Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 11:27:32 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: ARE Search For Atlantis 2007 Results
http://mysterious-america.net/bermudatriangle0.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6802 times)
0 Members and 104 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jade Hellene
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 3488



« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2007, 02:59:39 am »

Quote
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News


I have to say, I always find it amusing when people who don't believe in global warming go about citing evidence they believe is against it on other worlds.  They haven't even visited any of those other worlds and are simply working from photographs to make their assumptions.

And yet, huge chunks of ice are breaking off at the South Pole and yet, for some reason, that isn't evidence enough for them.

Quote
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.  "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.  "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."


Well, it's certainly nice to see that there is one alternate global warming sketptic that has been put in his place by his peers. Simply put, he is not to be taken seriously.

Quote
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."  The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.  "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.


More common sense, can't have that.

Quote
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.  He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.  But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.


Wel, that's all well and good.  I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.  If a global warming skeptic doesn't like science, he can simply make up his own science to give his own theories credence.  I'm beginning to suspect a creationist conservative is at the heart of this.
Report Spam   Logged

Sort through the media disinformation:
http://mediamatters.org/
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2007, 12:02:11 pm »

First, I want to say that I was attempting to bring the discussion back to something more intersting, and to talk about GLOBAL WARMING (GW) & GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (GCC).  It's more fun to discuss and debate than argue. 

Now, I posted some recent articles on the subjects - and then I posted the glacier information to show that I was interested in discussing GCC more than GW.  I read all of the information, and found it all interesting - but I in no way endorse any of it.  It was simply fodder for the forum.  Also, I don't really care to direct the discussion, but GCC is the part I am most interested in.  I believe that they are two separate issues, and this is the one that is more fun to debate.  Take note that the weather patterns have definitely changed...  Glaciers shrink in some areas and growing in others, desertification in new areas, record growth in others, record "Highs" in some spots - and equally strange "Lows" in many others...  GCC at its best.

I have to say, I always find it amusing when people who don't believe in global warming go about citing evidence they believe is against it on other worlds.  They haven't even visited any of those other worlds and are simply working from photographs to make their assumptions.

Awesome point.  What you are referring to is perceived observational evidence.  Did you notice that, from the article, we can't determine if he offers any other potential reasons for why martian polar melting could be happening?  From the article it looks like he's making the assumption that, since it's happening here, and it's happening there - this must be evidence!  This almost defines "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE" for us.  Though NASA doesn't know why the polar melting is happening either, there is no reason to suspect that the same event is linking the two planets.

And yet, huge chunks of ice are breaking off at the South Pole and yet, for some reason, that isn't evidence enough for them.

Well, I wouldn't say that southern polar ice breakage is proof of anything other than a change in conditions, but I see your point.  This is partly what Habibullo Abdussamatov is saying though.  Polar ice in both locations is disappearing... There must be a correlation.  I agree with you though - I'm not seeing it as anything other than coincidence from what I read in the article.

Well, it's certainly nice to see that there is one alternate global warming sketptic that has been put in his place by his peers. Simply put, he is not to be taken seriously.

Though I don't necessarily agree that his theory is correct (or viable), I also don't agree that he has been sidelined by his peers.  Though the mainstream may not advance any credibility to his theory, his peers are truly taking him seriously.  I wish that everyone would remember that "nothing new ever begins as a popular movement".   SO, measuring a theory's accuracy by its popularity is not very accurate in itself.  Habibullo Abdussamatov is a celebrated scientist in his country and has been given quite a number of research grants and ISS funding to continue his research.  You see, he isn't a skeptic for skeptic's sake - he's contradicting GW because he doesn't think it's correct. He's not a part of the "establishment" or big oil, he's a scientist that has an opposing point of view.

I'm posting another link to an article that tells more of the story.  I should have done it last night, but I didn't want to overwhelm folks with too much reading.  His theory really is interesting, and he has a lot of "quiet support".  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0  Do yourself a favor and read the whole article.  Even if you are a staunch supporter of GW & GCC as offered by the mainstream, it won't hurt to visit this man's thoughts on the subject.


