Global Warming

[CrownOfLove]

What do people think about it?

[momomike3]

My thoughts are that we know way too little about the cycles in the climate, so we won't understand it for a very long time. It could be us... it could be the universe... it could be both.

[Pater]

There is definately global warming going on but I dont' believe you can blame any recent weather conditions on it. aka hurricanes or why last summer was so hot.

[spaceghostcoast2coast]

its not the end of the world. just the end of the coastal areas *sigh* like where i live

[DINAMO788]

.....dont say its just the natural cycle. we've seen the cycles from the past thousands of years and th cycle for this time has much higher temps than the all the other ones. theres a reason why the last 5 years were the hottest of record, with the hottest being the last one. its no coincidence

[momomike3]

Al Gore thinks there is no coincidence. What about in the 1970's when everyone was saying we were entering a new ice age? The warmer temps ARE very much like a period in the past (don't have the info near me) and we havent gotten to the heat level they had. (I want to say around Jurassic Period, but don't quote me on it) Remember you say the hottest years ON RECORD. We haven't been keeping records for millions of years.

[Axe&Hammer]

Global warming=biologically derived climate change;)

[DINAMO788]

Al Gore thinks there is no coincidence. What about in the 1970's when everyone was saying we were entering a new ice age? The warmer temps ARE very much like a period in the past (don't have the info near me) and we havent gotten to the heat level they had. (I want to say around Jurassic Period, but don't quote me on it) Remember you say the hottest years ON RECORD. We haven't been keeping records for millions of years.

not on record but there are some pretty fairly accurate scientific methods of dates temperatures back millions of years. and based off those results, the cycles never got as high in temp as they are now. i think we can all agree though that all the pollution we are doing is damaging for the earth

[Sventax]

Dinamo has soemthing going on there..

u have cycles......10000 ice age 5000 the flood of moses ..now HELL like in the bible :)

the earth rotates around the sun 24/7
the rotation takes place on a ecliptic pattern..

use your imagination here;

say u have the x,z axle.....

the x is 180 degrees in the middle u have the 90 degrees angle
at the cunjuction of the x,z,y axle u have the sun with the earth rotating around it...

every 5000 thousand year the ecliptic pattern on which the earth rotates migrates from 45 degrees from the x-axle to -45 from the x axle...

if it is at 45 degree is cold as hell , if it is at 20 degrees the ice melts u get flooded if it is at 0 degree is is as hot as hell....now the earth is in this cycle it is getting hotter and hotter...in about 10 years there will be no winters anymore.... this will keep on progressing until in about 60 years from now.....Europe will be a tropical paradise and south-america will have winters....this will go on until the ecliptic pattern will migrate to -20 degrees where u will see deserts start developing every where...until it reaches -45 degrees when everything is frozen still ....now this pattern will reverse..... u wil get flood, southamerica becomes paradise.....europe becomes hell.....deserts disappear in a few areas ...u get water build up on every poles .........and so on ...


for so far the scientist have discovered that earth is healing itself.
We need global warming ....if not everything would be very chilly and live would very soon seice to exist.......

the Son has it own cycle.......(Solar flames are also dangerous)
every 11 year these flames can fluctuate in such away it becomes extreme..... the flames are getting larger and the interval becomes shorter
so you have larger flames in a shorter time for a longer time...it's natures way of balancing...

[DINAMO788]

Dinamo has soemthing going on there..

u have cycles......10000 ice age 5000 the flood of moses ..now HELL like in the bible :)

the earth rotates around the sun 24/7
the rotation takes place on a ecliptic pattern..

use your imagination here;

say u have the x,z axle.....

the x is 180 degrees in the middle u have the 90 degrees angle
at the cunjuction of the x,z,y axle u have the sun with the earth rotating around it...

every 5000 thousand year the ecliptic pattern on which the earth rotates migrates from 45 degrees from the x-axle to -45 from the x axle...

if it is at 45 degree is cold as hell , if it is at 20 degrees the ice melts u get flooded if it is at 0 degree is is as hot as hell....now the earth is in this cycle it is getting hotter and hotter...in about 10 years there will be no winters anymore.... this will keep on progressing until in about 60 years from now.....Europe will be a tropical paradise and south-america will have winters....this will go on until the ecliptic pattern will migrate to -20 degrees where u will see deserts start developing every where...until it reaches -45 degrees when everything is frozen still ....now this pattern will reverse..... u wil get flood, southamerica becomes paradise.....europe becomes hell.....deserts disappear in a few areas ...u get water build up on every poles .........and so on ...


for so far the scientist have discovered that earth is healing itself.
We need global warming ....if not everything would be very chilly and live would very soon seice to exist.......

the Son has it own cycle.......(Solar flames are also dangerous)
every 11 year these flames can fluctuate in such away it becomes extreme..... the flames are getting larger and the interval becomes shorter
so you have larger flames in a shorter time for a longer time...it's natures way of balancing...

i believe you mean solar flares.

and they are VERY dangerous. if your about to defeat a saiyan that can no longer move and have an energy level of under 1000, be warned, a solar flare can still be performed and blindf you to an extent. resulting in enough time to gather energy for a spirit bomb or equivilent

[hoverbike]

I'm on neither side of the scale of being a believer or a denier. I believe we know way to little to make a straight fact or know for sure "this and this" is what's going on with Earth's climate. The complexity of it is mind-boggling and there are way to many things to take into account. With that said, I believe it's very possible the earth is heating up and we are starting to see the effects of it. Is it caused by humans? I don't think we can say for sure.

The problem is the government is going to use this Global Warming stuff to nab us with more taxes and other negative laws. I hope they don't restrict too many freedoms and free speech because of GW.

[DINAMO788]

well hoverbike you make some good points


but question, for the deniers, have you seen an inconvinient truth? sure its for one side, but that doesn't automatically discredit the researched based information. they have done extensive research and have drawn very realistic conclusions.

[Sventax]

right you are Dinamo......I always seem to forget those lil things and sometimes words ...hell I wrote "the Son has it own cycle.." it should be "Sun" ....

that is one thing I have not realized Hoverbike..... well actually now you wrote this.....my mind starts pondering....we been having a lot of taxes in the name off Global warming. But there is nothing wrong putting money in nature, but putting money in the hand of the government for unproven reasons......is illegal.

Luckly i was upgraded to Supersaiyan level 2 last week so it wont bother me a bit ;)

[LevelheadedGamer]

well hoverbike you make some good points


but question, for the deniers, have you seen an inconvinient truth? sure its for one side, but that doesn't automatically discredit the researched based information. they have done extensive research and have drawn very realistic conclusions.


There was a show on here the UK called The Great Global Warming Swindle which suggested there is another reason for "Global warming". It was quite controversial and even had well respected scientists & historians to debunk global warming. Personally, i definately think we are affecting the climate of the planet with all the crap we pump into the atmosphere but i do believe it has still to be proven whether we are wholly responsible for the changing weather. Its certainly an interesting debate.

Here is a link to the GW Swindle website.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[CrownOfLove]

Thanks for the comments guys. I personally know quite alot on this issue, and i find it interesting to look at the different replies you've all come up with. However, there are quite a few misconceptions that i think i can clarify;

My thoughts are that we know way too little about the cycles in the climate, so we won't understand it for a very long time. It could be us... it could be the universe... it could be both.

We know alot more then many media sources would have you believe. Our understanding isn't perfect, but it can certainly give a good estimate of what will happen.

There is definately global warming going on but I dont' believe you can blame any recent weather conditions on it. aka hurricanes or why last summer was so hot.

Hurricanes are a tricky subject, i'm not exactly sure how our contributions have effecting the quantity of hurricanes started, but it's common sense that our emmisons make them worse. Our greenhouse gases trap solar rays in the atmosphere , which heats up the ocean. It's worth noting that hurricane Katrina was a fairly mild storm when it hit florida, but then it hit a warm patch of the ocean, which turned it into the powerful monster that reaked havok on new orleans.

Al Gore thinks there is no coincidence. What about in the 1970's when everyone was saying we were entering a new ice age? The warmer temps ARE very much like a period in the past (don't have the info near me) and we havent gotten to the heat level they had. (I want to say around Jurassic Period, but don't quote me on it) Remember you say the hottest years ON RECORD. We haven't been keeping records for millions of years.

Of course we don't have the hottest temps ever, but in the times when the earth was the hottest ever it certainly wouldn't have been inhabitable by humans. It's not the actual heat that's so striking about our recent temperature trends, but the speed in which it's gone up and how it snycs in so perfectly with human activity.

Dinamo has soemthing going on there..

u have cycles......10000 ice age 5000 the flood of moses ..now HELL like in the bible

the earth rotates around the sun 24/7
the rotation takes place on a ecliptic pattern..

use your imagination here;

say u have the x,z axle.....

the x is 180 degrees in the middle u have the 90 degrees angle
at the cunjuction of the x,z,y axle u have the sun with the earth rotating around it...

every 5000 thousand year the ecliptic pattern on which the earth rotates migrates from 45 degrees from the x-axle to -45 from the x axle...

if it is at 45 degree is cold as hell , if it is at 20 degrees the ice melts u get flooded if it is at 0 degree is is as hot as hell....now the earth is in this cycle it is getting hotter and hotter...in about 10 years there will be no winters anymore.... this will keep on progressing until in about 60 years from now.....Europe will be a tropical paradise and south-america will have winters....this will go on until the ecliptic pattern will migrate to -20 degrees where u will see deserts start developing every where...until it reaches -45 degrees when everything is frozen still ....now this pattern will reverse..... u wil get flood, southamerica becomes paradise.....europe becomes hell.....deserts disappear in a few areas ...u get water build up on every poles .........and so on ...


for so far the scientist have discovered that earth is healing itself.
We need global warming ....if not everything would be very chilly and live would very soon seice to exist.......

the Son has it own cycle.......(Solar flames are also dangerous)
every 11 year these flames can fluctuate in such away it becomes extreme..... the flames are getting larger and the interval becomes shorter
so you have larger flames in a shorter time for a longer time...it's natures way of balancing...


