Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

[Johnny Coli]

As someone else with a science background, I completely agree with DC Tom and Wacka on this issue. (i dont agree with his politics, but Wacka knows his science). And to connor, please explain why your little global warming religion buddies never show data prior to more than 100 years ago or so?

 

Why are we warming?

-The last glaciation period ended a mere 10,000 years ago. Guess what happens after we experience cooling? We warm.

-We had the little ice age which ended around the late 1700's. That means it was very cold. Care to hazard a guess as to what happens after a long cold spell?

 

Also, please explain why the temperatures during the medieval maximum were pretty much the same as they are today? Must have been the Vikings and their damn diesel longships or all the SUVs that the peasants in Europe were driving.

I've got to disagree . I think the evidence (I'm talking the vast amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that are affected by global warming) are too compelling to ignore. They all point to a significant man-made component contributing to global warming. I'll let others do their own PubMed search, but there just isn't the "noise" in the literature suggesting otherwise.

[Ramius]

I've got to disagree . I think the evidence (I'm talking the vast amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that are affected by global warming) are too compelling to ignore. They all point to a significant man-made component contributing to global warming. I'll let others do their own PubMed search, but there just isn't the "noise" in the literature suggesting otherwise.

 

My biggest complaint with the "man-made global warming" crowd is they seem unable to account for any other possibilities or factors that may be involved, which is why i question the science. (like the fact that there have been numerous CO2 spikes throughout history, to levels much much higher than what they are currently at) The "experiments" they conduct cannot be falsified and seemingly do not take into account other factors that may be at risk. To me, there's enough reasonable doubt as to the level of our impact on the current warming trend. Saying that man can can control the climate of the Earth is like saying that Niagara Falls could be shut off if we all stopped pissing in Lake Erie.

 

Man-made global warming is more of straight up human arrogance in thinking that we can and are the major factor affecting something as big as climate change. Its right up there with thinking we can "destroy the earth" and thinking that humans are the end goal of evolution.

[drnykterstein]

Man-made global warming is more of straight up human arrogance in thinking that we can and are the major factor affecting something as big as climate change.

 

Go sit in front of a coal power plant and stare at it for a few hours.

 

Then think about how there are millions of buildings polluting just as much as that or more, all over the planet.

[Johnny Coli]

My biggest complaint with the "man-made global warming" crowd is they seem unable to account for any other possibilities or factors that may be involved, which is why i question the science. (like the fact that there have been numerous CO2 spikes throughout history, to levels much much higher than what they are currently at) The "experiments" they conduct cannot be falsified and seemingly do not take into account other factors that may be at risk. To me, there's enough reasonable doubt as to the level of our impact on the current warming trend. Saying that man can can control the climate of the Earth is like saying that Niagara Falls could be shut off if we all stopped pissing in Lake Erie.

 

Man-made global warming is more of straight up human arrogance in thinking that we can and are the major factor affecting something as big as climate change. Its right up there with thinking we can "destroy the earth" and thinking that humans are the end goal of evolution.

Disagree again. There's no dispute in "natural" CO2 fluctuations over long periods of time. Humans don't have to be the cause of all of it. However, human activity could easily have provided the tipping point. I believe the evidence from multiple scientific areas is there. Natural temporal fluctuations do not account for the significant changes taking place. You aren't convinced. I am.

[Wacka]

Go sit in front of a coal power plant and stare at it for a few hours.

 

Then think about how there are millions of buildings polluting just as much as that or more, all over the planet.

 

 

Sit in the country and think about the billions and billions (even trillions if you include bacteria) of animals producing even more CO2 into the atmosphere by exhaling. Lets kill all the animals.

 

Think about even one volcano producing more gasses than in one eruption than man can make in several years.

[Ramius]

Go sit in front of a coal power plant and stare at it for a few hours.

 

Then think about how there are millions of buildings polluting just as much as that or more, all over the planet.

 

And how does this have anything to do with supposed "man-made" global warming?

[drnykterstein]

Sit in the country and think about the billions and billions (even trillions if you include bacteria) of animals producing even more CO2 into the atmosphere by exhaling. Lets kill all the animals.