More common sense, can't have that.

"There is nothing so as uncommon as common sense..."   I love that quote.  Anyway, you're right - there are alternate theories as to why Mars is heating up (wobbling and tilting).  According to NASA, those theories are just that though - best guesses.  They have no proof that their theory is correct - just like he has no evidence to prove that their theory is wrong.  It's a stalemate.  Maybe he can capitalize on their lack of research into the subject - he is Dr. Abdussamatov, the head of Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory (considered by the rest of the world to be at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment and one of the world's best equipped observatories).  This is the cold war equivalent to our very best of the best in space-based research.



Wel, that's all well and good.  I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.  If a global warming skeptic doesn't like science, he can simply make up his own science to give his own theories credence.  I'm beginning to suspect a creationist conservative is at the heart of this.

Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Like I said, I'm neither pro or con on this guy's research - I just thought it was an interesting twist that no one - not even NASA or the IPCC had been investigating...

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jade Hellene
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 3488



« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2007, 04:40:03 pm »

Well, that was a very reasonable response, Merlin, so reasonable that I barely found anything to take issue with, with the possible exception of this:

Quote
Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Nothing overtly, save for the fact that his anecdotal evidence (presumed warning on Mars) smacks of over-reaching to look for some explanation other than the one that science is currently offering.  I also happen to know that the fossil fuel companies have funded a lot fo misinformation into this debate.  Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular.  Either way, I am more apt to believe the majority of scientists who believe global warming (by humans) to be fact.
Report Spam   Logged

Sort through the media disinformation:
http://mediamatters.org/
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2007, 07:58:56 pm »

Well, that was a very reasonable response, Merlin, so reasonable that I barely found anything to take issue with,

Thank you Jade.  Though I could tell that you do not believe that there is a possibility that An Inconvenient Truth might be inaccurate, you did a wonderful job of trying to remain unbiased in your rebuttal.  To that, I owe you an equal amount of respect when replying.  ISn't this good fun?

with the possible exception of this:

Quote
Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Nothing overtly, save for the fact that his anecdotal evidence (presumed warning on Mars) smacks of over-reaching to look for some explanation other than the one that science is currently offering.

I cannot disagree with your opinion.  It does appear to be overreaching and it is most definitely anecdotal.

I also happen to know that the fossil fuel companies have funded a lot fo misinformation into this debate.  Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular.  Either way, I am more apt to believe the majority of scientists who believe global warming (by humans) to be fact.

My God (if you really exist), if only all people in this thread were this reasonable.  If I had a highlighter, I'd swipe it over the section that reads, "Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular."  That is the most wonderful statement because it begins with "Perhaps" - meaning that you leave plenty of room for him to make his case in the future.  "Perhaps" he isn't part of the "conspiracy" - maybe he truly thinks he's right...  Maybe he's wrong.  I'm so happy I could almost....  Nahh - now I'm just being silly.

Anyway, I agree - there has been a huge amount of disinformation in this debate - some intentional, some accidental, and even more because the media is dying to create a firestorm that will fuel adevertising sales for years to come.  I am a proponent of caution, caution toward rushing to judgement.  I am concerned by so much of the data included within the IPCC's report and that the information being "leaked" {wink - wink} to the media is incomplete or inconsistent, that I take pause when I see/hear it. 

I feel like I've been here before...  DDT, Asbestos, DES, {2,4-d}, Saccharin, Rf emissions from cell phones, Red dye#5, living under power lines, toluene, etc., etc.  Keep in mind that the governments, world-wide lied to us about all of these - and still are in many cases.  The research "for" or "against" was labeled as complete, incomplete, absolute, absolutely nonsense, correct, incorrect ....  There was nothing to hang your hat on until it finally dies in the press.  In most cases, the individual governments took different stances and it remains the same today.  The evolution of the IPCC's GW/GCC makes me feel that same sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach - like something's missing.  I think that the Russian scientists are feeling a little of the same, but unlike this country - where it has become taboo to be skeptical, they are free to investigate at their leisure.

