Reply With Quote
Brilliance is the eventual form of common sense.
And common sense is pretty straight on the subject.
If I am not mistaken, isn't China and India, two of the biggest so called
polluters exempt and other third world countries exempt in the Kyoto
treaty?
And the world is so fragile, give me a break. One volcano puts more junk
in the air than we (people) do in a decade. If we are so damn good at
stopping this global warming how come we cant stop tornado's, hail
storms, hurricanes. Man is so damn puny when it comes to mother nature
that we have no lasting effect. You doubt me. How about the lost
cities of the world, and their great cultures? Mother nature took back
control as soon as they disappeared and reclaimed her land. You as
a budding scientist need to learn one real quick lesson and remember it.
Common sense has always trumped brilliance.
Brilliance is the eventual form of common sense.
And common sense is pretty straight on the subject.
^^I guess, whatever you are trying to say.
Yes, China and India are exempt from Kyoto, but when have I mentioned Kyoto? Kyoto is a largely symbolic treaty that is meant to be a pre-cursor to a real effort to reduce CO2 and other emissions by formalising a global trading scheme. The planners knew that none of that would be achieved in the first treaty, it's the next treaty after 2012 that will include the whole world in a binding agreement to cap and trade carbon emmissions (hopefully).
Oh for god's sake ray. The biggest volcano in the last 150 yrs, Krakatoa, put 2% of America's current annual greenhouse emissions into the air, and it actually caused ocean cooling over a period of decades due to the dust it spewed into the atmosphere. I covered that last week right here (with links), and also talked about China and India:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52554
As for your argument that we cannot affect nature, you are blatantly, patently and obviously WRONG. We have already affected nature in a million ways. To say that proves that you know absolutely nothing about ecology or science in general.
We have altered the concentration of trace elements in the atmosphere. We have changed the albedo of massive swathes of the planet. We have reshaped, moved or destroyed entire ecosystems. We have altered the concentration of the oceans. We have massively deforested most of the planet. We have destroyed fish stocks of NE America, the North Sea, SE Asia and NZ. We have introduced species to foreign continents. And that is just off the top of my head - the list goes on and on.
And every friggin year we are putting over 14Gt, that is 14,000,000,000, of CO2 (and rising) into the air. In the last 150 yrs we have changed the concentration of CO2 from 280ppm to over 380ppm, and guess what, CO2 conc. is a key temperature regulation mechanism for the planet. The concentration of CH4, another key trace gas which traps 6x the heat of CO2, has risen 145% in 150 years due to our agricultural and industrial practices.
The world is not fragile WITHIN LIMITS. It is a gigantic and massively complex system comprised of myriad smaller interlinked system, and it is very resilient within certain boundaries. The whole point is that in lots of ways we have pushed the earth's systems outside their natural boundaries, over what are called "tipping points" in the systems, and many systems are now switching into new equilibria with new boundaries. See, if you knew a damn thing about science you'd understand this. The world is not infinite, and its systems are not infinitely resilient. There are now over 6,600,000,000 humans on the planet (up from 1,500,000,000 a century ago), and each one is using 10x the energy on average of a century ago. That is affecting the earth's systems.
You talk about the fall of civilisations? I have studied that too, and that is exactly what we are currently facing if we don't act, the fall of our civilisation.
Ray, you clearly make up most of what you say from your own head, and that's fine, but you could really do with actually reading some books on subjects like this before you spout off, because your arguments are all over the place and often make no sense.
And as for Professor Gray, maybe he does believe what he's saying and I will now take a look at his slide show. However, I have 10,000 other professors out there who have the same or greater experience than Gray and who say something is happening and have published peer-reviewed papers on the matter. My head tells me to go with them, because I've read the evidence, and it is now overwhelming.
Believe what you will, BUT YOU ARE WRONG and it is as simple as that.
As if facts would change the radical right away from Repug/corporate "ideological" science or cause the Repug-bots deviate from Repug talking points:
==================
October 31, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Scandal Below the Surface
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The crucial issue this year is Iraq, and the most important issue this decade may be the risk that nuclear proliferation results in the incineration of Wall Street by terrorists. Both topics are spurring useful debate this campaign season.
