No, meteor strike is still more likely to destroy life on Earth.
Now, 'global warming': yes, there is a strong correlation between rising temperature and CO2 output over a 100 year period; no, that doesn't prove that one causes the other; yes, we have considered the Sun and changes in luminosity have an insignificant effect.
Conclusion: Not overly stimulating climate change is one reason from a set of many good reasons to conserve our resources. The dependence of most of our precious pharmaceuticals on petrochemicals is arguably more important.
It's a real shame this topic has turned into such an emotionally charged battleground.
|
|
Then why did scientists ignore those larger and potentially more dangerous effects for so long by just harping on global warming?
In general, we didn't. Most people who justify the tag 'scientist' just went on quietly creating models and checking data. A few did grandstand, true. However the 'harping' was done by the media, who have decided that 'news' is a form of entertainment not information. Dragging out one person from each of two (often artificially delineated) sides and having them duel in front of the cameras for 3 mins is not how to inform the public about current science.
As a race, we love our little conflicts and once we have started to identify ourselves as a member of the 'red' team or the 'blue' team we find it almost impossible to change, regardless of the evidence presented. This afflicts politics and now environmental science. Oh, and string theory...
Just a thought, and I admit I'm not a scientist. Is it possible that the Sun is older then we thought and is showing it's age by becoming a K class star?Possible, but unlikely without our understanding of stellar evolution being much more incorrect than folks would ever admit to. :)I would. I like it when I'm wrong - it means that I just learned something.
As I recall, stars don't change their class by much during their time on the main sequence, and when the Sun starts to reach the end of its life then it will swell into a red giant.
We have found rocks 4 billion years old. We can measure the mass of the Sun and its composition quite well. From these we can calculate a hydrogen burning time of 10 billion years. So it is a safe bet that the Sun is not that much older than we think for this to be the start of the Suns death.
However, to take the question more generally, could this be the start of a phase in the Suns behaviour that we have not observed before, such as the Sun becoming a variable star? Possibly. It is a threat? No, meteor strike is still more likely to destroy life on Earth.
Now, 'global warming': yes, there is a strong correlation between rising temperature and CO2 output over a 100 year period; no, that doesn't prove that one causes the other; yes, we have considered the Sun and changes in luminosity have an insignificant effect.
Conclusion: Not overly stimulating climate change is one reason from a set of many good reasons to conserve our resources. The dependence of most of our precious pharmaceuticals on petrochemicals is arguably more important.
It's a real shame this topic has turned into such an emotionally charged battleground.
Hydrocarbon based polymers are another good reason. Simple fact is that burning hydro carbons is monumentally wasteful.
|
|
No, it is the best explanation that you like.
And this differs from you.... how?
Incidentally, there have been no "experiments" of a repeatable nature that back up natural selection as a hypothesis, since species formation tends not to happen too much while people are watching. But the evidence (and consensus) points in its general direction, both in terms of observations arising from other disciplines such as genetics and palaeontology. Of course, lots of the religious nay-sayers take that as evidence that it isn't true, but they simply don't understand how science actually works.
Natural selection fits the facts, when you consider the current totality of our understanding about speciation past and future. When it doesn't fit (when that niggling piece of data undermines it) it will be discarded and the new, better theory will come along (or it won't, if such new data is not forthcoming). A similar example would be Newtonian physics, which was considered perfect although with the niggle of Mercury's orbit, Einstein's theory, and Eddington's proof.
Climate change is not controversial because it cannot be reproduced in a test tube. It is controversial because it is not yet fully understood. The theories are not "simple" magic bullets like natural selection or relativity (and relativity anyway is already basically known not to work since it cannot account for quantum effects, but no one has a better idea). So if you are expecting some sort of "Eureka" moment when it is proved "Yes" or "No" (when in reality the issue is really "How much and does it matter") then you might be disappointed.
|
|
Incidentally, there have been no "experiments" of a repeatable nature that back up natural selection as a hypothesis, since species formation tends not to happen too much while people are watching.
Actually, you can do this in a petri dish with bacteria. Introduce an agent that is toxic and you wipe out anything that hasn't mutated to process the toxin. Remove it and the population can revert to its original state since the toxin-resistant bacteria are less 'fit' to survive in the normal environment.
Nylon eating bacteria have been found in the outfall pools of a nylon factory - they can't have existed before the creation of nylon.
I also believe the separation of an animal into two distinct species has been observed in the wild, although I can't remember if it was birds or frogs. Something along the lines of those on the other side of a mountain range developing a different colour that resulted in mating cues not being passed hence they would no longer interbreed and had begun to develop into separate species.