Again - I'm not agreeing with him, I'm just saying it looks like he has the comfort level to research the "un-obvious" possibilities in order to exclude them without bias.  I wish I had that same relaxed environ to work in.

It has been a pleasure Jade.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 11:38:33 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2007, 08:55:18 pm »


My God (if you really exist),

 Smiley

baby steps   Grin

"Many noble human impulses die because there is no one to hear their expression."
Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2007, 05:01:56 pm »

Hey Merlin, hat's off to a positively outstanding post [re: "Global Conveyor Theory," Feb. 25].  I for one appreciate the thought and effort you put in to your posts, but I often wonder why you do it.

There was a lot of information and ideas offered in that post that people should take in to consideration.  At least people with no predispositions should; the rest are probably hopeless.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2007, 11:24:42 am »

Hey Merlin, hat's off to a positively outstanding post [re: "Global Conveyor Theory," Feb. 25]. 

I appreciate it Daffy, but you now run the risk of being a "Merlin apologist", "Merlin Chrony", "Neo-con", "conservative - co-conspirator" - or whatever.  At this point, I'd have to say that you are quite brave for voicing your consideration of anything I say.  My hat's off to you, and I wish you all the best trying to defend yourself later.  Wink  Here is a link to a fellow "Cautious Observer" who's a little skeptical of the rush to pronounce the science "complete":  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece  I think he raises some very interesting points, unpopular as they are, his logic is unflappable.


I for one appreciate the thought and effort you put in to your posts, but I often wonder why you do it.

The easy answer is:  I see so much disinformation-turned "tribal knowledge" in the 18-28 generation these days, that I cannot resist trying to correct it.  It helps that I'm a pretty fair typer too, so it really doesn't take me very long to convert my thoughts to text.

Now, the more "Thoughtful Answer" is:  Because I am trying to provoke thought, interest in investigation, a desire to research and most of all - a willingness to see a few realities:

  • The "popular" idea/theory is rarely the correct one, or the most correct one
  • Just because something is said, and evidence is offered, it does not mean that it is correct
  • Our history is literally littered with "great theories" and hypothesis that make sense - but are wrong; hence my cautionary tale.
  • Logic and common sense are not the same thing, and things that "make sense" are often wrong

All told, I can think of hundreds of examples where 'Common Sense', fueled by observational evidence, gave us the wrong answers. And it was only through investigation, research and a re-evaluation of the observed evidence that we learned just how incorrect our initial 'Theories' were.  In fact, I could find enough such examples to fuel an entire thread**.  The FACT is, the most obvious evidence that a theory is "shaky" is when our predictions based upon that theory are wrong, and our Model Builders (using that theory) are unable to duplicate test outcomes that match observed activities.  Did you know that there is an entire branch of theoretical physics, engineering, biology, economics, politics, sociology, chemistry, etc., etc. called "Model Building"?  That's right!  What they most often do is create tests, build prototypes, software, and whatnot to test other's theories.  Climatology is no different.

I'm here for the same reason most others are - to effect change, even if it is upon myself.

There was a lot of information and ideas offered in that post that people should take in to consideration.  At least people with no predispositions should; the rest are probably hopeless.

To be honest, I have tried not to preach "What I believe" in this thread.  I am trying to get people who otherwise have no opinion to take a look and those who have an opinion to take a second look, and make sure that they are basing it on fact - and not rhetoric.  I myself, have decided that I do not have enough information to make an informed decision as to what is causing the planet to warm up (GW).  I can see all sorts of examples of pollution, to which I say, "Knock it off," but otherwise I am unmoved by the IPCC's reporting.  As for global climate change (GCC), I have not seen any evidence that would link it to GW, nor do I see any evidence that GCC is actually occuring outside of the statistical history of our past 250,000 years.

I've had a bit of fun below, describing what happens (based upon history) when we "follow common sense" while ignoring evidence, or, refusing to search for proof.