But one of the more important issues this century is generating no serious discussion on the campaign trail. And, in place of a drumroll, let's look at the chemistry experiment in which we're all taking part.
If you think of the earth's surface as a great beaker, then it's filled mostly with ocean water. It is slightly alkaline, and that's what creates a hospitable home for fish, coral reefs and plankton * and indirectly, higher up the food chain, for us.
But scientists have discovered that the carbon dioxide we're spewing into the air doesn't just heat up the atmosphere and lead to rising seas. Much of that carbon is absorbed by the oceans, and there it produces carbonic acid * the same stuff found in soda pop.
That makes oceans a bit more acidic, impairing the ability of certain s fish to produce s s, which, like coral reefs, are made of calcium carbonate. A recent article in Scientific American explained the indignity of being a dissolving mollusk in an acidic ocean: "Drop a piece of chalk (calcium carbonate) into a glass of vinegar (a mild acid) if you need a demonstration of the general worry: the chalk will begin dissolving immediately."
The more acidic waters may spell the end, at least in higher la udes, of some of the tiniest variations of s fish * certain plankton and tiny snails called pteropods. This would disrupt the food chain, possibly killing off many whales and fish, and rippling up all the way to humans.
We stand, so to speak, on the shoulders of plankton.
"There have been a couple of very big events in geological history where the carbon cycle changed dramatically," said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins ution in Massachusetts. One was an abrupt warming that took place 55 million years ago in conjunction with acidification of the oceans and mass extinctions. Most scientists don't believe we're headed toward a man-made variant on that episode * not yet, at any rate. But many worry that we're hurtling into unknown dangers.
"Whether in 20 years or 100 years, I think marine ecosystems are going to be dramatically different by the end of this century, and that'll lead to extinction events," Mr. Doney added.
"This is the only habitable planet we have," he said. "The damage we do is going to be felt by all the generations to come."
So that should be one of the great political issues for this century * the vandalism we're committing to our planet because of our refusal to curb greenhouse gases. Yet the subject is barely debated in this campaign.
Changes in ocean chemistry are only one among many damaging consequences of carbon emissions. Evidence is also growing about the more familiar dangers: melting glaciers, changing rainfall patterns, rising seas and more powerful hurricanes.
Last year, the World Health Organization released a study indicating that climate change results in an extra 150,000 deaths and five million sicknesses each year, by causing the spread of malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition and other ailments.
A report prepared for the British government and published yesterday, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned that inaction "could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."
If emissions are not curbed, climate change will cut 5 percent to 20 percent of global G.D.P. each year, declared the mammoth report. "In contrast," it said, "the costs of action * reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change * can be limited to around 1 percent of global G.D.P. each year." Some analysts put the costs of action higher, but most agree that it makes sense to invest far more in alternative energy sources, both to wean ourselves of oil and to reduce the strain on our planet.
We know what is needed: a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, a post-Kyoto accord on emissions cutbacks, and major research on alternative energy sources. But as The Times's Andrew Revkin noted yesterday, spending on energy research and development has fallen by more than half, after inflation, since 1979.
Melting glaciers and corroding pteropods aren't as sensational as a Congressional page scandal, or as urgent as the Iraq war. But they are just as scandalous. We have no responsibility greater than as stewards of our planet, and we're blowing it.
Last edited by boutons_; 11-01-2006 at 08:30 PM.
I looked at that slide show and it is a poorly constucted mish mash of ideas about cyclone prediction, climate change, media and political ethics and skepticism for it's own sake.
The only "scientists" he quotes are his buddy Richard Lindzen (another well-known dissenter) and Michael Crichton!
Notice that none of his slides go back more than 1000yrs. Why? Because if he did that and actually looked at the evidence over geological timeframes (we can go back over 65mil yrs), his argument would be shot to pieces.
Read "The Weathermakers". You may learn something.
Oh, and I don't doubt Gray's cyclone predictions. But I do doubt his pre-eminence as a global climatologist, given that he and Lindgren are pretty much alone out there opposed to thousands of others.