 

Go sit in the rainforest in South America and think about how how much CO2 that place converts into Oxygen. Then think about how that the place you are in is dissapearing at a rate of 4% per year.

[elegantelliotoffen]

As someone else with a science background, I completely agree with DC Tom and Wacka on this issue. (i dont agree with his politics, but Wacka knows his science). And to connor, please explain why your little global warming religion buddies never show data prior to more than 100 years ago or so?

 

Why are we warming?

-The last glaciation period ended a mere 10,000 years ago. Guess what happens after we experience cooling? We warm.

-We had the little ice age which ended around the late 1700's. That means it was very cold. Care to hazard a guess as to what happens after a long cold spell?

 

Also, please explain why the temperatures during the medieval maximum were pretty much the same as they are today? Must have been the Vikings and their damn diesel longships or all the SUVs that the peasants in Europe were driving.

 

Didn't you hear? Cigarettes aren't addictive and they are

!

[DC Tom]

My biggest complaint with the "man-made global warming" crowd is they seem unable to account for any other possibilities or factors that may be involved, which is why i question the science. (like the fact that there have been numerous CO2 spikes throughout history, to levels much much higher than what they are currently at) The "experiments" they conduct cannot be falsified and seemingly do not take into account other factors that may be at risk. To me, there's enough reasonable doubt as to the level of our impact on the current warming trend. Saying that man can can control the climate of the Earth is like saying that Niagara Falls could be shut off if we all stopped pissing in Lake Erie.

 

Man-made global warming is more of straight up human arrogance in thinking that we can and are the major factor affecting something as big as climate change. Its right up there with thinking we can "destroy the earth" and thinking that humans are the end goal of evolution.

 

Truth be told, some of the research (good research, at that) does take other factors in to account. I've seen studies that try to differentiate carbon-driven warming from solar-driven warming based on historical estimates. The problem is that even where that research is well-done, it's not very conclusive (it's theoretically possible, but very difficult to measure solar activity on the scales they look at over tens of thousands of years).

 

The bigger problem I have isn't so much that the theory is unfalsifiable, but that any falsification is forbidden. Contrary research is literally ignored - not even disproved itself, just ignored - in favor of established doctrine. If previous warming periods have been driven by something other than CO2, it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming...but it's pretty damned important to figure out what that "something other than CO2" might be if you want to accurately measure and model the current climate. Conversely, if previous warming periods have been driven by CO2, it becomes pretty important to determine what THOSE sources of CO2 might be in the absence of man-made CO2 sources (or even if those historic CO2 levels were driven by warming themselves) to accurately model anthropogenic sources.

 

But global warming, despite claims otherwise, isn't a scientific theory. It's a policy position. If it were scientific, the research I outlined would be allowed. As a matter of policy, it's not supported. It may make for good policy (I think it doesn't...I think the environmental movement has been hijacked by the "anti-CO2" movement and has lost sight of any other environmental issues. We've got environmentalists arguing for topsoil depletion on the basis of CO2 reduction, for Christ's sake. ) It does NOT make for good science. Global warming, right or wrong, is simply an immature theory.

[drnykterstein]

Didn't you hear? Cigarettes aren't addictive and they are

!

 

They can not prove that ciggarettes are addictive. Unless they prove it, I won't believe it.

[DC Tom]

Go sit in the rainforest in South America and think about how how much CO2 that place converts into Oxygen. Then think about how that the place you are in is dissapearing at a rate of 4% per year.

 

Nowhere near as much as the oceans. Think about how much carbon you're putting back in to the atmosphere every time you eat tuna.

 

No statement you've made has more clearly demonstrated how little you understand than this one. Trees (plants, okay) don't just "convert" CO2 to oxygen...they store the carbon. It's called "carbon sequestration". And that 4% a year that disappears...it doesn't just disappear, it gets torched, putting that carbon back in to the atmosphere (not to mention water vapor, a much more serious greenhouse gas). The land then gets used for farming or ranching, either of which itself is destructive to topsoil (particularly reclaimed rain forest soil), which itself sequesters a lot of carbon and water (again, particularly in the rain forest). Rain forest depletion is actually a MUCH more serious and complex problem than you understand.