Yes, there are natural cycles, and we are in a particuliarly high point on one at the moment. However, a look at the Co2 records will show you that our atmospheric level of Co2 is way above the norm of these cycles.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

but question, for the deniers, have you seen an inconvinient truth? sure its for one side, but that doesn't automatically discredit the researched based information. they have done extensive research and have drawn very realistic conclusions.

An Inconveniant truth is a good watch, but the science is over simplified. I'm not really to fond of Al Gore, but he basically just follows what scientists have been saying for ages. If you want to know about this issue, i advise reading science magazines, or looking up on science websites. However, An Inconveniant Truth is definitely a good starting point.

But there is nothing wrong putting money in nature, but putting money in the hand of the government for unproven reasons......is illegal.

Is it illegal? If so the entire war on terrorism is illegal then, seen as most of it's original reasons were never proven.

There's a good little quote on Global warming that relates to this issue. It goes "Global Warming is like cancer. By the time we're absolutely sure we've got it, it'll be too late to do anything about it"

There was a show on here the UK called The Great Global Warming Swindle which suggested there is another reason for "Global warming". It was quite controversial and even had well respected scientists & historians to debunk global warming. Personally, i definately think we are affecting the climate of the planet with all the crap we pump into the atmosphere but i do believe it has still to be proven whether we are wholly responsible for the changing weather. Its certainly an interesting debate.

Here is a link to the GW Swindle website.

Yes i watched that. To be honest, i thought the whole programme was a bit of a swindle itself. The science was very poor, the facts were blurred, and the experts? A quick source check on the likes of Mr.Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen will show that they have many ties to energy companies, like exxonmobile, as is the case with many of the other scientists in the Doc. There were some good experts in it, but many of them have complained about how they were represented in the Doc, some stating that the documentary compltely manipulated their points, and made it look like they were saying something they weren't.

[momomike3]

We know more than our media wants us to believe? How have you obtained this secret information?

(Let's remember that a large majority of media is liberal and loves reporting on global warming)

[Firefox]

We know more than our media wants us to believe? How have you obtained this secret information?

(Let's remember that a large majority of media is liberal and loves reporting on global warming)
Well if you don't believe in Global Warming, come to Northern Canada and
see the melting ice caps.

[Xaor]

There was a fantastic documentary on Channel 4 (i think), called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (yeh it was, ty LevelHeader).

The main factors they pointed out, with quite frankly flawless logic:

1. Carbon Dioxide comes from heat, not the other way round. Over the last few thousand years, Carbon Dioxide follows heat, with around 800 year time-lag. The charts they show basically perfectly align.

2. It has been way hotter than it is now, around the 1000-1200s, and again in the Roman times. ORANGES were growable in ENGLAND when William the Conqureror was here. This is also, perfectly aligned with the carbon dioxide thing.

3. Man Made Carbon Dioxide has a minute effect.

4. Our heat is effected by: Yes, thats right, the heatsource. The Sun. The sun has been in a high amount of activity lately, as opposed to recent years.



Thats most of the main points I can remember. Oh and:


When they say its the 'hottest' on record. They are talking crap. Its been recorded way higher within 1000 years of now.

Atleast, according the the program.

My beliefs:

Global Warming: ie. Its getting hotter: Yes

Man-Made Global Warming: No

Global Warming = Apocalyptic consequences: No


If the data on the program was correct (Not much reason to assume it wasn't)... I'd have to side with them.

[Firefox]

Yup, global warming is occuring...no doubt. Whether we are causing it, is
debatable.

[Xaor]

The main thing I believe is that, IF Global Warming really does exist, and it is our fault, we're completely and utterly ******ed.

On the one hand, people are saying OMGZ GLOBAL WARMING! Then they get on a plane.

I'd be happy to never get on a plane... Would you?

[DINAMO788]

we need the "IT"but then the government would just shut it down because the airlines would lose too much business...which is mainly because of their own incompetence

[hoverbike]

well hoverbike you make some good points


but question, for the deniers, have you seen an inconvinient truth? sure its for one side, but that doesn't automatically discredit the researched based information. they have done extensive research and have drawn very realistic conclusions.

I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore around 3 times.

that is one thing I have not realized Hoverbike..... well actually now you wrote this.....my mind starts pondering....we been having a lot of taxes in the name off Global warming. But there is nothing wrong putting money in nature, but putting money in the hand of the government for unproven reasons......is illegal.
That is correct. This is why i'm worried about GW being over hyped too much because the government wants to take advantage of it for themselves.

[momomike3]

Well if you don't believe in Global Warming, come to Northern Canada and
see the melting ice caps.

I was responding to him believing that our scientists know so much about our universe and changing climate (which we don't).

[Goodfella]

I just want to know where global warming stands. If it's too far to reverse anything I'm gonna go out and buy a Hummer...

[DINAMO788]

it was said, i think in 2005 or something we have 10 years beyond the point of no return..or something

[CrownOfLove]

We know more than our media wants us to believe? How have you obtained this secret information?

(Let's remember that a large majority of media is liberal and loves reporting on global warming)

Yes and they exagerate things the other way aswell. However i don't get my information from the general papers, i get it from scientists and science sites.

There was a fantastic documentary on Channel 4 (i think), called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (yeh it was, ty LevelHeader).

The main factors they pointed out, with quite frankly flawless logic:


Actually the logic was pretty flawed. Ask any climate scientists on most of it's points and it's quite possible that they'd laugh at you.

I'll try my best to correct their points though.

1. Carbon Dioxide comes from heat, not the other way round. Over the last few thousand years, Carbon Dioxide follows heat, with around 800 year time-lag. The charts they show basically perfectly align.

In some ways i think it's fair enough that they said this, seen as Al Gore didn't quite tell the truth when he said the CO2 was leading the Temps in the chart. Basically they're both right, and both wrong.

The truth is that Co2 and Temps both effect each other. At the end of every ice age, most of the co2 on earth is frozen, so it takes just under a thousand years for the ocean to heat up, and for the co2 to be unfrozen. This then drives the temperature even higher. I can sort of understand why Al Gore left this out of AnIT, as his point that our co2 emmisions effect the temperature is still valid, regardless of whether the temps effect Co2 qalso. However, the fact that TGGWSwindle pointed this out, but hid the other information is nothing other then simply lying.

Look at this chart comparing temps and co2 for the last 650,000 years. You can clearly see that there are times one one leads the other, and times where it's the opposite:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

Sorry, but i have to go now, however i'll have a go at the rest of the points later.

[momomike3]

Where are these scientific papers you speak of?

[StruggleWithin]

Right now it is warm in Flordia. I believe that the planet is going through it's routine changes...

[DINAMO788]

the stance we're taking on pollution and global warming reminds me of previous stances on water pollution and tossing our crap into the ocean and everything. do you guys have any idea how many bodies of freshwater we've made unusable....

[CrownOfLove]

Okay, Xaor, i'll try and respond to the rest of your points now.


2. It has been way hotter than it is now, around the 1000-1200s, and again in the Roman times. ORANGES were growable in ENGLAND when William the Conqureror was here. This is also, perfectly aligned with the carbon dioxide thing.


I'm not sure if that's entirely true. I've got a feeling they picked their chart very carefully.

The chart that you get when you look on wikipedia looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Anyway, even if they were correct it wouldn't really change the fact that we know Co2 contributes to global warming (In more ways then those portrayed in An inconveniant truth). Our recent warming fits in perfectly with human industrial activity.

3. Man Made Carbon Dioxide has a minute effect.

I can't actually remeber what they said on this and i certainly don't remember them backing it up with any evidence. The earth produces more Co2 naturally then we do, but it also absorbs that Co2, so the amount we add knocks nature out of balance.


4. Our heat is effected by: Yes, thats right, the heatsource. The Sun.

Yep it is, and it always has been. But there's not a single scientist in the world who has the slightest bit of evidence which shows that the sun accounts for all of our recent temperature changes. There are scientists researching into it, but it just doesn't seem to be the case.

The sun has been in a high amount of activity lately, as opposed to recent years.

Really? I would like to see this data, as they certainly didn't back this claim up in the documentary.

When they say its the 'hottest' on record. They are talking crap. Its been recorded way higher within 1000 years of now.

Atleast, according the the program.


It seems like they are wrong.

[wroutley]

I think that it is always way over exaggerated. Yes the earth is warming but there is no possible way that we can stop the amount of emmisions that are being released into the atmosophere. We use and rely on fossil fuels way to much. It is possible that Global Warming is happening but their is no way that the world economy can handle a change like that in less it was over 10 or 20 years.

[CrownOfLove]

I think that it is always way over exaggerated. Yes the earth is warming but there is no possible way that we can stop the amount of emmisions that are being released into the atmosophere. We use and rely on fossil fuels way to much. It is possible that Global Warming is happening but their is no way that the world economy can handle a change like that in less it was over 10 or 20 years.

Places like the U.K and Germany have already managed to reduce their emmisions by a fair amount, and their economies havn't suffered.

[momomike3]

If we had taxes on gasoline like the Europeans there would be big problems. Honestly, whatever congress and administration that started the tax, would be out IMMEDIATELY on the next election. People don't deal well with enormous taxes.

[PiP4LyFe]

We shouldn't bother trying to get rid of it, it's time to let the Earth die.

[Firefox]

We shouldn't bother trying to get rid of it, it's time to let the Earth die.

How about some Optimism man, I think you need some. :p

[CrownOfLove]

We shouldn't bother trying to get rid of it, it's time to let the Earth die.

LOL. You serious?
That's a bit suicidal.

[turkmen117]

I believe that its one of the earths preiods ( :P ). But seriously, our earth have its periods of extreme cold etc. Are we polluting the air? HELL YES!! Should we stop? HEL YES!! Is that going to help? Maybe not that much...