Well, obviously you are so well read in this area and I am so dead
wrong there is little sense in going on with this discussion. You
obviously know more than a PHD with 53 years experience. I guess
we can look forward to your most astute observations of the
future in short order. In short what I am trying to say is: obviously
you are a know it all! So have a nice life as that preeminent
"in the making scientist".
What he said.
^^What I said. Double it and you take one of the "know it alls".
Ray, as I keep saying to you, he is right where thousands of others just as qualified and experienced are wrong?
It is not about ME knowing more than Professor Gray. As I said before, his history of cyclone prediction is indisputable. Does that mean he's right about global anthropocentic climate change? No it doesn't. He is blatantly ignoring reams of peer-reviewed science by thousands of scientists from the best ins utions and universities in the world. I accept their evidence over his hodge-podge of junk ideas, because that's what they are, junk skepticism, not science.
Notice also that I have actually bothered to read your evidence, while you haven't bothered to educate yourself about mine. Your fake moral highground means nothing to me old man, because you won't even open your mind to the premise that you may be wrong. I am not the close-minded one, you are.
As I also said before, 5 years ago I would not have had this debate with you because there was still a debate going on in the scientific community, and I was also undecided, but the volume of evidence today, in conjunction with the last 30 years of evidence, is quite overwhelming.
Don't trust me - as I have already said to you, go to your local university and discuss it with scien st there. Read some books. Read some journal articles. Then come back and talk to me.
I mean, you don't even respond to me when I preove your ideas (such as the volcano idea) patently false. Why do I bother debating with someone who has no knowledge of science, natural processes, or the evidence? I don't think I will bother any more.
BTW, if you were counting, not one of your arguments stands up to any test. this thread is 10-0 RNROS.
^^What ever. You have proven everything in your mind. Don't
pretend to have proven anything to me. No one has. We are talking
opinions not evidence. Like Dr. Gray says. Proof in the scientific world
is something that can be reproduced to be correct. You should know
that. It is also like he said using a computer to prove something
is BS. Garbage in garbage out. even the computer you are
using now shuts down on you for no known reason from time to
time. So give it a rest, old man. This old man is not trying to
convenience you of anything except that you can be wrong as well
as myself. And in your mind there is a scoreboard. In mine, it
doesn't exist. Oh, and I have read quite a bit on the issue and
I will stay with my opinion until the next ice age, which is just
around the corner. You have all the answers. I have none, to
your satisfaction. After all it is only suppose to be a conversation,
and expressions of our opinion. And I have expressed mine.
As a layman. You as a "hope to be" scientist. By the way. What
is going to be your field of expertise?
In addition to boutons' article, the point the author doesn't make very successfully is that if microscopic s fish cannot form their s s and their population crashes, as is occuring, suddenly the fish that rely on them as a food source starve, and the entire ecosystem collapses. It is these kinds of complex system chain-reactions that we are seeing in ecosystems across the planet as we change its natural systems beyond their resilience boundaries. If we continue to do this, it makes it more difficult to sustain humanity on the planet, because WE ARE INEXORABLY LINKED TO ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS. That is something most people never consider - WE UTTERLY RELY ON THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET FOR OUR OWN EXISTENCE.
Here's the extract of a related article about the relationship between krill (a once abundant food for organisms higher on the food chain, now in decline) and sea ice - the sea ice is disappearing, and so are the krill (and thus fish, penguins, seals, whales, etc are all affected):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
Do you know that 75% of the world's primary production (that is, energy in the form of carbohydrates produced by photosyntheis) occurs in the oceans? Yes, phytoplankton, microscopic sea plants, produce 75% of the primary production of earth, and thus are also responsible for 75% of the CO2 absorption. We MUST look after the oceans! If phytoplankton numbers plummet, the oceanic food chains collapse and the effect of our CO2 pollution expands because the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans declines.
That is called science, ray. Read and learn.
Ray, science is not "a matter of opinion". The very object of science is to produce empirical results that are reproducible and testable, and that is what the peer review process is about. If you find something out, and no-one else can reproduce it, then it is not acceptable science.
