Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

There are probably descendants of dinosaurs around, although likely called something else.

neoconservataurs?

0 Replies

Okie perhaps thinks of hippopotomi and crocodiles, because the term dinosaur only came up in 12th century.

(There are quite a few Americans who believe "that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles ."

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

neoconservataurs?

http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/4/masterludo.gif

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(There are quite a few Americans who believe "that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.

Flood, Noah's ark, harmony in the Garden of Eden, mass extinction...
In summary, climate hysteria is nothing new Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Seems to be an ancient idea of conservative Christians.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Seems to be an ancient idea of conservative Christians.

And a new idea of "progressist" atheists Laughing

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Are you saying that all those scientists that worked on the IPCC are crackpots? Please provide some evidence to back up that they are. Or are you able to discount their science simply because you disagree with it?
Do you know how many they are, "all those" scientists that worked on the IPCC report ? About 400 authors ! No more.
All in all, you have about 2500 scientists involved in the report, most of them are reviewers, ie they can review , criticize or even appeal to the pope but if the authors decided NOT to include their review, their point will NOT be on the IPCC report.

In my world 400 is still a lot more than 9. Consensus does not mean unanimous. The overwhelming majority of scientists and science supports the theory that the present global warming is partially man caused.

You haven't shown how the CO2 could possibly be from the ocean based on science or math. You just claim, it happened in the past over 800 year time periods. The present CO2 increase is not in an 800 year time period. The ocean hasn't warmed 6 or 10 degrees in total. No, your argument is that that only 400 scientists contributed to the IPCC. Wow. what great science you are presenting.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You haven't shown how the CO2 could possibly be from the ocean based on science or math.

Why should I, since I have written it long ago and it's something someone who pretends being concerned about climate should have known long ago (a tip : Raoult law) ??

0 Replies

parados wrote:

In my world 400 is still a lot more than 9. Consensus does not mean unanimous.

So if it is not unanimous, what percentage ? How do you determine it. What and where are your references of this "consensus". If you show none and continue talking about "consensus", that's what I'd call a wishfull thinking.
But I'm sure you'll give me more details won't you ?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

okie wrote:
There are probably descendants of dinosaurs around, although likely called something else.
neoconservataurs?

Hardly - they're called birds. Look up archeopteryx if interested.

Anybody here interested in writing letters to editors? Look up The New Yorker of Jan 22nd 2007, article by "global warming expert" Elizabeth Kolbert (sorry am travelling have no link right now); on page 2 of the article (page 35 of magazine) we read:

Quote:

...In 2007, total energy expenditures in the U.S. will come to more than a quadrillion dollars, or roughly a tenth of the country's gross domestic product.

All her numbers are off by at least one order of magnitude; some are off by 2 orders of magnitude - but that "quadrillion" is 3 (three) orders of magnitude bigger than the true number, which equals approximately one trillion Smile

0 Replies

Wegener, the man who discovered continental drift, was by training a climatologist; he was roundly ridiculed by the geologists of his day - but he, one man, was right, and they, all of them, were wrong.

Science can't be decided by majority vote!

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
You haven't shown how the CO2 could possibly be from the ocean based on science or math.
Why should I, since I have written it long ago and it's something someone who pretends being concerned about climate should have known long ago (a tip : Raoult law) ??

Raoult's law exists so why would there be MORE CO2 in the atmosphere today than 50 years ago. In order for the ocean to hold less CO2 there must be a change of some sort. Show us that change and how that change could or would create the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You are a little behind the times mini. I posted this several pages ago which uses Raoult's law. Show me the problems in the math and then you should let the author know as well.
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

No matter how you try to figure it miniTax. The math shows that the present increase of CO2 could NOT have come from the ocean.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Wegener, the man who discovered continental drift, was by training a climatologist; he was roundly ridiculed by the geologists of his day - but he, one man, was right, and they, all of them, were wrong.

Science can't be decided by majority vote!

And the first person to suggest global warming was ridiculed too. What is your point? The scientific consensus today is that continential drift exists. The scientific consensus today is that global warming exists and some of that warming is most likely caused by human activities.

Whether someone is ridiculed or not doesn't matter as much as the science does.

Present science:

Earth is warming.
CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels.
The CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels have to go somewhere.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased.
increased CO2 concentrations cause heat retention in a mixture of atmospheric gases.