[CrownOfLove]

I believe that its one of the earths preiods ( :P ). But seriously, our earth have its periods of extreme cold etc. Are we polluting the air? HELL YES!! Should we stop? HEL YES!! Is that going to help? Maybe not that much...

Well the more we do, the more help it will be. At the moment the US needs to act, as they account for about 25% of the worlds emmisions, and they're one of the least active countries on the matter.

[Vulgotha]

I think its pseudo science, a political hot button used to get votes,(from a "concerned" public and enviromentalists) and a way for Al gore to get famous and rich. Its exaggerated. ..I think mankind is having a much smaller effect then liberals would have you believe.

I believe it mostly heat cycles, like our brother planet Mars is experiencing (I.E. its polar caps are melting)

[CrownOfLove]

I think its pseudo science, a political hot button used to get votes,(from a "concerned" public and enviromentalists) and a way for Al gore to get famous an

Well i would say that, apart from the fact that scientists have been saying this long before politicians. I think you are right that the democrats are using this to get votes, but they haven't made it up, they're just using it seen as Bush's policies on it have been so poor thus far. To be honest though, the democrats policies on it haven't been much better until recently.

Al Gore made a good basic film on global warming, and maybe he does have a sincere desire to change the planet, but i wouldn't place too much trust in him. He is salesman, not a scientist, and he is trying to sell the idea of global warming to the american population.

In issues like these it's best to trust the scientists, not the politicians. And it just so happens that the vast vast majority of scientists agree that we are having a notable effect on the planet.

I believe it mostly heat cycles, like our brother planet Mars is experiencing (I.E. its polar caps are melting)

The whole thing on mars was lazy journalism. I would question the source that told you this in the future.

The basic premise of it is true, the polar caps on mars are melting. However the notion that this is the same sort of warming that is having on earth is ridiculous. First of all there's the fact that martian eccentricity is about 5 times that of earth's. This basically means that while it may be very hot during martian summer, it will be very cold in martian winter. Unsurprisingly, the report on Mars's melting glaciers, only looked at it's southern glaciers. Seen as it was late summer in the southern hemisphere on mars when they were measured, this isn't too surprising. However, if they'd looked at Mars's northern hemisphere, which was experiancing late winter, the results would have been very different.

There's also the fact hemispheric dust storms have a massive effect on the mean temperature of mars, so our measurements can quite often be quite far off.

Sorry to rant ;), it's just that i hear quite alot of the same shoddy arguements over and over again.

[Vulgotha]

.. I don't want to turn this into a debate, to put it sufficely I think the samebthing of Global Warming and the Greenhouse effect. (shoddy arguements and points, politically speaking mind you)
Do I think the earth is warming? Yes, heat cycles, very very slowly, not as drastic as "Day After Tomarrow" would have you believe.


http://www.marstoday.com/viewpr.html?pid=13914 - Heat cycles, seasonal changes of Mars melt the ice caps and form the "Spiral Patterns" which distinctly characterise the martian ice caps.

Like I said, heating and cooling cycles, seasonal changes. The point I was trying to make, was that the Martian ice caps melt due to natural processes. There's not a single SUV on that planet. The connect is: I'm not so sure this fluctuation in our polar caps and temperature is "Unnatural" or "Man caused". I think its purely a natural process.
We did just come out of an Ice Age "Relatively" recently.

... And Volcanoes cause extensive amount of damage to the ozone and etc with greenhouse gases yada yada
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

True, one could say that "Such destructive blasts only occur maybe twice every other century". But if your a preponent of the old earth theory (Evolutionary, that earth is millions or billions of years old, <I'm not, I'm a creationist>). Then mankinds influence on the earth is but a mere blot on this rather large plate. As Volcanic and natural distrubances have undoubtedly been tampering with out atmosphere for countless centuries.

And even the sea is doing its part in trying to screw up our enviroment: http://www.physorg.com/news11323.html
(silly underwater greenhouse gases!)

Political bias (my whole point) clouds the true numbers: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
If mother nature is causing all these nasty things, how can I make money!? (lol sorry..I'm no good at being Al Gore)

^ Even wikipedia admits (strangely) credence to these numbers, and that most gases are really not manmade, if the earth is going to turn in a twisted hellhole like Venus (obviously an exaggeration), sadly its going to happen on its own accord. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases

I'm not turning this into a debate, I'm merely saying my arguements are not shoddy, please don't doubt my credibility, if there is one thing im obsessed with (my qoute says it) its truth. I have an open mind to these things, though everyone has a bias.

Lets just agree to disagree is all. I don't think its a serious threat, and if it is, there is really nothing man can do about it. I think this is purely political (which we both seemingly agree with). Again, I'm not arguing with you, (you) just kind of struck a nerve with me by calling my credibility and diligence into researching this into question.

(pleaase No one else turn this into a debate with me, I'm not up for it)

[CrownOfLove]

http://www.marstoday.com/viewpr.html?pid=13914 - Heat cycles, seasonal changes of Mars melt the ice caps and form the "Spiral Patterns" which distinctly characterise the martian ice caps.

Huh? sorry, why have you posted this? (sorry if that sounds rude, i just don't understand the relevance). Doesn't this support my assertion that temperature changes on mars are purely annual things?

Like I said, heating and cooling cycles, seasonal changes. The point I was trying to make, was that the Martian ice caps melt due to natural processes. There's not a single SUV on that planet. The connect is: I'm not so sure this fluctuation in our polar caps and temperature is "Unnatural" or "Man caused". I think its purely a natural process.

The difference though is that you can see on mars that it's a purely annual process, it gets warmer and then get's cooler. if you looked at a chart of mars's temperature it would probably just go up and down, up and down, up and down ...etc. On earth, we do have this annual cycle or warming, but our temperature is still rising regardless on this. Just out of interest, have you seen many charts of our recent warming trend.

Do you disagree that CO2 effects temperature btw?

[Vulgotha]

Huh? sorry, why have you posted this? (sorry if that sounds rude, i just don't understand the relevance). Doesn't this support my assertion that temperature changes on mars are purely annual things?



The difference though is that you can see on mars that it's a purely annual process, it gets warmer and then get's cooler. if you looked at a chart of mars's temperature it would probably just go up and down, up and down, up and down ...etc. On earth, we do have this annual cycle or warming, but our temperature is still rising regardless on this. Just out of interest, have you seen many charts of our recent warming trend.

Do you disagree that CO2 effects temperature btw?


Look at my above statistics to see how very little Co2 gases really play in the greenhouse effect and thusly global warming. If you really want to focus soley on blaming man, you can "Blow up" The Co2 numbers to make it look like man is evil (or Bush, depending on your political swing).. though if you want to blame a particular country i'd point a finger at China as well... ..its mostly water vapor (like 70%), + Methane +etc + Co2.

as for Mars, again, its comparing apples to oranges (like you said) but i still use it as a fact because the Martian caps are melting naturally, on a differant timetable then us (we have obvious differant factors, like we have a hot core, mars does not.....we also have vegetations etc). But still it goes to show that, yes, these things can happen by themselves.

Ironically, as a creationist, I believed in more... how do I put it?.. greenhouse centric? world, pre-deluvian that is, due to The Canopy theory. It'd make most of earth have a jungle like enviroment, very moist, no rain, predominately water vapor.* Very hospitable for dinosaurs (in my-our theory). So i don't have any real beef agaisnt greehouse or global warming, I believe the earth climate was once radically differant! maybe the falling of the canopy resulted in the Ice age! ( a theory). I just think that this has been turned into a bloated political issue.


*it should be noted however, that there (in my our theory) were probably other barriers in the atmosphere due to the canopy which blocked out solar radiation. If you read the Bible, before the flood and "The heavens opening up" (for its first rain) man lived for hundreds of years. Possibly because the canopy blocked out solar radiation, but after the flood, all of Noahs descendants life spans Immediatly dropped by several hundred years. And God said "No man will live past 120(?) years".. I think thats the specific amount of years... not sure.

^ I included this merely as a footnote,... Facts and truth and all that, I know you probably don't give a rip about creationist beliefs, but I thought "What the heck".

CrownofLove, your a very intelligent person, and I'd hate for this to in anyway, turn hostile. lets just agree to disagree, I posted my opinion on here, you dissented, (you've acted most cordially and hospitable). But i've seen far too many times where other "Newcomers" jump in on a discussion like this, hijack it, and it gets ugly. Again, its political and subject to high tempers.
I hold you in the highest regards, so its no fault to your character... I just don't trust other people with this kind of subject... usually others invoke rude, cutting remarks, and mock others.. I'd rather not see that. (i know im probably in the minority, thusly i'd be a target.. Its best not to have a bad reputation)

..People i'm having a friendly discussion here... please don't turn this into a debate..

[CrownOfLove]

Look at my above statistics to see how very little Co2 gases really play in the greenhouse effect and thusly global warming. If you really want to focus soley on blaming man, you can "Blow up" The Co2 numbers to make it look like man is evil (or Bush, depending on your political swing).. though if you want to blame a particular country i'd point a finger at China as well... ..its mostly water vapor (like 70%), + Methane +etc + Co2.

I can respond to this point if you want, but i'll have to bog you down in some serious science.

To put it simply, measuring the mass of the greenhouses in our atmosphere is very different to measuring their effects they have. It's true that mass-wise, Water-vapor is by far the most prominant gas. However, the fact remains that Water Vapour is a feedback and not a forcing. For those with an understanding of climate science, that is enough to end the debate on this matter, but am i right in assuming that the phrases 'feedbacks' and 'forcings' have little or no meaning to you?

This is by no means an easy read, but i can't find another article that puts it any better. This explains why, water vapour and Co2 are two very different greenhous gasses: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

as for Mars, again, its comparing apples to oranges (like you said) but i still use it as a fact because the Martian caps are melting naturally, on a differant timetable then us (we have obvious differant factors, like we have a hot core, mars does not.....we also have vegetations etc). But still it goes to show that, yes, these things can happen by themselves.