As for computer modelling, you make a major mistake (and Prof Gray a major omission) by presuming that all of the evidence for EGW comes from "models". It doesn't. Modelling is used, with varying degrees of accuracy, to predict future results, but the evidence for climate change comes almost entirely from HISTORICAL SOURCES. That is; ice core samples, tree rings, climate records, geological sediments, natural history studies (bird migration, tree flowering, insect population migration, etc), etc. See, I don't believe that you have read much on the subject because if you had you'd know that. Did you also know that modelling is not reliant on "junk in junk out" - if a model cannot accurately predict past behaviour, it is discarded. Sure, there are junk models out there, but once again, most of them are discovered through the peer-review process. Modelling is predictive, not prescriptive, and all models state their assumptions and confidence intervals (know what they are?) so they can be tested by others - that's why there is always a range of predictions related to uncertainty in the model, which is in turn related to the complexity of the system under study.
What you state is all "opinion". What I'm talking about is empirical evidence, which you obviously have not read and will not read.
Do you live in SA? When I come there in Jan-Feb, why don't you and I go down to UT SA and talk to some climate scientists there? I'm up for it (if they have a climatology or ecology dept).
Scientists Say White House Muzzled Them
Nov 01 11:43 PM US/Eastern
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said he was informed that the inspectors general for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun "coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression" of federal research into global warming.
"These investigations are critical because the Republicans in Congress have ignored this serious problem," Lautenberg said.
He said the investigations "will uncover internal do ents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct." He added, "Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so the Bush White House can alter it."
Messages left Wednesday at the offices of the inspectors general, which serve as the agencies' internal watchdogs, were not immediately returned.
Kristen mer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council for Environmental Quality, said Wednesday night that the administration has supported the scientific process in its approach to studying climate change.
"We have in place the most transparent system of science reporting, and claims that the administration interfered with scientists are false," mer said. "Our focus is on taking action and making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The nearly $2 billion worth of climate science we publish annually leads the world and speaks for itself."
Carbon dioxide and other gases primarily from fossil fuel-burning that scientists say trap heat in the atmosphere have warmed the Earth's surface an average 1 degree over the past century. The White House has committed to reducing the "intensity" of U.S. carbon pollution, a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth.
But the total U.S. emissions, now more than 7 billion tons a year, are projected to rise 14 percent from 2002 to 2012.
In February, House Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., and other congressional leaders asked NASA to guarantee scientific openness. They complained that a public affairs officer changed or filtered information on global warming and the Big Bang.
The officer, George Deutsch, a political appointee, had resigned after being accused of trying to limit reporters' access to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and insisting that a Web designer insert the word "theory" with any mention of the Big Bang.
A report last month in the scientific journal Nature claimed administrators at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked the release of a report that linked hurricane strength and frequency to global warming. Hansen had said in February that NOAA has tried to prevent researchers working on global climate change from speaking freely about their work.
NOAA has denied the allegations, saying its work is not politically motivated
Oh yes, peer review. Except most of the peers are
in favor of exempting all governments except those that
have deep pockets. My Friend from down under, ever
heard about DDT? The scientist told us it was
destroying the world. Well it wasn't we now know,
but what it did destroy was mosquito's who carried
a deadly disease that has since killed millions of
PEOPLE because DDT was banned. There is now much
talk about it being brought back.
Please don't worship at the feet of scientist. Many
have been found to fudge somewhat on so called
results of their findings. Like you know the latest
from South Korea. Oh, I know you are studying
and have been thoroughly convinced that they can
do no wrong, except when they don't agree with the
ones that want comply with their idea's to change mankind for their own good.
Money, my friend, directs many to find the "facts"
that they find. As well as their politics. I am well into my twilight years and
have heard all the many stories about the wonderful
discoveries that "scientist" have made. Except, well,
maybe they didn't made those wonderful discoveries,
their ideas needed more research, would you, the
taxpayers, just give us more money. Yes, you are
correct in one thing. I don't read all their junk, and
junk science it is. Why, well they have wanted to
mix politics into the science. Like you, if we used
just 1 percent of the GNP of the world we could cure
everything. BS. 1 percent would is just the starting
point. Like curing poverty. Money has never cured it
and never will. The poor will always be amongst us,
just like dirty air is in some parts of the world. By
the way. You want to know who one of the biggest
polluters in Texas is: Our friends to the South, Mexico.
While you are in Texas make a trip to Big Bend Park,
in West Texas. You cant see the mountains any more.
Compliments from one of the exempt countries, that
we can buy carbon credits from.......
Oh, and another point should be made about those
terrible hydro-carbons. More than likely the clothes
on your back are made from them. The tires (tyres)
on your car is made from them. Your shoes too, more
than likely, contains an abundance of them. The food
you are worried about is fertilized with them.
You see I do read just a little bit. Even the life saving
product ethanol depends on the fertilizer.
And one other point. Much of science is based on
opinion. The one that produces a finding that
supports their opinion. And that my friend, from
a lay person, is my opinion.
Who said scientists can do no wrong? They are just as fallible as any other human beings, but the process of peer review is an excellent way of ensuring quality - people who do what you do from all over the world can check what you do, and if they find something different, report it. It is then a matter of examining the rigours of the studies (how good is the experimental design? are there confounding factors? are the statistics analysed fairly or to produce a biased result? etc), and the financial interest (if any) behind the scientists.
More than that, the process of scientific advance is one of hypotheses, based on the evidence available at the time, which are often incorrect and evolve over time as further evidence comes to light. We get it wrong, we study the subject from more angles, we refine our hypotheses, we get closer to the reality of the process in the natural world. The current climate change hypothesis is based on over 40 years of inquiry to the point where the evidence has become overwhelming. I can see that. Millions across the globe can see that. You choose not to.
I know what hydrocarbons are, what they are in, and what they do. Plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fibres, fertilizers, fuels, etc. They are extremely useful substances. Unfortunately, I also know that our entire economy is based on them, and that they are in fixed supply, a non-renewable resource set to run out this century or next. And far before they run out, due to rising demand and fixed supply, they will become far more expensive than they are today. As a consequence, shouldn't we be developing and switching to alternatives to soften the transition between a hydrocarbon and a renewable economy? Does it not make sense to reduce our reliance on them in order to prolong supply? We have alternatives, so why not start switching away from a hydrocarbon-based economy, both for reasons of pollution and resource depletion?
You mention ethanol - while lower emission than petroleum, I don't consider that it is a "life-saving product" as you say, because, for example, replacing the US's petrol supply with ethanol would take 3x all of the arable land in America (from which you could then not grow food). It is a very small part of the big complex solution to carbon emissions and peakoil.
You mention fertilizer - yes, fertilizer production consumes hydrocarbons, and that is a bad thing. Not only are we one day going to have to farm without fertilizer as hydrocarbons run out (so we should adjust to that, starting now), but the overuse of fertilizers is leading to land and river salinity problems all over the world.
Science IS NOT BASED ON OPINION. In saying that you demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific method. Science is about hypotheses which are supported by reproducible empirical evidence that can be used to explain natural phenomona. The whole point of the scientific method is that opinion is not part of the mix. How the knowledge is used or misused by media/politicians/lobbyists is another matter.
You keep intimating that I've been brainwashed, when in fact I've read books and studies in world-respected journals, and used my own brain to join the dots, as have millions of scientists and other interested persons across the globe. And not one argument you have used in this entire thread in any way shakes the strength of current knowledge on climate change. I have shot down your misnomers one by one, because in studying this subject I have already explored both sides of the argument for each of your contentions.
Oh, and you mention Mexican pollution. The idea of globally capping and trading carbon emissions is that the Mexicans, if they want to keep polluting, WILL HAVE TO BUY THE CARBON CREDITS FROM CLEAN INDUSTRY, PROBABLY IN AMERICA! See, you just don't know what you are talking about. Capping and trading is a way to encourage industry all over the world to clean up their emissions or pay the price. That's why we need a global agreement.
So are you coming to the university with me or not?