** Why we don't let "Popular Theories" control our destiny

I often do a 'run-through' of just how error-ridden Common Sense Theories are with logic and theory classes.  I do it for obvious reasons, but you would be surprised by how many people are actually surprised that the 'Common Sense Theory' ISN'T CORRECT!  It will generally take me a couple of days to break people out of the paradigm that has taken 20 years (or so) to build.  In some cases, because the Common Sense Theories are so "practical", and easy to understand - some students willo argue in favor of them even though they know they are wrong...  After all, science once tried the common sense approach, in the guise of Aristotelian physics...  You know what I'm talking about, "heavy objects fall faster than light objects," and those sorts of thoughts.  But science escaped such pre-medieval mentality four centuries ago, when Galileo showed that you have to do experiments, and analyze them critically & logically, to judge hypotheses or theories for accuracy.  Let's take a look:

The Obvious Ones  -  The ones that hardly need explanation today.  Aristotle's logic at its best.

1.  Flat Earth.  -  WRONG  Uh...  No explanation should be required for this one.
2.  Earth at the center of the universe.  -  WRONG  This needs no explanation
3.  Once the solar system was viewed, the Earth was placed at the center of it.  - WRONG   This needs no explanation
4.  A boulder falls faster than a pebble.  - WRONG  Newton taught us otherwise.
5.  The sky is blue because there is an ocean above, as evidenced by rainfall.  - WRONG Though the "blueness" of the sky is due to moisture content, we all know why the theory was wrong.
6.  All things in nature are made up of a combination of the four elements:  wind, earth, air & fire -  WRONG  This needs no explanation.

The Less Obvious Ones - These are the ones that have some basis in science, but were still developed through the Aristotlean mindset.

7.  All things stop at Absolute Zero, thereby allowing even energy to be stopped, dismantled and destroyed.  This violates the basic physics premise that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only "phase changed".  Absolute zero cannot be achieved as long as there is any energy whatsoever in the universe, at the very least. Without any energy we would never be able to measure it!   The process of "cooling" actually requires energy consumption, and energy - in the form of work - produces energy in the form of heat.  Allowed to sit in a complete universe, all by itself, a single atom will still possess a minimum of one electron (energy).  Once degradation occurs, the energy from gluon to quark and W & Z particle transfer will still radiate out through the universe.
8.  For the religious, 'retrograde motion' of the celestial bodies was "proof" that "God" was behind the motion of the heavens.  For the scientists, 'retrograde motion' proved to be a serious issue for the Ptolemean, Aristotlean & Copernican models of how the Earth "fit" in the universe  - Retrograde motion was solved by Kepler, refined by Newton and viewed by Galileo.  It turned out to be due to the elliptical nature of orbits, their intersection about the ecliptic, and the fact that not all orbits of all bodies are circumscribed about the same point in space. 
9.  Color is viewed by all things in any condition as symmetrical or 'absolute'; red is red, blue is blue...  The perception of color is dependent upon the number of receptors, the medium with which the photons are traveling within and the frequency of the photons reflecting off of the object.
10.  Light "waves" through and unseen force as evidenced by the alteration of focal points through heat waves, manipulating in air molecules.  Enter - "The Aether" or "The Ether".  -  Turns out, there is nothing where "nothing" is.  The presence of an 'unseen force' was disproven by a veritable littany of scientists from Brouch to Einstein, and the scientific community discounts it today; entirely.
11.  Light is a particle called a photon, and moves like an atom and is therefore subject to the classical physics guiding the actions of particles.  Only if it wants to, otherwise, it moves as a wave and violates classical physics.
12.  Light is a wave, moving like pure energy with no mass, adhering to the laws of QED & QCD.  -  Unless it "feels like a nut" and moves like a particle, ignoring the quantum limitations and instead, adopting the classical physical laws.
13.  The motion of the galaxies is like that of the solar systems; a pinwheel where the objects furthest from the center move more slowly than those closest.  Uh - no.  Turns out to be incorrect, and it is a recent finding (in relative terms).  It turns out that the motion of the galaxies is not like that of a solar system or like that of a spinning plate.  Instead, even though their orbits are much greater (and less effected by gravity from the center), objects in the outer reaches of solar systems are moving at nearly the same speeds as those in the inner sanctum; enter Dark Matter.
14.  The "Vacuum of space" is cold, dark and empty.  -  Vacuum energy has become a recently adopted (speculative) theory for where 'virtual particles' come and go from.  This is oft-referred to as "Einstein's cosmological constant", as it would mean that "Empty Space" wasn't actually empty afterall.  Because it is not empty, the preponderance of "Vacant Space" would be a huge source of energy - pushing expansion.
15.  WYSIWYG with the universe.  Look around, measure everything - apply your theory and viola, we have an explanation for how it began and how big it is (age).  -  We wind up missing 96% of the necessary mass, a temperature roughly 1/2 degree above absolute zero (when it's really 2.735 degrees above), and an age for the universe ranging between 5 & 20 billion years; enter Dark Energy