Yes, and that's completly fair. It is worth mentioning that i don't think you'll find a single climate scientists who says that the change in temperatures is purely down to humans. There are other variables, it's just that we seem to be the prominent cause of it, and our effects are also the only ones we can do anything to reduce.

The warming on planet earth is very different to that of mars's though, and i would not advise you to bring it up in any future debates on global warming you have. Mars's ice caps, like earth's, are melting. However, mars's icecaps will also refreeze in the winter. This happens to a degree on earth, but on looking at the state of the icecaps over the last few decades we can see that they are gradually melting more and more. This is not the case on mars.

However there is a point from this information that you could use to argue against some of the more radical followers of 'An Inconveniant Truth'. I don't know if you've seen Al Gore's film, but there is a part of the film where he shows pictures of what glaciers were like a few decades ago, and what they were like today. Now though his point (that our glaciers are gradually melting) is correct, i have a strong suspicision, that his most recent pictures of these glaciers were taken during the summer, while the older ones were taken during the winter. This point would be useless in trying to convince people that global warming is not happening, but it is a good bit of ammo for arguing that some are exaggerating the claims.

Ironically, as a creationist, I believed in more... how do I put it?.. greenhouse centric? world, pre-deluvian that is, due to The Canopy theory. It'd make most of earth have a jungle like enviroment, very moist, no rain, predominately water vapor.* Very hospitable for dinosaurs (in my-our theory). So i don't have any real beef agaisnt greehouse or global warming, I believe the earth climate was once radically differant! maybe the falling of the canopy resulted in the Ice age! ( a theory). I just think that this has been turned into a bloated political issue.

It has, but the scientific data is still undeniably conclusive that mankind is having an effect. There are quite a few people who would make the connection that 'Some leftists are exageratting the claims of Global warming, therefore it isn't true'. This is a silly leap. Though i do not agree with media outlets who are hungry to create an air of panic, i understand why some people think we have to underline the seriousness of the situation to make people act on it.


*it should be noted however, that there (in my our theory) were probably other barriers in the atmosphere due to the canopy which blocked out solar radiation. If you read the Bible, before the flood and "The heavens opening up" (for its first rain) man lived for hundreds of years. Possibly because the canopy blocked out solar radiation, but after the flood, all of Noahs descendants life spans Immediatly dropped by several hundred years. And God said "No man will live past 120(?) years".. I think thats the specific amount of years... not sure.

Interesting theory, but please don't try and bring religion into science. it clouds the truth.

And it is probably worth mentioning that the oldest man in the world is over 120.

[Vulgotha]

Religion and science go hand in hand. They must, if your a man in my position. So science and religion will always walk side by side on my path. (the links i provide show the breakdown of effect on the atmosphere and Ozone, you'd have to read them indepthly however to extricate that... they are rather long)

So, like the rest of this discussion, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Which is fine, niether of us are truly out to convince the other, debates\discussions rarely result in that outcome. Its typically more edifying for the third party viewing the debate.

I obviously think I'm right, you quite sincerely believe your correct (as is always the case in debates or discussions). I think we stand on level ground, as truth is subjective to our world view and what we believe. One is obviously right and one is wrong, but that most certainly doesn't mean we can't let this pass between us.

I tip my hat to you.

[CrownOfLove]

I obviously think I'm right, you quite sincerely believe your correct (as is always the case in debates or discussions). I think we stand on level ground, as truth is subjective to our world view and what we believe. One is obviously right and one is wrong, but that most certainly doesn't mean we can't let this pass between us.

I tip my hat to you.


LOL. Well i think that's the difference between religion and science. With relgious debates, it's fair enough for people to go on believeing what they want after the debate, because it's purely a matter of faith. However, in a debate on science, it should be simply, you present a point, i refute it, you refute my refutal, and it goes on until one of us can't refute the others refutal any longer, in which case we admit defeat. If you can provide some evidence that supports your view, and i can't refute it, then i will admt defeat, but i would like it if you'd refer to my replies in my previous post. I think i effectively refuted your points about Co2 and Mars.

If you don't want to talk about this anymore, then that's fair enough, i don't want to pressure you into a debate, however i feel that if you look at this subject from an open-minded view, you will come to the same conclusion as i did.

Religion and science go hand in hand.

Not really. At best, they don't cross each others paths, but at worst they can become a battle of, reason vs the bible. For example, i don't know if you are a YEC (young earth creationist who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old), but if you are, then i'm sorry but you really shouldn't be debating on global warming, as most of the charts and measurements used by both sides go back hundreds of thousands of years.

the links i provide show the breakdown of effect on the atmosphere and Ozone, you'd have to read them indepthly however to extricate that... they are rather long)

Huh? Which ones? If it's the one saying water vapout accounts for 99% of global warming, then i refuted it in my previous post.

[Vulgotha]

...no, If your a man of faith, ultimately you reach the conclusion I did. The problem is, your trying to communicate to me from your already established world view which you maintain, and from the sounds of it your atheistic. If you were religious in any manner you'd soon realize that Science and your religion must mesh, or many parts of your religion fall apart, and thusly are incorrect.

I base my scientific theories etc off religious facts or what the Bible states that I can attempt to prove or shape my world view from, for instance, I believe in a world wide, Deluge, (Deluvian) flood. Now, if the earth at one point was covered in massive amounts of water (covering the highest mountain peaks) then obviously history would show that. The history of our planet I mean, Thats what I mean, in a religion you don't merely take things on faith, you must proof it to a skeptical and scientifically educated community.

This isn't as one sided as your textbooks and teachers make it out to believe. For instance, the grand canyon, Chimney rock, such natural formations are amazing to scientists (most especially Chimney Rock) A spire of sheer rock out in the middle of nowhere. Obviously since this spire came from somewhere, at one point the entire land mass it is currently resting on, was submerged in water and eroded the rock layers down etc etc etc. (this all extremely "Watered" down examples.)

Also, The universe had a beginning, Einstein admitted this. The universe has not been "Eternal" (Laws of thermodynamics prove this, among other things). Stephen Hawking was able to simulate an "Eternal Universe" (through infinite Big Bangs) by ignoring certain laws (Thermodynamics, the expenditure of energy, and the result..Heat Death) and by plugging in false numbers, Fake facts, and Fake rules. He admitted that his simulation was just to see if it could be done, but by intervening in such a manner (by picking and choosing laws, and "Creating" numbers) He had in fact embodied God in his simulation. By acting as an outside intelligent source doing the impossible.


1st Law of Thermodynamics: In any process the total energy of the universe remains constant
(Energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect then the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
(Energy systems have a tendency to increase in entropy)

3rd Law of Thermodynamics: as temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant.
(the natural constant state is zero, thus entropy,eventually resulting in total heat death of the universe.)

^By these laws alone, one can deduce that the universe had a beginning, had an origin, and the Big Bang theory (which at the moment I have no real problem with, except a few minor factual squabbles.) Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, thusly all the energy has remained the same for eternity. However, how can this be if all energy is gradually converting to a state of entropy (Zero, heat death)? A physical universe existing for "Eternity" is impossible. Thus it had a beginning, and a beginning causes a very big problem for scientists, because that isn't science. Science does not create everything out of nothing, and create it ordered. Only intelligence has been shown to take pre existing matter and make it ordered and structured.

The Same is true of the famous Miller Experiment, (I'm sure you know of this) He was able to create a basic protein "Goo" like substance, which could have "Eventually" created life.... in his "Early Earth atmosphere". But only because he himself added the electric currents at the right moment, after he had singled out the right molecules in the right area. Firstly, he had the early earth atmosphere entirely wrong, (evolutionists now admit this) secondly, he (like Hawking) had inadvertently proved the existence by God, by providing intelligence behind the "Random acts" doing the impossible by intervening.
Wikipedia briefly details some of this, in some more details of course (I paraphrased), but they are less critical then they should be, as this experiment is typically lauded as a failure and mistake nowadays by the upper scientist echelon. Yet this is still listed as an illustration and proof of biological evolution, next to the famous "Haeckel Embryo" frauds.. both equally antiquated, outmoded, and false.

^This goes back to your "Open Mind". Despite the fact that this experiment has been rejected on scientific facts and reasons, its still printed in the majority of student and even college textbooks in regards to biological evolution as "Proof" it could have happened. Why would they do this? Because like yourself, and myself, they are so utterly convinced they are right, and that there cannot be a God (as Creation is the opposite of Evolution, if not one then the other) that they are sure, in the future, they will be vindicated. If you look at a majority of big Creationist converts today (Sandage, Hubble's assistance <You know, the Hubble telescope> converted to creationism which was a surprise) they used to think "This idea" or "That idea" was already proven by some other scientist and paid no heed. Why? Because the world is utterly convinced Evolution is absolutely 100% correct, has no flaws, and that God truly does not exist. Or they are foolish enough to be religious and an Evolutionist... Theistic Evolution,.. Which really is somewhat of an oxymoron, its a viable solution only if the facts absolutely scream Evolution is 100% correct, and thats far from the truth. This "Fight" is not as one sided as you have always been taught, and lead to believe.

..As for an open mind, its very easy for people to say that, but surely you must recognize that to a certain degree, thats laughable. If one really had an open mind, evolutionists would consider the possibility of intelligent design, since they have continually failed to abolish the theory on mere "Facts" alone. Surely it should be atleast "Considered" with an open mind? Its not. and if your a creationist your typically laughed at. This is because "Closed minds" have established a monopoly with evolution within the Academic elite (Colleges etc). Because God is considered "Outmoded".

I look at this intrinsically complex world, and ask myself (Which I have, I have studied evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) Did this all happen on mere chance? Random natural processes? My friend, Entropy does not equal order. Never have we observed that, in all the history of the human race and science. The statistical odds of some of the things that supposedly "Happened by chance" are so staggeringly outlandish, your taking it on just as much faith as I am with my God.
The Bible says, those who did not believe are without excuse, you can see Gods handiwork everywhere you look.

