Global Cooling Coming Soon?.....

I didn't say Global Warming/Climate Change was a "sham"


Recycling has been going on for decades now......

Passenger cars have been designed more and more for better fuel efficiency/less emissions for decades now.....

None of that seems to have made an impact on Global warming as far as reducing temperature......

I suppose if we all cut out our meaningless "Sunday drives" there might be a noticeable blip on the radar....

However when it comes to the movement of mass scale consumer goods/food by transportation..what would you suggest? We eat less?

Or maybe go back to rail shipping?....as one diesel locomotive can make a bigger load haul with less emission than the equivalent in highway trucks I would surmise....

Stop farming so dang much? (less farming, agriculture,cattle= less Methane)

Make air travel/vacations illegal?......heck, you don't really need to go to Hawaii........or Europe......or The Yucatan.......


Or I guess we could go the "California" route.....they have the toughest diesel truck emission standards in the country being implemented.........but it costs those who have to do it a lot of money....so I imagine the cost will be passed on to the consumer as usual...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually using good farm feed to make ethanol is a big waste. Nothing green there except the money it makes , also drives up the cost of feed which makes your meat cost more. Also decreases the efficiency of gasoline by the percentage added and in the long run you burn more to do the same.
 
E/man ...yes...they are growing grapes in England today........but the types of grape they are grow in many cases are better-adapted hybrids and new breeds more suitable than the varieties that they grew back centuries ago. It is mainly in southern England where they are grown.

An American couple from Chicago started a company growing Champagne grapes there........but they had to hunt high and low to find the right soil......as the soil needed to grow their particular grape is extremely rare there.

Roman military living on the England/Scotland border had their wine imported from Gaul........so the local hooch maybe was not all that good.....

The English now have award-winning wines.......but it has had a lot to do with better cultured varieties of grape that have been developed as well.......
 
Google News Today:-

"B.C. Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets; But Setting Up Smokescreen For Liquefied Natural Gas: experts"
 
Seafever said:
On Darwin (if you read it for information purposes only)...a view shared by many that challenge Darwin's version of events.


http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
Click to expand...

This one is very amusing. Instead of a being a "christian" creationist site it is attacking evolution in order to promote another "ancient book' written in Sanskrit!!
Did you take a look at that excellent site link provided by Seascene? Every one of those facile and ill-informed points made by this eastern religion site are refuted in great detail on that scientific site.

Here are a few which answer some of the so-called "arguments" made from the Sanskrit writing believers, but you really should explore that site yourself. Every single on of the "objections" brought up by those ignorant of evolution are answered there in considerable detail with references.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA520.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC202.html
 
Seafever said:
BTW...in answer to your question "how long does it take to paint a Mona Lisa?"

If it were you or me.....maybe years......

However in the hands of an expert:- not all that long.

DaVinci did thousands of works in his career......and because he was very good at what he did plus his natural talent it would come to him a lot quicker than other people.

Some masterworks of music were written in hours or less.

Many many examples of an artist, when asked about the work, saying:- "Just came to me........I woke up and wrote the whole thing down, just streamed from me, didn't even have to think about it".

This has happened in all areas of the arts periodically.
Click to expand...

I have looked back at my posts and I cannot find any reference to the Mona Lisa. So I am afraid I do not follow this one, nor to I understand what you are getting at unless it is something to do with human creativity and inspiration.....which is another whole topic area but should go in another thread....
 
Seafever said:
E/Man.......while it is true that many a scientist ( and also "ordinary people" as defined by you)has made a good contribution to the "progress" of man, we come to the subject of "alarmism".

"Alarmism" is used by scientists, governmental agencies, religious groups, newspapers, "experts",the military, and who knows who else every single day to further agendas.

Thanks to todays technology and the ability to reach the masses it's easier than ever to get away with.
Click to expand...

