Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 09:10:15 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/healthscience/web.1114meteor.php?page=1

 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6792 times)
0 Members and 84 Guests are viewing this topic.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #75 on: March 12, 2007, 03:15:34 am »



These glaciers in New Zealand have continued to retreat rapidly in recent years. Notice the larger terminal lakes, the retreat of the white ice (ice free of moraine cover), and the higher moraine walls due to ice thinning. Photo.

Cool graphic!
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2007, 04:29:52 pm »

No, I just don't believe in what you're saying because it isn't the truth. Following the first century, the main proponents of the flat earth theory were from the church. You are suggesting they were scientists, which is simply not the case.

Because you ignore what is being said.  FIRST - I never limited the discussion to the first century or later, in fact, I think I left that wide open.  I think what's going on here is that you have confused the "Flat Earth Theory" from the Flat Earth Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society with the idea that was once widely adopted that the Earth was flat.  One was a relatively recent occurance in theology & the theological sciences, the other was well witnessed by the fact that maps, carvings and cartouches all represent the planet as being flat.  Check WIKI for proof of my point:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory  Here's a great quote from that website:

Quote from:  The Wikiest Pedia around
Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.

Like I said before, "ROUND - BUT NEVERTHELESS - FLAT!"  You should consider that you are referencing the one theory - I am trying (in vain) to describe the other.

Wrong again, they were considered "theologians."  And as for beating your head against the wall, join the club.  I have just explained to you that all the people you cited doing the writings were bishops, monks, and Christian theorists. You continue to ignore it even though I even also supplied proof.  I don't know where the disconnect here is, but I'm getting a bit tired of saying it.

And you continue to ignore that more than just a few of the aforementioned men were referenced and cited by other scientists.  I realize this is shocking to you - but people didn't hold other people's religious beliefs against them in those days...  Considering the Church held many of the purse-strings.  Plus - you refuse to discuss the other evidence that was offered - How about the maps, the carvings, the parchments and whatnot?  Again - you are thoroughly debunking an already debunked theory (Flat Earth Theory), but you are avoiding the discussion that people really did believe the earth was flat...  Astonomers, astrologers, geographers too!  These guys I named were just a recent handful of examples - not the end of the story, and I gave you plenty of evidence otherwise to see my point.  Give up the religious aspect and go back to what I originally said:  Science thought the earth was flat - for many years.

Science has hypthesized things in the past that later were proven not to be true, with more information.  It never said that the world was flat, that (and most similar beliefs) are the work of theology and superstition, not science.

Aside from being incorrect by saying that no scientist said the world was flat, you just made my point for me.  That's what I have been saying since the beginning; "Science is flawed" and just because it's believed (or popular) doesn't make it correct.  The Earth was once believed to be flat, and not just by a few whacky Christians.

Well, that would be diffilcult since most of the major sciences are less than 2000 years old.  Anything you couild trot out, Merlin, would not be relevant anyway.  As I have said many times during this discourse, science evolves and changes many times as new information presents itself. 

Actually - that's what I said.  You merely restated it.  My whole point being that science EVOLVES.  Go back and look at my original posting.  I was referencing the fact that the GW/GCC science is still so flawed (theory not matching observation) that I choose to wait it out.  Whether or not you think anything I would post would be relevant is irrelevant to me.  The fact is - science changes rapidly, randomly, slowly, specifically - by leaps, by bounds, by creeps and by crawls...  It's unpredictable, and the path to truth & knowledge is paved with some whacky theories; but relatively conservative ones.


Religion is the one that remains stubbornly resistant to change. Is science holding onto beliefs that might be outdated?  Well, of course, sometimes it does take awhile to overturn current scientific theory, but I haven't seen anything that would overturn the current consensus on global warming, other than wishful thinking by a lot of people who don't want it to be true.

You are arguing with me like I disagree with you here...  Somewhere along the line you missed the fact that I am a physicist, and that I am routinely skeptical of religion - ALL OF THEM.  You'll get no argument from me that the "Flat Earth Society" was ridiculous, and still are - however, you won't find a supporter in me when you intimate that we should believe a theory until it is overturned.  We need not look too far to find a host of examples of why that's not a great idea.

Anyway, I leave you with sincere regards.  I suspect that you and I have our wires crossed between the "Flat Earth Theory" (as offered by the Flat Earth Society or its many predecessors) and the reality that the Earth was thought (or conceived) to be flat for many of the past 5,000 years of science (I have no idea of where your 2,000 year number comes from).  For your edification, I found this information at your favorite repository of information:  The WIKI  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics

Best of luck.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Matt
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4236



« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2007, 03:54:25 am »

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


Smoke billows from chimneys at a power plant in Chifeng, Mongolia. Scientists say they are 90 percent certain global warming is caused by humans.

