Re: The sky is falling

How is this done? In most cases, faith is handed down from generation to generation. Quite often, faith is adopted when one wants to marry someone of a different faith.

Jeff

However it is OK for you to ignore the scientists that disagree with those that believe man is the cause of global climate change LOL

I wasn't talking about "in most cases". I said as best an assessment of reality (as close to God's reality - otherwise known as truth) as one can get. I also said "if...properly done". Without God there is no integrity. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

It's not, and I haven't. Don't make such false statements.

Of course you have! You prefer to believe the scientists that say man is the cause, by contributing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I prefer to believe those scientist that say variation on the content of the atmophere is a result of natural forces beyond the control of man and those scientist that say CO2 can not cause the earth temperature to change but that changes in the temperature can cause the CO2 content to change.

So in other words, you choose to believe the 1-2% rather than the vast majority. If you went to 100 doctors and 98 said you needed an operation for cancer and 2 said, "don't worry", what would you do?

And where is this CO2 coming from you allege temp. is causing to magically appear? For that matter, what is causing the temp. to rise?

Well, I do have a Ph.D. in chemistry.

But don't take it from me. Look at what the National Academy of Sciences says. The AAAS, American Geophysical Union, Royal Society, EPA, NOAA, WMO, NASA...

Look at the overwhelming majority of articles in scientific journals.

If it's really undecided, wouldn't you think the denialists would be able to find at least one scientific agency or group which agrees with them? Just one?

Yes. It's called "spectroscopy." CO2 absorbs IR and them re-emits it.

Yes. % is irrelevant. A virus would be a tiny % of your body's mass, yet it can kill you.

Isn't it prudent to act now? You're demanding proof, and science doesn't provide proof -- it provides evidence.

So you don't see any difference between science 800 years ago and science now? Are you still having your blood let when you get sick? Do you still think thunder is caused by angry gods?

Angry gods farting.

This misses the whole point. Its not so much about whether or not warming a) is or isn't happening, or b) is or isn't a result of human CO2 emissions.

My beef with the environmental industry (and it IS a big business with just as much at stake as Exxon-Mobil) is that it so often encourages the wrong, or at least far from best response. Not my writing, but I agree with every word, and everyone who claims to be an environmentalist should think long and hard about issues like these:

We are not worried about the environmentalist, Most of us ARE environmentalist in that we do not want to $#it were we "eat." Dealing with the $#it has not proven to be a problem.

It is the environuts that we must worry about. They do not want us to "eat" so we do not need to deal with the $#it LOL

I'll point out once again, theories are hardly facts. There is no proof that increased CO2 in the atmostphere can cause the temperature to rise. There IS prove that the CO2 level goes up after the temperature goes up. You can choose to believe the former, if you wish however.

And pyrometer will measure heat but it does not PROVE the source of the heat. Please explain your answer, who did that research to prove increased CO2 in the atmosphere caused the earth temperature to rise? ALL of the reports I've read contain a lost of words like "Could, May, Likely," nothing more. The fact is the average earth temperature has not gone up, in nearly ten years

As to taking action "in case we are right," what if we had taken the action suggest in the sixties and seventies to dump carbon black on the glaciers and the Russian idea to send a large mirror into space directed at Siberia, to speed up melting to prevent us from slipping into an "ice age" because pollution was blocking the sun and cooling the earth? ;)

Wrong. Ever hear of Venus? That *hot* planet in orbit between the Earth and the sun? It is so hot because of its green house effect.

Correlation is not the same as causation. The graphs to which you refer show that at sometimes the CO2 levels rise after the temp. goes up, but at others, the CO2 levels rose before.

I prefer to believe verifiable facts.

Jeff

I know that 100% of doctors told me 25 years ago that nothing could be done for my back and that I would be in a wheel chair starting about 15 years ago. I didn't believe it and I go to work every day without use of wheel chair or cane, and I work on my own cars, etc. because of the use of herbs and chiropractic treatment that they pooh-poohed and still pooh-pooh. Funny how the placebo effect can overcome the laws of physics. :)

Also funny how you insist that our beliefs should be the result of what a critical mass of people believe rather than a study of the facts. Science is *NOT* basing your belief on what percentages of people believe, scientists or not. Science is based on honest analysis of the facts. Besides, it's not 1 or 2% of scientists in their right minds and without personal gain to be made in perpetuating a myth.

Let's see. Ummm - Increased solar activity? (which you will refuse to acknowledge). Funny how man's activities have caused the sun to increase its output in recent years and other planets to also increase their temperatures. Want to explain that one?

(He'll deny that the sun's output has increased.)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I thought even the most rabid had given up THAT sad old argument. "The earth is balanced on a knife edge, a little too far one way and we'll freeze like Mars, a little too far the other and we'll boil like Venus."

Feh.

If the Earth's environment were *that* inherently unstable, it would have run off to one extreme or the other a few hundred million years ago. There are obviously very powerful and very effective stabilizing factors in play, because the atmosphere has withstood far higher and lower carbon concentrations in the past than in the present. It has also withstood violent vulcanism and large swings in solar radiation without falling off the cusp, too. The obvious conclusion is that the system is stable about its current point, or at the very least that there is a local stability point that it would take a HUGE excursion to get out of.

That CO2 traps heat is a fact, not a theory. You might as well say "it's a theory that gravity makes you fall."

Yes there is. There's a whole science of spectroscopy, and one of thermodynamics.

CO2 traps heat. Fact.

And you can believe evil spirits cause disease if you wish. Or that the earth is 6000 years old. You know what? Science doesn't depend on the acceptance of fools to work.

CO2 traps heat. That is a fact.

And that is simply false. Tell you what, you tell me what scientific sources you've read. National Academy of Sciences? American Geophysical Union? Royal Society? IPCC? Come on, tell us.

Another falsehood. No scientists, no scientific journals predicted an ice age. Geez, if all you're going to do is parrot right-wing lies, why not just go to one of the right-wing groups where you'll find all your fellow ditto-heads?

A theory is an accepted explanation -- note the word "accepted." Science does work by consensus.

Actually it is. But you tell me, what scientific sources have you consulted?

No increase in the sun's output in the past 50 years.

Yes. You're making that up.

Gee, I guess next I'll deny electricity works by magic.

Check out: