|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2005 04:20:30 PM · #76 |
"I don't believe that "high degree...leads...conclude" rises to the level of proof that any rational being should require of a "scientist". "Scientist" should be able to offer irrefutable evidense, not conjecture."
This is simply not true. The article did not pretend to offer proof, iut offered a hypotjesis. This is how science works; we observe the world, formulate hypotheses to explain what we've observed, then test the hypotheses to see if they can be validated. They went to great lengths to create "models" to try to find another way to explain the observed data, and were unable to do so. The article or paper is by way of a warning. The hypothesis placed forward is their best attempt at explaining what's happening. The qualifiers are placed there because, in truth, they realize that they have not yet proven their hypothesis. The goal is to find the proof; the hypothesis is not new. What's different about this article/paper is that it is the result of an attempt to test OTHER hypotheses to see if any of THEM could account for the observed facts.
Which, apparently, they could not.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 04:24:17 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt. |
For the purpose of this discussion, and in common usage, peat is NOT a "fossil fuel". |
For the purpose of this discussion, every organic material which yields carbon dioxide as a combustion product is a "fossil fuel." |
Interesting. So when I burn a log in my fireplace that was cut from a living tree just a year ago, I'm burning a "fossil fuel"?
Thanks for the enlightenment. |
You're welcome. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 04:25:52 PM · #78 |
| Where's the irrefutable proof that continuing to burn carbon-based fuels at the increasing rates won't destroy the Earth? Prove it's safe, then let's talk. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 04:55:19 PM · #79 |
i have a great idea!
let's all burn as much gas as possible, cut down every tree left standing, dump poison into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, never recycle, etc... etc...
then maybe one day, the "proof" that so many people seem to be looking for that humans are a MAJOR cause of global warming will surface! Sure, the proof might be in hindsite, but hey, who cares? It's our children and grandchildren who will have to deal with a depleted ozone and acid rain! Screw them!!! Let's destroy it as fast as we possibly can, we won't be alive to witness the "so called" problems anyways! I mean, why would anyone trust some highly educated "lefty" scientist anyways? They probably just have some dark ulterior motives. Common! you really think those crazy people actually care about humanity and the only planet we live on? Yeah right! I for one am going to go to my local gas station right now and buy 50 gallons of fuel, and i'm gonna dump it in the river! then I'm gonna burn all of my old tires right next to the school! Maybe I'll leave my gas guzzling hummer on all night just to spite all of those wacky tree lovers!
Sounds like a terrific plan huh?!?
P.S. Any one who is crazy or stupid enough to believe that humans are not a major cause of global warming needs to go see a specialist. You have some serious problems that modern medicine might be able to help you with.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 05:08:02 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"I don't believe that "high degree...leads...conclude" rises to the level of proof that any rational being should require of a "scientist". "Scientist" should be able to offer irrefutable evidense, not conjecture."
This is simply not true. The article did not pretend to offer proof, iut offered a hypotjesis. This is how science works; we observe the world, formulate hypotheses to explain what we've observed, then test the hypotheses to see if they can be validated. They went to great lengths to create "models" to try to find another way to explain the observed data, and were unable to do so. The article or paper is by way of a warning. The hypothesis placed forward is their best attempt at explaining what's happening. The qualifiers are placed there because, in truth, they realize that they have not yet proven their hypothesis. The goal is to find the proof; the hypothesis is not new. What's different about this article/paper is that it is the result of an attempt to test OTHER hypotheses to see if any of THEM could account for the observed facts.
Which, apparently, they could not.
Robt. |
The basic problem, Robert, is that their "science" is based upon the misperception that things occur in predictable and consistent ways. The "models" that they construct "assume" that things happen predictably, and consistently. Though in reality, as we all know, they do not.
For example: the temperatures in the Pacific ocean did not appreciably rise from 1955 to 1976, nor did they rise appreciably from 1977 to 1996. But between 1976 and 1977 the temperature suddenly rose by over one-tenth degree celsius. No model would predict that.