And yes, it is a damn shame that the various axe grinders can't make it through one stupid thread without bringing up some stupid political slant to that issue.Up for a game of Hero?
Now, that is getting political.
Fantasy Hero
Star Hero
Champions
Danger Interational
Horror Hero
Ninja Hero
Pulp Hero
Post Apocolypic Hero
Urban Fantasy Hero
...
I stand corrected, though I was talking more about speciation and the petri dish experiment doesn't demonstrate much more than Darwin's pigeon fanciers did - I don't think anyone has successfully created a new species under experimental conditions.
Disagree!
How else do you explain Heathansson?
Incidentally, there have been no "experiments" of a repeatable nature that back up natural selection as a hypothesis, since species formation tends not to happen too much while people are watching.Actually, you can do this in a petri dish with bacteria. Introduce an agent that is toxic and you wipe out anything that hasn't mutated to process the toxin. Remove it and the population can revert to its original state since the toxin-resistant bacteria are less 'fit' to survive in the normal environment.
Nylon eating bacteria have been found in the outfall pools of a nylon factory - they can't have existed before the creation of nylon.
I also believe the separation of an animal into two distinct species has been observed in the wild, although I can't remember if it was birds or frogs. Something along the lines of those on the other side of a mountain range developing a different colour that resulted in mating cues not being passed hence they would no longer interbreed and had begun to develop into separate species.
There are now hundreds of observed wild speciation event.
One of the nice things about the Nylon-eating bacteria is that we have multiple independant speciation events for them, which is pretty cool.
Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school.
Talk origins have a couple of nice little articles on observed speciation events in both plants and animals. And while it isn't listed, i know of alreast one speciation even in Lizards. And it is all fascinating, but it doesn't really do a lot to silence creationists. They just move the goal posts and say that 'new kinds' of animals cannot evolve, while refusing to define a kind.
Forget for a momment that ID was publically destroyed as an arguement at the dover trial, if ID where true, we'd be talking about a monumentally incompitant designer. I mean, who makes a breathing tube and eating drinking tube and has them cross over one another in such a way that you can choke to death on your food? It is daft.
Your point original, if i remember it correctly still kind of holds true despite the fact we have observed speciation.
The fact that we have observed speciation really doesn't make evolution more certain, because the body of evidence was so profound already.
Samual is wrong when he claims that we would have to create an entire globe and run the experiements on it. We don't have to. We can run repeatable experiments on individual elements and do the maths.
The fact that carbon dioxide caused an atmospheric system to retain more heat, is a fact and it has been demonstrated for over 100 hundred years. We can accurately predict how much heat a given amount of carbon will trap into a system under lab conditions. We are able to estimate and measure how much CO2 we are producing and predict what effect that will likely have.
Models based on such simple principles and climatology, back in the 70's are making predictions which are largely consistant with trends in climate change ever since.
Do we understand everything about climate change? God no, but we understand enough to know that action is very likely the lesser of two evils. Hell you can even run cost benifit analysis on action and in action, to see which is the better over all option.
|
|
Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school.
Nope, there's nothing in this to show that the creationists are incorrect. Their only mistake is thinking that they have anything to do with science.
There is no reason an omnipotent god couldn't have created the Earth as we see it 6000 years ago. There is no reason he couldn't have set in place the laws of physics eons ago and let things run. However, those beliefs are not falsifiable predictions and are therefore not science.
Science can never disprove god, and doesn't seek to. The religious should remain serene in their faith and not see science as a threat.
Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school.Nope, there's nothing in this to show that the creationists are incorrect. Their only mistake is thinking that they have anything to do with science.
There is no reason an omnipotent god couldn't have created the Earth as we see it 6000 years ago. There is no reason he couldn't have set in place the laws of physics eons ago and let things run. However, those beliefs are not falsifiable predictions and are therefore not science.
Science can never disprove god, and doesn't seek to. The religious should remain serene in their faith and not see science as a threat.
What religion should do and what religion does do tend to show greater variance than the distribution of allele in a ring species however.
|
|
Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school.Nope, there's nothing in this to show that the creationists are incorrect. Their only mistake is thinking that they have anything to do with science.
There is no reason an omnipotent god couldn't have created the Earth as we see it 6000 years ago. There is no reason he couldn't have set in place the laws of physics eons ago and let things run. However, those beliefs are not falsifiable predictions and are therefore not science.
Science can never disprove god, and doesn't seek to. The religious should remain serene in their faith and not see science as a threat.