One must proof his religion's credentials to one such as yourself. If you go in to this with an open mind, you'll reach the same conclusion I did. As your qoute says one must doubt, (I have in the past), as Aristotle put it most brilliantly: "It is the mark of a great mind to consider an idea, without accepting it."



Note: As for the global warming vapors etc, you'd have to read that entire article to get around to it, but yes, it address that which you supposedly "refuted" if you had read it thoroughly.... I don't blame you for not doing it, its quite an eyesore, those people have far too much time on their hands.

as for these "Charts"... your arguement is firstly only valid if you assume that I didn't believe in the Canopy Theory (Which I, and most creationists do) and that the climate has has always been this way, and acted on the same standard patterns.(uniformitarianism, or the axiomatic principle I think) Which no one can prove, we just "Hope" it has for the sake of charts and science.

I hope I have in whatever small way, enlightened you with my "Facts". I am a young earth creationist, as can clearly be seen...

[CrownOfLove]

...no, If your a man of faith, ultimately you reach the conclusion I did. The problem is, your trying to communicate to me from your already established world view which you maintain, and from the sounds of it your atheistic. If you were religious in any manner you'd soon realize that Science and your religion must mesh, or many parts of your religion fall apart, and thusly are incorrect.

I don't have a problem with religion and science together, as long as you put the science first, and use that to determine what parts of your religion to believe, and not the other way around.

I base my scientific theories etc off religious facts or what the Bible states that I can attempt to prove or shape my world view from, for instance, I believe in a world wide, Deluge, (Deluvian) flood. Now, if the earth at one point was covered in massive amounts of water (covering the highest mountain peaks) then obviously history would show that. The history of our planet I mean, Thats what I mean, in a religion you don't merely take things on faith, you must proof it to a skeptical and scientifically educated community.

Right

This isn't as one sided as your textbooks and teachers make it out to believe. For instance, the grand canyon, Chimney rock, such natural formations are amazing to scientists (most especially Chimney Rock) A spire of sheer rock out in the middle of nowhere. Obviously since this spire came from somewhere, at one point the entire land mass it is currently resting on, was submerged in water and eroded the rock layers down etc etc etc. (this all extremely "Watered" down examples.)

Yeah, but it takes 100,000's of years for these Rocks to be eroded. The bible says the flood was only a few thousand years ago.

Also, The universe had a beginning, Einstein admitted this. The universe has not been "Eternal" (Laws of thermodynamics prove this, among other things). Stephen Hawking was able to simulate an "Eternal Universe" (through infinite Big Bangs) by ignoring certain laws (Thermodynamics, the expenditure of energy, and the result..Heat Death) and by plugging in false numbers, Fake facts, and Fake rules. He admitted that his simulation was just to see if it could be done, but by intervening in such a manner (by picking and choosing laws, and "Creating" numbers) He had in fact embodied God in his simulation. By acting as an outside intelligent source doing the impossible.


1st Law of Thermodynamics: In any process the total energy of the universe remains constant
(Energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect then the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
(Energy systems have a tendency to increase in entropy)

3rd Law of Thermodynamics: as temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant.
(the natural constant state is zero, thus entropy,eventually resulting in total heat death of the universe.)

^By these laws alone, one can deduce that the universe had a beginning, had an origin, and the Big Bang theory (which at the moment I have no real problem with, except a few minor factual squabbles.) Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, thusly all the energy has remained the same for eternity. However, how can this be if all energy is gradually converting to a state of entropy (Zero, heat death)? A physical universe existing for "Eternity" is impossible. Thus it had a beginning, and a beginning causes a very big problem for scientists, because that isn't science. Science does not create everything out of nothing, and create it ordered. Only intelligence has been shown to take pre existing matter and make it ordered and structured.

I think God is a lazy answer to that. The fact remains that something cannot come from nothing, but surely it's a massive leap of faith to think that an all-powerful being created all of this?

Also i'm not sure what you mean when say that the universe was created ordered and structured.

Honestly i think that if you looked at this with an open-mind, you wouldn't come to the conclusion you've come to. It seems to me like you're trying to use certain science that goes with your view, rather then look at everything and choosing what to belive from that.

The Same is true of the famous Miller Experiment, (I'm sure you know of this) He was able to create a basic protein "Goo" like substance, which could have "Eventually" created life.... in his "Early Earth atmosphere". But only because he himself added the electric currents at the right moment, after he had singled out the right molecules in the right area. Firstly, he had the early earth atmosphere entirely wrong, (evolutionists now admit this) secondly, he (like Hawking) had inadvertently proved the existence by God, by providing intelligence behind the "Random acts" doing the impossible by intervening.
Wikipedia briefly details some of this, in some more details of course (I paraphrased), but they are less critical then they should be, as this experiment is typically lauded as a failure and mistake nowadays by the upper scientist echelon. Yet this is still listed as an illustration and proof of biological evolution, next to the famous "Haeckel Embryo" frauds.. both equally antiquated, outmoded, and false.

I don't know enough about this to argue you on it, but again, it seems to be that you are jumping to conclusions that support your view.

..As for an open mind, its very easy for people to say that, but surely you must recognize that to a certain degree, thats laughable. If one really had an open mind, evolutionists would consider the possibility of intelligent design, since they have continually failed to abolish the theory on mere "Facts" alone. Surely it should be atleast "Considered" with an open mind? Its not. and if your a creationist your typically laughed at. This is because "Closed minds" have established a monopoly with evolution within the Academic elite (Colleges etc). Because God is considered "Outmoded".

The main problem with creationism science, is that it isn't real science. They are not trying to discover, they are trying to prove an already established view. Evolution is not 100% solid, and i'm sure in 100 years time our understanding of it will be different to what it is now. However, i think our understanding of the core mechanics of it will almost certainly be the same. Intelligent design, or creationism, or whatever you want to call it, at it's core boils down to believeing in a book that was written 2000 years ago, which details many things that go against the laws of science.

I look at this intrinsically complex world, and ask myself (Which I have, I have studied evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) Did this all happen on mere chance? Random natural processes? My friend, Entropy does not equal order. Never have we observed that, in all the history of the human race and science. The statistical odds of some of the things that supposedly "Happened by chance" are so staggeringly outlandish, your taking it on just as much faith as I am with my God.
The Bible says, those who did not believe are without excuse, you can see Gods handiwork everywhere you look.

This is people's main problem, they look at humans, and other animals, and think 'How could such complex things occur by chance"? First of all this is a bit silly, as anyone with an understanding knows that evolution is by no means based entirely on chance. My problem with this thought pattern though, is that while people find it hard to believe that humans could have come about by natural processes, they can except that something like a cloud is created by natural processes. They will say 'But we are so much more complex then clouds!", which is true. -

-However if we attribute evolution to humans, we can say that humans came from chimp-like ancestors, to which they can say "okay, chimps are simpler then humans, but they still seem far too complex to have come about by a natural process". However if we take thousands upon thousand of these little steps, we can make it simpler and simpler until we find us at something that we happy to conclude could come about from a natural process.

The trouble with creationism, is that it does the opposite of this. It takes humans and says "how did someting so complex come about". However, it then attributes this to an intelligent creator. This solves the problem of humans, but then we're left with the question "if this creator created humans, then he must be infinitely more complex then humans, so how was he created?" I suppose one could formulate an answer that he was created by an even greater creator, but that just makes the problem harder to solve. The most popular answer is that "he's always been here", but i don't think that's a very satisfying answer either. How could something so complex just happen to always be here? Isn't it more logical to believe that humans in some form have always been here, then to believe that a much more complex God has?



One must proof his religion's credentials to one such as yourself. If you go in to this with an open mind, you'll reach the same conclusion I did. As your qoute says one must doubt, (I have in the past), as Aristotle put it most brilliantly: "It is the mark of a great mind to consider an idea, without accepting it."

Yes. And btw, i've only come to believe evolution is the last couple of years. I was baptised a catholic, and had beliefs of a spiritual nature. However, whenever i tried to argue against evolution, i always failed. I didn't want it to be true, and i'd still much rather heaven was true, but wanting something does not make it correct.

I think most of these subjects belong in the evolution thread, so if you respond to my points there, i'd be happy to reply to them. I'd rather keep this thread to global warming if you don't mind

As for the global warming vapors etc, you'd have to read that entire article to get around to it, but yes, it address that which you supposedly "refuted" if you had read it thoroughly.... I don't blame you for not doing it, its quite an eyesore, those people have far too much time on their hands.

Well can you paraphrase what they're basically saying?

as for these "Charts"... your arguement is firstly only valid if you assume that I didn't believe in the Canopy Theory (Which I, and most creationists do) and that the climate has has always been this way, and acted on the same standard patterns.(uniformitarianism, or the axiomatic principle I think) Which no one can prove, we just "Hope" it has for the sake of charts and science

Well things like ice age cycles have at least been the same for the last few million years. IF you want to see some of the charts, i cna show you them.

I hope I have in whatever small way, enlightened you with my "Facts". I am a young earth creationist, as can clearly be seen...

Well i'm really sorry to say this, but how can you can you even comment on this matter then? If i was in your position then i would have to conclude that none of the scienctists data could be trusted, therefore i couldn't really have an opinion on the matter then.

[Vulgotha]

"Your jumping to conclusions that support your view" ~ And your not?


You never refuted my standpoints and scientific facts,with facts. you merely said God was a lazy answer, and have effectively called me "Close minded" when yourself have failed to back up anything with facts.

"If you were open minded about this I honestly think you'd reach the same conclusion I did" ~ If you were open minded about this, I honestly think YOU'D reach the same conclusion I did. Unfortunately we both have our pre-stablished biases.

As for erosion of rocks sadly your mistaken. If you had been up to date on recent findings, you'd understand that Mt. St Helen proved small "Canyons" could be carved out in a matter of days due to water flows.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
^ It may be "Creationist" but the facts are still facts. I'd accept links or studies by secular\evolutionary resources as well, hopefully your open minded.
You'll find these facts on any study on Mt. St. Helens, though creationists naturally "Jumped to a Conclusion that supported their view". As it shakes up the evolutionary notion that any kind of real erosion takes hundreds or thousands of years. Facts are facts.