If you believe that the global warming "models" are valid, then why is it that we can't get ANY of our modern meteorological models to consistently predict the weather accurately even 3 days in advance?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 05:26:30 PM · #81 |
| But why wait to make changes to our lifestyles before we get all the facts in? Won't we be in much worse shape if we continue like we are and it turns out that global warming is effected by human actions? There are enough scientists stating that it is caused by humans as evidenced by MadMordegon's previous post where he listed the hundreds of major scientists that support the human intervention theory. Would anyone be against making changes that could effect our planet's health? |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 05:32:12 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Would anyone be against making changes that could effect our planet's health? |
Yes, we've already seen it here: Conservatives are against such sensible changes.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 05:42:10 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But why wait to make changes to our lifestyles before we get all the facts in? Won't we be in much worse shape if we continue like we are and it turns out that global warming is effected by human actions? There are enough scientists stating that it is caused by humans as evidenced by MadMordegon's previous post where he listed the hundreds of major scientists that support the human intervention theory. Would anyone be against making changes that could effect our planet's health? |
If you have trouble breathing and the doctor says that tests show that you have emphysema, you don't need to KNOW whether the main cause is smoking or not. You know that it is at least a FACTOR. So, you would be well advised to stop smoking. To do otherwise is foolhardy.
Likewise, tests show that we have global warming. We don't need to KNOW whether the main cause is human activity or not. We know that it is at least a FACTOR. So, though it's too much to expect that we STOP human activity, we would be well advised to make a concerted effort to reduce the degree to which we consume plastics, burn "fossil" fuels, etc.
You are absolutely right that we should not wait to make changes before we get all the facts in.
But not because there are 5, 500, or 5000 "scientists" who say that it's our fault.
We should do it because, even if global warming is NOT our fault, it's the right thing to do.
Whoops. I have to take all of that back. I just read bdobe's post and discovered that I can't be both a conservative AND agree with sensible change. Darn. I hate when I have to choose.
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 17:45:27. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:03:16 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Prof,
You said "In a 4 billion year old planet humans have been here for 100,000 years or so, and burning much of anything only for the last 400 years (max) and using fossil fuels for only 140 years and measuring it all for only 70 to 100 years."
I'm interested in your 140 year fossil fuel stat. Is that a fact? I'm not disputing it, I am curious. Isn't peat a fossil fuel? Isn't coal? Haven't they been used for far longer? Or is it that you're meaning to say something like "rapid industrialization combined with massive use of fossil fuels"?
Robt. |
I don't think fossil fuels were used very much at all more than about 140 years or so ago. Before that industrial activity, indoor heating, etc. were almost exclusively fueled by burning wood, straw, dried dung, etc. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:08:08 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt. |
For the purpose of this discussion, and in common usage, peat is NOT a "fossil fuel". |
For the purpose of this discussion, every organic material which yields carbon dioxide as a combustion product is a "fossil fuel." |
Who made you the rule-maker? |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:09:19 PM · #86 |
I thought they were using coal in smelters in the bronze age. I know they were using peat back then for personal use at least...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:17:34 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Suprada, or anyone;
"Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned."
Yes, that's what I had thought. But is not peat in the same category? It's decayed plant matter compressed over time in "peat bogs"... I am asking as a point of information, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Robt. |
Peat is actually premature coal. Left alone and compressed by various sediments and rocks above it it will become coal in a couple of million years or so. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:32:57 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where's the irrefutable proof that continuing to burn carbon-based fuels at the increasing rates won't destroy the Earth? Prove it's safe, then let's talk. |
The only proof I need is your lack of proof that it will. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:35:25 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
i have a great idea!
let's all burn as much gas as possible, cut down every tree left standing, dump poison into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, never recycle, etc... etc...
then maybe one day, the "proof" that so many people seem to be looking for that humans are a MAJOR cause of global warming will surface! Sure, the proof might be in hindsite, but hey, who cares? It's our children and grandchildren who will have to deal with a depleted ozone and acid rain! Screw them!!! Let's destroy it as fast as we possibly can, we won't be alive to witness the "so called" problems anyways! I mean, why would anyone trust some highly educated "lefty" scientist anyways? They probably just have some dark ulterior motives. Common! you really think those crazy people actually care about humanity and the only planet we live on? Yeah right! I for one am going to go to my local gas station right now and buy 50 gallons of fuel, and i'm gonna dump it in the river! then I'm gonna burn all of my old tires right next to the school! Maybe I'll leave my gas guzzling hummer on all night just to spite all of those wacky tree lovers!
Sounds like a terrific plan huh?!?
P.S. Any one who is crazy or stupid enough to believe that humans are not a major cause of global warming needs to go see a specialist. You have some serious problems that modern medicine might be able to help you with. |
This post here suggests that YOU are the one with the serious problems. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:39:11 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I thought they were using coal in smelters in the bronze age. I know they were using peat back then for personal use at least...
Robt. |
Maybe they were. I know the Chineese were using coal, but not on a really large scale, back in Marco Polo's time. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 09:27:51 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Suprada, or anyone;
"Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned."
