Climate Change & Global Warming

[Ghostrider]

^^ Knew it!

 

Good evenin' AT. I guess we'd best agree to differ on tactics, whether your way of addressing the current theory of choice with everything we got, or my way of splitting resources and while putting some effort towards combating the current theory of choice, in case it is correct, also keeping a strong force deployed looking in case so far the wood hasn't been seen for the trees.

[Evil Inky]

I cant believe you are still classing the supposed "facts" the IPCC are spouting off as reliable. Its called the Global Warming THEORY!!! For a reason. Not proven.

Are you aware that the scientific definition of the word "theory" differs from the more popular definition ? For example, scientists refer to the Theory of Evolution, but that's not to say they think Darwin got it wrong.

[Ghostrider]

^^ That's not to say they think he got it right either, how, and in what context, and/or with/without what qualifying statements each individual uses it is the only real way of knowing whether they accept it as correct, partly correct or simply fanciful. Plenty of people out there don't accept Darwin got it right, either in part or in full. It relies on circumstantical evidence and supposition rather than actual proof after all.

 

In the case of his theory though, it doesn't really matter what is believed, there is not a lot to be lost or gained by being in any camp of belief unless a satisfying of individual curiosity. Evolution of the species happens so slowly and its negative effects so minimal simply ignoring whether Darwin is correct or not won't do much harm. The Global Warming Theory relies equally as much on circumstantial evidence and supposition as Darwin, but differs insofar as the subject matter appears to be evolving at a far more rapid rate, and potentially could have very devastating results if ignored.

 

I'd like to be able to have more confidence in the science and resultant theory that we are in fact addressing the main event with present popular beliefs and actions, and not just being taken in and conned by an eyecatching sideshow, while the real cause is marching on just off camera.

[khitajrah]

http://www.breathingearth.net/

[Evil Inky]

Evolution of the species happens so slowly and its negative effects so minimal simply ignoring whether Darwin is correct or not won't do much harm.

Only if you ignore things like DDT-resistant mosquitoes, and bacteria which are evolving resistance to antibiotics.

 

Or is MRSA something else cooked up by the PC liberal tree-hugging elite in order to raise taxes from hard-working Daily Mail readers ?

[Gibber]

Like Evil Inkey says evolution has been observed at the microscopic level, it has been proven as much as anything can be.

 

Scientists are trying to prove both sides of the climate debate. No scientist is still trying to prove the theory of evolution.

[Ghostrider]

Evolution of the species happens so slowly and its negative effects so minimal simply ignoring whether Darwin is correct or not won't do much harm.

Only if you ignore things like DDT-resistant mosquitoes, and bacteria which are evolving resistance to antibiotics.

 

Or is MRSA something else cooked up by the PC liberal tree-hugging elite in order to raise taxes from hard-working Daily Mail readers ?

 

The only real connection these and Darwin's Theory have is that they add to the pre-existing evidence that suggests he was probably correct.

 

Addressing these issues doesn't rely on believing Darwin was correct, or even of being aware of his theory. His theory would only become relevant if you were at the stage of preventing these resistances occuring and had the ability to prevent it, or at best could unravel the now established resistance and render it null and void, and prevent it rebuilding itself, which even if either existed are almost certainly a physical impossibility given the very nature of bacteria etc. They are, knowing why they are is of little help in addressing them, finding an effective antidote for them is a far more useful exercise. *If* the goal is to prevent something evolving and developing a resistance, or trying to predict if it may develop a resistence, and if so how, then certainly Darwin's Theory has relevance, but not much when it becomes damage limitation after the fact. Point I'm trying to make is, you can acquire the same information concerning the problem, and be as informed towards securing a solution, by comparing the differences between a specimen of the previous non-resistant strain and one of the now resistant strain, regardless whether you apply Darwin's Theory or not.

[Carlos]

But your cost/benefit sums on whether it was worth working on a one-off solution to a particular problem or trying to prevent the general causes would depend on an understanding of the bigger picture - the likelihoods of various possible future outcomes depends on an understanding of the theoretical driving forces.

[Ghostrider]

Scientists are trying to prove both sides of the climate debate. No scientist is still trying to prove the theory of evolution.

 

They may well be engaged in a daily "it is" it isn't" debate, but that's hardly the point I was making. Who said that there was only two possible sides to the story, is anyone paying attention to and investigating everything or even anything else. Cause and effect needs to be proven for it to be "good" science, observing one action and an apparent equal and opposite reaction and assuming the former created the latter is "bad" sceince. Until such time as their current "bad" science is made "good" science, everything else should remain an equal suspect and come under equal scrutiny.

 

No scientist may be trying to prove the theory of evolution, and I wouldn't know if any scientist is trying to disprove it, and I don't have the interest to find out, as I tend to believe it probably is mostly right, but millions of people every day purposely make a point of restating that they don't believe it, or at best refuse to acknowledge it to be the case.

[Michael]

I cant believe you are still classing the supposed "facts" the IPCC are spouting off as reliable. Its called the Global Warming THEORY!!! For a reason.

 

I challenge you to find a single scientific theory that has been proven absolutely.

[sheepshagger]

If you only read the sprootle written in favour of the man made global warming theory then it is all proven 100% but read some other point of view and none of it is proven 100%.

 

something the scaremonkeys like AT do on a regular basis when their pet theory is questioned is attack the one that is doing the questioning.

[Evil Inky]

*If* the goal is to prevent something evolving and developing a resistance, or trying to predict if it may develop a resistence, and if so how, then certainly Darwin's Theory has relevance, but not much when it becomes damage limitation after the fact.

But this is a useful goal, and it is exactly for the above reasons that patients prescribed antibiotics are encouraged to finish their course even if they start to feel better: the bugs most resistant to the antibiotics are going to be the last ones to be killed off, and we don't want a new population based on those little blighters.

[Evil Inky]

No scientist may be trying to prove the theory of evolution, and I wouldn't know if any scientist is trying to disprove it, and I don't have the interest to find out, as I tend to believe it probably is mostly right, but millions of people every day purposely make a point of restating that they don't believe it, or at best refuse to acknowledge it to be the case.

But those people are frothing-at-the-mouth religious nutcases who'd believe that 2+2=5 if the Bible told them so.

[Michael]

If you only read the sprootle written in favour of the man made global warming theory then it is all proven 100% but read some other point of view and none of it is proven 100%.

 

something the scaremonkeys like AT do on a regular basis when their pet theory is questioned is attack the one that is doing the questioning.

 

Science isn't about having a point of view, it's about making conclusions based on empirical evidence. Nothing can ever be proven 100% (except in maths) so there's no point complaining that it hasn't been proven absolutely.

 

When such overwhelming numbers of respectable climate scientists all come to such a clear consensus then it it would be foolhardy to assume they don't know what they're talking about and trust those who aren't best placed to comment on the matter. There are plenty people trying to prove that anthropogenic climate change is a load of crap, but none of them have come up with much in the way of hard evidence.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?

 

Dishonesty in science has been elevated to an art form by the man-made global warming crowd. Their successes in getting tax dollars, and even a Nobel Peace Prize (go figure - what a ridiculous stretch) has taught unscrupulous scientists in other disciplines how the game is played today. How else can one explain the fact that the vast majority of self-annointed global warming experts' only credentials in climatology is that they have watched Al Gore's intellectually dishonest and deliberately error-filled video. If the biggest hoax of our lifetime not only goes unchallenged by so many in the scientific world, but is actually admired and emulated as the new way to financial and career success, then a growing culture of fraud in science should surprise nobody.