I will challenge you on the fact you are lumping together scientists with all your other groups. The term “alarmist” is bandied about in the media and is used by spin doctors to discredit the arguments of others. In the case of some of the groups you mentioned it may be used to further their agenda. And the media may mis-represent or mischaracterise some science in order to be “alarmist” to sell newspapers.
Science in an of itself is never “alarmist” because it is based on facts and evidence which can be checked and verified. Objective experiments, data, analysis, results and conclusions. End of story. Scientists themselves are never “alarmist”. In fact they are very careful in what they say, which ironically causes them to be vilified or attacked, or even used against them as in “even the scientists cannot agree”. The public wants certainty. And that child like demand is rarely possible. A scientist will say, based on the best available evidence this is what we think is happening. They say “The earth is warming and we predict it will warm between 2C and 6C by the end of the century, assuming current fossil fuel consumption holds (plus any other assumptions on which the prediction is based)”. And because they are not “certain” that honesty and truth is held against them! So frustrating……

Seafever said:
As in the case of Iraq 1, where we had a top ranking general with a picture of hundreds of tanks lined up at the Iraq border to invade Saudi Arabia.

This picture was proved to be a complete fake, but was shopped to the masses as fact.

Much of the "alarmism" elsehwere stems from "evidence" that is then crunched on a computer to render "projections".

Once a "projection" has been generated , it is used as "future fact".
Click to expand...

You are muddling two areas and mixing them together. Geo-politics and the methods used there have nothing to with science. You are trying to draw an analogy when there is none.

Seafever said:
The Word Health Org (for one) does this all the time.

It is being done all the time every day by just about anybody that wants to achieve a desired result with the general public.

Where does the truth lie on any given day?

Maybe in the middle.....maybe the far end...maybe the near end.....or maybe nowhere.......
Click to expand...
Pleas provide and example where you believe WHO is being “alarmist”. Provide the links to support your argument that WHO is alarmist or somehow unethical in what they are doing….

Seafever said:
"Overwhelming empirical evidence" is a term used by agenda seekers everywhere.......(as in the Iraq 1 tank picture for example).

Harper's government currently allegedly does the same thing..........cherry picks the scientific info for presentation and puts a spin on it for mass consumption.

Even in a "democracy" the information is doctored. If you live in a communist country, banana republic or country run by a militant factor, all or any of the information released about anything could be erroneous.
Click to expand...

Again you are using politics and the use politics makes of science (or sometimes ignores it as in the case of Harper!) to denigrate science itself. It behooves everyone to go back to the source papers and references and read what the actual science says and form an understanding of that. And yes everyone should ideally be more educated and informed about science so that they cannot be misled or duped by some of the politics, religion, or plain fundamentalist nonsense that is out there. And where that is not possible they should at least try the so called “popular science” magazines like Scientific American or New Scientist.
You would be far better informed about evolution and global warming if you even read those magazines!!

Seafever said:
I'm not saying all climatre change info is faked.

But I am saying if you think no-one has an agenda in this and that everything is sweetness and light....then I beleive you to be more naive than you think I am.
Click to expand...
Again, the is no global climate science conspiracy and no “agenda”. The science is what is it is. Objective and fair and as good as the sum total of the thousands of scientist that work in the field can make it. And tomorrow it may even be better and that wide range between 2 and 6C may be narrowed. It will be interesting to see what IPCC says in their next report.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seafever said:
Hawking speaks:- but not pro-Einstein....and seems to contradict himself on the subject of "God"....as he has stated that belief in God is a silly idea then goes on to say "that information is known to God but hidden from us"

http://dailyrevolution.org/allgood/010119.html
Click to expand...

First Hawking is not pro nor anti Einstein. He simply has made some mathematical advances which help to provide an understanding of the way the universe began and is unfolding as we speak. In so doing he had some things to say which modifies our understanding of how deterministic the universe is (i.e. whether, knowing the state of the universe at one point in time, you can in fact calculate exactly (in theory) it's state at some point in the future. I.e. whether the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics, makes that impossible, even in theory.)
Secondly he uses the term god in the same way Einstein does, to illustrate a point. He in fact does not believe in god, nor heaven and has no patience with religious arguments.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaJcrZLIEM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164
 
E/man......I noted the Vedicscience site info as "information only" in regard to challenging Darwin's Theory.....not promotion of Sankrit.
I also footnoted that it was in essence a view held by many which it is...


yes ...I've seen how the scientists debunk this claim with the b.s. theory of "flash evolution" and similar claims.

