quote: As Ice Thaws, Arctic Peoples at Loss for Words
2 hours, 58 minutes ago Science - Reuters
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
REYKJAVIK, Iceland (Reuters) - What are the words used by indigenous peoples in the Arctic for "hornet," "robin," "elk," "barn owl" or "salmon?" If you don't know, you're not alone.
Many indigenous languages have no words for legions of new animals, insects and plants advancing north as global warming thaws the polar ice and lets forests creep over tundra. ... An eight-nation report this month says the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet and that the North Pole could be ice-free in northern hemisphere summer by 2100, threatening indigenous cultures and perhaps wiping out creatures like polar bears.
The report, by 250 scientists and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, puts most of the blame on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from human use of fossil fuels like coal and oil.
The U.S. is the only country among the eight to reject the 127-nation Kyoto protocol meant to cap emissions of greenhouse gases. President Bush (news - web sites) says the U.N. pact would cost too much and unfairly excludes developing states.
excerpts from a reuters story, link This is so sad--these cultures don't even have words for the plants and animals sweeping north in the wake of global warming. No Arctic ice in summer in less than a century!! It's a defensible postion for Bush to claim that the Kyoto Accords limiting CO2 and other emissions is unfair to developed countries, although many 1st world countries have signed it. It's just sick apathy to not negotiate or suggest any alternatives. Bush will go down in history as the most envirnmentally apathetic president in generations if he stays this course, as I assume he will because he hates changing his mind or admiting mistakes. Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Wait I though Clinton neglect to send it to the senate as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
HE, it's only evil when Bush refuses to do that.
It's apparantly OK for a President to sign a treaty while opposing it's ratification. That's not dishonest.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I don't know the details of what Clinton did. He did sign it though right? If he was against it behind the scenes, screw him too.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
This is pathetic.
"Look at this, this is a problem."
"Yeah, but it was also a problem under your guy."
"But boo on you for implying it was only a problem under my guy."
"I don't care about the guy! I care about the problem!"
I'm there with ya, Morbo. Somebody in the US (since that's the country we're talking about, not that they're the only guilty party) has to table something meaningful to cut back on pollution. Not to mention the general reliance on fossil fuels and water squandering.
Sadly, as for a solution, I've got nothing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is pathetic.
"Look at this, this is a problem."
"Yeah, but it was also a problem under your guy."
"But boo on you for implying it was only a problem under my guy."
"I don't care about the guy! I care about the problem!"
I'm there with ya, Morbo. Somebody in the US (since that's the country we're talking about, not that they're the only guilty party) has to table something meaningful to cut back on pollution. Not to mention the general reliance on fossil fuels and water squandering.
Sadly, as for a solution, I've got nothing.
BS - that's not what either one of us is saying, BtL.
The sentence "Bush will go down in history as the most envirnmentally apathetic president in generations if he stays this course" IS a comparison.
In other words, Morbo didn't just say, "Look at this, this is a problem." He said, ""Look at this, this is a problem. And the current President is the worst President ever when dealing with this issue."
A response comparing this President's actions with a past President's action is relevant and fair in that circumstance.
You know what's pathetic? Misstating a discussion in order to call it pathetic.
Dagonee
[ November 22, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Dags, buddy, I've no interest in ever attempting to discuss anything with you that so much as tangentally involves Bush.
Conversation = over.
Think what you will.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sounds like someone needs a hug!
((((Dagonee)))
((((Bob))))
Gah.
[ November 22, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah, tough times.
(((Dag))) (((Bob)))
Stormie, it looked like a squashed mutated Christmas tree. What was it?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dude, I think you may want to rethink letting that post continue to exist. It's not exactly one of your finer moments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe not, but it perfectly reflects my feelings.
If someone calls something pathetic, they should at least have the decency to 1) accurately reflect the content of the discussion to date, and 2) when inaccuracies are pointed out, either dispute the nature of the inaccuracies or admit they were wrong.
If someone doesn't want to discuss something with someone else, it would behoove them not to begin discussing it with the other person in the first place. Not take their ball and go home.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Anyone like a spot of tea?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
::shrug:: It's your choice, obviously. It is a bit easier to maintain the moral high ground, though, when you don't resort to name-calling or profanity.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ther is info on Clinton and his response to the Kyoto Accord:
quote:Nonpartisan GAO Blasts Administration's Kyoto Blueprint Congressional Audit Reveals Fundamental Omissions in Greenhouse Gas Plan
At a hearing last week before the Senate Energy Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress' nonpartisan investigative office, revealed that the White House virtually had no plan behind its proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as it entered into the final negotiations of the international climate change protocol completed last December in Kyoto. Nor has the GAO found any evidence of a solid plan to date -- even as the Administration continues aggressively to move forward in lobbying for support of the Kyoto agreement.
On December 10, 1997, when the Administration announced its support for the Kyoto protocol, President Clinton stated "this agreement is environmentally strong and economically sound." Yet, based on the GAO's findings, it appears the Administration had been operating less on knowledge and more by seat-of-the-pants.
In the course of its investigation requested last November by Senators Craig, Murkowski, Helms, and Hagel (which precipitated the Energy Committee hearing), the GAO indicated it was unable to find:
either an overall implementation plan for the Administration's proposal or how the initial (Stage I) proposal would fit in an overall plan; or
any evidence that such plans were even under development; or
any plan for coordination between the 14 federal agencies currently involved; or
any cost-benefit analysis of the various proposals; or
any targets to be reached; or
any plans for plans.
And for this the Administration has asked $6.3 billion in President Clinton's latest budget. Meanwhile, the Administration has not submitted, and has no intention of submitting, the Kyoto protocol to the Senate this year for ratification, knowing it would fail.
How dare the Clinton Admionistration even think of entering into a $6.3 Billion project without any plan or strategy! What a bunch of morons!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
And all this for something my meteorology teacher said was a naturally occuring phenomenon. My textbook had the cause as a general warming trend of the earth. It should reach its peak and begin cooling again in the next few thousand years.
On a humanitarian note, could we move the polar bears to Antarctica? Would they have enough food to eat there? I like polar bears, but I'd hate to see them eating one of the most adorable of God's creations, the penguin.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Polar bears are also by repute the nastiest most vile-tempered kind of bears in existence. I mean they have to be to survive where they do, but I don't know that a mass transplantation to Antarctica would be feasible. Not to mention that then we'd be messing with another fragile ecosystem.
AJ
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
They're also the cutest and cuddliest bears in existence.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Ah, that would be the friendly and sociable koalas.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(j/k on so many levels, if it wasn't apparent)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think Bush HAS been one of the most apathetic, perhaps even maliciously so, though not on this particular facet. I know there are some arguments for allowing greater logging and the like to occur on federal land, but when the same administration doing this has squelched various reports, on more than one occassion (the global warming one, and the arsenic one), I have to be somewhat skeptical, even if Clinton screwed it up when it was his chance.
-Bok
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Maybe we could get the bears really good AC?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
At the time that Clinton signed the KyotoTreaty, China used about a fifth of the oil&gas as the UnitedStates, and had about five times the population. In other words, the average American used ~25times the amount oil&gas as the average Chinese. The type of treaty that the Republicans claim they would approve of would have frozen that ratio. Since it is rather absurd to expect China, India, and other developing nations to accept such a permanent imbalance -- and knowing that the averageWesternEuropean uses around 40% the energy as an average American to maintain a comparable lifestyle -- a discerning person would suspect that Republicans merely threw up an impassable barrier to approval as camouflage for their anti-environmental agenda. From other laws passed by the RepublicanCongress, one would suspect that Republicans would oppose any treaty which would reduce pollution and lessen the US's habit of wasting fossil fuels.
Given that Senate Republicans rejected the ComprehensiveTestBanTreaty, it would have been an act of total futility for Clinton to have submitted the KyotoTreaty for Senate approval after already being warned it wouldn't fly. Even if one makes the extremely broad leap to the assumption that most SenateDemocrats voted for the resolution urging rejection to strengthen the President's hand in negotiations with other countries, it wouldn't have passed anyway.
Considering how deliberately disinformed and absurdly ignorant most voters are about the economic effects of environmental protection, about the only thing that a vote getting individual Senators on record about the KyotoTreaty would do is provide ammunition -- ie simple-but-false charges about negative effects of approval -- for the next election against the most environmentally-friendly Senators.
Nonetheless, it was politically significant on the international level for Clinton to sign the KyotoTreaty as a commitment that the President would try to influence Americans into reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kinda like Clinton pledging that the President would abide by the conditions of ComprehensiveTestBanTreaty even in the face of disapproval by the Senate. Dubya has stated the opposite in both cases.
[ November 22, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, it does appear Dagonee's characterization of the Clinton administration working against Kyoto behind the scenes may not be accurate.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, I was trying to post ascii art before. I've seen other people do it. Why can't I? Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Sen. John McCain called on President Bush Tuesday to do more to fight global warming. McCain, R-Ariz., pointed to a study on rising Arctic temperatures as further evidence that changes in the earth's climate aren't being addressed seriously enough.
quote: McCain said the study, which was released last week, "clearly demonstrates that climate change is real and has far-reaching implications for society."
Not so, said Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the environment committee, who has described global warming as a hoax. In a statement, Inhofe called the study yet another scare tactic.
"Alarmists continue to pursue doomsday scenarios about global warming, but without releasing the basis for their claims," said Inhofe, R-Okla.
quote: The administration has acknowledged that Bush's climate plan, unveiled in 2002, will not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. Instead, it calls on industry to voluntarily reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released as a percentage of economic growth — 18% by 2012, or about 1.5% a year. That is about the same rate of reduction that has occurred over the past 12 years.
