When Paleontologists Attack...

[code1211]

The topmost graphic demonstrates the historically very-low levels of atmospheric CO2 found in our current atmosphere. Clearly the biosphere of Earth evolved under generally much higher levels of CO2. Modern high-tech greenhouses use expensive CO2 generators to boost the levels of CO2 to up to 3 X atmospheric levels -- for more optimal growth of a wide variety of plant life.

The modern obsession with "pre-industrial levels of CO2" displays a profound ignorance of this planet's atmospheric and biological history, as the graphic above demonstrates. Closer inspection of the motives of the leaders of the carbon hysteria orthodoxy demonstrates monetary payoffs via carbon trading, international carbon ransom payments, and other economic maneuvers of questionable legality and wisdom.

from Al Fin

the blog entry also talks about converting CO2 into non-gaseous forms of carbon, and other climate controlling technologies that could be developed. personally I don't think we should screw with Mother Nature any more than we are already until we know WAY more about climate systems.

Nice graph...please show me on your graph at what point this planet's climate was able to support human existence? Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about whether humans live or die...she will go on...THAT is not the question...

There were mammels alive during the Cretacious. I don't know if there were any around before that or not.

 

[geauxtohell]

BTW-
"Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks to reporters at HHS headquarters in Washington on July 1, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity..."
CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

Oh lord.... Nice skewed reporting by CNS. BMI isn't an "obesity" rating per se (meaning that every BMI number correlates to a degree of obesity), it's a measure of exactly what it's name is: Body Mass Index. It's a quick way to consider someone's height and weight when assessing body mass (you probably can accept the concept that simply looking at weight is not sufficient as you'd expect a healthy 6 foot person to weight more than a healthy 5 foot person).

BMI (Weight in kilograms/height in cm^2) is routinely included in "vitals" now on an intake as it should be as diabetes and a plethora of other pathologies are directly linked to obesity. This isn't some obscure/sinister concept, it's a well known medical value. Below 18 is underweight, 18-25 is ideal body weight, 25-30 is overweight and over 30 is obese. Most physicians already record and track BMI as it's an important facet of prevention of disease. Wouldn't you consider a physician who didn't tell an 18 year old obese person that they needed to try to lose weight or they will have health complications to be derelict? It's the same concept as trying to get people to stop smoking.

My hospital certainly includes BMI in the vitals and in patient records. As I said, it's basic division and multiplication. We aren't talking about a complicated concept here and encouraging weight loss is pennies on the dollars cheaper then giving someone metformin for 20 years and then eventually having to treat the end organ damage that diabetes has.

What exactly are you whining about here?

 

[rikules]

Come on, PC, enough bullshit.

Very few paleontologists dismiss the massive strike at Chixculub as immaterial to the extinction event at the end of the Creteceous.

Very few climatololgists dismiss man's influence through the massive release of GHGs from fossil fuel use in the present warming that we are seeing.

If the reality of the scientific consensus is offensive to you because of politics, perhaps you should change your politics to include reality.

what pollychic is doing has NOTHING to do with paleontology


pollychic hates LIBERALS

she is on a constant drive to validate her hatred

she has decided that all paleontologists MUST be liberals

so NOW she is trying to prove that ALL LIBERALS ARE BAD by citing how rational paleontologists have excluded irrational paleontologists

meanwhile
being deranged and competely unfair
she completely ignores ALL the evidence that conservatives/conservative christians behave exactly the same way; exclude anyone who does NOT tow their line....

can you imagine any creationists ever allowing an evolutionist to be included as part of the discussion?

or pro-gays?
or atheists?

tchah!

it would NEVER happen!

but pollychic is a deranged partisan and couldn't care less that people on her side are (at the very least) just as bad

she is blinded by her irrational hatred.

consequently her political views are worthless

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BTW-
"Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks to reporters at HHS headquarters in Washington on July 1, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity..."
CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

Oh lord.... Nice skewed reporting by CNS. BMI isn't an "obesity" rating per se (meaning that every BMI number correlates to a degree of obesity), it's a measure of exactly what it's name is: Body Mass Index. It's a quick way to consider someone's height and weight when assessing body mass (you probably can accept the concept that simply looking at weight is not sufficient as you'd expect a healthy 6 foot person to weight more than a healthy 5 foot person).