Unsupported by any fact I might add.

They make it up as they go along.......to fill the voids unsupported by fact.

Truth is ..........from everything I've ever seen or had access to.......there are no fossils ever found that are in the mutant cross-stages of evolution.

Maybe you could post pics of some.......
 
Pantheism:- "....The Universe is God...but...God does not exist as a personal deity. All is one and one is all. I am God, you are God,that rock over there is God. Your dog is God. Mars and Pluto are God. However you're not personally accountable as there isn't a "God" deity per se.

Everything is God. However the Bible and anything in it is b.s...........the idea of a having a religion based on a work of fiction is preposterous (o.k...well.....L.Ron Hubbard (Dianetics) got away with it bigtime)

Need more Gods? ...well you can delve into branches of Pantheism that actually have many Gods but not one overall god............the ancients already did that, just like Hawking and Einstein today...(I believe you referred to them both as being Pantheists)

Pantheism...the religion where you can have your cake and eat it too..........no problem"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You should really split the discussion of evolution into a separate thread. However, in brief, as has been pointed out many years ago, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".

I know that evolution occurs because I can make it happen and measure it's effect at the DNA level in my lab. How "Creation" happened is, IMHO, an independent discussion from evolution. E.g. if I chose to be a believer in a creation by an all powerful being, I can believe that same being created evolution and all of the surrounding data that supports the theory. However, to ignore the existence of evolution is to simply ignore a HUGE plethora of data - especially at the molecular level - that can only be explained in light of evolution. To put it another way, if you get sick with a bacterial infection next week and the bacteria has evolved to be drug resistant (due to past exposure of that particular bacteria to antibiotics), do you want the old antibiotic or do you want a new one to which the bacteria is not (yet) resistant? If you don't believe in evolution, take the old antibiotic because clearly the bacteria cannot change due to evolution or selective pressure.
 
Seafever said:
Good read.....

On rising or decreasing humidity:


In this article, at first they politely *****-slap Mr.Monckton for daring to ask a pertinent question...and then farther down in the article they admit they can't totally co-relate a lot of the findings....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm
Click to expand...

Viscount Monckton is a hereditary peer who works as a journalist. He is not a scientist but is a persistent global warming denier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

I am not sure what you are saying about the article you linked. It is a very good article I think.

What it says is the scientific results of the paper that Monckton used as the basis of his attack on the UN position on the science of humidity in the atmosphere is doubtful.
1) Because the scientists who wrote that paper themselves said some of the data could be suspect.
2) It is inconsistent with several contemporaneous results.
3) It raises the problem of how short-term positive feedback can occur with long-term negative feedback. To quote the last sentence of your link:-
"It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback (indeed there is no known mechanism that can explain it). In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seafever said:
E/man......I noted the Vedicscience site info as "information only" in regard to challenging Darwin's Theory.....not promotion of Sankrit.
I also footnoted that it was in essence a view held by many which it is...
Click to expand...
The fact that an erroneous view might be held by many does not prove anything. It just shows the extent of ignorance out there and the fact that many thousands of people have never bothered to examine the evidence.
There are thousands of people in the world still (and many more in the past!) who believed disease is caused by evil spirits and by burning incense and muttering incantations you can cure the disease. They have the same level of knowledge and capacity for rational thought as those who deny evolution!

Seafever said:
yes ...I've seen how the scientists debunk this claim with the b.s. theory of "flash evolution" and similar claims.

Unsupported by any fact I might add.

They make it up as they go along.......to fill the voids unsupported by fact.

Truth is ..........from everything I've ever seen or had access to.......there are no fossils ever found that are in the mutant cross-stages of evolution.