Most of us are out of our element here, in that we are novices in the field of climatology. Although I have bought into anthropocentric GW, I won't readily buy into the predictions of large populated land masses being under water in 60 years if we don't drastically and immediately change course.
I'm not aware of there being a consensus on this forecast, or is there?
jo, it goes like this. Land-based ice is what will cause sea level rise, so firstly what we're worried about from that aspect is the Greenland ice sheet, Antartica and glaciers. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, and there are indications that it is melting faster than we've ever seen (last summer 250cubic kms of ice over the average), global sea levels will rise about 7m. Once the ice sheet starts melting, the process is accelerated by the albedo differnece between ice and water, a classic feedback loop - ice has an albedo of 80-90%, while water's is 10-40% depending on the angle of the sun - so as ice melts, the water on its surfaqce has a lower albedo, absorbs more heat, and speeds the melting of the ice. And once the Greenland ice sheet is gone, there's no resurrecting it, at least in time frames that are relevant to humans.
66% of humanity lives within 80kms of the ocean, and a 2m sea level rise would displace hundreds of million of peiople across the world, especially in the Pacific, Holland, Bangladesh, India, China and the US.
The other aspect to sea level rise is thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm. This is a much smaller effect, but could still contibute a 10-40cm rise over this century.
I don't think anyone has said that "large populated land masses" will be under water in 60 yrs, but with heavily concentrated human habitation on the coast, a 2m sea level rise will seriously affect hundreds of millions if not billions of people, not to mention the infrastructure it will destroy and the land it makes useless. It is already displacing people on Pacific Islands. Tuvalu is suing the US over this.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 11-06-2006 at 01:13 AM.
Nope, why would I want to go through that ordeal. But wouldn't mind
sharing a cuppa or a beer if you are so inclined.
I am sure you have
already read the report in the following link. But it will give you something
else to worry about.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061103/D8L59FQ00.html
We are going to run out of seafood in about 50 years. Guess that ties in
with all the other reports I have seen or heard in my lifetime, the world
will be unable to feed everyone. Riots in the streets, on and on and on.
Oh, you never want to forget others who have predicted the end of
the world entirely. And the meteors that are hurling through space
that "may" strike the earth and destroy all of mankind and the animal
kingdom. And the need for more money to study and find these
"rogue" meteors. Always about the money, always. Government money.
You know that stuff you and I send to our respective governments
each year. I do assume you have an income.
One small problem. Everyone is now ing the world is too fat. You
cant have it both ways. I mean after all, all the these "reports" and
"studies" are put out by scientist.
I am still wondering what you field of expertise is? You never answered.
Ecology, Ray. The study of ecosystem relationships. You could say I'm a generalist scientists - I have a basic understanding about many subjects, as you can no doubt tell from my posts. At the core, I am interested in urban sustainability, which means finding a way to balance the use of energy, water and resources by those of us in urban environments with the need to preserve the ecosystems that sustain us (like agricultural land, rivers, forests, fisheries, the atmosphere, etc). Urban sustainability is a subset of human ecology, which is interdisciplinary - we take from all kinds of science, sociology, and economics to try and find long-term solutions to humanity's challenges.
If you're not willing to go and speak to real, qualified scientists, then you are the one with a closed mind.
As for the fisheries, yes, they are fvcked. Do you not know about the complete destruction of the fishery off the NE US? Many an American songwriter has lamented that over the last 2 decades. The same has happened in the North Sea, the South China Sea, the Orange Roughie off NZ... you can't dispute this one Ray. We have been monitoring the size of fisheries all over the world for a century now, and the tonnages for many fisheries have dropped well below replacement level, which means that those populations are in inexorable decline. Highly developed technologies, lack of marine parks (which allow fish to breed and grow), destruction of underwater habitat (drag netting is the slash-and-burn of the oceans), illegal fishing (particularly by Japan, Taiwan, Russia), and ignorance about fish life histories (how long they take to breed, to develop to sexual maturity, etc) has led to the devastation of fish populations across the planet. You're not trying to suggest that this is another grand conspiracy are you?
I've worked 14 different jobs and paid taxes for 15 yrs.