 
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

"Live fast, die young."
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2007, 09:37:57 am »

Matt -

This article from CNN is simply more of the same, and it's from CNN - no less.  That's like FOX, only the opposite.  Anyway, I'm not being critical of you - but I am the article.  As has become very popular of late, and this issue in particular, nothing new is being shared.

I'm patiently waiting for the "Non-governmentally screwed with" report to be issued (I've read it), and then I'll be waiting for the mountains of evidence to be made manifest.  That's where the discussion begins (in my mind), not with the endless streams of opinion, media soundbites, and irrational public outbursts based on other media sources.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 09:41:47 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2007, 10:32:11 am »

I love this interview Brandon.  I've read it several times and I just can't help commenting on it.

Q & A Session followed with film attendants

Question: “Temperatures have been increasing on Mars like the Earth. Is global warming a hoax?”

Seeley: “Labeled contrarians have been personally attacking this idea but the vast majority of people are accepting global warming.”

Hmmmm...  Was that a "No"?  I hate answers like that.  That's like saying, "Very few men admit to it, but most people believe they do it." 

Question: “What do you see as definite signs of global warming?”

Seeley: “There is global warming. Land transformation, the Earth’s atmospheric composition, and human related climate drivers are all reasons to take action. It’s important to have these discussions, especially with our children.”

Another "vague" answer.  The question was specific - the answer was general with no detail whatsoever.

Question: “Doesn’t science require a proof theory?”

Seeley: “Science is not our only tool to dealing with this. It’s a moral issue.”

Wow - No matter how many times I read this, I just cannot get used to the feeling of the little hairs on my neck standing at attention, or that creepy feeling in the pit of my stomach.  This answer is really as telling as it is obscured.  "Nahh - we don't need science to prove this theory, it's a moral issue!"  Did I miss the "ANSWER"?

Question: “Scientific credentials should speak loudly on these issues. Instead of ‘The British are coming; The British are coming’ it’s become ‘The British might be on their way.’ What things would you change in the science of the film?”

Seeley: “It’s a moral problem but then he [Gore] doesn’t talk about what the morals are. Gore is advocating on a personal and political level. We all have our individual philanthropic passions. Mine are what has happened to my family. [Note of interest regarding Mark’s quote here. Gore’s impetus for his life long passion to global warming stems from a near fatal car accident his son experienced.] I expend my energies on multiple sclerosis. It affects me personally. I can’t always be steered in the direction someone would like to steer me in.”

What did I miss (aside from an answer)?  Is he intentionally evasive, or is this guy just 'wandering' unexplainably?

Michael Reinbold, a continuing web reporter, freelances as a writer and banquet caterer. A passionate believer in SJA's mission of social justice and collaborative ministry, Michael is an SJA Choir member, mass reader, Team Oz AIDS rider and Grace House volunteer cook. With an extensive background in theater, photography and fundraising, he relishes all aspects of the arts, staying fit and inspiring and working with people.

Alright - I'll bite, why was this guy being interviewed?  He had nothing at all to add to this discussion, and he definitely didn't.  He reminds me of some other folks I know...  They run around yelling fire, fire, fire because they came into a room where someone else is yelling fire, fire, fire.  Then I run in the room with an extinguisher and start dancing around like them (I love to dance), but I stop long enough to ask - "Where's the fire?"  After a long, lengthy discussion & painful investigation - we learn that there was no fire, just some guy's idea of a joke.  He yelled "Fire!" before leaving the room - four hours prior.

These guys have no idea of why they believe in GW - they do it because Al's into it, and Al is passionate about it.  Oiy veh...


« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 10:37:21 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2007, 10:55:35 am »


"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.

Changes in physical and biological systems are now affecting climate


Quote
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.

Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

Quote
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.

Well duh!  Increase the population ten fold and what do you expect .....

Quote
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.

By 2050 (haven't seen predictions for 2080) there will be about 2,500,000,000 more people on the planet than there are today.


This report could well prove interesting when it's released .........
Report Spam   Logged

Andy
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2007, 12:34:33 pm »

Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

A little environmental stewardship could go a long way.

Quote
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.

Well duh!  Increase the population ten fold and what do you expect .....

