Your ignoring one other important detail, your looking at a group of people who ignore tempertures reading, satelite measurements, deep sea ocean readings, and everything else which disagrees with their little ideology. What's one little mountain more.
But global warming has been shown to be a bit of an exaggeration... studies are now finding that humans aren't contributing as much to it as we'd like to think...
Could you please supply a citation for these studies (which I assume are scientific peer reviewed)? I've studied global warming at uni, read several IPCC publications, and been to scientific talks by F. Sherwood Rolands (Nobel prize winning climate chemist), and from what I've seen, I would have to disagree with your post, so hence I would like to see these studies.
I'm nominating your post for the most BS in under 150 words award.
For the record, the vast majority worlds climatologists support global warming. This is why IPCC reports (which are written by vary large numbers of climatical scientists) support global warming.
You may wish to dismiss their work as psuedoscience, however that says more about your knowledge than theirs.
Who cares about the ice melting when there may be dangerous levels of DHMO [dhmo.org] on the top of that mountain! Maybe we would be safer if it did melt.
God know. What happens if it melts and enters our water supply?:)
Two things fight malaria, and they are quinine and sickle-cell.
Proper drainage and irragation are even more effective than these. Witness the malaria deaths (or specifically, the lack of them) in the US, vs. 100 years ago.
Fortunally, the link between a warming earth and pollutants is a lot more complex than your little strawman.
Perhaps had you added "3. We know that certain pollutants cause warming", then you would have had a more informative post.
Your comment about environmentalists treating global warming as religion and not science, is very ironic given that the vast majority of climatic scientists support the theory behind human induced global warming.
Why don't you forget the sterotyped right and left viewpoints and check out the science behind global warming? The full text of various IPCC reports can be found here, and it is quite interesting. If there is such thing as scientific position, this is it.
Wow... many creationists say exactly the same thing about evolutionary research. It really wouldn't surprise me if flat-earthers, crystal freaks and the rest of the psuedo-scientific world to the same.
The global warming skeptics really do chose some bad company for themselves.
The terms republic and democracy are not mutally exclusive. The US is both a republic and a representive democracy (where the voters elect representives to run the place).
Radiodating relies on knowledge of what has happened to the radioisotopes in a rock. Not on the rate of deposit. For example, if one isotope is more likely to leach out of a rock than another isotope, the radiodates will be mucked up. The rate of deposit can effect the radioisotope composition, it a perpherial course.
Your coment about it being a guess is very wrong. It is possible to calibrate radiodates, by measueing a sample with multiple techniques. If there is something effecting the history of the rock, then the dates will be all other the place, and one can place the rock in the undatable bin (there are a lot of rocks here).
Unfortunally, radiodating is pretty complex, which allows certain peusdioscientists to abuse it, which leads to all sorts of misinformation about the technique floating around.
However, that being said, radiocarbon dating relies on atmospheric carbon to get a measurement. Land dwelling creatures are fine to radio carbon date (plant breaths CO2 in, animal eats plant, thus gets his 14C fix), it is much more unreliable on marine life (who have other sources of CO2).
I have no doubt that the Koran is out of touch. My arguement is that the Bible is just as out of touch.
This isn't meant to be a slur against either, it's just that works by humans aren't perfect. And this especially applies to ancient works, as there were many more misconceptions about the world floating around then.
Morris's work with creationism is enough to put me off (I'm a chemist, so the one area relevant to creationism that I know lots about is thermodyamics - HM is either ignorant or a lier). However, I would apprieciate it if you could summarise HM's strongest, most "infallible" proof.
I believe that one of the Koran's passages reads "and the Earth, after that, He made it like a deheya", where deheya apparently means "egg". The Islamic-science website which I pulled this off, claims that this is evidence for a spherical earth with a bulge, which is pretty good in itself.
The Bible is a very large book. Write any book of that size, with enough mystical statements, and it's not that surprising, that with the benefit of hindsight, a few will seem accurate. It's no different to Nostradamus.
A maleria vaccine could greatly benefit the third world, if they ignore international IP laws. While designer drugs are hugely expensive, third world companies can produce them cheaply (lower labour costs, smaller profit margin, no massive overbloated marketing budget, no need to recoup R&D costs). The problem with this, is this is that it provides a disincentive for companies to perform research into 3rd world disease treatment. It's a tough situation, and I don't know the answer.
However, I do agree with you, about traditional malaria prevention.
However to your point, the Bible has had scientific truths in it that scientists over millennia have ignored. For centuries, it was thought that you needed to drain blood in order to cure disease. But in the Bible it clearly states "the life is in the blood". And for years scientists taught that the earth was flat, whereas the Bible clearly indicates it's a sphere. For years it was taught that the stars did not move, whereas the Bible says God "stretches out the heavens" - stars in motion did not gain acceptance until relatively recently.
The problem with these "scientific truths" is that they are terribly vauge. To take one of your examples, that the earth is a sphere, if it was suddenly found that the earth is in fact flat, then one could just as easily say that the Bible predicted it. For example, the devil takes Jesus up a high mountain to show him all of the kingdoms in the world. Something which is clearly impossible if the world is spherical. There are more passages which can be intrepeted as promoting a flat earth (I'm not suggesting that they do say this, but rather that they can be intrepeted this way).
Also, I take exception to your suggestion that many of these "truths" where ignored by scientists. The Greeks even had a go at calculated the diameter of earth, can the Bible even come close to telling us what the earths diameter is?
If Christians had been shouting out for years that the earth is a sphere, that the stars move etc then you would have a better arguement. But it only seems that these "scientific truths" only come out after everybody knows about them.
There are many other things in the same vein. No other sacred book has anything like that record.
And yet many Muslims feel that there are scientific truths in the Koran (click here for an example of this). What makes your claims better than theirs?
I was under the impression that you can redistribute the nVidia drivers, just as long as you don't modify it.
From there licensing info:
"2.1.1 Rights. Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.
2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
And the point was to show that the in-place orthodoxy (Neo-darwinism) has tried to block anything that challenges it seriously.
Get a sense of perspective. The orthodoxy that you speak of, is a small group of people who run a popular science mag. Mims was defended by scientific organisations which have zero respect for creationism.
It's this constant propaganda barrage that pervades young earth creationism, which kills any hope that it has of being even remotely close to science.
Also, well we are on perspective, nothing comes close to challenging the theory of evolution. Sorry but wishful thinking doesn't count.
The bottom line to me is that I accept supernatural explanations for some things; but the orthodoxy is pure naturalism, rejecting all supernatural causes.
Science deals with what it can see and measure. Rather than accepting supernatural explanations, it's far better to keep on looking for answers to things that you don't understand.
That however takes at least as much faith, since how can you explain the laws of physics, origin of matter, origin of energy, etc. arising from naturalism?
I don't know.
And that's what I see as sciences greatest asset. It doesn't provide a set of truths about the world, but rather provides a method for approximating them.
Given the success rate of science vs. religon in showing us what the physical world is like, I know what horse I'd bet on.
You have zero scientific evidence that the period of global warming in medieval times was only a local event. Understand this or not we the humans have only had the ability to collect information on a global scale about the environment for about 50 years.
Given that the link which I provided looks at the science lit. covering the medieval warm period, this pretty much indicates thats you haven't paid attention and are just trolling.
Well Mims was badly treated by a popular science mag (hardly in the same category as peer reviewed science journals), it is interesting to note that several organisations which have attacked creationism in the past did come to his defense, and Mims work is hardly not being published in mainstream science.
This is more a illustration that creationists can get published if they present science not propaganda. Sadly this appears to be a barrier that the majority of them cannot overcome.
Which is exactly my point. Something had to cause the warming, and arguably Human CO2 production was nowhere near what it is today... therefore, maybe there is some other mechanism at work.
It's well known that the global climate isn't static. Many of the mechanisms are well known to climatical scientists. Unsurprisinging, the vast majority of climatical scientists believe that humanities actions are causing global warming.
As for the medieval warming period, it is thought to a series of local events because it appears to be irregular. The cold and warm peaks don't correlate with respect to large geographic areas. In particular evidence from the Southern hemisphere shows very irregular temperture change.
It has been suggested that the warm period is due to gradual change in the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The crux of my argument is that this is all a global cycle that is simply misunderstood, and that it's foolish to simply assume that we're responsible for it, the reason being any action taken against a problem that is not understood may (and generally will) make matters worse.
While this is possible, the worlds climatical scientists disagree with you. As my knowledge of global warming is spotty (to say the best), I'll stick with them over your view.
It would be nice if this worked in the real world, especially if such techniques could be extended to other minerals, pollutants, etc.
Actually it can (and does). Back in my old university, there were a couple of profs who studied it. One even found a plant that would take up gold out of the soil, after treatment with thiocynate ions.
If you're going to cling to the current "global warming" theory, that CO2 production and other man-made gasses are causing the earth to trap more heat, then I'd like to know how the whole Medieval Warm Period [nationalcenter.org] came about... I don't think it was because of all those Knights and Kings driving their Cadillac SUVs.
I'm not the poster to whom you replied but I fail to see what your example of the medieval warm period has to do with global warming.
Human produced CO2 isn't the only variable effected the climate.
Besides, there is considerable scientific evidence that the medieval warming period was a series of local events, not a global event.
If you want a good read on climate science and global warming, I would suggest this over some ideological charged think tank.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ignoring one other important detail, your looking at a group of people who ignore tempertures reading, satelite measurements, deep sea ocean readings, and everything else which disagrees with their little ideology. What's one little mountain more.