The world isn't too fat, but the developed world, and in particular the US, is. Over 30% obesity, 65% overweight+obesity. Obesity is related to 35 fatal diseases including heart disease, stroke, a variety of cancers, and type II diabetes, a disease that virtually did not exist until the last 50 years. Your taxes are paying for the health care of all these obese people, Ray, and it's a massive bill - you're not concerned about that?
You are a typical close-minded conspiracy theorist, Ray - skeptical of everything, and even when presented with facts and arguments that demonstrate your lack of understanding, you still cling to your conspiracies. I'm not sure we'd gain much by having a beer because we really don't have much to talk about - I know where you stand and vice versa - although I appreciate the offer.
Oh, now who is being closed minded? You might find me entertaining. After
all think of all the conversations you could have talking about the idiot
Texan you met to your other learned friends.
No there is much I don't know. And even you, my friend, with all your
education, have much to learn. Mostly about life in general. And yes,
I do take most things with a grain of salt. Politics, science and life in
general. I learned that through a little thing they call: living. And I
might add all over most of Europe, Canada and the United States. And
the only thing I regret and may make up for yet is not being able to visit
your country. I even thought about trying to make it in the "outback"
back in my younger years, the first time I retired. Yeah, I have retired
twice, well actually three times, but went back to work after the
first and second retirement. Funny thing I noticed about your employment
record, all the many jobs you held. Oh, well, no matter.
I love your term "general scientist" much like a "jack of all trades" and
"master of none".
My Grandfather had a saying which you would do well to heed:
Don't believe anything you read nor half you see. It is good advice.
As evidenced on this board.
Oh, and one other little thing. Found this little article that many
interest you, since so much is known by our scientist, well maybe not
Posted: Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 5:15 AM HST
Scientists find new species at French Frigate Shoals
By Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) _ Researchers on a three-week mission to French Frigate Shoals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands found 100 species never seen in the area before -- including many which are entirely new to science.
Joel Martin is a zoologist in charge of invertebrates for the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
He says those on the trip were amazed by what they were finding.
Researchers returned with at least one-thousand species of invertebrates, including worms, crabs and sea stars. One hundred and 60 unique species of limu were also found.
The findings of the expedition will be used to establish what species live in the area. And further studies will determine how well the area's ecosystem is being managed and what threats it faces.
(Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
Here is the link to story:
http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=9762
Tell you what, just goggle: new species and check out all the stuff
you get. Might really surprise you what science didn't know or
doesn't know. But who am I. Just an old skeptic.......
I guess that's the kind of science against global warming.
In most cases, for a good Cau$e.
In others, such as for Gray, for free,
Ray, what you posted doesn't surprise me at all - we have catalogued less than 10% of the planet's species diversity. But the discussion about global warming is not about what we don't know, it's about what we do. And even a two degree warming is going to wipe out species far too numerous to mention, both species we know about and those we don't. Species adapt to certain niches in the environment - change the temperature, you change the niche - and for a lot of species that means extinction.
You seem to think I am a young fool Ray, but I'm not. I've worked tough jobs like cab driving, and easy jobs like the civil service, I've been to over 30 countries and lived in Japan and the UK. I read voraciously. I have a diverse circle of friends from across the world. I've seen the dark side of life, and the high side. I'm not a fool, nor I am I trying to mislead anyone.
In this thread I have corrected your misnomers, and I've tried to educate you about the science, but it's obvious that your mind is made up and there's nothing that will change it. Fair enough, that is your right, but I think it is a shame.
As for having a drink, maybe, I'm sure you are a nice guy and that I could learn a lot from your experience of the world. However, I am frustrated by the fact that I keep presenting you with evidence that counteracts your opinion and proving your arguments wrong, and yet you still cling to your mistaken beliefs. Once again, your right, but I find it frustrating, and frankly I have enough frustration in my life.
"Much of science is based on opinion."
How you people even waste your posts on this dumb XZ when he's totally ignorant, prejudiced? His isn't worth reading, and certainly not worth replying to.
Self analysis.
And to RnR, well done on the topic. Thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