Bush in 2001 abandoned a campaign pledge to restrict carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, then rejected an international climate treaty for mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other gases that many scientists blame for warming the atmosphere.
I think the evidence provided in this article, coupled with fellow-republican McCain's statements shows that Bush indeed could be doing a better job than what he is doing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the whole global warming is a hoax spin is starting to pretty much die down, and now we'll be seeing the can't prove it's manmade portion of the spin start to loom much larger.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, it does appear Dagonee's characterization of the Clinton administration working against Kyoto behind the scenes may not be accurate.
Good thing he didn't make such a characterization, isn't it.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It's apparantly OK for a President to sign a treaty while opposing it's ratification. That's not dishonest.
Then I don't get this comment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What in that comment says anything about "behind the scenes."
He signed a treaty. He knew it wouldn't get ratified. He made no attempt to get it ratified.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It's apparantly OK for a President to sign a treaty while opposing it's ratification. That's not dishonest.
But you first said that he signed it 'while opposing it', not
quote: He signed a treaty. He knew it wouldn't get ratified. He made no attempt to get it ratified.
This implies, to me, that he was, so to speak, working behind the scenes to make sure the senate didn't pass it, even though he signed it.
Even if you want to go with the idea that he 'made no attempt' to get it passed, what makes you say that?
You and HE seem to want to imply that Clinton was no better than Bush in regards to getting Kyoto passed, and I don't see evidence for this, in regards to Kyoto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Opposing" was poor word choice. "Not supporting it" would have been better. He signed the treaty never intending to formally seek it's ratification, knowing he could not obtain ratification if he sought it. He never made any real attempt to get the 40+ members of his party who opposed ratification to support the treaty.
Dagonee
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I will freely admit to being a pretty big skeptic on this subject. I have yet to see evidence that shows a cause-effect relationship for fossil fuels and global warming.
I remember all the fuss over CFCs and ozone holes. I also remember going to Kennedy Space Center and looking at the satelite photos of the ozone layer. It was a cyclical change through the seasons. The pictures were almost identical each month for ten years. There was plenty of hype over the hole, but no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there.
For the other skeptics, here's some websites I googled. NASA refuses to come down either way. They maintain more study is needed first. However, I really liked the science links.
I more clearly understand your position now, Dagonee. Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's what I get for trying to avoid excessive use of negatives. I'm going back to lawyerspeak.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dagonee,
I'd just like to take a second to say that I admire your patience.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks. Apparantly the mods don't. Oh well.
[ November 22, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, what do the mods have to do with it? Were you edited by the mods recently? Perhaps I overspoke myself about Bush. I'm just frustrated that the freaking polar ice caps are melting and the administrtion says "more study is required." Also, this administration has developed a repution for disregarding their own scientists in the EPA, so they have little crediblity with me. To the doubters about global warming and mankinds' contribution to same, I sympathize with your doubts. The whole issue has been politicized, spun and manipulated by the right, the left and the scientists working for both sides. In my opinion, global warming is real. I think an emerging consensus of climatologists feel this way, though there might be no consensus at this time, so maybe that's jumping the gun on my part. Whether human industry is a significent part of GW is a seperate and more contraversial issue. There's little doubt CO2 has gone up since the Industrial Revolution, but how much? How much is directly attributable to humans? How big a factor is it in global temps?
And most importantly, would cutting back CO2 and other greenhouse gases now have a significent impact?
However, cutting emissions would have positive effects for local climates, like cutting smog and acid rain for example, so I think cuts are worth the cost.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Also, isn't about time the right acquired a new whipping boy to replace Clinton? He's been gone for 4 years already, move on. . . Seriously, I had forgotten that back story on Kyoto, thanks for bringing it up. I can't believe the Senate was that unanimous against the treaty, that sucks.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I'm with AvidReader on this one. Global Warming is a pretty touchy subject, but there are reports on both sides of the issue that have merit. At least in my opinion.
I still believe that the planet can handle the CO2 emissions as they are now, but, by the same token, we need to be better stewards of the planet and roll back a bit on our impact.
Most importantly, though, I believe we need to look at the bigger picture of pollutants rather than just the iffy part of global warming. While there is a chance that global warming is a part of nature, dioxins in the water supply aren't, nor are some of the carcinogens released from smokestacks.
Kyoto is a nice effort, but I'm not so sure that they haven't taken their initiatives down to narrow of a path.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My Prius is a really nice car. The engine shuts off when I'm at a stoplight. Sometimes it doesn't come back on when I drive it down the road. I usually get about 43 mpg. Sometimes 47 (sometimes 80, but it catches up with me). I hear the new ones get even better mileage.
My new furnace uses about 40% less oil than my old one.
I helped develop oxyfuel alternatives to air-fired industrial combustion that also reduce fuel requirements and CO2 emissions. Also low NOx coal combustion. But most of them haven't been adopted by industry, even though they work.
Why is it so hard to "come up with a plan" to reduce CO2 emissions?
The easiest would simply be to put SUVs and cars on the same CAFE.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Oh, I'm sorry, this is America we're talking about.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes! CAFE standards have been flat for years thanks to a complacent Congress, presidents and electorate. And dropping the SUV exemptions would be a huge step forward.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
But cars are just one portion of any pollution scale back.
Power plants that are coal or oil fired, now that's an area that really could take some looking at. But then again, nuclear power would just open up a bigger can of worms...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
As I understand it, cars, home heating, and industry each share roughly 30% of the U.S. hydrocarbon consumption.
If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I covered all three. It's just that the CAFE standards could be changed with a stroke of the pen. The other two are a little more complicated.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Has anyone ever done a serious study of how much CO2 is contributed by the respiration of animals?
Just suddenly curious, and don't have a real point.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
The Earth has gone through cycles of hotter periods and colder periods throughout its entire existence. We are currently heading out of a cold period (the height of which we refer to as the last Ice Age). Therefore, by definition, it's going to get warmer. Temperatures will rise. Ice will melt. This has happened before.
I find it pathetic the way people assume that whatever state the world was in when we got here is its one "natural" state, and that any changes that we're around to witness are somehow our fault. Such notions assign more power to us than we actually have, first of all, and also completely ignore the fact that Earth has been in flux for billions of years already. It is always changing in one way or another, and would be warming up right now whether we were here to see it or not.
[ November 23, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering that the opinion of a huge number of scientists is that we are not heading out of an ice age but should in fact be in the middle of an ice age, I think the correctness of your position may not be so obvious as you seem to think.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
NASA has a good review of the science supporting this as a concern at the online earth observatory library:
quote:Rarely in the Earth’s history has the average surface temperature changed as dramatically as the changes that scientists are predicting for the next century. During the last ice age 20,000 years ago, for instance, the Earth was roughly 5°C cooler than it is today. Since then it has warmed up, although not steadily, to present levels. That’s an increase of roughly 1°C every 4,000 years. Current global warming scenarios predict, at the bare minimum, a 1°C increase over the next century.
It isn't just that there is a change but the rate of change which has caused such concern.
[ November 23, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks for the research, Sara.
quote:I find it pathetic the way people assume that whatever state the world was in when we got here is its one "natural" state, and that any changes that we're around to witness are somehow our fault.
Verily, of course the world is in flux. But CO2 levels have risen dramatically in the past few centuries, along with human populations and industry. Many scientists don't think it's a coincidence.
As far as a "natural" state, I'll take one where S. Florida, Bangladesh and the Netherlands stay above the waves any day, however it's acheived.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Many Scientists" also come up with theories about the visual acuity of Tyrannosaurs when we don't even have one complete skeleton in existence.
There is, unfortunately, little distance from "many scientists have proposed" to "many scientists think" to "scientists say."
The fact of the matter is that we don't know and there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate. It's very presumptuous and alarmist to go around saying that every one who doesn't agree with your crowd of researchers is bent on destruction of the planet.
For all the fuss made over inappropriate attempts at religious conversion, you would think people would come to understand that demonizing your opponents is not the way to get anyone new to agree with you.
and can we get of the word "pathetic", please? It's seen more than enough use in this thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The fact of the matter is that we don't know and there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate.
This is very mis-leading. As a scientist involved in environmental research, I do not know of any respected experts in atmospheric sciences who do not agree that global warming is a serious concern.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Rabbit, then why was I just at Ornery reading about the growing ice shelf in the Antarctic? It looks to me like the northern hemisphere is warming a bit while the southern is cooling.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
A brief google shows that John Christy was respected enough to be interviewed by NPR and that a couple of guys from the University of Colorado and Columbia University wrote
quote:From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw. We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought. Modeling historical climate has proven hard enough, but accurate predictions of future climate — decades or more hence — remain out of reach.
a few years ago. Neither of those is exactly a bastion of conservative thinking, so it seems unlikely that these people are corporate shills.
You are asking us to merely take your word, Rabbit, that everyone who disagrees with you is a crackpot, and, though I'm certainly willing to concede that you know more than I about the present subject, I am not ready to do that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, she spoke about atmospheric scientists, not scientists in general. Are these atmospheric scientists?
Second, well-respected enough to be interviewed by NPR is gibberish; well-respected refers to their stature as a scientist, no their skill in public relations (which is pretty much all that's needed to get interviewed by any news organization).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
John Christy is virtually a lone voice in the atmospheric. Although he is a professor of Atmopheric sciences, virtually everything he publishes is highly controversial and almost immediately refuted by a dozen or more respected atmospheric scientist.
If you read John Christy's scientific articles you get a very different picture than if you read his testimonies and address to the media. In the scientific literature, Christy and his collaborators routinely state that they do not dispute the reality of global climate change -- they are simply dispute the magnitude of the change which has already occurred.
