Evolution vs. Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Si modo]

I read this early today, and thought I'd add in that a big difference between Evolution and AGW is a matter of ego.

If you exam relativity, theories on celestial motion, germ theories, or namely any other theory in science you'll find that the theory seeks to understand some underlying physical law. Mankind (Or God) isn't really the focus.

Global Warming theories seem to take a different track. The underlying theme seems to be that after noticing that temperatures were on an up-tick, the early adopters automatically assumed that mankind was the cause. That seems to require a certain amount of....ego... about mankind's power and place on the planet that other theories seem to lack, to their benefit.

I think Mankind does have the power to affect the environment, but the extent that global warming theorists claim smacks of a certain humanistic egotism that sits uncomfortably with me.

I thought that you had more knowledge of science that this. The physics of GHGs were established by Tyndal and Arrnhenius.

Arrhenius is known as a chemist, bozo.

And that (mechanism) has what to do with determining the significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on any global warming?

 

[frazzledgear]

With the recent Climategate Scandal, a discussion of the differences and similarities between AGW and Evolution are warranted.



What isn't tolerated, however, is using scientific publications to argue the validity of a particular religion (monotheism), as the Intelligent Design people do. This often causes the ID folks to scream "conspiracy," but rather, it is a matter of scientific integrity. The scientific community avoids any theories that involve supernatural deities, because there is no way to perform rigorous experiments upon said gods. How, pray tell, do the ID folks intend to prove that there is but one intelligent designer, and not a pantheon of intelligent designers? They cannot, and thus intelligent design stunts scientific discovery.

You JUST proved you haven't a clue what the theory of intelligent design even is. It is not an attempt to argue for any religious beliefs and does not argue for monotheism. It refers to NO religious doctrine, NO religious beliefs and is not based on any religious beliefs. It has not been offered up as the result of someone's religious beliefs but because of what they were left with as the most scientifically rational and reasonable answer as a result of their scientific work. It is NOT a theory that attempts to explain everything -like either creationism or evolution do. It has ONLY been offered up as the most scientifically likely answer for very specific phenomena only.

What it DOES hypothesize is that, after sound scientific principles ruled out the likelihood that the existence of that specific phenomenon occurred as the result of random, natural or accidental causes -the only possibility left is the most likely answer. If "random, accidental and natural" all get ruled out, what you are left with -is what it is! And whether you happen to like what you are left with has nothing to do with it.

And this is where those who think it is somehow "scientific" to just toss this theory for not reason but the fact they don't like what it IMPLIES. Science CAN and HAS BEEN determining whether something likely occurred as the result of natural causes, accidental causes or purposeful acts for CENTURIES. How do you think they are able to determine whether an un-witnessed death was due to a natural, accidental or purposeful act? It is because people have spent centuries studying how each of them differ. In other fields of science, distinguishing between natural, accidental and purposeful is the very basis of the field in the first place. Are you going to insist they are not allowed to consider purposeful acts as the cause of someone's death just because you don't like what THAT finding might imply? It is JUST as scientifically unsound to insist it be ruled out right off the bat instead of proving the science rules it out by means of sound scientific principles. Such a demand it be ruled out right off the bat is just an arbitrary and UNSCIENTIFIC decision based NOT on scientific principle -but the fact the possible implication of such a scientific finding makes some people uncomfortable. Gee, how did that work out for us all when it was the Catholic Church uncomfortable with the possible implications of finding out the sun really didn't revolve around the earth after all? Science is not determined by what makes people comfortable -whether scientific discoveries happen to contradict current social and religious beliefs or happen to mesh with them is IRRELEVANT as long as those social and religious (or lack of) beliefs did not dictate HOW the phenomenon was scientifically researched and measured. The fact that some people may find the theory of intelligent design fits nicely with their religious beliefs has NO bearing on whether it is or is not the most likely answer for that specific phenomenon. Just like deciding you like a theory because it fits in nicely with your personal political agenda has no bearing on its truth either -as we all see with the global warming hoax. LIKING a theory doesn't impart truth to it -but neither does NOT LIKING it make it false either.