Good point - metaphysics v science.
|
|
No, you demanded reproducible experiments.
Clearly, you don't know what 'reproducible experiment' means.
The weight of evidence was supposed to be overwhelming in favor of global warming, but now it has been downgraded to anthropogenic climate change.
UPGRADING. IT'S WORSE. Do you even have the most basic understanding of the issue or do you just automatically gainsay anything that might suggest that there is a problem to be solved?
Have you examined all of the opposing research, and performed tests to refute it all?
Have you?
|
|
That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".
Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality.
Well, to be fair, *I* did. In my defense, I've been trapped in these arguments before, and folks like Sam are insistent that unless everyone agrees on something, then, if even one wingnut disagrees, that subject is open for debate and the jury is still out.
No, you demanded reproducible experiments.Clearly, you don't know what 'reproducible experiment' means.
The weight of evidence was supposed to be overwhelming in favor of global warming, but now it has been downgraded to anthropogenic climate change.UPGRADING. IT'S WORSE. Do you even have the most basic understanding of the issue or do you just automatically gainsay anything that might suggest that there is a problem to be solved?
Have you examined all of the opposing research, and performed tests to refute it all?Have you?
Not just Upgrading. Defining it in scientific nomenclature as a human driven issue. Anthroprogenic means 'derived from human activities'.
Now you've gone an done it ...
Lest people become too wrapped up in this arguement ...
This thread needs some Shakespeare, ASAP
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear.
--- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V
That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality.Well, to be fair, *I* did. In my defense, I've been trapped in these arguments before, and folks like Sam are insistent that unless everyone agrees on something, then, if even one wingnut disagrees, that subject is open for debate and the jury is still out.
And he isn't alone, it is the very tactic used by marshell institute use to try and 'rally support' to fight the 'Water mellon threat.' It doesn't help that journalists by into the balance tactic and present a controversy where there isn't one. It is the identical tactic that both Creationism and the tabbacco companies use and used.
|
|
Now you've gone an done it ...
Lest people become too wrapped up in this arguement ...
This thread needs some Shakespeare, ASAP
And therefore ...
--- William the Fantabulous Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V
Brilliant! Yea, there be no greater words writ, but sentiment has it! Thou art mine hero, Friend Lord Fyre!
|
|
In fairness, you argument didn't need dealing with.
. . .
The original statement is valid because climate scientists are a legitimate authority on the subject of climate change.
Except that is not the point I was making.
And that is why you failed to rebut it.Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality. Just a staggering majority, though not as staggering at the consensus with regards to evolution.
Firstly, strawman rebuttal.
The statement I was rebutting was a claim of universality.Since you do not support that, your attempted refutation of me is obviously misplaced.
It is the fact that scientific theory is able to change and adapt that makes it worthwhile. Having come to understand that the Net out come of green house gases may be something other simple warming is itself evidence that the consensus is being shifted.
Yes, but that further ignores that the statement I was rebutting asserted that it was "not amenable" to being challenged.
Again, if you accept that such is not scientific, your challenge of my response is misplaced.Also, the introduction of Anthropogenic into the name is a sign of how far the consensus has moved toward human influence being a major factor.
If it were "anthropogenic global warming", you would have a point.
"Anthropogenic climate change" must, of a necessity, include anthropogenic global cooling.Without that being included and accounted for, the name change becomes highly suspect.
|
|
And this differs from you.... how?
Because I make no pretense to scientific supremacy.
Incidentally, there have been no "experiments" of a repeatable nature that back up natural selection as a hypothesis, since species formation tends not to happen too much while people are watching. But the evidence (and consensus) points in its general direction, both in terms of observations arising from other disciplines such as genetics and palaeontology. Of course, lots of the religious nay-sayers take that as evidence that it isn't true, but they simply don't understand how science actually works.
Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school, so I'm obviouly out of date.
How does it show their ignorance when it was you who were incorrect and out of date?
A demonstration of how this differs from me.
|
|
Samual is wrong when he claims that we would have to create an entire globe and run the experiements on it. We don't have to. We can run repeatable experiments on individual elements and do the maths.
And the value when claiming a global effect remains highly questionable.
