Quote:Original post by Caitlin
Humans are relatively ignorant - there are many processes that go on around us that we may not be aware of which contribute a little or greatly to events around us. Even scientists will admit that they don't "know everything".

But we should act on what we do know. Does this "there's too many unknowns" distraction that always gets brought up in the context of climate change still manage to con people? It's just as easy to speculate that humans are making the situation much more dire than the curent model predicts as it is to speculate that we are less responsible for climate change than the evidence suggests. Yet somehow, the folks that bring this up always use the incompleteness of our knowledge to speculate solely from the latter position, all the while presenting a false air of objective skepticism.

We do have a sound scientific model. Incomplete, yes, but what goes into the model is sound science. The tactic of constantly ignoring the model in favor of speculating on a specific subset of the possibilities deriving from the incompleteness of the model gives us a pretty good idea of who is interested in informed scientific discussion and who is interested in shilling for the status quo.

Quote:Original post by King of Men
You people are all ignoring the obvious. Since the Earth was created 6000 years ago, these core samples are faked. Therefore, there is no global warming. Besides, the Rapture is coming in a few years anyway.

Sorry, I am a bit late in posting this but: The world is supposed to heat up before the rapture, and fourty years isn't a few. Unless... What is your thoughts on the end of the world? (PM me please, not to get off topic, it may take me a day or two to respond)

The core samples arn't 'faked' there are two obvious reasons we, as believers, can use:

A: The tests are inacurate.

B: When god created adam he didn't creat a baby, he created a grown man, likewise he created a grown earth. (My belief)

C: Scientists are all part of some conspiracy to defraud the bible.[grin] (Joking by the way; in case you couldn't tell)
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Out of curoisity, why does everyone post wikipedia like it is facts? Anyone can go on and write articles, sure the stuff is watched but the moderaters don't bother researching everything. Not that I disagree, I fully acept the fact that humans are the cause of global warming and believe that it is true, but I am just saying wikipedia isn't proof. (That borderlines on internet blasphemy doesn't it?[smile])

Quote:Original post by King of Men
SotL, didn't you see the bits about tongue-in-cheek, further down? My thoughts about the end of the world are that the Rapture freaks have as much going for them as the Nostradamus freaks, the Mayan-calendar freaks, and the gree-goo freaks.

Ahh, didn't see the other part, my bad. 'Gree-goo freaks'(?) Anyhow, there is scientifical reasons why I believe the world will end before 2048, as well as spiritaul. Skipping over the biblical stuff, cause no one would bother with it, the world is steadily increasing its population, true or false? The world is steadily running out of food sources, true or false? I have no proof, but I heard that before and it seemed true to me, and some scientists did a small study on it and decied that, barring natural diasastors wars and famines/droughts, we will run out of food before 2035 or around there. Oh, well. No body cares about that I will venture to guess.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Servant of the Lord
Out of curoisity, why does everyone post wikipedia like it is facts? Anyone can go on and write articles, sure the stuff is watched but the moderaters don't bother researching everything. Not that I disagree, I fully acept the fact that humans are the cause of global warming and believe that it is true, but I am just saying wikipedia isn't proof. (That borderlines on internet blasphemy doesn't it?[smile])

No, it's not blasphemous. Even the guy that created it admits it's not 100%. People drop wiki links because they are accurate enough for debate. I mean, when you've got people pushing young earth mythology a few factual mistakes are nothing... [smile]

(I was joking about the blashpemy thing) Yeah that's true, a few mistakes don't mean much, but I just thing its funny that people put up a wikipedia article and it is all 'end of discussion' when the poster who put up that link could have made the article minutes before posting(at least, I think they could've, is there a screen were moderaters check it before it gets added or do they just check it after?).

CO2 levels are higher than ever since a long time, im quite convinced of it, and i have little doubt its not because of human activity. even if i wasnt so sure as i am now, erring on the side of caution would have me assume we are to blame. frankly, this new icecore sample doesnt bring anything new to the table, only once again confirms my observation that there are a lot of people who make up their minds before looking at the facts: as pointed out in this thread: correlation != causuality, claiming such will only make you look like an idiot.

however, an interesting question is: what does our contribution to CO2 levels consist of? burning organic carbonhydrates. its no surprise CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. a lot of it has gotten stuck underground over time. even if we do burn all accessible oil and coal, that still only a fraction of what has gotten trapped over the eons.

this planet wasnt sterile back then: it doesnt seem likely well manage to make it so. as a species, im sure well survive.

unfortunatly its only a select few people that stand to lose greatly from any climate change (like my entire country disappearing), while most people have more important things to worry about than a few extra degrees and a decrease of biodiversity on the short term, but would rather make sure they have something to eat. i cant blame them for giving the finger to any oil-slick wealthy western hippy bastards coming to tell them they cant use fossile fuels.

the only realistic solution seems developing something more envirnomentally friendly and cheaper than oil. im all for it.