But global warming has been shown to be a bit of an exaggeration... studies are now finding that humans aren't contributing as much to it as we'd like to think...
Could you please supply a citation for these studies (which I assume are scientific peer reviewed)? I've studied global warming at uni, read several IPCC publications, and been to scientific talks by F. Sherwood Rolands (Nobel prize winning climate chemist), and from what I've seen, I would have to disagree with your post, so hence I would like to see these studies.
I'm nominating your post for the most BS in under 150 words award.
For the record, the vast majority worlds climatologists support global warming. This is why IPCC reports (which are written by vary large numbers of climatical scientists) support global warming.
You may wish to dismiss their work as psuedoscience, however that says more about your knowledge than theirs.
You are correct that this should be studied, but that will not play in the emotional drama that the enviromentalists participate in.
Which of course is why, the vast majority of climatical scientists support global warming theory.
Who cares about the ice melting when there may be dangerous levels of DHMO [dhmo.org] on the top of that mountain! Maybe we would be safer if it did melt.
:)
God know. What happens if it melts and enters our water supply?
Ironically, banning DDT may do more to elimate malaria, by encouraging drainage etc.
Two things fight malaria, and they are quinine and sickle-cell.
Proper drainage and irragation are even more effective than these. Witness the malaria deaths (or specifically, the lack of them) in the US, vs. 100 years ago.
Fortunally, the link between a warming earth and pollutants is a lot more complex than your little strawman.
Perhaps had you added "3. We know that certain pollutants cause warming", then you would have had a more informative post.
Your comment about environmentalists treating global warming as religion and not science, is very ironic given that the vast majority of climatic scientists support the theory behind human induced global warming.
Why don't you forget the sterotyped right and left viewpoints and check out the science behind global warming? The full text of various IPCC reports can be found here, and it is quite interesting. If there is such thing as scientific position, this is it.
Wow... many creationists say exactly the same thing about evolutionary research. It really wouldn't surprise me if flat-earthers, crystal freaks and the rest of the psuedo-scientific world to the same.
The global warming skeptics really do chose some bad company for themselves.
The terms republic and democracy are not mutally exclusive. The US is both a republic and a representive democracy (where the voters elect representives to run the place).
There are some mistakes in your post.
Radiodating relies on knowledge of what has happened to the radioisotopes in a rock. Not on the rate of deposit. For example, if one isotope is more likely to leach out of a rock than another isotope, the radiodates will be mucked up. The rate of deposit can effect the radioisotope composition, it a perpherial course.
Your coment about it being a guess is very wrong. It is possible to calibrate radiodates, by measueing a sample with multiple techniques. If there is something effecting the history of the rock, then the dates will be all other the place, and one can place the rock in the undatable bin (there are a lot of rocks here).
Unfortunally, radiodating is pretty complex, which allows certain peusdioscientists to abuse it, which leads to all sorts of misinformation about the technique floating around.
I think that it was a shell fish.
However, that being said, radiocarbon dating relies on atmospheric carbon to get a measurement. Land dwelling creatures are fine to radio carbon date (plant breaths CO2 in, animal eats plant, thus gets his 14C fix), it is much more unreliable on marine life (who have other sources of CO2).
I have no doubt that the Koran is out of touch. My arguement is that the Bible is just as out of touch.
This isn't meant to be a slur against either, it's just that works by humans aren't perfect. And this especially applies to ancient works, as there were many more misconceptions about the world floating around then.
Morris's work with creationism is enough to put me off (I'm a chemist, so the one area relevant to creationism that I know lots about is thermodyamics - HM is either ignorant or a lier). However, I would apprieciate it if you could summarise HM's strongest, most "infallible" proof.
I believe that one of the Koran's passages reads "and the Earth, after that, He made it like a deheya", where deheya apparently means "egg". The Islamic-science website which I pulled this off, claims that this is evidence for a spherical earth with a bulge, which is pretty good in itself.
The Bible is a very large book. Write any book of that size, with enough mystical statements, and it's not that surprising, that with the benefit of hindsight, a few will seem accurate. It's no different to Nostradamus.
A maleria vaccine could greatly benefit the third world, if they ignore international IP laws. While designer drugs are hugely expensive, third world companies can produce them cheaply (lower labour costs, smaller profit margin, no massive overbloated marketing budget, no need to recoup R&D costs). The problem with this, is this is that it provides a disincentive for companies to perform research into 3rd world disease treatment. It's a tough situation, and I don't know the answer.
However, I do agree with you, about traditional malaria prevention.
However to your point, the Bible has had scientific truths in it that scientists over millennia have ignored. For centuries, it was thought that you needed to drain blood in order to cure disease. But in the Bible it clearly states "the life is in the blood". And for years scientists taught that the earth was flat, whereas the Bible clearly indicates it's a sphere. For years it was taught that the stars did not move, whereas the Bible says God "stretches out the heavens" - stars in motion did not gain acceptance until relatively recently.