You will have to give me more information on the "guys from Colorado and Columbia", but when there are 1000 or more scientific studies that suggest global climate change is a concern for every one that disputes the claim -- I wouldn't call the debate a draw.
As for expansion of the Antartic Ice sheet, all I can say is that this is actually anticipated by many of the models that predict global climate change as a result of human green house gas emissions. It is generally expected that over the next few decades the Antarctic ice sheet will either remain constant or grow because increased snow in the Antarctic will offset melting due to increasing temperatures.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, I suppose you'd prefer I reference the Cato Institute, then?
Rabbit is over here making general claims about the beliefs of an entire field of study and you want to get in my face over an adjective and that I reference NPR?
Whatever.
Rabbit,
names are Pielke and Sarewitz and they are from policy centers, so I don't know if they are actual professors or scientists. Thank you, though, for actually addressing what I wrote.
My point is that we can't all be experts and we can only go by what we see. With a modicum of research, I perceive there to be controversy, and where there is controversy, there is, of necessity, disagreement. Obviously, with enough searching, I can find people with "scientific evidence" that the earth is a few thousand years old, so grains of salt need to be plentiful.
[ November 23, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is a four-year comprehensive scientific assessment that was established and charged at the Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Barrow, Alaska in the fall of 2000.
..an independent group of over 225 international scientists and other experts from over a dozen countries..
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report summarized the evidence that the Earth’s, and more particularly the Arctic’s, climate is changing more rapidly and persistently than at any time since the beginning of civilization. While some climate changes reflect natural variability, careful investigations of the strength and patterns of change indicate human influences are responsible for most of the changes since the mid-20th century. As projected both by this Assessment and the IPCC3, these climatic changes are the largest and are being experienced most intensely in the Arctic region. For example, over the past 50 years, the average temperatures across the Arctic have risen by nearly twice as much as the global average with some parts of the Arctic region experiencing much greater increases. That unusual changes are underway is indicated by increases in surface and oceanic temperatures, an overall increase in precipitation that is more evident in some sub-regions of the Arctic than in others, large reductions in sea ice and glacier volume, increases in river runoff and sea level, the thawing of permafrost, and shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species.
1. Arctic Climate is Warming Rapidly and Much Larger Changes are Projected:
2. Warming Across the Arctic and its Consequences are likely to have Major Implications for the Entire World:
3. Impacts from the Projected Shifts in Arctic Vegetation and Changes in the Biosphere:
4. Animal Species’ Diversity, Ranges, and Distribution are Likely to Change:
5. Thawing Ground Will Disrupt Transportation, Buildings, and other Infrastructure:
6. Indigenous Peoples and other Residents of the Arctic are likely to Face Major Impacts Due To Climate and other Environmental Changes:
7. Climate in the Context of other Changes across the Arctic Region:
This is part of the document that McCain used in his statements.
So whoever posted the article "McCain Refuted" is refuting the work of 300 international scientists on a 4 year project.
I'll stick with believing the study.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-me -- get in your face? I'm just pointing out that being mentioned on NPR or not is essentially irrelevant to his scientific credentials, which you seemed to imply. This is quite relevant. As for the Cato Institute, its been my experience that while their personal thought is often fairly refined, they have an unfortunate tendency to pick and choose support and supporters.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My point, Fugu, is that even news sources like NPR acknowledge that there is a debate over the issue.
And, for a layman, that indicates that there is one. We can't all be subject matter experts all the time.
I chose Cato as the counterexample to say that I could go with a source more biased towards my side.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:even news sources like NPR acknowledge that there is a debate over the issue.
News sources, even NPR, are not peer reviewed science. The people who report are not trained scientists and have little capacity to judge the veracity of any scientific source. If you want to read unbiased science, go to the peer reviewed scientific journals, go to the major scientific societies, go to major scientific conferences and you will not find a heated debate over global warming. Even the scientists touted by the CATO institute and other biased groups, don't debate the validity of global warming within the scientific community.
For example, the American Geophysical Union is the premier international society dealing with Atmospheric and Geological Sciences. It has over 41,000 members (membership is only open to professionals in the earth and space sciences) in 130 countries.
The conclusion of their statement of Human Impacts and Climate Change reads.
quote:The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
For a scientific society, that is a very unequivocal statement and would not be endorsed by the society if there were a series debate over the reality of global climate change.
One thing that bothers me about this whole debate is that it's kind of like Pascal's wager.
We may be talking about ordinary atmospheric variability, in which case, there's nothing to worry about, and if we cut back on CO2 (etc) emmisions, there's still nothing to worry about.
On the other hand, we may be talking about a global climate change caused by the release of millions of years worth of stored carbon which could result in a runaway greenhouse effect that could wipe out life as we know it. And if we cut back on CO2 emissions, we could prevent that from happening.
I know this sounds alarmist, and of course there are many possibilities that fall between the two extremes, but the fact remains: It wouldn't hurt to limit hydrocarbon consumption. So why don't we do it?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
If I understand things correctly, the main argument against limiting hydrocarbon consumption is that doing so would adversely affect the world economy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, I know. But from where I sit, the economy is a human construct, whereas the environment is real.
Also, from a U.S. viewpoint, we are dependant on foreign oil, to the point where we are starting wars. If we use the technology that now exists to reduce that dependance, this should improve our economy. Only the oil companies would suffer. Of course, as far as the oil companies are concerned, they ARE the economy.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
To be fair, although the economy certainly is a human construct, it does have very real effects on people. And it's not just the oil companies, really. There are a lot of associated industries as well that would feel the effects of legislation to reduce hydrocarbon consumption. For example, the automakers industry or the power generation industry. Somewhat tangentially, the food production industry, as most motorized farm equipment runs on gas or diesel. In the long term, I would think that most industries would recover by investing in new technologies, but the initial outlay to develop these new technologies could have a significant effect on the economy in the short term.
Personally, I think we should be working to get away from hydrocarbons as fuel, but these are the arguments.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Has anyone ever done a serious study of how much CO2 is contributed by the respiration of animals?
About 4% of greenhouse gases (in the form of methane and CO2) are caused by cowfarts (Actually outgassing of cattle manure). No kidding.
In answer to your question: yes, the respiration of animals is a significant factor in CO2 balance, and it is an important factor in the models.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Somewhat tangentially, the food production industry, as most motorized farm equipment runs on gas or diesel.
Not tangientially at all. I used to have a chart (dang I wish I hadn't lost it) that gave how much oil (in calories of energy) is used to produce how many calories worth of crops and livestock.
quote:Has anyone ever done a serious study of how much CO2 is contributed by the respiration of animals?
The greenhouse gas problem associated with fossil fuels is not caused becaues fossil fuels are the primary source of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a variety of sources with the respiration of living organisms, and the degradation of dead plants and animals, and volcanoes. CO2 is also taken up by plants as they photosynthesize and the ocean. This process is known as the global carbon cycle.
Normally, this cycle is in balance. The CO2 taken up by photosynthesis and the ocean, very nearly match the CO2 emitted by living organisms and volcanoes. As a result, over hundreds of thousands of years the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have changed very slowly.
Fossil Fuels have been out of the global carbon cycle for millions of years. When we burn them, we are upset the balance in the global carbon cycle. Plants and the oceans are unable to keep up with the increase in CO2 emissions. As a result, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate hundreds of times faster than it has increased in the past 200,000 years (the record available through ice cores). CO2 concentrations are now ~25% higher than they have been at anytime in human history.
There are many pieces of evidence that confirm that this increase is due to the burning of fossil fuels. This data is extremely strong and is not questioned even by dissentors like John Christy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ November 23, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I've worked with a lot of industries, and I have a fair idea of how changes in technology affect the economy of an industry.
When we introduced oxyfuel combustion to the glass industry, they went for it, because they have to rebuild their furnaces about every 8 to 10 years, and rebuilding without regenerators saved them millions of dollars. The capital cost alone was worth going to the new technology, but they also saved fuel cost, and reduced their CO2 and NOx emissions by a large factor. The downside is that the alkali vapor in the furnace atmosphere is higher, so furnace crown life may be somewhat reduced, but I left the industry before any furnaces had failed as a result.
The electrical industry and the sewage treatment industries both have the same problem: for political reasons, they can't get permits to tear down old equipment and build it over with new technology. They want to, but the "Not in My Backyard" attitudes prevent them from getting new permits. The result is that they keep the same old technology and keep on polluting, because the facilities already exist. They actually spend more in repairs, cobbling old furnaces along rather than giving them a total overhaul.
This is one place where I actually agree with Bush's policy (although I disagree in motive) because he wants to clear the way for power plants to re-permit to build bigger plants, and by the way, they could use "clean coal" technology (oxymoron). In reality, they do need to be able to re-permit, but bigger plants only mean we get used to higher energy use. What they do need to do is build more efficient plants, to use less coal per KWatt/hour, and "cleaner coal" technologies (one of which I helped develop).
If it's done right, we should wind up producing substantially less pollution, and probably slightly more electricity, better distributed. That won't hurt industry.
The automotive industry likes selling SUV's, because the markup is higher than it is on cars. But I don't think the breakdown would really hurt them if they had to build more high mileage cars. Or for that matter, hybrid SUV's (I'm waiting to see if the ford escape hybrid is a winner). If they lose markup in one market, they can just raise prices in the rest of the market. People aren't going to stop buying cars.