I love how nothing is "Environmentally" or "pollution" related...  Everything is global warming-related.  Doesn't matter that these folks poop where they grow their crops, pee where they bathe, or bathe where they drink anymore.  Nor does it matter that over population, crowding density, and increased taxing of already limited crops are running rampant - This Is Global Warming!!!  Please.  Soon - the fact that the mailmen/women don't deliver in sleet and freezing rain anymore will be attributed to GW.

Quote
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.

By 2050 (haven't seen predictions for 2080) there will be about 2,500,000,000 more people on the planet than there are today.

Don't interject details into the discussion or find fault with the "science", it only brings out the "morality issue" - then the whole topic disintegrates into name-calling, false-labeling and hurt feelings.  This is one of those discussions best left alone until the EmoTioN wears off.   Grin

This report could well prove interesting when it's released .........

Interesting is a word I would use; however, not in the way that people think.   Wink
Report Spam   Logged

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



« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2007, 12:37:48 pm »

Quote
Quote from: Jason on March 12, 2007, 12:24:09 am
No, I just don't believe in what you're saying because it isn't the truth. Following the first century, the main proponents of the flat earth theory were from the church. You are suggesting they were scientists, which is simply not the case.

Because you ignore what is being said.  FIRST - I never limited the discussion to the first century or later, in fact, I think I left that wide open.  I think what's going on here is that you have confused the "Flat Earth Theory" from the Flat Earth Society


Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

I actually find the whole evolution of how the flat earth theory came about a fascinating one.  And yet, the people you cited (again, not scientists, but theologians) existed in an era where they were arguing against an already discredited theory.  They were not in a position to control a scientific consensus, which is what you were suggesting.  

As I said earlier, science evolves and changes it's opinions based on new information.  It does not hold onto to outdated ideas centuries  after the fact, that is something that religion specializes in.

And no, I am not mistaking the Flat Earth Society for Flat Earth Theory.

As for knocking Wikipedia, well, you certainly have a point in that it is not always accurate.  However, not only is it the Wikiest Pedia around, it is also the free-est, quickest source for information around, and it usually cites it's references.  
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2007, 01:51:06 pm »

Quote
Alright - I'll bite, why was this guy being interviewed?  He had nothing at all to add to this discussion, and he definitely didn't.  He reminds me of some other folks I know...  They run around yelling fire, fire, fire because they came into a room where someone else is yelling fire, fire, fire.  Then I run in the room with an extinguisher and start dancing around like them (I love to dance), but I stop long enough to ask - "Where's the fire?"  After a long, lengthy discussion & painful investigation - we learn that there was no fire, just some guy's idea of a joke.  He yelled "Fire!" before leaving the room - four hours prior.

Merlin, I'm sure you already realize that CNN and some of these other articles printed are not in the business of detailing the science behind global warming.  I agree, they probably should be so that people will understand them better.  However, what most of these media sources end up doing (and this goes for Matt's CNN article as well) is paraphrasing a scientific reportand breaking it down so that the general public understands it better.

On the other hand, does someone have to be a scientist to be able to voice an opinion on global warming?  People have opinions on all sorts of things, and some of the anti-global warming propaganda has been far more ridiculous.

Here's one for you:

Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming
 

 
LYNCHBURG, Va. The Reverend Jerry Falwell says global warming is "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism.

Falwell told his Baptist congregation in Lynchburg yesterday that "the jury is still out" on whether humans are causing -- or could stop -- global warming.

But he said some "naive Christian leaders" are being "duped" by arguments like those presented in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth. Falwell says the documentary should have been titled "A Convenient Untruth."

Falwell said the Bible teaches that God will maintain the Earth until Jesus returns, so Christians should be responsible environmentalists, but not what he calls ... quote ... "first-class nuts."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6140669&nav=S6aK

I hope you agree that that the counter argument against global warming tends to be far more ridiculous.

Quote
These guys have no idea of why they believe in GW - they do it because Al's into it, and Al is passionate about it.  Oiy veh...

You don't know that.  The movement against global warming is not based on some spell Al Gore has the entire world under. Based on my personal observations, a lot of the people against the idea of global warming tend to be so because they don't like Al Gore, however the theory (first originated in the 1950s, I believe) has been gathering steam for the last 30 years.  Gore just brought more attention to it.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2007, 01:57:38 pm »

Quote
Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2007, 02:01:53 pm »

Quote
Don't interject details into the discussion or find fault with the "science", it only brings out the "morality issue" - then the whole topic disintegrates into name-calling, false-labeling and hurt feelings.  This is one of those discussions best left alone until the EmoTioN wears off.   


