Climate Consensus Con Game

[homersapien 11,393]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

[homersapien 11,393]

And yet you will not acknowledge the science that contradicts your faith in AGW.

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

Where did I say that?

Like any other scientist, I am totally open to any valid hypothesis or research regardless of it's conclusion. The key word is valid, meaning it is properly and objectively produced and is subject to peer review.

[Weegle777 78]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

That's fair. I don't totally reject the findings, because scientifically, I have no research to absolutely prove their findings incorrect. I just believe that the earth and we as a species, are much too resilient to be able to be wiped out.

[autigeremt 6,652]

It is interesting that a cofounder of green peace (a scientist) Patrick Moore has come out to discredit, in his scientific opinion, the certainty of man made climate change.

On top of that, he pretty much sums it up the way I see it. Computer models drive this "probability" of man made climate change but history and ecological/geological research show that CO2 levels were higher in the past than they are today. He states that water vapor in the atmosphere has more to do with climate shifts than CO2.

It's also interesting that he was hired and paid for by timber interests who advocate clear cutting of tropical forests. (He thinks we should replace them with bio-engineered plants.)

Still begs the question....unless you are closed minded.

[homersapien 11,393]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

That's fair. I don't totally reject the findings, because scientifically, I have no research to absolutely prove their findings incorrect. I just believe that the earth and we as a species, are much too resilient to be able to be wiped out.

Well, you are correct about the earth (even though it's life is not infinite). But you are dead wrong about Homo sapiens. Just one of the millions of good size "rocks" in the Asteriod belt could easily do the job. It's happened before.

And space rocks aside, all species are destined for either extinction or evolution (to a new species). But I digress.

[homersapien 11,393]

It is interesting that a cofounder of green peace (a scientist) Patrick Moore has come out to discredit, in his scientific opinion, the certainty of man made climate change.

On top of that, he pretty much sums it up the way I see it. Computer models drive this "probability" of man made climate change but history and ecological/geological research show that CO2 levels were higher in the past than they are today. He states that water vapor in the atmosphere has more to do with climate shifts than CO2.

It's also interesting that he was hired and paid for by timber interests who advocate clear cutting of tropical forests. (He thinks we should replace them with bio-engineered plants.)

Still begs the question....unless you are closed minded.

Sorry. What do you mean?

[Weegle777 78]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

That's fair. I don't totally reject the findings, because scientifically, I have no research to absolutely prove their findings incorrect. I just believe that the earth and we as a species, are much too resilient to be able to be wiped out.

Well, you are correct about the earth (even though it's life is not infinite). But you are dead wrong about Homo sapiens. Just one of the millions of good size "rocks" in the Asteriod belt could easily do the job. It's happened before.

And space rocks aside, all species are destined for either extinction or evolution (to a new species). But I digress.

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

[AUDub 11,158]

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I don't know how serious you are, because that's obviously not what he meant, but there have been many major extinction events in Earth's history.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Could a meteor strike have caused some of these?

[AUDub 11,158]

Could a meteor strike have caused some of these?

Sure. That's the most popular hypothesis for the Cretaceous extinction event, which is probably the most famous, being as that event spelled the end for the dinosaurs. All of them are likely from rapid (relatively speaking) ecological changes.

[homersapien 11,393]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

That's fair. I don't totally reject the findings, because scientifically, I have no research to absolutely prove their findings incorrect. I just believe that the earth and we as a species, are much too resilient to be able to be wiped out.

Well, you are correct about the earth (even though it's life is not infinite). But you are dead wrong about Homo sapiens. Just one of the millions of good size "rocks" in the Asteriod belt could easily do the job. It's happened before.

And space rocks aside, all species are destined for either extinction or evolution (to a new species). But I digress.

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I was referring to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Sorry for the ambiguity.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2639911.html

[Weegle777 78]

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I don't know how serious you are, because that's obviously not what he meant, but there have been many major extinction events in Earth's history.

I'm not picking a fight, if that is where you are going. We are having a civil conversation about this and I do find it interesting. I go on what people say, not on implied things. That is why I asked that question.

[Weegle777 78]

If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this.

The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale.

That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history.

There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject.

How so?

Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject.

Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history.

I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse.

I understand. But my point is the historical "proof" or evidence that is informing you was produced by the same scientific establishment that says AGW is real. That's ironic. Or at least it's ironic if you reject the scientific consensus as being a hoax.

That's fair. I don't totally reject the findings, because scientifically, I have no research to absolutely prove their findings incorrect. I just believe that the earth and we as a species, are much too resilient to be able to be wiped out.

Well, you are correct about the earth (even though it's life is not infinite). But you are dead wrong about Homo sapiens. Just one of the millions of good size "rocks" in the Asteriod belt could easily do the job. It's happened before.

And space rocks aside, all species are destined for either extinction or evolution (to a new species). But I digress.

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I was referring to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Sorry for the ambiguity.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2639911.html

No worries. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just curious, after 27 pages has anyone changed their position on the subject?

[AUDub 11,158]

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I don't know how serious you are, because that's obviously not what he meant, but there have been many major extinction events in Earth's history.

I'm not picking a fight, if that is where you are going. We are having a civil conversation about this and I do find it interesting. I go on what people say, not on implied things. That is why I asked that question.

I apologize. It's hard to infer tone on a message board, but I understand how it could be interpreted that I snarked at you unfairly with that post.

[AUDub 11,158]

Just curious, after 27 pages has anyone changed their position on the subject?

Well, there is a possibility that someone may stumble across the thread and learn something. To me, that alone makes it a conversation worth having.

[Weegle777 78]

Sorry homer, I thought you meant human extinction.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

[Weegle777 78]

When was mankind completely wiped out, and by what means were they wiped out, and what proof is there of this? This is an interesting convo.

I don't know how serious you are, because that's obviously not what he meant, but there have been many major extinction events in Earth's history.

I'm not picking a fight, if that is where you are going. We are having a civil conversation about this and I do find it interesting. I go on what people say, not on implied things. That is why I asked that question.

I apologize. It's hard to infer tone on a message board, but I understand how it could be interpreted that I snarked at you unfairly with that post.

Not a problem my friend. That's an interesting chart.

[homersapien 11,393]

I was referring to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Sorry for the ambiguity.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2639911.html

No worries. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

That article is also a good example of how the scientific process works. The hypothesis of the meteor impact has been around for a long time, but new evidence is constantly being sought to either support or weaken it.

[homersapien 11,393]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

There's a bunch of folks in West Virginia that would disagree.

Regardless, there is no reason - and certainly no intent - for AGW to discount the risks of other pollution problems.

[homersapien 11,393]

Sorry homer, I thought you meant human extinction.

Understand. That's why I apologized for my ambiguity.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

There's a bunch of folks in West Virginia that would disagree.

Regardless, there is no reason - and certainly no intent - for AGW to discount the risks of other pollution problems.

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then? I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

[AUDub 11,158]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

[homersapien 11,393]

A more efficient electrical grid would be nice.