As far as home heating is concerned, the furnace industry would really benefit if we had a major effort to replace any furnace over 20 years old with current technology. And that would save a huge amount of oil and natural gas. Likewise, the current boom in housing could actually help in that regard. Old houses are notoriously inefficient. My house was built in 1959 and had absolutely no insulation in the walls, and only 2 inches of mineral wool in the ceiling. Probably R-5 or less. Current housing is built with R-33 in the ceiling, and R-19 in the walls, along with modern efficient heating systems. Want to supercharge the housing industry? How about tearing down all the houses built before 1980 and build new efficient houses. We'd save tons of oil, reduce CO2 emmission by more than half, and the construction industry would be ecstatic.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Retrofitting insulation into buildings would be more energy efficient. It takes energy to make new building materials, and energy to build.
Then consider a housing boom, and carpenters/plumbers/etc buying newer&bigger trucks/homes/televisions/stereos/computers/etc with their new found riches. And the energy it takes to build those new products.
The problem is we are evolutionarily born for poverty, and so have a tendency to gather, then hoard everything we can. Darn near everyone I know who's over 30years old has bursting closets, cabinets, and drawers. About half of those with two-car garages can't even park one car in it cuz of accumulated junk. And still we buy, and buy, and buy, and buy...
[ November 23, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-me, perhaps you didn't read the recent article that found a disturbing amount of "show both sides" bias in news reporting? It basically found that news organizations would go out and find people who said some opposing thing, and present it on an approximately equal level, in order to appear unbiased, when in fact the issue was considered closed by 99.999% of experts in the field.
For instance, the famous special presenting the arguments by the skeptics about the moon landings (by Fox, I believe). All their "evidence" was presented, but not the complete refutals of every single bit of it by scientists and others, and the moon landing was framed as being in at least some slight (but not miniscule) possibility, a hoax.
I can still find "scientists" who say speciation hasn't occurred, even though we have witnessed examples of it. I can still find "scientists" who tell me that skimobiles wouldn't have a negative impact on national parks -- despite direct counterevidence in those instances it has been allowed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yay! My most popular thread ever! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:With a modicum of research, I perceive there to be controversy.
That's the whole problem. You've done a modicum of research, I've spent 20 years in this field. I am not just some hack making off hand claims. I am a professor who is involved in studying air pollution. I have been reading the scientific literature on global warming for 20 years. I KNOW the field.
There are literally thousands of scientists around the world, with expertise in atmospheric science, who maintain that global climate change is a serious concern. There are perhaps a dozen who say it is not a concern. That isn't a draw. That isn't even a controversy. That's as close to concensus as the scientific community ever gets. The overwhelming perponderance of evidence is that global climate change is a significant concern.
The media tends to talk to one scientist from each side, creating the impression that there is equal merit on both sides -- there simply isn't.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rabbit:
For the record, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
My experience with people though, tells me that people don't want to hear bad news, especially if they have to give something up as a result of it.
That's what you're really fighting. It drives me nuts when people say we shouldn't reduce greenhouse emissions because it might not really be a problem. They're just rationalizing. And not doing a very rational job of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree that we should reduce greenhouse emissions. However, we need to have an as accurate as possible accounting of the costs. ANd not just economic costs - we will be decreasing one risk at the cost of increasing other risks. This cost accounting will require information from many other fields of expertise than just atmospheric scientists.
We need to an examination of the tradeoffs of alternate energy sources, and this examination must take into account that we will have to accept some bad attributes of some energy sources, whether the problems be nuclear waste, increased particulate emissions from bio-fuels (which do release CO2, but not CO2 that's been fixed for millions of years), possible damage to migratory birds from windmills, possible disruption to wildlife habitats by solar energy farms, or what have you.
I also want to know if we are offsetting an iceage by causing global warming.
The economic costs must be accounted for, because economic disruption WILL cause harms to the environment and to human lives. Psychological and sociological issues have to be examined, such as the village commons phenomenon. My big worry is that knowledge has gotten too specialized for us to be able to take a comprehensive look at the situation.
Dagonee
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think it's really sad that nuclear power in the U.S. was killed by concern for the environment. It seems that this concern did us much more long term harm than good. I would like to see a return to using nuclear power for almost all of our electrical generation. That would go a long way toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions without causing the very bad effects on the economy and ability of our civilation to support the existing human population. (I'm assuming that any scenario in which 9/10ths of the population has to die off is not a viable option?)
Volcanism, too, contributes a huge amount to the total global CO2 equation, as I understand it. And over that we have no control at all, do we?
A third approach that interested me was the possibility of making up for higher CO2 emissions by cutting way down on methane emissions, which is a greenhouse gas of far stronger effect than CO2. Is that true, Rabbit? I have a very imperfect memory of what it was I read about that prospect.
[ November 25, 2004, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
If you'll notice, I haven't been suggesting windmills, etc. Just a shift to more fuel efficient versions of existing technologies. For that matter, just turning down thermostats and air conditioning. (See the New American Holiday thread)
I leave things like windmills out of the equation for exactly the reasons you state, i.e. that we need to be aware of the unintended consequenses, so we should make a study of it before we go full bore into some newfangled thing.
Tatiana,
I agree on nuclear power. Not that nuclear power is innocuous, but we seem hyper sensitive to the dangers of nuclear power, and completely oblivious to the dangers of fossil fuels. With Nukes we are smart enough to keep the genie in the bottle, while we send coal emissions into the air as if it just goes "away." Where is "away"?
I heard once that there has been a greater increase in background radiation due to the release of carbon 14 from coal combustion than all the radioactive release from Nuke plants. That statistic may have been from before Chernobyl, but the point remains: even coal is radioactive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Glenn, I know you didn't. And it's clear from your posts you carefully consider things.
I like the steps you suggested, but they at best only help global warming. We'll have to confront many of the same issues to handle the oil peak. The problem is none of the complexities get reflected in politics at the national level, by either side.
I consider energy a national security issue, and if we dealt with it that way I suspect we'd achieve massive greenhouse gas reductions.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Arctic People Seek Tropical Team on Global Warming Thu Nov 25, 8:55 AM ET Science - Reuters By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent REYKJAVIK (Reuters) - Arctic peoples aim to team up with tropical islanders in a campaign against global warming, arguing that polar bears and palm-fringed beaches stand to suffer most. The proposed alliance between some of the hottest and coldest parts of the globe would lobby industrial nations like the United States, which had refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on global warming, to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
A weird new twist, although I guess there is a certain logic to it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
What's weird is that it seems Bush does see it as a national security issue (except that he denies that was why he invaded Iraq), except that he seems to view it exactly the opposite of the way you and I see it.
Bush and Cheney have both used the quote "you can't conserve your way to energy independance" as an argument in favor of drilling in the arctic wilderness. I mean, this statement is absolutely false, by definition of the word "conserve."
I can see why someone would want to explore for oil there, but their justification is bogus. And from a national security standpoint it's in our best interest to consume all of the oil in the mideast before we exploit our own resources. Waiting to explore for oil helps guarantee that we'll have it later when we really need it, and may also help flatten the peak of "peak oil."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Polar bears are also by repute the nastiest most vile-tempered kind of bears in existence.
They aren't bears. They're related to minks.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Polar bears are also by repute the nastiest most vile-tempered kind of bears in existence.
They aren't bears. They're related to minks.
If that's the case, why are mink of the genus Mustela, while polar bears (like black bears, grizzly bears, and brown bears) are of the genus Ursus?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Whatever it takes to get me beachfront property.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I want my planet back.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: My point, Fugu, is that even news sources like NPR acknowledge that there is a debate over the issue.
I'd like to point out that many news sources have 'acknowledged that tehre is a debate' about creationism and evolution. Which, basically, just ain't true - there's some crackpots in the US shouting very loudly, and then there's the rest of the world.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Look on the bright side everyone. It's not long before we run out of fossil fuels anyways. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
As a show of their commitment to preventing global warming Shell have moved their headquarters to The Hague (on the coast, below sea level), the Netherlands.
It wasn't really a commitment to preventing global warming but the black comedy amuses me and I wanted to share it.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Raise your hand if you drive a hybrid car! No? Raise your hand if you don't even own a car and use foot power and mass transit! No? Raise your hand if you've contributed to an environmental organization that works to address environmental issues! No? Raise your hand if you purchase wind energy for your home! No? Raise your hand if you considered how your job impacted the environment before accepting it! No? Raise your hand if you buy food that was grown locally and sustainably! No?
Look, the people at the top, regardless of party affiliation and degree of disregard for the environment are not the most responsible parties. We are. Change at the national level will not occur until it is politically viable, and it will not be politcially viable until most of us think it's a good idea and is pertinent to our everyday lives. Which, given the number of elderly people and children dying every day from respiratory ailments, it is. So go turn down your thermostat and call your congressperson and plant a tree next spring.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
From what I have read, two major themes seem to keep coming up concerning the Kyoto Protocol.
1) Those that have signed it are not abiding by it. (Maybe we should just go along with western Europe and sign it and then not follow it to appease the Eskimo & Pygmy protestors. --said tongue in cheek)
2) Its effectiveness is questionable and the cost/benefit ratio is absurd.
Perhaps the most visual indicator of the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol is shown on the following site, <a href="http://www.junkscience.com">Junk Science</a>
Dag just now, and OSC in his essay on the subject raised some questions that many would be interested in hearing the answers to.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I love it when discussions get bogged up by people who'd rather rattle around with the terms being used in the discussion. Looove it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
I want my planet back.
You and I live in the country with the largest per capita environmental footprint in the world. If we want to do something about this, we're the ones who have to start making sacrifices.