BMI (Weight in kilograms/height in cm^2) is routinely included in "vitals" now on an intake as it should be as diabetes and a plethora of other pathologies are directly linked to obesity. This isn't some obscure/sinister concept, it's a well known medical value. Below 18 is underweight, 18-25 is ideal body weight, 25-30 is overweight and over 30 is obese. Most physicians already record and track BMI as it's an important facet of prevention of disease. Wouldn't you consider a physician who didn't tell an 18 year old obese person that they needed to try to lose weight or they will have health complications to be derelict? It's the same concept as trying to get people to stop smoking.

My hospital certainly includes BMI in the vitals and in patient records. As I said, it's basic division and multiplication. We aren't talking about a complicated concept here and encouraging weight loss is pennies on the dollars cheaper then giving someone metformin for 20 years and then eventually having to treat the end organ damage that diabetes has.

What exactly are you whining about here?

The fact that BMI puts Arnold Schwartzeneger in the obese category at when he was winning every body building competition he entered.

 

[geauxtohell]

The fact that BMI puts Arnold Schwartzeneger in the obese category at when he was winning every body building competition he entered.

Right. Which is why you go to a tape test (as the Army does) or a body fat percentage.

However, in medicine you don't even need to do that. You can eyeball Schwartzeneger and tell he's obviously not obese. As with everything, clinical judgment factors in.

However, for most Americans (that aren't professional body builders) BMI is a simple and good quantitative measure of their body weight relative to their height.

 

[code1211]

BTW-
"Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks to reporters at HHS headquarters in Washington on July 1, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity..."
CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

Oh lord.... Nice skewed reporting by CNS. BMI isn't an "obesity" rating per se (meaning that every BMI number correlates to a degree of obesity), it's a measure of exactly what it's name is: Body Mass Index. It's a quick way to consider someone's height and weight when assessing body mass (you probably can accept the concept that simply looking at weight is not sufficient as you'd expect a healthy 6 foot person to weight more than a healthy 5 foot person).

BMI (Weight in kilograms/height in cm^2) is routinely included in "vitals" now on an intake as it should be as diabetes and a plethora of other pathologies are directly linked to obesity. This isn't some obscure/sinister concept, it's a well known medical value. Below 18 is underweight, 18-25 is ideal body weight, 25-30 is overweight and over 30 is obese. Most physicians already record and track BMI as it's an important facet of prevention of disease. Wouldn't you consider a physician who didn't tell an 18 year old obese person that they needed to try to lose weight or they will have health complications to be derelict? It's the same concept as trying to get people to stop smoking.

My hospital certainly includes BMI in the vitals and in patient records. As I said, it's basic division and multiplication. We aren't talking about a complicated concept here and encouraging weight loss is pennies on the dollars cheaper then giving someone metformin for 20 years and then eventually having to treat the end organ damage that diabetes has.

What exactly are you whining about here?

Height and weight have been recorded at every physical I've ever had. First one was in Junior high school for the basketball team. 1965? Thereabouts. I recall an employee's spouse getting screened out of an insurance application for the height weight ratio.

He got in later on open enrollment.

This is nothing new in terms of Insurance and the whole health Insurance Reform was about Insurance and controlling the money that supports it.

 

[geauxtohell]

BTW-
"Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks to reporters at HHS headquarters in Washington on July 1, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity..."
CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

Oh lord.... Nice skewed reporting by CNS. BMI isn't an "obesity" rating per se (meaning that every BMI number correlates to a degree of obesity), it's a measure of exactly what it's name is: Body Mass Index. It's a quick way to consider someone's height and weight when assessing body mass (you probably can accept the concept that simply looking at weight is not sufficient as you'd expect a healthy 6 foot person to weight more than a healthy 5 foot person).