Alright, so in the end, we see that the Aether fell victim to science, as did the cosmological constant, but now we are adding vacuum energy, dark matter and dark energy.  Did we really correct these failed theories, or just change their names?  All-in-all, it doesn't matter - the "Common Sense" science Theories always fall victim to observation sooner or later.

Hope everyone was entertained.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 11:26:24 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2007, 04:29:33 am »

Report outlines global warming's effects
POSTED: 11:28 p.m. EST, March 10, 2007

• Scientists' report will be released at April conference
• Report says parts of world will have water shortages, others floods
• Food production will increase at first, then famine will hit, report says
[/i]
 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.
At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.
Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.
For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.
The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.
But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.
The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.
"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.
"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.
The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.
For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.
But the present is nothing compared to the future.
Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.
And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.
The report's findings
The report included these likely results of global warming:
•  Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.
•  Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.
•  Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.
•  By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
•  About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.
•  Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.
•  Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.
•  At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.
Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.
Africa, Asia to be hardest hit
The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.
"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."
This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.
"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.
Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."
The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2007, 04:38:38 am »

Quote
Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

Well, it sure would be nice to read this report before it is handed over to the government officials for their "editing," seeing as how the public is just getting the watered down version of it!

Oh, and shame on all the people that keep wanting to pretend that global warming either doesn't exist or that human beings aren't the cause of it.

I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

A more fitting comparison was when tobacco companies continued to act like there was still a debate whether cigarettes caused lung cancer, long after the link had been proven.

It's 2007, let's all get with the times.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2007, 03:26:50 pm »

Quote
Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

Well, it sure would be nice to read this report before it is handed over to the government officials for their "editing," seeing as how the public is just getting the watered down version of it!

Of that we can agree.


Oh, and shame on all the people that keep wanting to pretend that global warming either doesn't exist or that human beings aren't the cause of it.

Criticality and skepticism are good things Allison, whether you like it or not.

I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

I forget no such thing - I, in fact, know the history of the flat earth theory - do you?  I take note that you chose only to criticize the one example (out of so many) that you thought you had found a flaw in.  Many-a-website will claim that the flat-earth theory is purely religious, however; that doesn't make it true.

Note that I never said that any of those were "Commonly accepted" as you assert, at the very most, I said, "Common-sense approach found to be wrong".  However, in this particular thread reply, I simply offered it as "A Theory" that was dismissed due to the application of logic and evidence.  Now, you also assert that it was a purely Church proffered idea and that "science" had nothing to do with it...  Well, I disagree.  On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD).  Anyone who has read Aristotle knows that he believed the earth to be round, and historical buffs know that Erasthenes and Ptolemy proved it, but that wasn't my point.  My point was simply that it was a theory, and that evidence and logic disproved it.

I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

A more fitting comparison was when tobacco companies continued to act like there was still a debate whether cigarettes caused lung cancer, long after the link had been proven.

No, that would be a conspiracy to defraud - something they were tried and convicted of.  Aside from the fact that this was never a bonafide scientific debate, your example does not mesh with the discussion anyway.  These are more of your attempts to bash skeptics over the head with hysteria, claiming that there is overwhelming evidence, while delivering none.  Have you noticed that you haven't supplied any data yet?  I have.  Have you noticed that the IPCC hasn't supplied any data to the public yet?  Yeah - me too...  Unlike you, I have read the full report.  As I stated at AR.com, it's a tasty morsel - I can't wait to see what it looks like when the bureaucrats are done with it.  I'm hoping it's not going to be a repeat of AR2, I'd like to have something to discuss that hasn't had all of its support witdrawn by the authors.