Added: I should make clear that Teshi and I are both Canadian, since I don't expect that's common knowledge.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Unfortunately, in regards to #1, we're kinda out of luck. My understanding is that according to our constitution, treaties have the force of law in the United States. We don't have the choice to follow it or not if we sign it. Now one might think, what if we sign it, don't follow it, and nobody tries to enforce it...Can anyone see today's environmentalists passively ignoring the Bush Administration being in major noncomplience with their precious *gollum* Kyoto Treaty?
I have two issues with the Kyoto treaty, specifically it's major advocates.
1. The most ardent advocates of the Kyoto treaty are on the far Left, specifically the Green Party and the Moveon.org fringe of the Democrat party. Okay, that doesn't kill it totally for me, even a stopped clock is right two times a day, and I once saw a Lyndon LaRouche statement that made sense and was probably right. But, the means and goals by which these people purport to save the environment range from very socialist to outright communism. (After all, we all know that the USSR was the greatest example of conscientous environmentalism in the modern world, followed closely by the PRC.) Here's my point - it seems to me that these people's real goal is the advancement of socialistic principles and that they are riding the environmentalist issue in order to achieve it. Their unwillingness to consider other alternatives that might be more workable and capitalistic clinches it for me. I am not saying that they don't truly care about the environment, but what I am saying is that I believe their merger of goals causes them to be blind to other alternatives and unwilling to question the validity of their evidence.
2. My second problem is with the computer models that they cite. My undergrad degree is in computer science, and one thing that I learned is that a model is only as good as the math underlying it. If the equations that they enter are flawed (and they might be, they are based upon theory - to my knowledge there aren't mathematical laws in environmental science that are as sure and proven as D=RT, for example) then the data that is returned is flawed. Second, the information that they enter into their model might also be flawed as well. Garbage in, garbage out. Now, I'm not saying that I know this for sure. After all, some of the most powerful computers in existance run these models, and many of these scientists are brilliant minds. But it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is if your equations are faulty, and it doesn't matter how smart your scientist is if they allow their ideology to affect their integrity, however slightly.
So, for me, I am suspicious because of the overt and extremist politicization of the issue, the unwillingness to consider a wide spectrum of resolutions, and the unwillingness to consider other explanations for the data. I'm not saying that they might not be right anyway, but what I am saying is that they have not proven either the truth of the problem nor the superiority of their professed solutions to the alleged problem.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Tern, superiority over what? What kind of solutions are being rejected in favor of the ones that you find politically suspect?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I can't name all of them, because I don't know them...but I think that working with businesses instead of against them would be a good start. I think that if they injected a little realism into it, they might find some better solutions. I think also that if they worked to find solutions that people would naturally want, they would be more successful. I'm not talking about "raising awareness" - to me, that's virtually meaningless and useless - but instead of trying to think that they can change society's attitudes, find solutions which work with people's current attitudes. For example, they push mass transit, but they ignore the fact that many mass transit systems are not fully utilized and that many people find them inherently unworkable for many reasons. I rode the bus for many years, so I know of what I speak here. Another example are hybrid cars. I watched "The Day After Tommorrow" on it's premiere - won't get into it's fallacies - but what I remember is that the whole theatre broke into laughter when Dennis Quaid drove up in his goofy hybrid car. Most people wouldn't want to drive such a car. Instead of harping on how SUV's are evil (and alienating most SUV owners by default - they aren't all evil Republicans), present a superior product. Some car companies are coming out with hybrid SUVs - I think Lexus has a nice one. Now, that's a solution which might work.
Use market forces. Use capitalism. Use tax incentives. And yes, I know that some of these things are happening, at least to some extent. However, the people who are putting these into production aren't the people who are fiercest about global warming. Take a look at the Green party, Let's All Be Poor And Miserable Together. Do they seem to be people who would embrace using capitalism to save the environment? But aren't they the Green Party? Well, even some of them have taken to referring to themselves as the Watermelon Party, Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
What I find politically suspect are the solutions which amount to saying that socialism is the best or only way to fix the environment.
And hey, perhaps it is. I rather doubt it, but I suppose it's possible. My point isn't that I think they are wrong, it's that they haven't convinced me. And I just can't shake the feeling that their goal of socialism is stronger than their goal of preserving the environment.
edited because my punctuation was TOO Mier-like.
[ October 31, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: tern ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you're suspicious of environmental claims because you believe most environmentalists are socialists, and you dislike socialism?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Part of it. I don't dislike socialism so much as I find it unworkable in RL. However, if it was the Far Right, you know, the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh people pushing their solution in the same way, I would be as skeptical of them as I am of the Left.
To clarify, it's not just that I disagree with their political philosophy, as it is that I believe that their political philosophy influences their view on global warming and their solutions to global warming potentially to the detriment of the actual issue. Even more, I believe that their ideological biases are so strong as to affect their reliability.
The other part of it is that I remain unconvinced of the accuracy of their computer models. You're very computer knowledgable, Tom. What do you think the probability is that enough equations are incorrect enough in a simuation of the environment, which is very complex, as to render the computer models questionable. I'm not saying that they are definitely wrong, but I am saying that there is room for doubt.
I'm getting more skeptical as I get older. When I hear studies and surveys and scientific papers, I ask, what is their proof? How solid is this? What are the potential fallacies? Is it possible that they are relying on the probability that I don't understand their science to push conclusions that the evidence doesn't support? Does the individual(s) presenting this have a bias of any type which could concievably affect their results? Lastly, do their conclusions, their applicability to the real world, and their proposed solutions jive with my understanding of the world?
I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong. That's why I'm not dismissing all of this out of hand. However, I remain unconvinced.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The argument "there have been cooling and warming trends in the past, we're going through one again" totally ignores the impact of humanity on the world.
Those warming and coolings trends don't include the vast deforestation of carbon sinks, which greatly effect change in the climate and environment. They don't include a rapid increase in greenhouse gases over a period of less than 200 years, especially combined with a decrease in carbon sinks. Those to me are extremely important factors when talking about climate change, especially if you go with the "naturalist" view of things.
As for the hole in the ozone layer, the creep of the hole over the south pole is reaching into populated parts of South America, causing a very high way above average number of skin cancer cases in people there. I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that unfiltered ultraviolet radiation was in fact a bad thing.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. Fun book, finished it last night. It treats the topic.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:You and I live in the country with the largest per capita environmental footprint in the world. If we want to do something about this, we're the ones who have to start making sacrifices.
I don't have many sacrifices to make living in residence. We already recycle and of course I don't drive a car.
Concerning energy usage in Canada, the problem is that it's freezing cold in the winter and sweltering hot in the summer. People tend to overcompensate in both seasons.
Trees-wise, it would be awfully nice if companies didn't clear-cut.
quote:so much as I find it unworkable in RL
There are problems and contradictions in all political systems, including the liberal ideals American's presently live under.
I hate to make science fiction references in a serious thread, but you know all those times when Earth is going to be invaded by huge ships and get blown to smithereens and everyone says it's not going to happen? The argument is always made that if it does happen everyone's going to look mighty stupid. If it doesn't that's great!
What's so wrong about putting a major effort into something that will make our planet a better place to live? We can't seriously stop asteroids or hurricanes or the aliens ships of my example but we can do a whole lot about cutting down our driving, energy usage and clear cutting. I don't understand why people put up such a resistance to believing in environmental issues.
If your kid gets sick and won't get better, are you just going to assume that they're naturally just going through a bad season or are you going to start looking into what may be wrong and trying to fix it? There is no question here, why should there be one about the only place in the universe that we as a race can live. Seems pretty gorram important to me.
I don't care whether you believe in environmental doomsdays or not, but it's pretty clear that there are some yucky things going on with our planet that you can't ignore as harmless. It's worth cleaning up those things even if our planet can handle our excesses.
If you don't do anything and in a hundred or two hudred years Earth is dangerous to live on you're going to sound pretty stupid.
If we do act and the planet becomes an altogether more pleasant place to live in two hundred years what's wrong with that?
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
Why is it that every thread has to turn into a “Bush is great” / “Bush is evil” / “Clinton was worse”.
It wasn’t until page 2 that any debate about global warming seemed to happen.
Many people in the rest of the world do not care if Bush, Clinton or the tooth fairy is to blame for the lack of action from America.
I know global warming has not been proven beyond all doubt (and by the time it is it will be too late for large parts of the world) but the evidence is compelling enough that we ought to try to do something. Even if you do not believe in global warming fossil fuels are a finite resource and reductions now are needed to conserve the supplies for the future.
For those who say that we are heading out of a cold period that is not true. The last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago and the climate since then has been remarkable stable compared to the few hundred thousand years before that.
The cost of cutting carbon dioxide is relatively low (except for oil companies) and as a domestic consumer will save you money. If it turns out that scientists were wrong about global warming the biggest effect will be the fossil fuels will last longer. If we do not act and global warming is correct the consequences will be much more severe.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
However if you wanted to argue about the ill temperedness of the broun bear subspecies known as the Kodiak Bear you might have had a leg to stand on. http://www.extremescience.com/PolarBear.htm
quote:If the equations that they enter are flawed ... then the data that is returned is flawed. Second, the information that they enter into their model might also be flawed as well.
When we talk about computer modeling we're probably usually talking about efforts to model climates -- much different from routine computer usage to amass and analyze meteorological statistics.
And you can bet that nobody is more skeptical of such computer modeling than the scientists doing it. Of course they are aware of GIGO principles.
This is not a reason to stop doing the work. When new data emerges (from, say, ice core sampling in Antarctica) it can be entered into the model. If someone has the idea to tweak the equations, the results are analyzed, and if predictions match reality (in some part of the system), that equation may have merit.
