[Meeni]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Part of evolution is extinction. The hype of the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the pro-global warming people are trying to prevent the extinction of Humans at some point in the future by controlling the inputs to the "climate" now,

And again you completely miss the point. No scientist will tell you we are on the brink of extinction. Climate change is not in 10000 years, its in 50. It will not make us extinct, it will just make our lives miserable for the time it takes for our infrastructure to adapt (we are talking about relocating millions of people, moving farm production north, etc, so its pretty cataclysmic, but nowhere near extinction threat).

life evolves based on climatic conditions (changes) not the other way around.

So you say. There are numerous proof of the contrary. Humans (and other animals) can have a serious impact on the environment and modify it. Elephants can turn a savanna into a desert, sheep grazing can sterilize cold tundra, hell, Precambrian bacteria changed the composition of the atmosphere so much that they provoked their own extinction (there was no O2 originally in the atmosphere). Releasing massive amount of CO2 does have climate implications.

I suggest you read some of his books on the subject.

I suggest you sample recent research on the subject, you'll see that 99% of the researchers (which are not tree-huggers or "liberals" whatever that means) agree on climate change, and 95% or so on human action as the primary cause. It's good you found a 1% guy

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

We should end this as we are totally on opposite pages to where we are not understanding each other. I'm not sure what I've written would make you think I don't believe in evolution. I think what I've written shows that I do believe in evolution.

If you think I'm some sort of religious zealot that only believes in creationism, then you are sadly mistaken; and I'm offended. My position on this whole topic comes from many courses of study in, biology, anthropology, physics, geology, and astronomy. I also was a junior member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in college - ties to my original discussion of ceramic engines.

Part of evolution is extinction. The hype of the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the pro-global warming people are trying to prevent the extinction of Humans at some point in the future by controlling the inputs to the "climate" now, which all of my scientific understanding tells me is ridiculous. So in reality, people who support anthropogenic climate change actually don't believe in evolution, i.e. the classic Darwin model; life evolves based on climatic conditions (changes) not the other way around.

Scientists can create models of the climate to look forward with them and make predictions of disastrous climates in the future. But the validity of the models is not ascertainable with just a 100 years worth of recent climate observation and data. There is a climatologist at UVA, Patrick Michaels, who has taken the models and run them backwards to get the model's predictions of CO2 levels 10,000 years ago. He has then sampled sediments of lake beds known to be 10,000 years old, and through biological analysis of the plant matter existing in the sediments can measure the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere. His studies show the climate models used to predict the disastrous future are not valid to what actually happened in the past; the CO2 levels in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago was much higher than today and higher than predicted to be 100 years in the future. I suggest you read some of his books on the subject.

How many tens of dollars did that membership cost you?

Anyways, dig up whatever isolated experiments you want...humans can and do affect the climate. Anything to the contrary is simply silly. This doesn't mean it's 100% due to humans - maybe it's fractional, maybe it's a good percentage but it's somewhere between 0 and 100% and it cannot be 0. It is perhaps disingenuous to look at data and say wow, by 2050 all mammals are in danger of extinction unless we scale back C02, but pumping awful chemicals and smog out of our cars, factories, and cargo ships is not making anything better for the earth, the climate, or our bodies. The position you are taking that you "don't believe in anthropogenic global warming" is the most absolutist statement in regards to climate change you can make. You either are, or should be, a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Meeni

And again you completely miss the point. No scientist will tell you we are on the brink of extinction. Climate change is not in 10000 years, its in 50. It will not make us extinct, it will just make our lives miserable for the time it takes for our infrastructure to adapt (we are talking about relocating millions of people, moving farm production north, etc, so its pretty cataclysmic, but nowhere near extinction threat).


So you say. There are numerous proof of the contrary. Humans (and other animals) can have a serious impact on the environment and modify it.

Elephants can turn a savanna into a desert, sheep grazing can sterilize cold tundra, hell, Precambrian bacteria changed the composition of the atmosphere so much that they provoked their own extinction (there was no O2 originally in the atmosphere). Releasing massive amount of CO2 does have climate implications.


I suggest you sample recent research on the subject, you'll see that 99% of the researchers (which are not tree-huggers or "liberals" whatever that means) agree on climate change, and 95% or so on human action as the primary cause. It's good you found a 1% guy

Yes the climate is going to change in 50 years, it's changing right now as we all consume electricity, and create CO2 so we can write about cars on the internet. The climate is supposed to change, it always has and always will, you just put some qualifier on it that it shouldn't change because it may make your life miserable. What an egoist you are. Its all okay for Precambrian bacteria to change the environment, go extinct and make it inhabitable for your animal family ancestors to become homo sapiens sapiens. So what 95% of elephants told the other elephants to stop trampling and eating the vegetation to prevent their climate change? What 95% sheep told the other sheep to stop grazing and sterilizing their climate? Apparently the sheep and elephants didn't listen.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

How many tens of dollars did that membership cost you?

Anyways, dig up whatever isolated experiments you want...humans can and do affect the climate. Anything to the contrary is simply silly. This doesn't mean it's 100% due to humans - maybe it's fractional, maybe it's a good percentage but it's somewhere between 0 and 100% and it cannot be 0. It is perhaps disingenuous to look at data and say wow, by 2050 all mammals are in danger of extinction unless we scale back C02, but pumping awful chemicals and smog out of our cars, factories, and cargo ships is not making anything better for the earth, the climate, or our bodies. The position you are taking that you "don't believe in anthropogenic global warming" is the most absolutist statement in regards to climate change you can make. You either are, or should be, a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.

I'm sorry, but what is wrong with being absolutist?

I'm 100% for conservation, minimal pollution, and being the best stewards of the planet we can be, but to think we are all powerful to actually change the climate in a way that is more drastic or different than will happen anyway is a bit egocentric and not considering all aspects of the equation.

But, back to ceramic engines, I'm 100% for them.