It's only an emotional issue because of all the resistance offered on behalf of the "other side," mainly the skeptics and the oil companies.

Look at things from another angle - say, an astreroid was headed towards the earth in about two to ten years, and we all knew that.  Would we be spending all this time discussing whether or not the asteroid was actually going to be hitting the earth or not or would be using our two to ten years to try and stop it?

Of course, we'd try to stop it, just to be on the "safe" side.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2007, 03:23:51 pm »

Essan & Merlin,

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?

Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2007, 09:13:14 pm »

Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

Negative...  Read what I wrote and comprehend it for what it says - not what you think it's going to say.

I actually find the whole evolution of how the flat earth theory came about a fascinating one.  And yet, the people you cited (again, not scientists, but theologians) existed in an era where they were arguing against an already discredited theory.  They were not in a position to control a scientific consensus, which is what you were suggesting.

I could make the point again (since you refuse to admit that I was right) by citing the references to THEIR WORK by other scientists, but at this point, you just continue repeating the same thing - and ignoring the rest.  I won't bother. 

As I said earlier, science evolves and changes it's opinions based on new information.  It does not hold onto to outdated ideas centuries  after the fact, that is something that religion specializes in.

And as I said in the very beginning of this meandering point of view - Science evolves and changes as observations are matched to theories.  Theories that do not match observations are failed theories - however, THEY DO NOT THROW THOSE THEORIES OUT UNTIL THEY HAVE A REPLACEMENT.  It most certainly does hold onto outdated and outmoded ideas - until they are torn out of the clinched fists of those who resist, by supplying new working theories.  Science is a religion in and of itself.

And no, I am not mistaking the Flat Earth Society for Flat Earth Theory.

Yet, I notice that you still have not admitted that I was correct??  Strange how YOU are the one who latched onto the religious aspect and not me.  I am the one who said that it was a part of science for 5,000 years - and you disagreed. 

As for knocking Wikipedia, well, you certainly have a point in that it is not always accurate.  However, not only is it the Wikiest Pedia around, it is also the free-est, quickest source for information around, and it usually cites it's references.

I knock it for obvious reasons, however it could be worse...  It could be conservapedia.com (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) - now that's a farce.  I knock Wiki because it is so liberally slanted that it's embarrassing and its incorrectness in facts is matched only by its error in the most technical portions.  All I wish for is a "neutral reference".  BTW, I am aware of 9 universities that have banned its use in course work due to accuracy and copyright infringement issues.   

I give up on this issue of Flat Earth...  I swear, one of these days, someone in these forums are going to admit when they are wrong, suck it up, and move along (like I have - when I've made an error).
Report Spam   Logged

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



« Reply #88 on: March 14, 2007, 10:01:41 pm »

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 12:37:48 pm
Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

Negative...  Read what I wrote and comprehend it for what it says - not what you think it's going to say.

Sure, you said:

Quote
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).  


And since you refuse to concede the point that these guys were not,  by any stretch of the imagination, scientists,  but theologians, you aren't anymore right this time than you were any of the other three times you said it.



Lucius Caelius - early Christian author
Cosmas Indicopleustes - Greek monk
Theodore - bishop of Mopsuestia
Diodorus of Tarsus - bishop, early monastic reformer [/li][/list]


They were speaking from a theological viewpoint, not a scientific one, and weren't anymore qualified to speak on the shape of the earth than Jerry Falwell is qualified to speak on global warming.  Your refusal to concede this, simplest, most logical of viewpoints, is something I find entirely baffling.

Quote
I could make the point again (since you refuse to admit that I was right) by citing the references to THEIR WORK by other scientists, but at this point, you just continue repeating the same thing - and ignoring the rest.  I won't bother.


And just who was citing their "work," other theologians?  Each other?  By the first century (at the time these guys were even writing), the idea of a round world had already begun to take hold (per Pliny), and the flat earth idea was an outdated philosophy.  The only people holding onto the idea were theologians like these guys, who's influence was limited. I harp on this idea because I didn't know that myself until I looked into it. 

As you said, it's hard to argue with old maps.

Quote
Theories that do not match observations are failed theories - however, THEY DO NOT THROW THOSE THEORIES OUT UNTIL THEY HAVE A REPLACEMENT.  It most certainly does hold onto outdated and outmoded ideas - until they are torn out of the clinched fists of those who resist, by supplying new working theories. 


I would almost agree with you save for the fact that it takes a lot of time and testing (these days) for something to achieve a scientific consensus. So some of the things being thrown out were not widely accepted anyway.