 

And there's people out there who would advocate it, if the land were put to use for ethanol production to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Because oil = CO2 = global warming, whereas ethanol = environmental responsibility, even if it's a net increase of CO2 emission. Because that's how screwed up the global warming issue has become.

[DC Tom]

They can not prove that ciggarettes are addictive. Unless they prove it, I won't believe it.

 

Actually, with fMRIs, they probably can.

 

But then, I've also seen studies where the cigarette is ancillary to the addiction to inhaling deeply.

[Wacka]

I think my full point is, I trust the made statements on this issue of countless Scientific consensus panels. I mean obviously we're all aware of the theories of CO2 trapping in the heat. But without exception I take the research and minds in the IPCC and countless other scientists who have dove head first into the research here over the feeble thoughts of Ramius or Wacka.

 

"have shown no scientifically verifiable and reproducible proof that it is man caused"

 

Statements like that by Wacka cause me to see that he lacks trust in the scientific process of theory and testing and drawing conclusions from the data, and not outside of the data. If he had a mind that even resembled that of a scientist he would know that proof is impossible and best possible theories are all that we have. Wacka lets the Bible guide him more than scientific processes and has not fully rejected the Bible as a source of authority. Also, I don't see how him being in the field of biology gives him any sort authority over climate change.

 

You fail to understand science. You fail to understand the scientific process. The global warming priests' "experiments" cannot be tested to see if they are reproducible. Have you ever read a real scientific paper? You have to state every step in minute detail so others can reproduce your experiments. Computer models are not experiments. They can lead you to design better experiments, but are not experiments in themselves. An example- astrophysicists can make models of what happens inside stars. Their models give them ideas of what to look for out in space to prove their theory is true. The global warmers run their models and use them as proof.

 

An example I did myself - I made yeast (the ones that cause yeast infections) glow with the luciferase gene that makes fireflies glow. From the literature, I found that the code for one amino acid in the yeast had to be changed for that species. I couldn't just say change the code and it will work. I had to go and do it.

People did not really believe that space was warped by gravity as Einstein had postulated until someone did the experiment in 1918. During a total eclipse, they showed that the stars near the sun positions had shifted. This was due to the gravity of the sun warping space. This has also been shown on a greater scale by gravitational lenses caused by an entire galaxy.

 

And as far as the word "Religion" ('ll repeat myself here)

If this was String Theory of the Theory of Relativity of the Theory of Evolution we would have time to test the theory for hundreds of years and try to prove it. The proofs of those theories are not urgent. In this case, the answer to this proof we do not have time to wait for. The welfare of mankind is at stake and we must do something before we become extinct.

 

The risks of being wrong are way greater if we do nothing than if we move to green energy.

 

If we go extinct, so be it, if not, we will evolve into another species.

[drnykterstein]

No statement you've made has more clearly demonstrated how little you understand than this one. Trees (plants, okay) don't just "convert" CO2 to oxygen...they store the carbon. It's called "carbon sequestration".

 

Photosynthesis?

 

And that 4% a year that disappears...it doesn't just disappear, it gets torched, putting that carbon back in to the atmosphere (not to mention water vapor, a much more serious greenhouse gas). The land then gets used for farming or ranching, either of which itself is destructive to topsoil (particularly reclaimed rain forest soil), which itself sequesters a lot of carbon and water (again, particularly in the rain forest). Rain forest depletion is actually a MUCH more serious and complex problem than you understand.

 

Deforestation?

 

And there's people out there who would advocate it, if the land were put to use for ethanol production to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Because oil = CO2 = global warming, whereas ethanol = environmental responsibility, even if it's a net increase of CO2 emission. Because that's how screwed up the global warming issue has become.