Yes, that's what I had thought. But is not peat in the same category? It's decayed plant matter compressed over time in "peat bogs"... I am asking as a point of information, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Robt. |
Peat is actually premature coal. Left alone and compressed by various sediments and rocks above it it will become coal in a couple of million years or so. |
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any clinical evidence that peat becomes coal, nor that it takes a "couple of million years" for anything to "become" coal. "Millions of years" is what "scientists" say, but of course, they can offer no proof - and there are many, many examples that refute their claims.
What I have found are documented accounts of "modern" human artifacts, jewelry, bones, and even pots being found completely embedded in coal. And since modern artifacts haven't been around for "millions of years", the coal formation enclosing a pot couldn't be either. You can read about some of the finds here.
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 21:29:15. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 09:37:31 PM · #92 |
RonB,
You're kidding!? You're actually citing a web site that focuses on such "strange phenomena" as:
Forteana Bigfoot Loch Ness Monster UFOs Ghosts Grim Reaper Thunderbird Anomalies Time Travel Urban Legends Hoaxes Supernatural Monsters Synchronicity ESP Parapsychology
As a reputable source!
No wonder you don't believe in science and question evolution.
The site offers this to bolster their credentials:
"Before becoming an exclusively online magazine, twenty print issues of Strange Magazine were published."
Wow! For someone that routinely relies on, Hey, I just want the facts!, you sure are making a leap of faith.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any clinical evidence that peat becomes coal, nor that it takes a "couple of million years" for anything to "become" coal. "Millions of years" is what "scientists" say, but of course, they can offer no proof - and there are many, many examples that refute their claims.
What I have found are documented accounts of "modern" human artifacts, jewelry, bones, and even pots being found completely embedded in coal. And since modern artifacts haven't been around for "millions of years", the coal formation enclosing a pot couldn't be either. You can read about some of the finds here. |
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 21:57:40.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 09:55:39 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Suprada, or anyone;
"Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned."
Yes, that's what I had thought. But is not peat in the same category? It's decayed plant matter compressed over time in "peat bogs"... I am asking as a point of information, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Robt. |
Peat is actually premature coal. Left alone and compressed by various sediments and rocks above it it will become coal in a couple of million years or so. |
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any clinical evidence that peat becomes coal, nor that it takes a "couple of million years" for anything to "become" coal. "Millions of years" is what "scientists" say, but of course, they can offer no proof - and there are many, many examples that refute their claims.
What I have found are documented accounts of "modern" human artifacts, jewelry, bones, and even pots being found completely embedded in coal. And since modern artifacts haven't been around for "millions of years", the coal formation enclosing a pot couldn't be either. You can read about some of the finds here. |
I can't resist this one. If, as you say, scientists have offered no proof that it takes "millions of years" for coal to form, then what kind of proof can you offer that "modern artifacts" have not been around for millions of years? |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:03:02 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where's the irrefutable proof that continuing to burn carbon-based fuels at the increasing rates won't destroy the Earth? Prove it's safe, then let's talk. |
The only proof I need is your lack of proof that it will. |
seems like your the confused one here.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:04:01 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB,
You're kidding!? You're actually citing a web site that focuses on such "strange phenomena" as:
Forteana Bigfoot Loch Ness Monster UFOs Ghosts Grim Reaper Thunderbird Anomalies Time Travel Urban Legends Hoaxes Supernatural Monsters Synchronicity ESP Parapsychology
As a reputable source!
No wonder you don't believe in science and doubt evolution.
The site offers this to bolster their credentials:
"Before becoming an exclusively online magazine, twenty print issues of Strange Magazine were published."
Wow! For someone that routinely relies on, Hey, I just want the facts!, you sure are making a leap of faith.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any clinical evidence that peat becomes coal, nor that it takes a "couple of million years" for anything to "become" coal. "Millions of years" is what "scientists" say, but of course, they can offer no proof - and there are many, many examples that refute their claims.
What I have found are documented accounts of "modern" human artifacts, jewelry, bones, and even pots being found completely embedded in coal. And since modern artifacts haven't been around for "millions of years", the coal formation enclosing a pot couldn't be either. You can read about some of the finds here. |
|
1) I thought that you'd get a kick out of it. That's why I included it. I just wanted to prove once again, your penchant for dismissing anything and everything that doesn't come from a liberal web-site or publication. You obviously care not about the content, but the source. You therefore display to the world that you haven't the ability or desire to do any research beyond the immediate. That's what mainstream media like CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, WashingtonPost, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. count on. People like you who will believe what they write at face value, without checking to see if it even comes CLOSE to the facts.