It's 2007, let's all get with the times.

Timing means nothing when you are talking about a rush to judgement Allison.  From my perspective, sometimes percentages mean nothing at all, even when they are 90-100%.  Here's an example:

The IAEA is 100% certain that North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb in October 2006, and that this weapon was in the .5-2K Ton range.  Many stories from N. Korea and China have emerged, indicating that the bomb yielded less than anticipated results but that it was otherwise successful.  Well, what if I told you that there is a 99% certainty that someone's full of poop.  What if I told you that, not only were the N. Koreans lying - but so is Washington, China and the UN's IAEA?  Would you be surprised?  Now, I realize that you won't want to believe it because it comes from me, but you should at least consider the possibility that I'm making a cogent point.  Here goes:

  • The U.S. knows N. Korea bought completed weapons manufacturing and assembly plans from Pakistan's A. Q. Khan - he admitted it.
  • We know N. Korea is enriching uranium and plutonium; we've seen it and they admit it.
  • The 6-party talks are going nowhere - America and N. Korea refuse to back down; ego issues.
  • Korea is freezing to death because of a lack of resources, and their citizens are starving; they want to conceed, but Kim Jong il won't.
  • The U.S. is tired of looking like the bad guy (maybe it is - maybe it isn't), and wants to put the issue to bed.  Dubyah needs a victory.
  • A plan is hatched.  The U.S., via China signals N. Korea to do the unthinkable - detonate a "device", call it a "gadget" if you will.
  • It becomes apparent that they don't have enough HEU or HEP to achieve critical mass, "a little birdie" tells them how to ostensibly avoid that problem.  Use a matrix implosion and high speed neutron trigger.
  • So, they build a device that has a plastic explosive trigger, sequentially detonated, measuring 2 K tons (force) and surround it by a heavy lead & concrete reinforced box.  They then apply neutron detonation techniques ensuring that the loosed energy is recycled momentarily in the absence of a chain reaction (This gives the appearance of a neutron flux matching a detonation).
  • Overall, they build a "dirty bomb" that is 90% convential explosion, 5% atomic and 5% wasted neutron emmission.
  • This accounts for the complete lack of a blast wave, a very insignificant EMP, barely readable Hi-E and no spectrum at all.  It would also account for the seismological readings pegging the max force at about 1 K tons.
  • Most of (1.5 K) initial tonnage in the form of conventional explosive was converted into kinetic energy, usurped by the gadget and redeveloped in the miniscule blast that did trigger momentarily.  Think of it as a stiffled sneeze that sort of "whimpers", although you expended an enormous amount of energy trying to keep it from coming to fruition...  Conservation of energy at its best!

Now that the "test" has occurred, eveyone gets to save face and return to the bargaining table.  Viola!  A conspiracy for the greater good, and no one got hurt.  All the while, the IAEA maintains its legitimacy (it did not lie), China looks neutral, N. Korea looks like it knows what it's doing, and the U.S. looks no worse than it did before.  Now, the impetus in ON to keep it from happening again.  Everyone looks like a bunch of winners at the bargaining table, and now all eyes are turned to Iran.  All because of a simple percentage - that means nothing at all.  Don't believe the IPCC's 90% is anything other than a number.  Wait for the data.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2007, 04:11:43 pm »

Quote
On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD). 