But it's a hugely complex problem, with tons of variables; a key part of the problem is that we're trying to describe a phenomenon which occupies a Very Large Space (a planet) and a Very Large Duration (all of geologic time since the earth formed) based on 25 years of sophisticated data-gathering -- a razor-sliver of time -- and vastly complicated by the fact that almost all human-observable climate phenomena are masked by macro- and micro- geological and weather patterns.
It's a bit like taking a 1/30-second snapshot of a clothes washing machine during its agitation cycle, and a teaspoon sample of its soiled water at that instant, and then asking, 'will a washing system have been developed in a century that is capable of removing pixie dust from a framboozle?'
A priori, one can hardly guess what to measure, let alone what the measurements might mean with regard to the question being asked; and it's even harder to guess what possible experimental results would indicate that your preliminary answers are more or less correct, short of waiting a century.
I think your worry, to the extent it is justified, should be with those who carelessly quote such models; but that is a general problem where science becomes politicized that has alread been well noted in this thread.
My personal worry is that there is beginning to be sufficient evidence that, like most chaotic systems, planetary climate systems self-govern within a band of equilibrium. Here an Ice Age, there an Ice Age. Is the impact of human activity sufficient to knock the system abruptly (at a 'tipping point') from one level of equilibrium to another? By 'abruptly,' I mean rapidly enough to be observed as rapid, traumatic change within a human generation or two -- more rapidly than political systems, economies, and large populations can adjust safely.
The last time that happened, only a guy named Noah and his hand-picked buddies survived And the time before that, all the dinosaurs kicked.
If I were in the shoes of the chief executive of the most powerful, profligate nation on earth (i.e., the one with the most to lose) -- and you may thank God I am not -- I would make it a matter of public policy to take careful account of scientific progress on such questions, and encourage clear, open debate on possible socioeconomic responses to conclusions as they emerge.
In a way, it's encouraging: The simple fact that our scientists are even able to begin to ask and answer such questions, however haltingly, is a powerful indication of mankind's implicit stewardship of the planet. That perhaps, just perhaps, the climatological impact of homo sapiens' explosive success as a species will become clear just as we have the tools to both detect, and manage it.
It does concern me that the current administration seems to have zero interest in even affording us that chance.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - can I jump in here with a question? And I don't really mean for this to be snarky, so please don't take it as such. I'm trying to understand other points of view.
Many people who hold what I consider to be the more extreme environmentalist views (I do care about the environment myself, but I'm not an activist about it -- I just take care of my own little space) -- many of them are also people I know who happen to be atheists.
So, as atheists, they pretty much hold fast to the theory of evolution as how things began, and how things keep going.
So, if you are an evolutionist -- then isn't all of this (global warming, extinction of species, human affects on the globe) just part of the "natural" evolutionary process? Part of the 'survival of the fittest mentality'?? In your philosophy of science, isn't it the way things are supposed to go? Because mankind is on equal footing as an animal with other animals, all going through evolutionary advancement.
So I guess I'm getting a conflicting message from those who want to "change the world" (by preventing global warming or extinction of any species, etc.) yet also believe that evolution is a 'natural change' and don't see this as part of it.
FG
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Farmgirl, I think the underlying fear is that we will alter the ecosystem so far that in the future it will become uninhabitable for even humans.
Or they don't view humans as evolutionarily any more important than any other species. In other words even though it might be natural selection we really shouldn't have the right to determine the fate of other species. With the dinosaurs it was an asteroid that did the damage, not the dinosaurs themselves.
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So it is okay for evolutionists to decide to change the evolutionary process? I guess that's the base of what I'm asking.
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Farmgirl: there's no moral imperative to evolution. People don't think that whatever happens in evolution is the right thing to happen. Its just a description of a complex process that does happen.
Also, you're confusing things a little bit. Global warming is a part of the environment. The earth is not alive. The temperature of the earth is an externality evolutionary processes interact with, not a part of the process.
Furthermore, humans are internal to evolutionary processes -- we evolve, and our interactions with other things influence their evolution. No matter what our influences are, they're still internal. So if we cause the demise of large numbers of species, that's natural. And if we save large numbers of species (and a good number of our own species) by maintaining an average global temperature through mitigating our disruptive influence, that's natural, too.
Personally, I'd prefer the latter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It may be important to note that there is no claim that what is "natural" or according to evolution is necessarily right. Evolution is a description of what happens, not a moral or utilitarian gauge. There is no "the way things are supposed to go" tied in with any of this.
And, err, if humans creating pollution is considered natural, humans acting to prevent pollution or counter-act global warming is just as natural.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No it's more a view that the current human accelerated evolutionary process is "unnatural" for lack of a better word. No other species has messed with the normally slow-changing carbon cycle like we have using fossil fuels.
I've had this conversation with people like you describe. I tend see it more like you do Farmgirl. It is a long term possibility however that we will make our own world uninhabitable for us, before we figure out fast spaceflight and ecosystem terraforming.
AJ
There are environmentalists out there that *don't* believe we have the moral right to mess with other species through our own natural processes even if they do believe in evolution. I think it sounds nice in sentiment, but no matter how emotionally passionate you are, it's hard to generate a truly consistent logical position. I also have to wonder why they value their own life to be so worthless when it's what they've got.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FG, I think you might be a bit confused about what you're talking about. There is no united evolutionary process. There's no plan for how things are supposd to go that is not to be altered. Nearly anything that people do affects evolution. Whether we save species or kill them off, pour CO2 into the atmosphere or build up forests that reclaim it, choose paper or plastic when we're shopping; these things all get taken into evolution. There is no "outside" of evolution. It never stops, unless the earth and everything on it stops changing.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - thanks. You all answered that in a very clear way, and that helps me better understand how you view it.
FG
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squick you are saying better than I am... there is a distinction between the moral aspect and the physical phenomena.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, Probably being a theorist and researcher (especially in a field with as big a scientificly gray area as psychology) makes the specifics of scientific epistemology loom larger than for an engineer. Just don't ask me to build anything.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This, to me, is one of the prime reasons why we need government by technocrats instead of politicians. In crucial areas like Energy policy, it just doesn't make sense to have pols make decisions. They can't possibly have the expertise to make valid decisions, and yet they do so all the time. Based on a philosophy of governance rather than on data.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:So, if you are an evolutionist -- then isn't all of this (global warming, extinction of species, human affects on the globe) just part of the "natural" evolutionary process?
Just like making a mess in the kitchen, we, as the most sentient species of the planet, have a duty to clean up after ourselves, especially since we're causing such a huge artificial impact on the planet. Being aware of our impact only makes us more responsible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here, but Farmgirl's question raised a interesting point. Conservative people tend, overall, to be more religious - and the religion is more likely to be Christianity, I think - than liberals. Christianity has a description of how things are, and it also makes the assertion that the state of things is overall good.
Now, I don't want to make too much of evolution as a philosophy, because it isn't; it's just a description of what happens in nature. But ti does tend to be moderately strongly correlated with atheism, and atheism is a philosophy; likewise, scientists - particularly in the physical sciences, I think - tend to be more atheist than the general population.
As was pointed out, evolution is not a moral description of how the universe ought to be; indeed, for people who have thought a bit about it, it might even make the opposite assertion : This is how things are, and it's really rather a pity. I wonder, then, if this could be the underlying reason for the correlation I started my post with, that conservatives tend to be traditionally religious? If you view the state of the universe as generally a good thing, that might lead to resistance to changing the political status quo; conversely, if you see the natural state as bad, then meddling might come easier.
I don't know if I'm making myself clear here, because my brain is mush after coding for ten hours. But there's something else I'd like to know; is it usual for creationists (I seem to recall that comrade Farmgirl is one?) to think atheists believe evolution is a good thing? Because it isn't, really. It just happens; it's no more good or evil than a forest fire. Might it be useful, in the creation-evolution 'debate', to get this point across? I really thought that Farmgirl, who has been here for a good long while, would be aware of such a basic point.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:conversely, if you see the natural state as bad, then meddling might come easier.
This doesn't sit so well with original liberalism vs. conservatism ideas.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, no, but then I'm talking about the current incarnations. But perhaps it would work better if I opposed anything-but-conservatism to conservatism; libertarians, for example, who are anything but liberal in the modern American sense of the word, tend towards atheism also, at least that's my impression. (Friend starLisa being an obvious exception.)
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
KoM:
I would hesitate to equate atheism to 'state of things is bad.' More like: neutral. It is what it is, to be described, understood, managed, survived, improved, whatever, according to (natural) laws that can be discerned over time (rather than received from Scripture, say).
The distinction might be: has meaning, vs. has no meaning. From this perspective (to pursue the type of reasoning you dallied with here), it could be that religious conservatives are less willing to 'meddle,' on the reasoning that things are the way they are by the will of divinity; while scientific/atheists feel no such compunction.
Of course, this has also led to accusations of scientists 'playing God.' Which can be a bad thing (nuclear weapons) or a good thing (saving lives with modern medicine).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was referring to evolution more than atheism, actually. It basically states that all progress except the technological depends on pain, suffering, and death; that for a species to survive, a large number of its children must die; and - worse - that there is rarely any real progress even after all that dying.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I disagree with your description of evolution as something that relies on suffering and pain.
Evolution is one of those things that's always going on in the background very slowly, like you running some sort of ongoing program in the background of your computer that's very slowly modifying your computer in an attempt to make it better. However, despite this program being fundamental, I consider the foreground to be infinately more important. By the foreground I mean everything else that's happening- human life, animal life, climate change, etc.
Now, I may switch on my computer one day and find that my icons on my desktop are starting to fade. It's been happening so slowly that I can only see a difference because I remember what it was like three years ago. The background loss of the icons is perhaps sad when I think about it in that way but when I remember how many desktop icons I have deleted in the foreground in the same time period the fading icons the fact that the icons are fading completely seems somewhat insignificant.