To be honest, Evolutionists do this just as much as creationists, we all "Jump to conclusions" that support our view. Its called a bias, everyone has it. There is not one person in the scientific community without a pre disposed bias. If you believe that, your only fooling yourself.
You can't believe in a God, so you'll go out of your way to find any conclusion which supports your view. I cannot accept that God does not exist so i'll jump to any conclusion that supports my view. But I'll back it up with facts as well to solidify it. I'm not so much a man of faith regrettably, because i go on facts, and believing in evolution takes more faith then I'm willing to give..

You've become (or are) exactly what your telling me not to be my friend. Sadly I'm terminating this conversation, as its clearly not productive, and its only resulting in a "Well I can't prove it, But i know I'm right" scenario, which I've already described above. Don't bother responding to this, I'm done, this if finished, I don't deem this conversation worth carrying over to the Evolution thread, nor contuining as merely Global Warming. Its unproductive, and quite frankly, pointless. As is clearly evident.



*What did I mean when I say the universe was "Created" or "Popped into existence" ordered and structured? Exactly that. Our universe is highly organized from the get go, natural laws did not "Evolve" or randomly generate, they were there from the beginning and they're what shaped our universe. Laws of physics which tell stars what the proper sequence is for Nuclear fusion etc etc etc etc. Thats What I mean.
Again, I have no ill will towards you, and I hold you in the highest regard, let us simply let this pass.

[Panda Bear Shenyu]

What do people think about it?PS3 is going to cure global warming///

[SpaceMonkeyDave]

the threat of global warming is nothing compared to the threat of viral outbreaks
just look at foot and mouth
although it was animal based
if it was human based (and it isn't very hard for a virus to adapt)
well, it would be quite a mess

[Axe&Hammer]

This isn't as one sided as your textbooks and teachers make it out to believe. For instance, the grand canyon, Chimney rock, such natural formations are amazing to scientists (most especially Chimney Rock) A spire of sheer rock out in the middle of nowhere. Obviously since this spire came from somewhere, at one point the entire land mass it is currently resting on, was submerged in water and eroded the rock layers down etc etc etc. (this all extremely "Watered" down examples.)

I don't think scientists are still amazed by simple glacial rock formations...



Yet this is still listed as an illustration and proof of biological evolution, next to the famous "Haeckel Embryo" frauds.. both equally antiquated, outmoded, and false.
In my text book both are labeled as theories/ideas in the 'history of origins' section,not facts, the Miller-Urey experiment simulated hypothetical conditions,it was not proclaimed as fact but as a hypothesis on how life could have been formed


The statistical odds of some of the things that supposedly "Happened by chance" are so staggeringly outlandish
So some all powerful force doing it makes more sense?

you can see Gods handiwork everywhere you look.
pretty shotty,did he outsource?:-|

[Zoibie]

the threat of global warming is nothing compared to the threat of viral outbreaks
just look at foot and mouth
although it was animal based
if it was human based (and it isn't very hard for a virus to adapt)
well, it would be quite a mess

There are a lot of concerns for the Earth today. That is too presumptious.

[Vulgotha]

I don't think scientists are still amazed by simple glacial rock formations...



In my text book both are labeled as theories/ideas in the 'history of origins' section,not facts, the Miller-Urey experiment simulated hypothetical conditions,it was not proclaimed as fact but as a hypothesis on how life could have been formed



So some all powerful force doing it makes more sense?


pretty shotty,did he outsource?:-|


I'll be honest, I really find it hard to respect you. You never give any intellectual opinions, you never back anything you say up with facts, and when somebody attempts to refute you with facts, you mock them, and tear them down simply because you say "It doesn't make sense".

Its almost as if your trying very very hard, to be an intellectual, without all the work and study involved.

For instance, "pretty shoddy, did he outsource?"... How can I address such an amazingly ..ignorant(?) statement? How is this constructive criticism of one's views? There are so many complex laws that rule this universe, the basic cell contains enough information for hundreds of books... You call that shoddy? Your arguing for the sake of arguing.

The only rational way to retaliate agaisnt such an irrational statement is to say "Could you do better?"

..CrownofLove atleast provides an edifying and stimulating conversation, you however never have. Whenever I post your simply out to "Get me" because I don't agree with you. You revel in mocking my beliefs even when your outdone with facts.

There is no reasoning with a person like you. Do me a favor, never speak to me again, until you read some books, and are actually qualified to talk about these things. Your obviously under-educated on such matters.
Past discussions have proved this time and time again, back off.

The only real factual statement I pulled out of what you said is "In my book, they're both theories". Your absolutely right, they ARE both theories. Why? Because niether can be proved. They both require a step of faith to believe in. Facts only help make such theories "More likely".

I'm going to respect CrownofLove and NOT steer this topic off course, I advise you to do the same.


*BTW, the Miller Experiment set out to do exactly as you say, but failed because they used the improper atmosphere, and other reasons i listed above. THEREFORE, it must be disregarded as a "Hypothetical Situation" which could create the building blocks for life. They tried again you know, and it failed using the new theory of our early atmosphere.

Leave me alone, I'm done discussing with you. This is CrownofLove's thread, I'm not going to disturb it.

[Axe&Hammer]

You never give any intellectual opinions, you never back anything you say up with facts
Not true.

For instance, "pretty shoddy", did he outsource?"... How can I address such an amazingly ..ignorant(?) statement? How is this constructive criticism of one's views? By bringing something incredibly perfect and organized that shuts me down,duh.

There are so many complex laws that rule this universe, the basic cell contains enough information for hundreds of books... You call that shoddy?
I do call it shoddy,the complexity of our universe doesn't mean its perfect.


Do me a favor, never speak to me again, until you read some books, and are actually qualified to talk about these things.And you are? Don't get on your pedestal :|



THEREFORE, it must be disregarded as a "Hypothetical Situation" which could create the building blocks for life. No because,the experiment was flawed,not the hypothesis,but without both the other cannot be taken as fact,thus more experimentation is required,and with the use of new data attempts have made some of the same proteins.

[DINAMO788]

PS3 is going to cure global warming///

why dont we power everything via cell processor?


and to those who think our impact on the planet is minimal, that kind of naive denial is what will be our doom when we **** up our planet beyond repair. the evidence presented for global warming outways the evidence against it, even when its easier to disprove something than to prove it

[coolguy]

the earth goes though its warm cycles and cold cycles.
right now its in its warm cycle..
Global Warming is no where near what gore is saying...
i live on long island and its 40 here to day.
i have ice on my bird bath,
and upstate ny had a foot of snow.
if Global Warming was real why would it still snow lol

[CrownOfLove]

"Your jumping to conclusions that support your view" ~ And your not?


You never refuted my standpoints and scientific facts,with facts. you merely said God was a lazy answer, and have effectively called me "Close minded" when yourself have failed to back up anything with facts.

Look, i think you're a good poster, and you seem like a cool person, and i don't want to be rude or start an arguemnt with you, but i'm sorry, it seems to me like you're close-minded in the way you look at these things. Please at least let me try to demonstrate why i believe this. If you really don't want to talk about this anymore then that's your choice, and i'll respect it, but i think you have a few misconceptions about me and evolutionsist in general that i want to see if i can clear;

Look at what you say here: I cannot accept that God does not exist so i'll jump to any conclusion that supports my view

You cannot accept that God does not exist? You'll jump to any conclusions that support your view? Surely these are not good starting points for an open-minded investigation.

I realise that you also say this: But I'll back it up with facts as well to solidify it.


Now, this is a most admirable feature. But if the fact still remains that you feel that you have to believe in God, then i'm not sure if you're looking at the evidence from an open-minded view.

This is what you have to say about my beliefs: You can't believe in a God, so you'll go out of your way to find any conclusion which supports your view.

Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i don't think my beliefs are anything like this. First of all there's the fact that i used to believe in God, I've prayed to God many times, so surely this defeats your claim that i can't believe in a God. Second of all, there's the fact that, though i don't believe in God anymore, i still would prefer it if a God did existed, so though i'd like to believe that i look at all evidence unbiasedly, i suppose it's possible that i might give greater heed to evidence that suggested there is something divine in the universe.

However i also feel that i have the intellectual maturity to accept anything, regardless of how happy or sad it makes me. If you can not say the same, then i don't think you can truly confess to being open-minded.

I don't know if you've read my signature, but there's alot of wisdom in it.

It is by the ancient french philosopher Descartes. He believed in God, though perhaps not the christian one, so perhaps you can relate to his words more then mine: If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

If you have to believe that God exists, then you cannot fundementally doubt his existence, therefore you cannot really call yourself a real seeker of truth.

To be honest, Evolutionists do this just as much as creationists, we all "Jump to conclusions" that support our view. Its called a bias, everyone has it. There is not one person in the scientific community without a pre disposed bias. If you believe that, your only fooling yourself.

Now, i just one want to say that, to some extent, i completely agree with what you're saying here. Every scientists has a biased to certain degree. They all have things they want to be true, and things they don't want to be true. However, true intellectual maturity comes when one can overcome these biases in the face of solid evidence. I admit that there are certain forms of evidence that are in the eye of the beholder, but there are others that cannot be ignored.

I reckon there are some evolutionists and athiests out there who are so fundamental and evangelical in their beliefs, that they can't be convinced otherwise. However, i don't consider these people true scientists, and i don't think they account for the majority of scientists.

To sum up what i'm trying to say here, and give you an impression of my beliefs; i don't believe in God as what he is seen as in the bible, or in any other religions i know of. This is because of 1) a lack of evidence of his existence, and 2) because of a few logic paridoxes that come attached with an all-powerful being. However, though i don't believe in the christian God, i admit the possibility that he does exist. I do also admit the possibillity of fairies existing though, or the possibility either of us may be God. As for what i actually believe created the universe, or whatever created the thing that created the universe, i can't really give you an answer i'm afraid. The Big Bang may be correct, but that leads to many more questions. However, i think another sign of intellectual maturity is being able to admit that there are some things that we don't know yet, and things that we may not know for a long time, or perhaps never. To me, religious explanations seem so man made, that it's an insult to our mysterious universe.