Maybe you could post pics of some.......
Click to expand...
You are not reading any of the information on this site below are you? This point you make, brought up so often by evolution deniers, is completely untrue as explained here.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html

Transition forms are detailed here.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html

And the all time classic ones are the many fossils showing transition from reptiles to birds. The most famous ones being Archaeopteryx. There are plenty of photos of that on the web if you want to take a look!!

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
 
Osmium??

Seafever??


Hard to tell eh??



Take care.
 
Seafever said:
Pantheism:- "....The Universe is God...but...God does not exist as a personal deity. All is one and one is all. I am God, you are God,that rock over there is God. Your dog is God. Mars and Pluto are God. However you're not personally accountable as there isn't a "God" deity per se.

Everything is God. However the Bible and anything in it is b.s...........the idea of a having a religion based on a work of fiction is preposterous (o.k...well.....L.Ron Hubbard (Dianetics) got away with it bigtime)

Need more Gods? ...well you can delve into branches of Pantheism that actually have many Gods but not one overall god............the ancients already did that, just like Hawking and Einstein today...(I believe you referred to them both as being Pantheists)

Pantheism...the religion where you can have your cake and eat it too..........no problem"
Click to expand...
I never defended pantheism and I think I agree with some of what you say. All I was saying was Einstein was a pantheist. I have no idea what Hawking is, so I never made any such claim.
I would suspect he is an agnostic or maybe an outright atheist? If so, I think the different positions of Einstein and Hawking reflect the times they were brought up in and the level of indoctrination they suffered as children and from the social milieu they grew up in. The history of mankind of the last few hundred years, especially in the west, has been the slow escape and liberation of humanity from the clutches of religion. Escape from the mental and physical tyranny, from superstition and fear, from subjugation and prejudice, and from ignorance. Even Einstein, who grew up in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, would have been influenced by some of the religious propaganda of the time and that might have led him to cling to pantheism…….?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
seadna said:
You should really split the discussion of evolution into a separate thread. However, in brief, as has been pointed out many years ago, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".

I know that evolution occurs because I can make it happen and measure it's effect at the DNA level in my lab. How "Creation" happened is, IMHO, an independent discussion from evolution. E.g. if I chose to be a believer in a creation by an all powerful being, I can believe that same being created evolution and all of the surrounding data that supports the theory. However, to ignore the existence of evolution is to simply ignore a HUGE plethora of data - especially at the molecular level - that can only be explained in light of evolution. To put it another way, if you get sick with a bacterial infection next week and the bacteria has evolved to be drug resistant (due to past exposure of that particular bacteria to antibiotics), do you want the old antibiotic or do you want a new one to which the bacteria is not (yet) resistant? If you don't believe in evolution, take the old antibiotic because clearly the bacteria cannot change due to evolution or selective pressure.
Click to expand...

Exactly Seadna. Exactly. Some of the strongest evidence (nay proof!) now emerging about evolution is coming from molecular biology, genomics, and DNA. Unfortunately, many people do not understand it (there is a huge communication gap), cannot appreciate the significance, and do not realise how important these findings are. As for another large segment of the population, they will continue to ignore the evidence largely because of their fundamentalist religious position, and will continue to so because as this quote I saw somewhere goes:-

"An idea is something the mind holds. Religion is an idea that holds the mind."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OldBlackDog
New major study, fish will handle global warming just fine.
Replies
11
Views
751
Cuba Libre
Cuba Libre
OldBlackDog
Scientists proven wrong.
Replies
0
Views
372
OldBlackDog
OldBlackDog
Whole in the Water
Emissions of CO2 driving rapid oceans 'acid trip'
Replies
0
Views
565
Whole in the Water
Whole in the Water
Dogbreath
Grey Whales Changing Diet Over The Millenia
Replies
0
Views
603
Dogbreath
Dogbreath
Sushihunter
Global Warming? Bring it On!
Replies
1
Views
660
Little Hawk
Little Hawk
Back
Top