In reality YOU are insisting that social beliefs of some should dictate how scientific research is carried out for SPECIFIC phenomena but not for others. But in reality it is actually imperative for scientists to be able to determine what role natural, accidental and deliberative causes may play in the existence of ANY phenomenon. Not just SOME.

Scientists from prestigious colleges and universities all over the world have faced the reality that their own work just ruled out random chance, natural and accidental causes as the most likely explanations for a specific phenomenon -and faced the fact of what was left -whether they liked it or not. And some scientists DID come to that conclusion very reluctantly but decided there was NO scientific rationale for ruling it out right off the bat - what turned out to be THE most likely answer after all. The ONLY way to truthfully rule out purposeful intent as the most likely explanation for a specific phenomenon is NOT by just arbitrarily doing so -but because the science itself did so. In spite of the demands of people like you who insist it must be ruled out right off the bat because you WANT it to be ruled out, not because SCIENCE itself showed it to be ruled out.

NOT so oddly enough, the theory has actually been proposed MORE often by MORE scientists as our wealth of scientific knowledge has increased, particularly in the last few decades -not less often. If scientific principles rule out the existence of a phenomenon as being due to a chance, random, accidental or natural event - what you are left with IS WHAT IT IS!

 

[midcan5]

Consider a few items from a recent article in Harper's Magazine (See excerpt below*). One out of every four Americans believe they have been reincarnated, 44% percent believe in ghosts, 71% believe in angels, 40% believe Gawd created all things in their present form in the last 10,000 years. Twenty percent think the sun may revolve around the earth. The list goes on and on. Hold a second, wait need to check the horoscopes, whew! back. Today looks OK.

Reading the wingnut replies above is someone enlightening and yet scary for the future of an advanced society. I am reminded of a Canadian journalist held by the Iranians, he knew he was in trouble when he talked to them. (60 Minutes) Iranian-Canadian journalist, Maziar Bahari talks of prison ordeal | NowPublic News Coverage

When did BS become a intelligent argument? I suggest the naysayers check out the fact we share 90% of genes with the great apes as they stand with spouse or girlfriend nude in front of a mirror observing the likeness. LOL


* From 'Notebook, A Quibble,' By Mark Slouka

"I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing—a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don’t believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers’ speculation that’s so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that’s so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. “Way I see it is,” a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.” Article appeared in Notesbook. Harper's Magazine

The right is intent on making America as dumb as the Iranians. With Beck, Limbaugh and Palin as spokespeople they are succeeding.

 

[Si modo]

Reading the wingnut replies above is someone enlightening and yet scary for the future of an advanced society. ....

Reading YOUR post claiming that those who 'deny' AGW also do evolution, makes your post take the prize on batshit crazy.

 

[Oddball]

* From 'Notebook, A Quibble,' By Mark Slouka

"I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing—a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don’t believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers’ speculation that’s so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that’s so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. “Way I see it is,” a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.” Article appeared in Notesbook. Harper's Magazine

The right is intent on making America as dumb as the Iranians. With Beck, Limbaugh and Palin as spokespeople they are succeeding.

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

A shame that goober can't muster up the shame of his ignorance on that account, huh?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The term "Evolution" makes me cringe.

We're all energy, from people to viruses. What is described as "Evolution" is a catch all phrase for the energetic INTENT of living organisms -- we're not all clueless sacks of protoplasm waiting to get hit by gamma rays.

Bacteria "mutate" because they desire to continue living and being aware and that desire helps a few enterprising bacterium find a new shape that accommodates whatever we send to kill them.

Bacteria have the ability to pass along their new found defenses to other bacteria and once they learn how to defend against our medicine they NEVER forget it, not in a thousand generations.

I find the idea of "Random mutations" as the saving grace of bacteria, just dumb, ignorant to how life works.

 

[midcan5]

Reading the wingnut replies above is someone enlightening and yet scary for the future of an advanced society. ....