I do believe in evolution though, as i have seen sufficient evidence of it's existence. I welcome you to debate me on it, (perhaps it would be better in the evolution thread), but i fear that it may be pointless if you are not fully-open minded. If you have to believe in God, then i think you will naturally object to evidence that suggests evolution is true, even if it's staring you in the face.

Anyway if you want an honest debate, i'm open-minded and willing to learn whatever truths you have in stock for me. I just pray you are the same.



* As for erosion of rocks sadly your mistaken. If you had been up to date on recent findings, you'd understand that Mt. St Helen proved small "Canyons" could be carved out in a matter of days due to water flows. *

I can't remember too much about this matter, but i swear that 1) they concluded that the sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which as far as i know is much much easier eroded then the well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments of the Grand Canyon. And 2) they also found later that it wasn't entirely formed suddenly and that there was another river that contributed to it.

Also, isn't the Grand Canyon about 100,000 times larger then the Canyon on Mt.Helens. Are they really comparable?

** Btw, if you choose to keep this debate going, then i'd apprecieate if you''d try to reply to my point by point, like i've been trying to do to you. I find that this usually speeds up debates and gives less room for wrigling **

[sonyfan6]

Here's a good article on the subject:

Why So Gloomy?

By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

For those that don't want to read the whole thing here's what it boils down to:

1) Global Warming exists.
2) Modern science has yet to prove itself capable of accurately predicting climate change. This means that the effects of Global Warming are not known. The predicted catastrophe is based on speculation and is not backed by science.
3) The cause of Global Warming is unknown. The effects of CO2 emission do not track with models. It is more likely that the cause of Global Warming is part of the planet's natural climate fluctuation. We are still coming out of an ice age.

What's not in the article:

CO2 emissions are problematic, even though it has not been proven that they are a significant cause of Global Warming. CO2 emissions cause air polution lowering health. Furthermore, oil is a non-renewable resource (and also due to geo-political reasons) making it an unstable source of energy. Research should be done to facilitate clean, renewable and inexpensive energy. Government should assist in transitioning industry from using polluting, non-renewable energies, into a society that utilizes clean, renewable energy in an economical responsible manner.

[Vulgotha]

I simply disagree that I'm close minded Crownoflove, I've accepted many things I previously didn't believe in based on facts.

You may be more "Open minded" Then I am, but that doesn't make me exclusively close minded, and you the opposite. There are simply things that have completely underwhelmed in Evolution and Global Warming, I'm not sold on it. Bottom line.

What I said, in regards to me never not believing in a God, is based on everything I know now, because no one will ever be able to disprove God or vice versa. So I can refuse to not give up on God any day of the week, no one can prove otherwise, even if Evolution were to be proven completely (impossible, just as no one can totally prove creationism), there are other avenues to take in regards to dieties, (Theistic Evolution for example). I simply do not think the data is strong enough for Evolution.

You can claim and believe I'm close minded as you wish, your just mistaken. < And I don't see how you calling me this even adds to this discussion anyway. I believe your close minded, but I don't continually call you that.

For around the 5th time, lets just agree to disagree, no more arguing over this. Your failing to prove a thing to me, and myself likewise with you.

[DayWalker]

its funny watching the global warming opposition mutate their arguments.

wasn't too long ago when they couldn't even acknowledge that anything was happening at all.

now they've changed too... "well, fine it's getting warmer... but maybe its a good thing!!!"

you've got the brightest minds from all over the globe saying that there is a 90% chance that humans are negatively effecting the climate and that we may be in the process of ****ing ourselves... and all the opposition does is shrug and say "liberal talking points"

It's really annoying...
better safe than sorry right??? naw... just dismiss it and keep your head buried in the sand :roll:

[sonyfan6]

its funny watching the global warming opposition mutate their arguments.

wasn't too long ago when they couldn't even acknowledge that anything was happening at all.

now they've changed too... "well, fine it's getting warmer... but maybe its a good thing!!!"

you've got the brightest minds from all over the globe saying that there is a 90% chance that humans are negatively effecting the climate and that we may be in the process of ****ing ourselves... and all the opposition does is shrug and say "liberal talking points"

It's really annoying...
better safe than sorry right??? naw... just dismiss it and keep your head buried in the sand :roll:

I'm going to assume that this was in reference to the post I made earlier today. I don't think that you read it thoughly. No one is saying cataclysmic heating is a good thing. The issue is that simply put, the scientific evidence does not show that. There is an enormous amount of exaggeration in the Global Warming discussion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one taking part in this debate has actually examined the scientific evidence for themselves. They are just repeating what they have heard, usually not from scientists themselves but people saying that scientific evidence supports their points.

I've taken the time to look a little bit deeper, but not much. There's an enormous amount of research out there about climate and frankly, it's not my field. What I can speak on is the scientific method. Scientists make a prediction called a hypothesis, then perform experiments to test their hypothesis. Finally, they evaluate the results of their experiments to support or refine their original hypothesis. The experiments that are run simply don't support anything other than normal climate fluctuations. The average temperature data collected is not, even in the smallest way, correlated to the emission of CO2. The article I quoted a couple posts back does a better job of explaining this than I can.

you've got the brightest minds from all over the globe saying that there is a 90% chance that humans are negatively effecting the climate and that we may be in the process of ****ing ourselves... and all the opposition does is shrug and say "liberal talking points"

To be honest I don't see scientists saying this. I see many people saying that scientists are saying this, but the scientists themselves aren't making such broad claims. Rather what scientists are agreeing on is a) the average temperature of the earth is currently rising and b) humans contribute to this. What scientists don't agree on is a) the models explaining why the earth is warming currently and b) the extent to which humans contribute to this.

Basically, the models say different things and so far, as is required by the scientific process, none of the models have made successful predictions. Here's a particularly good line from the article I posted relating to the models not tracking:

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.


So to daywalker, I will have tremendous respect for you if you can tell me what scientific studies you are examining to draw your conclusions. Especially if they have models that explain why, if humans are the significant factor in Global Warming, why cooling occured between 1940 and 1976, even though human populations and polution were increasing.

[CrownOfLove]

Here's a good article on the subject:



For those that don't want to read the whole thing here's what it boils down to:

1) Global Warming exists.
2) Modern science has yet to prove itself capable of accurately predicting climate change. This means that the effects of Global Warming are not known. The predicted catastrophe is based on speculation and is not backed by science.
3) The cause of Global Warming is unknown. The effects of CO2 emission do not track with models. It is more likely that the cause of Global Warming is part of the planet's natural climate fluctuation. We are still coming out of an ice age.

What's not in the article:

CO2 emissions are problematic, even though it has not been proven that they are a significant cause of Global Warming. CO2 emissions cause air polution lowering health. Furthermore, oil is a non-renewable resource (and also due to geo-political reasons) making it an unstable source of energy. Research should be done to facilitate clean, renewable and inexpensive energy. Government should assist in transitioning industry from using polluting, non-renewable energies, into a society that utilizes clean, renewable energy in an economical responsible manner.

That is a scientifically flawed article. It makes many statements that are certainly not backed up bu any evidence.

Also Richard Lindzen is probably one of the most famous Global Warming Skeptics in the world.

He's also one of the most famous skeptics in the pay of oil companies
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

I wouldn't trust anything he says to be honest.


----replies to Vulgotha:


I simply disagree that I'm close minded Crownoflove, I've accepted many things I previously didn't believe in based on facts.

I apologise, i'm not imlying that you are a close-minded person in general, i'm sure you're not. I just think that you are close-minded on the subject of God, and therefore also on the subject of evolution

There are simply things that have completely underwhelmed in Evolution and Global Warming, I'm not sold on it. Bottom line.

What has underwhelmed you about global warming? I suppose that if you believe the worlds is 8000 years old then you believe pretty much all the evidence for it, or against it, to be false.

What I said, in regards to me never not believing in a God, is based on everything I know now, because no one will ever be able to disprove God or vice versa.


But that's just because of the nature of God, you can't prove either way. However you can't conclusively prove that i'm not God, or that we aren't ruled by a giant sphagetti monster.

So I can refuse to not give up on God any day of the week, no one can prove otherwise, even if Evolution were to be proven completely (impossible, just as no one can totally prove creationism), there are other avenues to take in regards to dieties, (Theistic Evolution for example). I simply do not think the data is strong enough for Evolution.

Well as far as science goes, evolution has pretty much been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Creationism can't really be scientifically proven nor disproven.

Can you give me an example of a problem you have with evolution.
You can claim and believe I'm close minded as you wish, your just mistaken. < And I don't see how you calling me this even adds to this discussion anyway. I believe your close minded, but I don't continually call you that.


I know i sound like a right jackass, but i think that if you fundamentaly believe something, and you'll never be proven otherwise, then you shouldn't debate on it, because you're not being fair to other person. However i do have a question that will maybe change my mind slightly.

Do you feel that you have to believe in the Christian God, or is just some sort of God in the universe?

For around the 5th time, lets just agree to disagree, no more arguing over this. Your failing to prove a thing to me, and myself likewise with you.

Can i just ask why you're not actually replying to alot of the points i make to you. You say i'm not proving a thing to you, but why havn't you replied to my points on Mt.Helen? If you have no reply for them, then can we reasonably conclude that i've proven you wrong on that particuliar point?

-----replies to Sonyfan6:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one taking part in this debate has actually examined the scientific evidence for themselves. They are just repeating what they have heard, usually not from scientists themselves but people saying that scientific evidence supports their points.

you have a point here. Both sides are guilty of this. I an personally say that i've studied the evidence myself, and i've come to the conclusion that we are effecting the climate. I think the media, aswell as many politicions, are exagerrating the claims, but the general verdict seems correct nonetheless.