2) If it please the court ( other than William, that is, because he is hopelessly addicted to kool-aid ) - the iron pot item is well documented and has been sworn before a court. You can read the sworn testimony from the man who found the pot here
3) It seems that you STILL haven't the guts to answer my TOM LOVES MARY question - why is that????? |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:12:00 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
overpopulation: Global population growth has stopped, and i read recently declined even! |
Absolutly incredible. What is taught in school these days?!
In the last 12 years we grew 1 billion. In the next 12 it will be 2. |
I don't know. I have not been in school since 1986. back then, Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was a term and an organization - they changed their name 2 or 3 years ago to the population connection or some such. They have one point of view, and recognize no other.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:16:50 PM · #97 |
It's amazing you write something like this after defending the president who, at the least, did not do the research about Iraqi WMDs. President Bush and his administration certainly were counting on all the media outlets you named below not to look any further than what they wanted the public to believe about Iraq.
Sorry for this temporary redirection...I now return you to your regularly scheduled global warming rant.
Originally posted by RonB:
1) I thought that you'd get a kick out of it. That's why I included it. I just wanted to prove once again, your penchant for dismissing anything and everything that doesn't come from a liberal web-site or publication. You obviously care not about the content, but the source. You therefore display to the world that you haven't the ability or desire to do any research beyond the immediate. That's what mainstream media like CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, WashingtonPost, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. count on. People like you who will believe what they write at face value, without checking to see if it even comes CLOSE to the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:18:41 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Suprada, or anyone;
"Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned."
Yes, that's what I had thought. But is not peat in the same category? It's decayed plant matter compressed over time in "peat bogs"... I am asking as a point of information, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Robt. |
Peat is actually premature coal. Left alone and compressed by various sediments and rocks above it it will become coal in a couple of million years or so. |
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any clinical evidence that peat becomes coal, nor that it takes a "couple of million years" for anything to "become" coal. "Millions of years" is what "scientists" say, but of course, they can offer no proof - and there are many, many examples that refute their claims.
What I have found are documented accounts of "modern" human artifacts, jewelry, bones, and even pots being found completely embedded in coal. And since modern artifacts haven't been around for "millions of years", the coal formation enclosing a pot couldn't be either. You can read about some of the finds here. |
I can't resist this one. If, as you say, scientists have offered no proof that it takes "millions of years" for coal to form, then what kind of proof can you offer that "modern artifacts" have not been around for millions of years? |
I can't. But that's the catch-22. Who is more "correct"? Me, or "scientists"? Do you believe me when I say BOTH COAL and MAN are less than 10,000 years old? Or do you believe "scientists"? If you believe "scientists" then you must believe them when they say 1) it takes "millions of years" for coal to form, and 2) Humans have been around for around 195,000 years max ( according to the most recent estimates ( from a little over a week ago )).
My point is that, given a pot embedded in coal, IF "science" fact 2) is true then "science" fact 1) cannot be.
See, "scientists" can't prove that COAL is millions of years old, nor can they prove that humans have been around for 195,000 years. BOTH are theories based on assumptions ( for example: rate of decay of carbon-14, rates of sedimentation, time for petrification, etc.) |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:23:57 PM · #99 |
Lets follow this human warming fuel burning scenario into the future - which happens first - we all expire in 150 degree heat OR we run out of fossil fuels to burn?
If the scientists that can measure and predict the global changes spent a week on this thought, then perhaps we'd know what the end result of our actions would be.
100 years ago there was a shortage of whale oil, an excess of horse dung, and many diseases killing millions. Look what 100 years has done. Who knows what the next 100 can bring.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 10:24:05 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RonB:
3) It seems that you STILL haven't the guts to answer my TOM LOVES MARY question - why is that????? |
I'll be perfectly blunt with you Ron. I believe the TOM LOVES MARY analogy is an extremely stupid one, and nothing more than a simpleminded rhetorical exercise, that's just a simple game of linear logic -- that's why I hadn't bothered to entertain it.
Here's another difference between conservative and Liberal thinking: Liberals can chew gum and walk at the same time. More specifically, a person may believe in God and evolution simultaneously, if one so chooses. At its core, and what's wonderful about religion, it's that religion is based on faith -- blind faith at that. Therefore, if one's faith is strong, and based on a solid foundation, the introduction of new facts should not threaten one's faith/belief system. Moreover, people that choose to follow a religious tenet, and are secure in their faith, need not be threaten by science nor evolution; and, can, therefore, hold both a faith centered view of the world, while not dismissing the natural world that's around us. It's with this in mind that, for example, the modern Catholic Church interprets Genesis as a metaphor and does not advocate the literal interpretation of that book.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/29/2024 04:32:06 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/29/2024 04:32:06 PM EDT.
|