Yes, there is a certain element of loss in evolution. However, compared to the loss that we as humans (and animals) experience and perhaps cause on a daily basis, it's almost unnoticable.
Also, people are going to die in the same ways from illness and genetic problems if evolution happens or not. If you look at it that way evolution has a slight positive effect.
I don't consider Evolution a bad or a good thing. It's just a thing that happens in the background. It created me and my people as I am today, and so that's good. If it creates a better or different me and my people for someone a million years in the future, that's good too.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: But there's something else I'd like to know; is it usual for creationists (I seem to recall that comrade Farmgirl is one?) to think atheists believe evolution is a good thing?
To be quite honest, I don't know that I ever really thought much about that question specifically until this thread. I didn't have a feeling regarding whether evolutionists thought of evolution as good or bad.
I guess what I'm realizing is that creationists, or God-believers, see both the past history of Earth, and the future of earth in terms related to God.
An evolutionist/atheist, then, sees evolutionary simply as historical fact "this is what happened" -- but not at all in terms of future "this is what is GOING to happen" -- and so since there is no set way future is supposed to happen in that viewpoint, it can be manipulated and go in any direction...
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, the forces involved are often not terribly manipulable, but yes, everything is intertwined, so anything humans (or other species) do affects the evolution of all the rest, to varying degrees. The impact of the actions of Darwin's finches on our evolution might be viewed as small (for instance) -- except one has to wonder what modern biology would be like without one of its most basic and important principles, evolutionary theory, which Darwin might not have formulated the rough basis of without seeing those finches.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Teshi : If the most unfit animals do not die before breeding, there is no evolution. Usually that means death by disease or predator. Neither is very pleasant.
Now, as I write, it occurs to me that the animals that do get to breed die too, usually by disease or predator. The only real difference is whether they had children first. So actually, you may have a point.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:it can be manipulated and go in any direction...
Sure, and if that direction happens to include keeping the existence of the human race viable on this planet, well, that's definitely a perk.
(For the humans, anyway.)
I suspect that lots of the environmentalist atheists you were talking about initially would also be in favour of nuclear disarmament, presumably for similar reasons. But are you saying that creationists think they don't need to worry about the future since god "has it all figured out?"
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's what I mean. It's not like only weak animals die. Everyone dies and the pain and suffering you describe is totally inevitable and so not connected to evolution any more than if there was no evolution.
The only question is whether we die before passing our genes on or not as you said.
Pain, suffering and death isn't anything to do with evolution, it's only to do with animal life. Evolution is merely a by-product of the higher likelyhood that unfit animals will die before they breed.
In fact, looking at it that way, evolution doesn't really exist as a seperate thing at all, only as something that happens because of some other factor. Evolution's not a concept in of itself- there is no guiding principal. Almost by definition, Evolution is the absence of a guiding principal.
As a result, I suppose, this is the way that Evolution is fundamentally opposed to Creationism, all monkeys aside. Creationism relies on the very guiding principal that Evolution relies on there not existing.
EDIT!: I no longer believe the following assumptions...
To take it one step further, as soon as God is said to have intervened with the healing of a sick man or woman, Evolution loses a large tenet of its being. It still exists, unless God personally intervenes with everyone, but is substantially weakened. You start to get a sliding scale
Fundamental Creationism (total intervention: God controls everything)---> Creationism (large scale intervention: some random elements) ---> Mixture of the two (short term evolution, long term Creationism) ---> Evolution (God exists but does not get involved) ---> Atheistic Evolution (no intervention, no God)
But, Fundamental Creationism and Atheistic Evolution are the same thing. If God is totally involved is is playing the part that chaosy-type survival would in Atheistic Evolution. Since there is no random element, the non-randomness becomes the random element. The two, without proof of God, appear to be indistiguisable kind of like the way fascism and communism look the same when very extreme.
In this case, it is Creationism, not Fundamental Creationism, that is the most opposed to Atheistic Evolution, although we would naturally assume the latter. I think there are very, very few people who believe absolutely everything is controlled by God. That's a very hard thing to believe.
Um... that's all I've got for now.
[ November 01, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay, I've got some more.
quote:But are you saying that creationists think they don't need to worry about the future since god "has it all figured out?"
This, in its most pure form is what I just called Fundamental Creationism. I don't think many people believe that or they would do nothing. It wouldn't matter what you do because everything already exists.
This is why Creationism is more difficult to reconcile with Evolution. There is the element of picking and choosing what God controls. God can control the climate, or it can be our responsibility, for example. God healed him but not her. God allows nuclear weapons or he's just hanging his head in dispair and hoping we won't explode each other. There's no way of knowing where the line is.
I'm starting to ramble. It's twelve o'clock and I have a class in an hour. I should get up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Fundamental Creationism and Atheistic Evolution are the same thing.
I wouldn't go quite that far.
quote:I don't think many people believe that or they would do nothing. It wouldn't matter what you do because everything already exists.
The vast majority of people on our continent are indeed doing nothing.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: But are you saying that creationists think they don't need to worry about the future since god "has it all figured out?"
No, that's not exactly what I'm saying..
*thinks of how to word how I think*
I do believe that in the end God will not allow the entire Earth to be destroyed..
(crap -- the network to branches just died here at work -- I will have to come back into this thread and re-visit this issue later. Chaos rules at the moment)
FG
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Fundamental Creationism and Atheistic Evolution are the same thing.
I know it sounds wacky. The reason it sounds wacky is because the difference means a lot to a large number of people. But think about it, on the surface, if God was controlling everything, it wouldn't look any different without proof of God's existance of which we so far have nothing concrete.
So really, the human effect would be exactly the same.
quote:I don't think many people believe that or they would do nothing. It wouldn't matter what you do because everything already exists.
By nothing I meant zip. It's the other levels who do very little.
Anyway, I was kind of rambling really, so take what I said with a grain of salt.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
As fate would have it, today in my History of Europe in the 19th Century class the topic was Evolution. I have revised some of what I have previously said. (I edited the post above to show where my mind has changed due to more thinking):
I said:
quote:Pain, suffering and death isn't anything to do with evolution, it's only to do with animal life. Evolution is merely a by-product of the higher likelyhood that unfit animals will die before they breed.
My professor used the phrase "death is a creative force" (I'm not sure if that's Darwin's or not). I like the phrase. I now think the death of certain individuals in a species shouldn't be described as a positive force; there is no pursuit of a perfect ideal human, only adaptation. Instead Evolution is the creative by-product of death, adapting species to their environment and working for neither good nor evil (although I know creative has a positive association try to think of it as merely a neutral one.
I also said:
quote:As a result, I suppose, this is the way that Evolution is fundamentally opposed to Creationism, all monkeys aside. Creationism relies on the very guiding principal that Evolution relies on there not existing.
I still believe that that biggest problem that faces theists trying to reconcile their beliefs with Evolution is the problem of God's involvement in the process. Exactly where does he come in?
However, I definately want to stress a reversal on something else I said:
quote:To take it one step further, as soon as God is said to have intervened with the healing of a sick man or woman, Evolution loses a large tenet of its being.
I NO LONGER BELIEVE THIS and my following statements in the original post and want to clarify certain things. I do not think that an atheist holding Evolutionary Beliefs has somehow stronger or better beliefs than a theist who holds the same beliefs. There should be no distinction. Evolutionary beliefs can be held by theists with just the same strength of conviction of atheists.
Everything else you should consider thoughts that, although interesting, I do not consider very valid.
I'm going to post this and then come back and re-answer Farmgirl's original question. I have to go do some shopping .
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So really, the human effect would be exactly the same.
In the atheistic worldview we humans can effect change. In the fundamentalist worldview you describe, we can't. I think this difference means that atheists and those sorts of fundamentalists act in starkly different ways.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay -- I don't have time to post my complete thoughts on this here today. However, I didn't want to leave my last post dangling because it is imcomplete.
Just because I believe God will prevent mankind from destroying the world entirely, the fact that I believe He will intervene does not take away my (and everyone's) personal responsibility to "be good stewards" of it while we are here, each in our own way.
More to say, but no more time...
FG
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think I've solved the Evolution/Creationism debate.
Evolution answers How.
Creationist/ID answers Why.
Both sides keep assuming the other is really answering their question, and they are not.
Evolution says nothing about Why man came to be. Creationism says nothing about How man came to be, other than through God's will. The details, even those set out in the Bible, are sketchy on the exact process.
It is when either side tries to fill in the details of the other question that arguments and insults occur.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, Evolution also answers Why the human race exists: luck and chance. Evolution says there doesn't have to be a why, that we are as we are today is not part of a plan but merely a combination of luck and .
On the other hand, Creationism also answers the How: God said. (I'm not trying to be stupid, I'm going from a paraphrased 'God said let there be light' line). Creation says there doesn't have to be a How because God takes care of all that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, evolution doesn't say the human race exists because of luck and chance. It says the existence of the human race can be explained by natural selection, which involves beneficial mutations being selected for and detrimental ones being selected against. How these mutations occur is not part of things, partly because we don't really know. We're pretty sure a lot of them are random, but that's a separate area of theory. Evolution occurs even if the mutations are completely deterministic.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I was going to say something more complicated but decided that chance was kind of a good simple way of saying what you just said. At least, with my disgusting ignorance about the topic, it seemed like a good enough way.
I see now that 'tis not.
Anyway. My point still stands that the "why" is answered by Evolution all the same.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on what you mean by "Why?" The why you're answering with evolution seems like a rephrased how to me.