Quote
Yet, I notice that you still have not admitted that I was correct??  Strange how YOU are the one who latched onto the religious aspect and not me.  I am the one who said that it was a part of science for 5,000 years - and you disagreed. 


I do disagree and you are not correct.  I agree with Allison in that religion has always been the greatest impediment to science.  The proof is all around us.  The idea of the flat earth is symbolic of that impediment.  As I said earlier, the Greeks had already worked out the idea that the world was a sphere by the third century bc.  What was the entity that rejected that wisdom, apparently because the source was pagan in nature?  The church.  And they rejected it through theological ideas, which is why I find it a bit silly to refer to these guys as "scientists."

The same early Christianity that these guys were part of also went around destroying pagan temples and are credited with playing the biggest role in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all because they believed it to be sinful to build on pagan wisdom.  That certainly isn't science, it's stupidity.

Quote
I swear, one of these days, someone in these forums are going to admit when they are wrong, suck it up, and move along (like I have - when I've made an error).

Well, I'll admit I was wrong right now.  In the topic in other forum, "Science, the Bible & Evolution," the topic of the flat earth came up earlier.  As I remember, I had taken the  viewpoint that all the world had believed in a flat earth (per Christian theology) at the age of Columbus. That's a common myth we all learn back in grade school. Turns out, that was a minority viewpoint, and that most of the world already believed the world was round, they just didn't know how big it was.


« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 10:25:34 pm by Jason » Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 14, 2007, 10:39:56 pm »

Essan & Merlin,

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?



That's actually a good question.  For starters, I would be happy if the "current theory" would match developing observations, instead of observations being "fitted" to the theory.  Another example would be that the current theory was able make accurate predictions instead of generally vague guesses that then are "interpreted" to be 'realitively accurate'.  I would be more than a little happy if models built from the theory would work also, contrary to what's happening now, where the models do not and have not worked.  I would be happy to see that the details of the theory were based on scientific 'leg work' instead of being retrodicted on past events...  Any of these would be a great start.

Moving forward, I would like to see that something, in the form of data, would actually work out as offered.  For example, I would like to see an explanation for why newer research that does not match the predictions is discarded without explanation, labeled as being  inconclusive or anomolous.  Research showing that the total ice mass on the planet is actually growing, though it is shrinking in particular areas, is not discussed at all.  Also, specific ice masses that are still being referred to as 'shrinking' aren't actually shrinking.  Though some of them may be decreasing in area, they are increasing in height.  Their total mass improves, yet they are still referred to as "reductions".  It is 'science' like this that keeps the skeptics from being able to focus on the logic.  Where there's smoke - there's fire, you know.

As for specifics:  I would like to see an actual correlation of direct pollution in the form of carbon (all other pollutants removed) to area temperature.  I would also like to see a direct correlation of total precipitation in areas of increased carbon, correcting for any other potential contributors such as: de-forestation, increased particulate material influx, increased industrial activity (aside from carbon contributions), increased volcanic activity and natural phenomenas like methane and CO2 release.  A matrix of evidence linking GW to GCC would also be nice, and this could be achieved in a number of ways.  1) A detailed satellite map showing an increase in carbon content regionally, an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature, and an increase or decrease  or variability in regional precipitation.  ALL OCCURING IN THE SAME REGION  2)  A model that shows an average (nominally stated) increase in carbon in the atmosphere, subtracting  all naturally occuring chemicals and activities, where weather patterns change, climates increase and precipitation deviates from a thousand year norm  3)  A graph showing all GW/GCC retrodictions plotted against the exact same analyses (chemical comp, humidity, precip., & temp.) from ice-core, tree ring and geologic - showing an ACTUAL CHANGE in activity over the past 5,000 years. 

The third one is easy, and the reason why it isn't being offered by the GW/GCC crowd is because it refutes the theory.  Though certain chemicals (CO2) are increased today, specific others (equally damaging ones) were much higher in the past CH4, and everyone knows that methane is a real bad green house gas.  Amazingly, these events occurred during an ice age when the methane was so high...

Well, I think I was specific enough here.  Although, I would like to make it clear that I withold judgement on other grounds also.  I am concerned by the GW/GCC crowd's willingness to use emotion to promote their agenda.  This is usually a sign of someone who is "weak on facts", in my 20 years experience.  The final concern I have is the massive use of "weasel-wording", "word-smithing" and "legalease" utilized throughout the debate and the reports.  None of those talents inspires confidence in the theories.



« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 12:18:27 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 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