BMI (Weight in kilograms/height in cm^2) is routinely included in "vitals" now on an intake as it should be as diabetes and a plethora of other pathologies are directly linked to obesity. This isn't some obscure/sinister concept, it's a well known medical value. Below 18 is underweight, 18-25 is ideal body weight, 25-30 is overweight and over 30 is obese. Most physicians already record and track BMI as it's an important facet of prevention of disease. Wouldn't you consider a physician who didn't tell an 18 year old obese person that they needed to try to lose weight or they will have health complications to be derelict? It's the same concept as trying to get people to stop smoking.

My hospital certainly includes BMI in the vitals and in patient records. As I said, it's basic division and multiplication. We aren't talking about a complicated concept here and encouraging weight loss is pennies on the dollars cheaper then giving someone metformin for 20 years and then eventually having to treat the end organ damage that diabetes has.

What exactly are you whining about here?

Height and weight have been recorded at every physical I've ever had. First one was in Junior high school for the basketball team. 1965? Thereabouts. I recall an employee's spouse getting screened out of an insurance application for the height weight ratio.

He got in later on open enrollment.

This is nothing new in terms of Insurance and the whole health Insurance Reform was about Insurance and controlling the money that supports it.

It's nothing new at all nor is it limited to medicine. The military does "height/weight" with every PT test. It's just BMI.

PC is trying to make this out to be some sort of phantom menace which is hilarious since it's a simple concept.

Furthermore, as medicine tries to advance to prevention, it just makes too much sense.

Most hospitals are doing it anyways (as it costs nothing) and I'd be surprised if, as you noted, private insurance doesn't universally do the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

99% of Evolution is based on cult science fiction.

Your attitude is why your side is losing politically.

Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

 

[rdean]

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?

So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?

Sort of like not getting grants?

And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - New York Times

First they attack the scientific theory of "mystical creation".

Then they attack the accuracy of the historical event, with eyewitnesses, of "Noah's Ark".

What will they say next? Angels aren't "real"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political Chic is going to tell us that she is an "angel"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?

So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?

Sort of like not getting grants?

And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - New York Times

First they attack the scientific theory of "mystical creation".

Then they attack the accuracy of the historical event, with eyewitnesses, of "Noah's Ark".

What will they say next? Angels aren't "real"?

 

[Pappadave]

Consensus drives the lemmings off the cliffs. Consensus establishes nothing, "proves" nothing, It is the path of least resistance. It is mob rule. "everybody's buying it, it must be right". Science is limited to the subjective observations of the investigator. We all tend to accept data that confirms and conforms to our belief or theory and reject or downplay contrary evidence. The earth has been through many cycles of heating and cooling without even the presence of man. How can you be so sure its different this time? When it comes time to jump off your cliff, forgive me if I ignore the "consensus". Pappadave.

 

[uscitizen]

Do you mean when bagger Palintologists attack?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?

So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?

Sort of like not getting grants?

And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - New York Times

...but we are told no scientist challenges their fairy tales. Truth is, there are those who do but are silenced by the sun worshipers of our day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Light is one of those sun worshipers that attack science today. How silly to believe that one cannot be a Christian and still believe in a God who can use evolution as S/he desires. The Light, you need to just relax and turn to God in worship and generally just chill.

 

[editec]

Science is often wrong.

However in defence of that system, it strives to correct itself as new data comes to the fore.

Trying to make political hay from that is typical partisan BS.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bfgrn- ahhh, now I see where you are coming from. You see it as a competition between authorities. But you don't see where I am coming from, I don't believe the AWG argument. Its not that I believe the sceptics, its that I am unconvinced by the pro side. Typically I make up my mind on the soundness of the ideas presented. Ideas stand by themselves, it does not matter who says them. Unfortunately there are many people who decide who they want to believe, and then are uncritical of what is said.

What information and frame of reference do you base your assessment on? Are you a climatologist? Is it how you feel?