 

I've heard that ethanol is just the worst idea ever. It take more energy to product the stuff than we gain from it.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13652

[Wacka]

I've heard that ethanol is just the worst idea ever. It take more energy to product the stuff than we gain from it.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13652

 

The process for producing hydrogen for use in cars produces more pollution than the gasoline it replaces.

[DC Tom]

I've heard that ethanol is just the worst idea ever. It take more energy to product the stuff than we gain from it.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13652

 

Fallacious argument. It ALWAYS takes more energy to produce something than that something will provide. Entropy. Second law of thermodynamics.

 

But even in real terms, the energy throughput of corn-based ethanol is tragically low (nine joules of production to recover one joule of energy). Add in the costs of land use and topsoil depletion (which no one ever does, because the environmental movement has been hijacked blah blah blah...) and it's a truly hideous "solution". We'd be better off just burning more oil.

[/dev/null]

Think about how much carbon you're putting back in to the atmosphere every time you eat tuna.

 

Maybe we should tax lesbians?

[drnykterstein]

Computer models are not experiments.

Well yeah, but you can form theories from computer models. And a theory is what anthropogenic global warming is. (i lerned a new word).

 

The global warmers run their models and use them as proof.

Here is the quote from the the IPCC, the guys who got the Nobel Peace Prize. Tell me where they use the word proof in it.

 

"TMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations"

 

"It is more likely than not that human influence has contributed to a global trend towards increases in area affected by drought since the 1970s and the frequency of heavy precipitation events."

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Do a text search, they use the words "likely" and "unlikely" all over the place. Not once do they say "prove" or "proof".

 

 

An example I did myself - I made yeast (the ones that cause yeast infections) glow with the luciferase gene that makes fireflies glow. From the literature, I found that the code for one amino acid in the yeast had to be changed for that species. I couldn't just say change the code and it will work. I had to go and do it.

I suppose at some point you had to start with a theory that the yeast would/could change via human intervention.

 

 

If we go extinct, so be it, if not, we will evolve into another species.

"I will not go quietly into the night, I will rage rage against the dying of the light!"

[Wacka]

Well yeah, but you can form theories from computer models. And a theory is what anthropogenic global warming is. (i lerned a new word).

 

 

Do you have any reading comprehension?

I said that. But the theory has to be proven by empirical data (like seeing the apparent position of the stars near the sun moved).

 

Here is the quote from the the IPCC, the guys who got the Nobel Peace Prize. Tell me where they use the word proof in it.

 

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations"

 

"It is more likely than not that human influence has contributed to a global trend towards increases in area affected by drought since the 1970s and the frequency of heavy precipitation events."

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Do a text search, they use the words "likely" and "unlikely" all over the place. Not once do they say "prove" or "proof".

 

The IPCC and Manbearpig (Al Gore) won the Nobel PEACE prize, not the Medicine, Chemistry or Physics ones.

The Peace prize is a political piece of crap.

There's a woman who has been infinitely more deserving of it than any recipient in the recent past. A 92 year old woman who lives in eastern Europe single handedly was responsible for rescuing over 100 Jews from the Nazis. Don't say, "Oh , she can wait until later", as they are not given out posthumously.

 

I suppose at some point you had to start with a theory that the yeast would/could change via human intervention.

 

WTF do you mean by this???

 

Do you understand science at all or do you think scientists stand around in robes and wizard's hats and wave our magic wands?

 

I put forth a hypothesis (another big word) that I could make the yeast glow by inserting the luciferase gene, but first had to change 10 codons (amino acid coding sequences). I had to do this by PCR , clone each step into bacteria and then take the plasmid and put it into Candida albicans (yeast), where it would recombine with the yeast genome and insert the gene in the place I wanted it to go. I had to do with every mutation I made so if it glowed before all ten were changed, I could save some work. It didn't glow until I changed all ten.

 

If these words are too big for you, look them up.

[drnykterstein]

I'm confused.. are we or are we not agreed that anthropogenic global warming is just a theory?

 

And if we can agree that it's a theory, I would like to say that myself and the IPCC agree that it is "likely true". It seems you do not. I got the people who've earned global recognition on my side though.

 

 

I bet the old woman is on my side also