The same issues came up when nuclear winter was all the rage. Then it started coming out that the models assumed things like the entire earth was covered with super-combustible and soot producing forests, or the models used only slim sections of atmosphere directly over cities, and all the other little factors that have led to that particular bit of fearmongering being dumped in the waste bin.As for repeating experiments, we are talking about trends asserted as developing only over the last 30 years, and including factors such as sunspots and increasing industrialization of countries like China. You cannot run an experiment without controls, and there is no way you can control on a global scale for such things. That means all you have for such projections are computer models, and a hope that you have accounted for everything in the last run.
|
|
And he isn't alone, it is the very tactic used by marshell institute use to try and 'rally support' to fight the 'Water mellon threat.' It doesn't help that journalists by into the balance tactic and present a controversy where there isn't one. It is the identical tactic that both Creationism and the tabbacco companies use and used.
That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality.Well, to be fair, *I* did. In my defense, I've been trapped in these arguments before, and folks like Sam are insistent that unless everyone agrees on something, then, if even one wingnut disagrees, that subject is open for debate and the jury is still out.
And that is what is "universally accepted" as "complete and utter nonsense".
He acknowledges using the term improperly, but then you both attempt to blame me for his deliberate misrepresentation for ideological purposes.
At no point and in no way did I insist on, request, or demand univeral agreement.
I noted there was disagreement.
Only Cappadocious, with your support, have asserted the view that a majority consensus not only creates absolute, irrefutable, scientific fact, but that it excludes all dissent as the province of "wignuts" or "ignorant turds".
The hypothesis of prions contradicted the "central dogma of molecular biology" for years.
Then came reverse transcription.
Now prions really are "universally accepted" as existing, although specific sub-theories continue to exist.
Note the difference.
|
|
I say the Aztecs were right. We ought to sacrifice people to the Sun God and hope it comes back in its full glory before it's too late.
On a more serious hand, why are so many people upset? Not to sound Lovecraftian, but 55 years is but a mere sigh in our star's lifespan. Had we been monitoring its activities with the tools we have today since thousands of years ago, then we'd know if to worry or just say "meh, give it a few centuries".
|
|
If it were "anthropogenic global warming", you would have a point.
"Anthropogenic climate change" must, of a necessity, include anthropogenic global cooling.
Without that being included and accounted for, the name change becomes highly suspect.
The name change is more to do with the misunderstanding of the word 'global' by the press to mean 'everywhere' rather than 'averaged over the globe'.
Anthropogenic climate change is the alteration of local climates (warming, cooling, more violent storms, etc.) due to the effect of mankind upon the global climate. The globally and chronologically averaged effect we are seeing is a warming, which is changing large scale weather patterns and making local weather patterns more unpredictable.
The best hypothesis that we have for the cause of the warming is the increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by our technological progress. Yes, it is still an order of magnitude less that that emitted naturally, but that additional 10% can cause a change of state in the global climate.
Prudence dictates that we do what we can to reduce the effects that we have on the environment - at the very least until we better understand what they are.
|
|
The name change is more to do with the misunderstanding of the word 'global' by the press to mean 'everywhere' rather than 'averaged over the globe'.
Anthropogenic climate change is the alteration of local climates (warming, cooling, more violent storms, etc.) due to the effect of mankind upon the global climate. The globally and chronologically averaged effect we are seeing is a warming, which is changing large scale weather patterns and making local weather patterns more unpredictable.
The best hypothesis that we have for the cause of the warming is the increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by our technological progress. Yes, it is still an order of magnitude less that that emitted naturally, but that additional 10% can cause a change of state in the global climate.
Prudence dictates that we do what we can to reduce the effects that we have on the environment - at the very least until we better understand what they are.
Now THAT is a rational, scientifically "compliant" statement, with an appended social recommendation.
While I dissent, I acknowledge the presentation.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MY f~&&ING NAME IS PRINTED ALL OVER THIS f~&&ING THREAD. SPELL MY f~&&ING NAME RIGHT.
Only Cappadocious,
The problem is, there isn't any consensus as to the appropriate spelling of your name. There may be scientists specializing in spelling that use an alternate spelling. As such, can we really say with any certainty that your name is spelled wrong?
Your assertions as to the appropriate spelling of your name invalidate everything you've ever said on this thread, every other thread, in your personal life, and that you may say in the future.
In the future, please format any arguments the proper spelling of your name in the approved format for disagreements with the esteemed posters on this board.
The problem is, there isn't any consensus as to the appropriate spelling of your name. There may be scientists specializing in spelling that use an alternate spelling. As such, can we really say with any certainty that your name is spelled wrong?
Your assertions as to the appropriate spelling of your name invalidate everything you've ever said on this thread, every other thread, in your personal life, and that you may say in the future.
In the future, please format any arguments the proper spelling of your name in the approved format for disagreements with the esteemed posters on this board.
"St. John-Smythe"
Pronounced""Throatwarbler man-cappadocius"