Hi Merlin, most of those guys actually weren't scientists, but working with the church:


Lucius Caelius (or Caecilius?) Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius
Cosmas Indicopleustes (literally "who sailed to India") of Alexandria was a Greek a monk, probably of Nestorian tendencies.
A major feature of his Topography is Cosmas' worldview that the world is flat, and that the heavens form the shape of a box with a curved lid, a view he took from unconventional interpretations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosma_Indicopleustes
Theodore (c.350 - 428), was bishop of Mopsuestia, a city in what is now Turkey which has since declined into a village which is now known as Yakapinar, from 392 to 428.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia
Diodorus of Tarsus was a bishop, early monastic reformer and opponent of arianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodore_of_Tarsus

One can hardly be considered a "scientist" if their theories are taken from religious texts or are faith-based.  Scientists were not responsible for the circulation of the flat earth theory, it was the church.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2007, 04:24:17 pm »

Hi Merlin, most of those guys actually weren't scientists, but working with the church:

One can hardly be considered a "scientist" if their theories are taken from religious texts or are faith-based.  Scientists were not responsible for the circulation of the flat earth theory, it was the church.

Like I said - check who was "running the show" at the time.  Like it or not, most of the science for centuries was coming through the church.  There was a very fine line separating 'science', 'philosophy' & 'religion' - in fact, much science during the Dark Ages was merely apologetics!   Besides, if you read my initial post, it said "Why we don't let "Popular Theories" control our destiny," I figured that I could avoid the standard anti-religious rhetoric that way.

If it brings the discussion back to the overall debate - I'll remove the flat earth example.  Otherwise, let's move along.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2007, 04:37:27 pm »

Hi Merlin,

Actually, as I understand how the flat earth theory came out of fashion, the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes (3rd Century bc) first proposed that the world was a sphere, and by the time of Pliny (1st century ad) it was commonly accepted that the world was a sphere.

Actually, the only guys resistant to the idea were the Chrisitian authors.  Apparently, Christianity was split on the shape of the world, but let's not mistake them for being scientists:


A few Christian authors directly opposed the round Earth:

 
Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture - flat earth in a Tabernacle.Lactantius (245–325), after his conversion to Christianity became a trenchant critic of all pagan philosophy. In Book III of The Divine Institutes[17] he ridicules the notion that there could be inhabitants of the antipodes "whose footsteps are higher than their heads". After presenting some arguments which he claims advocates for a spherical heaven and earth had advanced to support their views, he writes:

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another;

In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes[18] St.John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c.293–373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen[19].

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) also argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[20]

Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote: "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[21]

The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans. At least one early Christian writer, Basil of Caesarea (329–379), believed the matter to be theologically irrelevant.[22]

Different historians have maintained that these advocates of the flat Earth were either influential (a view typified by Andrew Dickson White) or relatively unimportant (typified by Jeffrey Russell) in the later Middle Ages. The scarcity of references to their beliefs in later medieval writings convinces most of today's historians that their influence was slight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2007, 04:54:19 pm »

Somehow you missed the section where I said:

Quote
I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

BTW, as I said earlier - there are many places on the internet to find accusations that this was a purely Christian viewpoint - but they are not the only purveyors of the error.  We see maps dating prior to the Birth of Christianity, and these maps had little indication of anything sphere-like.  Round - maybe, but sphere-like - not so much. 

It's tough to argue with the maps...  Sometimes, you cannot find what you're looking for by typing "Flat Earth" in Google or Wikipedia.  Get creative, and look at what the ancients "Actually Believed".  Maybe you can find out the information and edit Wikipedia so that it's correct!  Anyway, Like I said just previously - this is silly to waste this much time on cutting and pasting from one site or another that supports your view.  Can we possibly move along now that you've cited Wikipedia?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2007, 05:00:59 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2007, 05:43:14 pm »

Merlin,

The whole issue I had with your earlier statement (which is a valid one if we are to realize the need to be factual) was that the flat earth theory was something that science was putting forth. It was not.  As you know, science is an ever-evoliving process that changes it's theories put forth when new information arises.

This differs from faith-based beliefs concerning the world, that remain intransigent no matter what new information presents itself.  The names you mentioned earlier (bishops and monks) certainly fall in the latter category.

Sure, we can move on, but I hope that the point isn't going to be that science believed all sorts of nutty things in the past. Humanity has certainly believed in a lot of strange things in the past, but they were mostly along the lines of supersitition and prejudice, science has certainly had nothing to do with them.  Science actually has a history of being generally conservative about the things they believe in and choose to accept.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy