Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:


Dan wrote:

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global warming
is
starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of the
data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
temperature trends.


Good grief.


How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is such
damage done?

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


Dan

"Dan" wrote:

:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.

I don't dismiss honest differences of opinion out of hand.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
one can deny your consistency.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.

Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?


Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
one can deny your consistency.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's
life forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think
straight. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

That's right. but creationists do a lot more than specualte. That's the
problem.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.


I doubt that very much.

Bertie

"Dan" wrote:

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.

Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?

Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html


CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

On Mar 11, 12:22 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Utter nonsense. The only thing we haven't got a handle on is how the first
proto-life appeared on the planet (Creationists are the ones who claim to
know). Everything since is pretty well figured out. It's a fact that all
the species that exist today evolved, not poofed.

Facts are observable and substantiated by evidence. You have neither
for your off the reservation claim. All you're doing is revealing your
presuppositions, not "stating fact."



Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.
Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?

Nope. There are plenty, but here's one:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a
different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because
plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they
have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from
ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C
ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these
materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average
13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Hardly compelling.

"Dan" wrote:


It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it is
now, wouldn't it?

Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

Dan wrote in news:8d2a3003-7e26-4b20-b8fb-
:

On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there. Not even Chris Hutchins, richard Dawkins
or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
trying to make the evidence fit that.
Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
died on a log in the sun.
Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
is dwindling partly because of this mess...
Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.

I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?




Bertie

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.

Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
Sloganeers and crusaders have to.

or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
trying to make the evidence fit that.

I submit there's a corollary -- dismissing a premise because it
doesn't fit your cosmology/theology/philosophy.

Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
died on a log in the sun.
Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
is dwindling partly because of this mess...
Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.

I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?

Bertie

We've seen species introduced worldwide with concomitant ecological
imbalances -- witness Starlings, English Sparrows, and Lake trout (you
must kill them in Yellowstone -- or be fined).

The underlying premise when these things are discussed is that only
humans can create imbalances, or that humans are "outside" or the
realm of what's "natural."

We're seeing the results of such "restoration to the balance of
nature" here in Pennsylvania, as the second growth forests mature and
result in near sterility on the forest floor. In a truly "natural"
ecosystem, there is constant destruction and recovery.

As we cannot afford unmanaged wildfires in our heavily populated
state, the game commission grants logging rights on State gamelands.
The result? Within 3 years there is a more diverse and healthy
population of fauna and flora.

Is this ecologically unsound?

I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
or assumed by --their own experts --, and that much of the hysteria
is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
for a power grab.

Dan