A rock falls off a cliff? Why? "Because of the distortion of space-time caused by the mass of the earth" is a perfectly valid answer. But, really, that's just a "how" answer.
But "because I was trying to hit you with a rock" is probably a more relevant answer.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm. You have a point which is why I think that a more generalised answer, even if inaccurate, gives a better answer than fugu's more technical answer.
The point with Evolution is that there doesn't have to be a "why", or at least, we don't have to worry about it. The same goes for Creationism's "how". It's not all that important. The answers are weak answers; however, I believe they are still valid answers as each theory goes. Creationists do not require a how just as Evolutionists do not require a why.
Your example of the rock gives a very solid why; someone is throwing that rock. If I believe in Atheistic Evolution, the rock falls off the cliff because of some shift on the land or in the wind- however, that is unimportant, really because as soon as it's falling it's subject to gravity. If I believe in Evolution but also God perhaps I think that someone threw that rock and only then it become subject to gravity. Someone who believes in Creationism might think that someone threw the rock and someone's determined where it's going to land but the intermediate bits are perhaps unimportant.
That kind of reminds me of that physics law (theory?) where you can tell where a particle is at any given moment or you can determine its speed but not them both at the same time. I've forgotten what it's called, but you doubtless know the one I mean.
quote:The why you're answering with evolution seems like a rephrased how to me.
quote:Both sides keep assuming the other is really answering their question, and they are not.
Perhaps Dan_Raven was right. There is some sort of communication difficulty. To me, whether the rock was thrown or not is unimportant. It fell somehow and we can determine its course up to where it is now. Creationists are more about the thrower and the place where it's going to land.
Evolutionists why does exist, it's just not the major concern. Creationists how similarly exists, just it's not the major concern. It seems to me at least that there is a certain amount of apprehension among Creationists that if the throwing of the rock is unimportant then God is somehow made unimportant by science.
I don't believe that has to be the case. God is not necessary to science but that doesn't been that theistic beliefs cannot co-exist with scientific fact. God is not excluded from science simply because the idea of God is so elusive.
Suppose we call the rock the earth and we are falling down your cliff, thrown or dropped by some other natural force. Coming back to the environment topic, I think that the rock as it falls is in our hands. Things happen around us that are out of our control, but we are still the one's in charge of making sure the rock keeps falling unimpeded.
I'm sorry to be so metaphorical. I think I think better in metaphors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point with Evolution is that there doesn't have to be a "why", or at least, we don't have to worry about it. The same goes for Creationism's "how". It's not all that important. The answers are weak answers; however, I believe they are still valid answers as each theory goes. Creationists do not require a how just as Evolutionists do not require a why.
This is why I hate the way "Creationism" has been coopted.
I am a creationist: I believe the entire Universe exists because God created it.
i am also an evolutionist: I believe evolution is a useful scientific theory for understanding how life forms change over time.
In a metaphysical sense, I believe evolution to be the mechanism God used to create life.
As a creationist, I believe God performed a separate, distinct act of creation to make humans beings. This act may have used the physical results of evolution at the same instant the soul was created.
As a creationist, I believe that there is a separate act of creation every time a new human life begins, separate and above the mere biological reactions that form the human organism.
I realize many or most creationists, even those who believe in theistic evolution, believe something different than that. And I realize that most people who use the word Creationist mean something very different than that. But if they believe God purposelfully created the world, in some sense we are fellow creationists.
That's why I don't think evolution has a "why," at least not one that can be referenced outside itseld: as a scientific theory, it's purpose is to describe a certain set of behavior in the physical world. Sure, there are lots of "whys" within that theory that are answered, but they are physical whys.
There are philosophies that use the existence of evolution as part of their supporting framework. But the minute they go beyond any merely physical phenomenon, they're beyond being evolutionists and are being Evolutionists.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The difference is in the people who are behind the two movements.
Scientists are mostly engineers at heart, trying to decipher how the universe works so that they can take advantage of that knowledge to make life better.
Religious leaders are mostly moralists at heart, trying to decipher the moral causes that are important to the universe so they can take advantage of that knowledge to make life better.
In Copernicus's day, he said that the science shows that the Earth revolves around the sun. It was simply how things were done.
The Church disagreed because that went against moral principals that stated God's Earth was the center of the Universe. Why would God make the Sun the center? It was that moralistic "Why" that got in the way of them accepting scientific proof.
I know some engineers that are interested in How Jesus turned water into wine. Did he turn the molecular structure of water into that of wine? Did he replace the water with wine that he created? Did he just make everyone think the water they were drinking was wine? Well, no, that couldn't be because the text says he turned it into wine.
Such debates are totally useless in a moral/church discussion of the miracle, and those moral teachers who discuss the miracle see such How debates as dangerous, perhaps demeaning, to the moral message. As Teshi says, "There doesn't have to be a How. God took care of it." Or, the How was Jesus did a miracle.
Can you disect a miracle? Do you think it would be fun/intesting to try?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: useful scientific theory for understanding how life forms change over time.
I disagree with your wording. I think evolution cannot be described as theory like other things are theoretical because they cannot be proven. Species evolve and I think that makes it more than a tool for understanding something. I think that should you believe in evolution you should take that extra step and say that it's fact.
quote:as a scientific theory, it's purpose is to describe a certain set of behavior in the physical world.
Again, I think that it's not something that helps us to understand something, it's a name given to something that happens. That's a little like saying sex is a useful way of explaining the appearance of children- putting it that way sounds crazy. The reproductive point of sex is solid fact. In the same way, evolution is also solid fact.
I do not wish to have a fight over this. We may lock horns, though, .
EDIT:
quote:Can you disect a miracle? Do you think it would be fun/intesting to try?
I'm actually writing a horribly blasphemous story right now that I could never publish however worthy it ended up being but I am definately trying my best to not so much dissect miracles but re-imagine the stories behind them. It certainly is fun and interesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree with your wording. I think evolution cannot be described as theory like other things are theoretical because they cannot be proven. Species evolve and I think that makes it more than a tool for understanding something. I think that should you believe in evolution you should take that extra step and say that it's fact.
Take it up with the people who define what a scientific theory is. And I didn't say it wasn't "fact."
quote:Again, I think that it's not something that helps us to understand something, it's a name given to something that happens. That's a little like saying sex is a useful way of explaining the appearance of children- putting it that way sounds crazy. The reproductive point of sex is solid fact. In the same way, evolution is also solid fact.
I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me, or even what you're disagreeing with me about.
Evolution helps us to understand why cave fish don't have eyes, why we have however many bones we have in our ears, and why different species of finches have different beak shapes.
Why do you keep insisting on the "solid fact" thing as if you're trying to convince me of something?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not trying to convert you from your theistic ways, because I know that's what you mean by your last phrase. I think perhaps you and I represent different ways of looking at, and supporting evolution. I know you're angry- please don't be.
Um... how to explain...
I am uncomfortable with your intial wording. I think of the phrase "useful tool" as implying something that's not real ("solid fact") and more of something that fits the way that things are but isn't actually necessarily true. Kind of like using the spheres to explain the movements of the planets.
That may be not what you meant. In fact, I'm fairly sure it wasn't. However, I disagreed with your wording (not with you) because it certainly could have been interpreted in that manner.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Teshi - I think actually you might need to back down one step and realise that you're not arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool fanatic here. Dags is using the word 'theory' in the science-canonical way; he's not (as far as I can tell) trying to say "but of course it doesn't really happen that way." Evolution is a theory and a fact; usually the fact is taken for granted and we refer only to the theory. Perfectly acceptable language, unless you happen to be dealing with a YEC. When your opponent thinks the Earth is six thousand years old and Adam rode dinosaurs to schurch, that is when you need to use baby language and carefully define every step.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Getting back to the original question--Global Warming is going to be a financial and humanitarian disaster. Farmers will have to change crops, and billions in equipment to grow those crops, as the ice melts water levels will rise and a lot of expensive beach front property will have to be either raised or will disappear. In poorer countries this will shrink living space dangerously, but that should be ok because bigger, nastier storms will start reducing the surplus population. Such storms will leave disease and violence in their wake, not to mention giant bills.
President Clinton admitted there was a problem, and played politics with a solution. That is bad.
President Bush has argued there is no problem, that was worse. He has since clarified his position that while there is a problem, its not our fault.
Fine.
It is God's fault, or its Nature's fault.
Laying blame does not solve the problem. It only gives you a cheap excuse to ignore the problem.
Cutting green house gasses will diminish the effects of global warming no matter why its happening. Where is the initiative to do that? Where are the plans to help those who will be stormed, flooded, or over-heated disasterously?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Cutting green house gasses will diminish the effects of global warming no matter why its happening.
This is simply not known. We have to consider the effects of the new behavior as well.
Cutting green house gasses with no other changes will almost certainly diminish the effects of global warming. We can't cut green house gasses without causing other changes (some very significant).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A rock falls off a cliff? Why? "Because of the distortion of space-time caused by the mass of the earth" is a perfectly valid answer. But, really, that's just a "how" answer.
But "because I was trying to hit you with a rock" is probably a more relevant answer.
BWAHAHAHAHA! I am totally using this. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi - I think actually you might need to back down one step and realise that you're not arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool fanatic here. Dags is using the word 'theory' in the science-canonical way; he's not (as far as I can tell) trying to say "but of course it doesn't really happen that way."
I realised this. I just disagreed with his wording. I hope I made that clear now. I realise he's as much an Evolutionist as I am. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A rock falls off a cliff? Why? "Because of the distortion of space-time caused by the mass of the earth" is a perfectly valid answer. But, really, that's just a "how" answer.
But "because I was trying to hit you with a rock" is probably a more relevant answer.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)