Reading YOUR post claiming that those who 'deny' AGW also do evolution, makes your post take the prize on batshit crazy.

What percentage would you think were a match? From even a basic viewing and reading of conservative media and writing, I would say 80% or even 90%, I may even go higher. I'm not sure what cave you live in but that connection is obvious.

 

[Si modo]

Reading the wingnut replies above is someone enlightening and yet scary for the future of an advanced society. ....

Reading YOUR post claiming that those who 'deny' AGW also do evolution, makes your post take the prize on batshit crazy.

What percentage would you think were a match? From even a basic viewing and reading of conservative media and writing, I would say 80% or even 90%, I may even go higher. I'm not sure what cave you live in but that connection is obvious.

I live in a cave surrounded by scientists during the day.

You are talking out of your ass.

 

[midcan5]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

 

[Si modo]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

Such ignorance.

 

[Oddball]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

I find your use of strawman, non sequitur and hyperbole, invoked as somehow "thinking outside the box", to be laughable.

Seems that you lack that ability to be embarrassed of your ignorance as well.

 

[code1211]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

As was once said on the floor of parliment,"The right gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests and his imagination for his facts."

Our rivers and streams are cleaner today than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Much cleaner.

So is the air.

Acid rain was a provable, very straight line bit of logic. We were putting sulfur into the air. The rain is dilute sulfuric acid. The sulfur is combining with water and oxygen and this is what is creating the sulfuric acid. Since the water and the oxygen is in the air, we will stop adding sulfur and that will eliminate the sulfuric acid.

It worked.

CO2 into the air is a bit different.

We are putting carbon into the air. Carbon is combining with oxygen creating CO2. At this point, the logic becomes less clear. There may or may not be a connection between this and anything. Global Climate is changing, but seems to change out of sync with the very constant rise of CO2. CO2 has always been an effect of changing temperature, not a cause.

Can rising CO2 be the cause now. Causes happen before effects. That is one of the defining charachteristics of causes. Effects happen after and as a result of causes. Again, a defining charchteristic. Saying that an effect can cause a cause is saying that the future can cause the past. This does not happen in real life.

The period of warming that we now enjoy started years before the Industrial Revolution and the resulting rise in CO2. That should present a problem for the thesis, but is conveniently ignored.

Warming caused by a rise in CO2 has not happened for 5 million years. This has not happened during the recent period of alternating glaciation and interglacials. Cooling has always started at the peak of the CO2 cycle and warming has always started at the lowest point of the CO2 cycle.

The logic of CO2 warming collapses in the real world. The example of Acid Rain does not apply since the example of acid rain existed in the real world and was the result of real world cause effect.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

Pollution is toxic, therefore GLobal Warming is real?


Are you fucking stupid?

 

[Old Rocks]

And there is where the projecting leftist kook rant falls apart....Extremely little, if any, AGW hokum is in fact physically demonstrable, to the point that it can be reproduced on demand and in context. Then, right on cue, he shamelessly invokes the old Limbaugh/Palin strawman.

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

As was once said on the floor of parliment,"The right gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests and his imagination for his facts."

Our rivers and streams are cleaner today than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Much cleaner.

So is the air.

Acid rain was a provable, very straight line bit of logic. We were putting sulfur into the air. The rain is dilute sulfuric acid. The sulfur is combining with water and oxygen and this is what is creating the sulfuric acid. Since the water and the oxygen is in the air, we will stop adding sulfur and that will eliminate the sulfuric acid.

It worked.

CO2 into the air is a bit different.

We are putting carbon into the air. Carbon is combining with oxygen creating CO2. At this point, the logic becomes less clear. There may or may not be a connection between this and anything. Global Climate is changing, but seems to change out of sync with the very constant rise of CO2. CO2 has always been an effect of changing temperature, not a cause.

Can rising CO2 be the cause now. Causes happen before effects. That is one of the defining charachteristics of causes. Effects happen after and as a result of causes. Again, a defining charchteristic. Saying that an effect can cause a cause is saying that the future can cause the past. This does not happen in real life.