All of the above are true. There is really no argument about them

0 Replies

And the data from the ice cores confirms that. It is well-known that there have been warmer periods in the Earth's history. Yet, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now.

The EPICA core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years have been analysed for atmospheric greenhouses gas concentrations, saved in tiny bubbles in the ice core:

Yet, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

The current rise of CO2 concentration is not a consequence of climate warming. In fact, it seems to be inexplicable when relying on climate warming as the only reason, according to the data from the last, uh, 650,000 years.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

okie wrote:
There are probably descendants of dinosaurs around, although likely called something else.
neoconservataurs?

Good one, steve.

On the serious side, the term, "dinosaur" was an unfortunate term that was applied, as the assemblage of animals during the dinosaur ages of Triassic through Cretaceous probably included ancient forms of birds, reptiles, mammals, etc.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
In my world 400 is still a lot more than 9. Consensus does not mean unanimous.
So if it is not unanimous, what percentage ? How do you determine it. What and where are your references of this "consensus". If you show none and continue talking about "consensus", that's what I'd call a wishfull thinking.
But I'm sure you'll give me more details won't you ?

So failure to provide evidence equates to "wishful thinking".

Have you enjoyed all your wishful thinking the last few months here on A2k?

By the way, here is the wikipedia's list of scientists opposing global warming. You might want to update their list with the hundreds and thousands of scientists you feel also oppose it. That should go a long way toward supporting your claim that there isn't a consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

The IPCC is a consensus report as defined here.
http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Consensusbasics.htm
Most of those in the meteorology and atmospheric fields listed on wiki as skeptics are also listed as authors on the 2001 IPCC report.

As far as "consensus" goes. 50% +1 is enough for a consensus in my book. Give me your % required to be a consensus.

0 Replies

Parados, I think it is appropriate to point out that the term "consensus" lends itself more appropriately to the political world, than to the scientific world. Thinking like the rest of the the sheep is not conducive to better science and newer more sound scientific discoveries. Nobody should have to point out again that climatic science is really in its infancy, and there are far too many poorly understood factors to come up with any intelligent consensus. Your political agenda can continue to try to browbeat everybody into a consensus to serve your political ends, but I think sound science will eventually win out.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Parados, I think it is appropriate to point out that the term "consensus" lends itself more appropriately to the political world, than to the scientific world. Thinking like the rest of the the sheep is not conducive to better science and newer more sound scientific discoveries. Nobody should have to point out again that climatic science is really in its infancy, and there are far too many poorly understood factors to come up with any intelligent consensus. Your political agenda can continue to try to browbeat everybody into a consensus to serve your political ends, but I think sound science will eventually win out.

ALL science is in its' infancy. This isn't a good reason to ignore good evidence that something is happening.

There doesn't have to be conclusive proof that a train is coming for you to get off of the tracks, Okie; a good supposition will do the same thing to any cautious person. Republicans would have us ignore the vibrating tracks and sounds we hear, b/c the engine hasn't made it around the bend yet.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Parados, I think it is appropriate to point out that the term "consensus" lends itself more appropriately to the political world, than to the scientific world. Thinking like the rest of the the sheep is not conducive to better science and newer more sound scientific discoveries. Nobody should have to point out again that climatic science is really in its infancy, and there are far too many poorly understood factors to come up with any intelligent consensus. Your political agenda can continue to try to browbeat everybody into a consensus to serve your political ends, but I think sound science will eventually win out.

According to wikipedia

Quote:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

I've graded a couple of MA-theses and dozens of BA-theses, written myself some as well - scientific consensus is and was a quite normal expression, even 30 years ago.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Wegener, the man who discovered continental drift, was by training a climatologist; he was roundly ridiculed by the geologists of his day - but he, one man, was right, and they, all of them, were wrong.

Science can't be decided by majority vote!

And the first person to suggest global warming was ridiculed too.

Source? My recollection is that the greenhouse effect, and the rising concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, has been uncontroversial over the last 50 years. The conclusion, that we should expect global warming, was unsupported by the data for quite some time -- but I would be surprised if the first scientist who drew it was laughed at.

Parados wrote:

What is your point? The scientific consensus today is that continential drift exists. The scientific consensus today is that global warming exists and some of that warming is most likely caused by human activities.

I think her point is that "the scientific consenus is X" does not equal "X is true". The example of Wegener proves this point right.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know