No, I am not a climatologist. But I am a reasonably educated individual who grew up using a slide rule. I bring that up because we had to basically know what the answer was, before calculating it.

So what does a common sense person know about climate? It changes. Ice Ages give way to Warm Periods which revert to Ice Ages... We have guesses and theories about why this happens, just like we have guesses and theories why the earth's magnetic field flip-flops, but we are far away from a firm understanding.

What about the CO2? I am 100% positive that our burning of fossil fuels has warmed the planet. Stored energy from ancient sunlight has been released, as has the sequestered carbon. But the CO2 hasn't made a dent in the carbon carrying capacity of the oceans. You do remember your basic high school chemistry about how chemical reactions are driven by temperature and the concentration of the products?

What should we do? Anybody who thinks we are going to stop burning fossil fuels until they are exhausted is crazy or naive. It doesn't really matter whether it takes 500 years or 5000. I can't see how using Cap and Trade, Carbon Tax, etc to cripple the very societies most likely to come up with alternative energy sources, is going to help us.

That is the basic reasoning behind what I think about AWG. I see no compelling evidence or theories from the AWG Doomsters to change my thinking but I am completely open to new information or understanding.

Ian, the colder the water, the more CO2 it holds. The warmer, the less. A warming ocean will soon fail to absorb CO2, and at some point, will begin to emit CO2.

 

[konradv]

The earth has been through many cycles of heating and cooling without even the presence of man. How can you be so sure its different this time?

Maybe because CO2 is at 25-30% above historical averages. Maybe it's because man emits more in days than all the earth's volcanoes do in a year. Maybe it's because some of the most potent GHGs aren't found in nature. No one is denying cycles. That's a given and always has been. The cycles themselves prove nothing, except that it makes it harder to convince some that this time could be quite different. Earlier cycles ended because of natural forces, however you can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. No one wants us to go back to earlier times, just live smarter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The earth has been through many cycles of heating and cooling without even the presence of man. How can you be so sure its different this time?

Maybe because CO2 is at 25-30% above historical averages. Maybe it's because man emits more in days than all the earth's volcanoes do in a year. Maybe it's because some of the most potent GHGs aren't found in nature. No one is denying cycles. That's a given and always has been. The cycles themselves prove nothing, except that it makes it harder to convince some that this time could be quite different. Earlier cycles ended because of natural forces, however you can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. No one wants us to go back to earlier times, just live smarter.

Historic records? Isn't history only 5000 years old? And were they not incapable of measuring the levels of various gasses back then? When you say historic, exactly how long are you talking about?

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Light is one of those sun worshipers that attack science today. How silly to believe that one cannot be a Christian and still believe in a God who can use evolution as S/he desires. The Light, you need to just relax and turn to God in worship and generally just chill.

Well well well, Jake, your two statements go contrary to one another. In one breath you call me a sun worshiper while condemning me in the very next sentence for taking the Bible seriously.

There were two groups of people back then; those who worshiped G-d taking the Bible at its word and those who worshiped the sun. They were two diametrically opposed groups of which it would be just as laughable to confuse the beliefs of both opposing ideologies as it would be to attempt to paint the picture of a pro-life advocate today as being pro-abortion.

Deuteronomy 4:15-20
-15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
-16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
-17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
-18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
-19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
-20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

Planet worship was a common thing in that day. In some cases it was partly understandable. I cannot help but think that if given the same same circumstances today, evolutionists would be any different.

Acts 17:22-26
-22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
-23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
-24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
-25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
-26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


A popular evolutionist Carl Sagan once said:

"Our ancestors worshipped the Sun, and they were far from foolish... If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?" (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, New York: Random House, 1980, p. 243)

Romans 1:25
The Bible says that those who did not find it fit to retain a creator in their knowledge, "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever."

Which is why he said of those worshiping the creation that they have "vain imaginations" and "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)

It is no wonder that evolution worshiping litature and documentaries are steeped with the term "Mother Nature."


So, Jake, you can either worship the creation or the creator. As for me, I choose to worship the Creator.