The period of warming that we now enjoy started years before the Industrial Revolution and the resulting rise in CO2. That should present a problem for the thesis, but is conveniently ignored.

Warming caused by a rise in CO2 has not happened for 5 million years. This has not happened during the recent period of alternating glaciation and interglacials. Cooling has always started at the peak of the CO2 cycle and warming has always started at the lowest point of the CO2 cycle.

The logic of CO2 warming collapses in the real world. The example of Acid Rain does not apply since the example of acid rain existed in the real world and was the result of real world cause effect.

Of course real scientists in programs like this say just the diametrically opposite of what you claim. The physics of GHGs were established with Tyndal and Arrnhenius. In 1858 and 1896.

Teachers' Domain: Global Warming: The Physics of the Greenhouse Effect

Earth's relatively stable and hospitable average temperature is the result of a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. The presence in the atmosphere of naturally occurring compounds, known as greenhouse gases, maintains Earth's temperature. This video segment adapted from NOVA/FRONTLINE describes how human activities are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and explains what effect this might have on global temperatures.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. For related theoretical issues, see the essay on Simple Models of

The last article is from the American Institute of Physics.

 

[midcan5]

Such ignorance.

Seems that you lack that ability to be embarrassed of your ignorance as well.

Pollution is toxic, therefore GLobal Warming is real? Are you fucking stupid?

I love the profundity of ad hominem replies - if you have no answer, you do as children do, you name call. Now children....

Old Rocks gives much information as others do above, but beliefs are not based on thought and reason, most beliefs just make the believer comfortable and they fit into their ideological viewpoint. Dude and Si modo are never going to learn, had they been born earlier, they'd be arguing the earth is flat as being conservative reactionaries that is where they come down on change. For anyone interested in how this sort of thinking works I suggest :

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261062951&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not (9780312359201): Robert Burton: Books[/ame]


As for global warming, that is happening, all the evidence supports it, now what to do is the harder question.

"As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction"." John T. Houghton

 

[Oddball]

You're the goober who started the attack, decrying others' alleged failure to be embarrassed at their own ignorance, while spewing more of yours.

Pointing out the delicious irony of an idiotic and projecting ad hominem attack isn't an ad hominem, in and of itself...It's just desserts.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Such ignorance.

Seems that you lack that ability to be embarrassed of your ignorance as well.

Pollution is toxic, therefore GLobal Warming is real? Are you fucking stupid?

I love the profundity of ad hominem replies - if you have no answer, you do as children do, you name call. Now children....

Old Rocks gives much information as others do above, but beliefs are not based on thought and reason, most beliefs just make the believer comfortable and they fit into their ideological viewpoint. Dude and Si modo are never going to learn, had they been born earlier, they'd be arguing the earth is flat as being conservative reactionaries that is where they come down on change. For anyone interested in how this sort of thinking works I suggest :

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261062951&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not (9780312359201): Robert Burton: Books[/ame]


As for global warming, that is happening, all the evidence supports it, now what to do is the harder question.

"As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction"." John T. Houghton

Showing someone's post to be bullshit, then asking if they're stupid isn't an ad hom. It's an insult tacked onto the end of a refutation.


You fucking idiot.

 

[midcan5]

Thanks.

"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Oddball]

A closed jug is not a living planetary ecosystem, with literally billions of variables and compensatory mechanisms.

Fail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Reading YOUR post claiming that those who 'deny' AGW also do evolution, makes your post take the prize on batshit crazy.

What percentage would you think were a match? From even a basic viewing and reading of conservative media and writing, I would say 80% or even 90%, I may even go higher. I'm not sure what cave you live in but that connection is obvious.

I live in a cave surrounded by scientists during the day.

You are talking out of your ass.

You live in a cage surrounded by scientists?? I knew it!!! You're a lab rat. Does it bother you too much when the guys and gals in the white coasts put the electrododads on your head and zap you?