I've taken the time to look a little bit deeper, but not much. There's an enormous amount of research out there about climate and frankly, it's not my field. What I can speak on is the scientific method. Scientists make a prediction called a hypothesis, then perform experiments to test their hypothesis. Finally, they evaluate the results of their experiments to support or refine their original hypothesis. The experiments that are run simply don't support anything other than normal climate fluctuations. The average temperature data collected is not, even in the smallest way, correlated to the emission of CO2. The article I quoted a couple posts back does a better job of explaining this than I can.

Well, i don't really trust anything written by Richard Lindzen.

However, if you think there is no correlation between Co2 and temps, then you are sadly mistaken.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

You seriously think there is no correlation there?

(if i've misunderstood what you are saying then i apologise btw)

To be honest I don't see scientists saying this. I see many people saying that scientists are saying this, but the scientists themselves aren't making such broad claims

I apoligise, but this statement of yours makes me wonder how much you've actually looked into this matter. If you had, then surely you would realise that the statistic Daywalker was refering to was from the IPCC's recently released preview of their 4th assesment report on climate change.

Just incase you don't know who they are, the IPCC (or Intergoverment Panel On Climate Change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) are a group of 2000 or so climate scientists who have spent the last 2 decades researching into the dangers of climate change. They are considered among many to be the leading authority on climate change among scientists, and even if you disagree with that, they are definitelty one of the most well-researched groups in the world on this matter, and if they say something it is definitely worth taking notice/

They release reports on climate change every 6 years or so. The 1st was released in 1990, the 2nd in 1995, the 3rd in 2001, and the 4th is pretty much gradually being released at the moment. Their predictions on climate change have changed over the years, but the more they know about the subject, the bleaker the outlook has seemed. In their recent preview of their 4th assesment report, they concluded that their is a 90% change that humans are responsible for the majority of recent global warming (there has been talks that the original number was nearer to 99%, but the chinese and saudi goverments convinced them to bring it down in the preview).

So basically yes, the scientists are sayign that. The IPCC have been criticised by other scientists though, however most of these critisicms seem to be that they water down their reports and are too conservative with their estimates. So basically 90% is certainly is more like the average amount of certainity preposed by climate scientists, rather then a particuliarly high one.

Rather what scientists are agreeing on is a) the average temperature of the earth is currently rising and b) humans contribute to this. What scientists don't agree on is a) the models explaining why the earth is warming currently and b) the extent to which humans contribute to this.

They don't agree exactly, but they have a pretty good idea, and i'd say that about 99% of climate scientists agree that humans are having a notable effect on earth's climate.

Basically, the models say different things and so far, as is required by the scientific process, none of the models have made successful predictions. Here's a particularly good line from the article I posted relating to the models not tracking:



I've got a good idea what Lindzen's going to say on this, but i'll read anyway.

Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees.

Yes that's pretty much true.

he important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2.

I'm not 100% sure what he means here. I reckon he's probably confusing greenhouse gases mass with their overall forcing. For example Co2 has a tiny amoutn of mass compared to other greenhouse gases, but has one of the strongest forcings.

But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Wrong. Scientists have concluded that this breif cooling period inbetween was almost certainly down to the vast amount of sulphate aerosals in our atmosphere, which reflected a very large amount of sunlight. (there are other things that may have contributed to the cooling aswell, but aerosals are the main factor)

This is quite a scientific article, so i'm not sure how much of it you'll get if you've only briefly looked into the matter, but it does a bit to explain aerosals effect on climate change: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/

So to daywalker, I will have tremendous respect for you if you can tell me what scientific studies you are examining to draw your conclusions. Especially if they have models that explain why, if humans are the significant factor in Global Warming, why cooling occured between 1940 and 1976, even though human populations and polution were increasing.


Well i think i've answered thse questions, so is their any change i've earned some of that respect :D

I can see that you are an intelligent poster Sonyfan6, and you made some good point in your posts. However, i think that if you are reading from sources like Lindzen, then you may not be getting very straight facts. I advise reading from a site like www.realclimate.org , or if you really want to learn more then maybe subscribing to a science magazine. (NewScientist is probably the best out there, but Ameican Scientist is decent aswell).

I think with all the media coverage on climate change at the moment, and all the exagerattions they are sprouting, it's only natural to have a skeptical view when first looking into this matter. However, i think you'll find that the more you look into this subject, and the more stuff you read from actual climate scientists rather then random news sources, the more you'll find that the actual conclusions seems to be that things are looking rather bad. Not the apocalyptic rubbish that some papers are sprouting, but still things that could have fairly catastrophic effects. However, there are things that we can do to help this, and i think the best thing people can do to help this matter at the moment is to learn as much about the subject as possible, as only then will people be able to make sensible ethical choices about the future of our planet.


Sorry for the long post btw. I can go on abit.

[ninjaboy]

Well as far as science goes, evolution has pretty much been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Creationism can't really be scientifically proven nor disproven.

I'll just say my opinion on evolution. It seems like every time evolutionists run into problems with their theory they just modify it. That's why it can't be disproved, because it gets fixed every time it hits a flaw.

Genetics disproves evolution because you can only lose genetic information over time but never gain it. Look at dog breeding for example, the first wild dogs or wolves contained all the genetic information of all the breeds that would follow. So if you bred long enough you could eventually get a poodle out of this original dog, but you can't breed a poodle back into the original wild dog because it has lost genetic information. The poodle genes have simply been separated from the rest of the genes. In nature biologists can see a losses of genetic information, but never have seen a gain in genetic information. When the theory of evolution was proposed, the science of genetics was not understood as it was today.

I'm not imlying that you are a close-minded person in general, i'm sure you're not. I just think that you are close-minded on the subject of God, and therefore also on the subject of evolution

So if he doesn't agree with your views of God and evolution he's close-minded on those topics? If that's the case, I suppose I could say just the same about you for not agreeing with him.

Oops, I went off topic :oops:.

[sonyfan6]

CrownOfLove:

Thanks for a great reply. One of the ways I personally strive to examine issues is to look at what both sides are saying. I have looked into both sides on this issue, but as I admitted in my original post, not thoroughly. I always welcome the opportunity to learn more and thank you for some wonderful suggestions for further reading. I don't quite have the time to look into it right now, but I will do so. Especially the bit on aerosoles.

I would, however, briefly like to reply to a couple things in your post. The first being my quoting of Richard Lindzen. I understand that he is a well known Global Warming critic and should not have posted his article without giving that bio. I certainly read other sources, it just so happened that that particular article was convenient as it had just come out the day I made my post.

The second point I would like to address is the graph you supply showing a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and average temperatures. I would like to paraphrase something from the book freakonomics: one must be careful when examining correlated data not to assume cause and effect. I would further point out that what I wrote earlier mentioned CO2 emissions and not atmospheric levels. I would not conclude the Global Warming claim from the graph that you supplied. What the graph shows, in my opinion, is a roughly steady 100,000 year cycle which begins with an ice age, sees a sharp (as far as 100,000 year cycles are concerned) ***** in temperature, reaching a very hot point. The temperature then fluctuates between these two extremes without the severe *****. This all occurs independent of human interference. During these periods, the level of atmospheric CO2 also fluctuates by 100 ppm from about 200-300ppm, correlated roughly with the average temperature. This does not mean that the CO2 is the cause of the temperature fluctuations, which is why I mentioned freakonomics earlier. It is more likely that the earth's volcanic activity is somewhat correlated to the average temperature and volcanic activity is well known to be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels. The first part of the preceding statement was pure conjecture. That aside, the main point, and what ties into Richard Lindzen's comments, is that since CO2 level is currently at nearly 400 ppm, if there was a true cause and effect correlation between CO2 levels and average temperature then the current average temperature should be correspondingly higher. It isn't. Therefore the evidence does not support this model for atmospheric CO2 and average temperature.

Incidently, I would be interested to know what the temperature scale is on the graph.

[CrownOfLove]

Responses to ninjaboy-----

I'll just say my opinion on evolution. It seems like every time evolutionists run into problems with their theory they just modify it. That's why it can't be disproved, because it gets fixed every time it hits a flaw.

Well this is more the way science works in general then a particular trait of evolution. Obviously there are some things that we didn't know 200 years ago, and that we couldn't possibly know, so it's perfectly fair that we would improve on it over time. The fact remains that the basic principles of evolution, those being variation and natural selection, are still the same today. When Darwin proposed the theory, not for a second did he believe that he completely understood the mechanics of it. Even nowadays, we probably only know a fraction of the mysteries of genetics, so in a hundred years time, I think it's quite likely that our understanding of the mechanics of evolution will be different. However, I’m also almost certain the basic principles of it will still be the same.

Genetics disproves evolution because you can only lose genetic information over time but never gain it. Look at dog breeding for example, the first wild dogs or wolves contained all the genetic information of all the breeds that would follow. So if you bred long enough you could eventually get a poodle out of this original dog, but you can't breed a poodle back into the original wild dog because it has lost genetic information. The poodle genes have simply been separated from the rest of the genes. In nature biologists can see a losses of genetic information, but never have seen a gain in genetic information. When the theory of evolution was proposed, the science of genetics was not understood as it was today.

I'm sorry but are you sure you have you have a decent understanding of genetics. If you did then you should know that you don't only lose genetic information over time! In fact you rarely even lose genetic information over time, you just lose some of the structures that the genes are affecting. A gene can't effects a brain if a brain is not wired up for the gene to work on.

In terms of mutations though, anything they can do, they can undo also. Some mutations add information to a genome, some subtract it. There are many recorded cases of mutations adding genetic information to a population.

So if he doesn't agree with your views of God and evolution he's close-minded on those topics? If that's the case, I suppose I could say just the same about you for not agreeing with him.



Did you read the post I was replying to?

I wasn't saying he was close-minded simply because he was religious, but because he stated that, "I cannot accept that God does not exist". If you can't accept anything, then no matter the evidence, one would not be convinced, which means that someone is close-minded in my view.


responses to sonyfan6-----

Thanks for a great