The problem with these "scientific truths" is that they are terribly vauge. To take one of your examples, that the earth is a sphere, if it was suddenly found that the earth is in fact flat, then one could just as easily say that the Bible predicted it. For example, the devil takes Jesus up a high mountain to show him all of the kingdoms in the world. Something which is clearly impossible if the world is spherical. There are more passages which can be intrepeted as promoting a flat earth (I'm not suggesting that they do say this, but rather that they can be intrepeted this way).
Also, I take exception to your suggestion that many of these "truths" where ignored by scientists. The Greeks even had a go at calculated the diameter of earth, can the Bible even come close to telling us what the earths diameter is?
If Christians had been shouting out for years that the earth is a sphere, that the stars move etc then you would have a better arguement. But it only seems that these "scientific truths" only come out after everybody knows about them.
There are many other things in the same vein. No other sacred book has anything like that record.
And yet many Muslims feel that there are scientific truths in the Koran (click here for an example of this). What makes your claims better than theirs?
I was under the impression that you can redistribute the nVidia drivers, just as long as you don't modify it.
From there licensing info:
"2.1.1 Rights. Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.
2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
And the point was to show that the in-place orthodoxy (Neo-darwinism) has tried to block anything that challenges it seriously.
Get a sense of perspective. The orthodoxy that you speak of, is a small group of people who run a popular science mag. Mims was defended by scientific organisations which have zero respect for creationism.
It's this constant propaganda barrage that pervades young earth creationism, which kills any hope that it has of being even remotely close to science.
Also, well we are on perspective, nothing comes close to challenging the theory of evolution. Sorry but wishful thinking doesn't count.
The bottom line to me is that I accept supernatural explanations for some things; but the orthodoxy is pure naturalism, rejecting all supernatural causes.
Science deals with what it can see and measure. Rather than accepting supernatural explanations, it's far better to keep on looking for answers to things that you don't understand.
That however takes at least as much faith, since how can you explain the laws of physics, origin of matter, origin of energy, etc. arising from naturalism?
I don't know.
And that's what I see as sciences greatest asset. It doesn't provide a set of truths about the world, but rather provides a method for approximating them.
Given the success rate of science vs. religon in showing us what the physical world is like, I know what horse I'd bet on.
You have zero scientific evidence that the period of global warming in medieval times was only a local event. Understand this or not we the humans have only had the ability to collect information on a global scale about the environment for about 50 years.
Given that the link which I provided looks at the science lit. covering the medieval warm period, this pretty much indicates thats you haven't paid attention and are just trolling.
Well Mims was badly treated by a popular science mag (hardly in the same category as peer reviewed science journals), it is interesting to note that several organisations which have attacked creationism in the past did come to his defense, and Mims work is hardly not being published in mainstream science.
This is more a illustration that creationists can get published if they present science not propaganda. Sadly this appears to be a barrier that the majority of them cannot overcome.
Which is exactly my point. Something had to cause the warming, and arguably Human CO2 production was nowhere near what it is today... therefore, maybe there is some other mechanism at work.
It's well known that the global climate isn't static. Many of the mechanisms are well known to climatical scientists. Unsurprisinging, the vast majority of climatical scientists believe that humanities actions are causing global warming.
As for the medieval warming period, it is thought to a series of local events because it appears to be irregular. The cold and warm peaks don't correlate with respect to large geographic areas. In particular evidence from the Southern hemisphere shows very irregular temperture change.
It has been suggested that the warm period is due to gradual change in the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The crux of my argument is that this is all a global cycle that is simply misunderstood, and that it's foolish to simply assume that we're responsible for it, the reason being any action taken against a problem that is not understood may (and generally will) make matters worse.
While this is possible, the worlds climatical scientists disagree with you. As my knowledge of global warming is spotty (to say the best), I'll stick with them over your view.
It would be nice if this worked in the real world, especially if such techniques could be extended to other minerals, pollutants, etc.
Actually it can (and does). Back in my old university, there were a couple of profs who studied it. One even found a plant that would take up gold out of the soil, after treatment with thiocynate ions.
A global flood....
If you're going to cling to the current "global warming" theory, that CO2 production and other man-made gasses are causing the earth to trap more heat, then I'd like to know how the whole Medieval Warm Period [nationalcenter.org] came about... I don't think it was because of all those Knights and Kings driving their Cadillac SUVs.
I'm not the poster to whom you replied but I fail to see what your example of the medieval warm period has to do with global warming.
Human produced CO2 isn't the only variable effected the climate.
Besides, there is considerable scientific evidence that the medieval warming period was a series of local events, not a global event.
If you want a good read on climate science and global warming, I would suggest this over some ideological charged think tank.