"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

34 pages, 1600 posts!

"sound and fury signifying nothing…"

R

…and two bits.

(…anyone know that reference?)

Hi Rocky,

Your specific cardio/vascular exception is an exception. If you just have aches and pains from a cold and are 30, they prefer you not use aspirin.

No it wasn't an exception. It was the actual topic I addressed to Doug in the first place. I do agree with your MD friends. I prefer ibuprofen.

It is unacceptable in a republic to end political discussion with the Platonic "Philosopher King" response in "I am a scientist, trust me and do what I tell you".

I wasn't having a political discussion. I was explaining well established medical practice.

….sound and fury signifying nothing….

I don't know if Macbeth is a good yardstick for meaningful, rational discourse. At least you didn't include, "….a tale told by an idiot…." from the same soliloquy.

Ralph

Hi

I would have used "A tale told by an idiot…." as an ID reference.

Rocky

Heehee, you guys.

And it's Shakespeare, not Macbeth (being pedantic)….

@Rocky
LOL!
@Doug
It is Macbeth's soliloquy.

Ralph

Are we starting a "who's the greatest pedant" contest?…

There are only 2 entrants at present, so it should be "who's the greater pedant".

No, you just entered, so that's at least three….

I'm not arrogant, I'm pedantic, there is a difference, let me explain….

Four….

When we have all the entrants, we can recruit TJ as a disinterested judge to proclaim the winner….

I'm not arrogant, I'm pedantic, there is a difference, let me explain….

When we have all the entrants, we can recruit TJ as a disinterested judge to proclaim the winner….

Lol!!

I don't think I'll read anything better than those two comments on TMP for at least the next two weeks.

Gentlemen, some of you are worthy adversaries. But seriously, despite my honest intentions to the contrary, I am the most pedantic person here. What do I win?

Ralph

Doug,

Based on past performance TJ will just turn up, sneer and then refuse to give us a streight answer to a simple question.

What do I win?

Can the greatest pedant claim to be the greatest pedant? Isn't this a bit like Catcha 22? If you claim to be the greatest pedant then you cannot in fact be the greatest pedant. Only someone oblivious of the fact of their unmatched pedantry can actually be that "good" at it. I'm just pointing this out so that we can discuss the criteria for establishing our own acknowledged great kahuna of pedantry.

Of course, if TJ does show up we can all agree to step aside and proclaim him the "winner"….

Of course, if TJ does show up we can all agree to step aside and proclaim him the "winner"….

Some spelling mistake surely? Shouln't that be 'whiner?' lol

I thought this was interesting:

link

I listened to the whole slideshow by Abraham:

So, where is Monckton coming from? Does he believe that going global with his demonstrations won't attract rebutal? Is he stupid? Is he delusional? One of Monckton's recurring claims is that he's read the papers, and he invites his listeners to do likewise. If virtually everything he's said is backed up with false citations what's his game?…

"Last 420K years": today we see unprecedented greenhouse gases increasing and can "see where we're headed".

Okaaay, so given a choice, would YOU rather go back to ocean levels 40 feet higher, or would you rather go into an ice age? I don't know about YOU guys, but I say "warmer is better" – if the alternative is another ice age.

Ocean acidification: how do increasing temps and ocean levels (threatening coral reefs and ocean life as we know it), compare to an ice age and lower ocean levels? How do EXPOSED coral reefs fare? Does a colder ocean support and encourage coral reef environment? Why should we care? (I don't live in the ocean, and I want my air warm, thank you.)

Solar causes of GW? I find Abraham's information interesting! In direct opposition to the common belief, that the sun's variations are a major part of GW. How could such a belief become so widespread if it is in fact the opposite of the truth? Oh, I see, ERRORS, arithmetic errors, discovered AFTER the papers/announcements of solar causation. Lovely, more scientific "consensus" we can believe in.

"Who can you trust"? Not Monckton, evidently. Trouble is, Abraham makes a much stronger case for ignoring ALL clamoring for the "scientist priests" to do something about it: they don't agree, and no plebs can possibly distinguish between NASA, NOAA, et al. these "reputable" organizations, and the other special-interest groups. Abraham criticizes the special-interests that support opposition to the AGW clamoring; yet those advocating for AGW also have self-interest in doing so….

Hi

The "tough choices" is mostly who gets to pay and who gets to die.

And how does 420K correspond with "man made"?

Rocky

Ocean acidification: how do increasing temps and ocean levels (threatening coral reefs and ocean life as we know it), compare to an ice age and lower ocean levels? How do EXPOSED coral reefs fare? Does a colder ocean support and encourage coral reef environment? Why should we care? (I don't live in the ocean, and I want my air warm, thank you.)

AGW is a blind. Ocean acidification is a real problem, once your food chain starts dying off you have a real problem! but the real issue isn't acidification but toxicity.

We can probably cope with rising global temperature to some degree. Once the food chain is toxic we don't stand a chance.

Pete

How could such a belief become so widespread if it is in fact the opposite of the truth?

According to Gallup, the majority of Americans belief that the Earth is around 10,000 years old. A majority also belief that their Holy Book presents the literal truth. It is understood to be an accurate document of actual historic events.

If one goes to the Moslem world these numbers get even higher.

Lies that are comforting and supportive always trump inconvenient and uncomfortable truths. That is how they persevere. Especially in cultures that value faith over scientific understanding.

Ralph

Doug, I honestly couldn't understand the point of your writing above. For a simple explanation of the relationship between water acidity and coral reefs read this short abstract of a research paper:

link

Also check out the start of the Nature article at the bottom of the page.

Ralph

My question remains: is coral reef habitate threatened MORE by an ice age or deeper oceans? Because if warming is our lot, then upwards of 40 feet deeper oceans are the ultimate result; which would totally destroy present coral reef habitats anyway, yet reduce ocean acidification from dilution. There would be new coral reef habitats forty feet higher than they are presently. An ice age would of course expose coral reef habitats to the air as ocean water got absorbed into the ice cap. So this is my way of saying that the acidification "problem" is completely non sequitur (but is probably employing a small number of scientists and engineers and researchers)….

How could such a belief become so widespread if it is in fact the opposite of the truth?

According to Gallup, the majority of Americans belief that the Earth is around 10,000 years old. A majority also belief that their Holy Book presents the literal truth. It is understood to be an accurate document of actual historic events.

You missed the point: what is the SOURCE of the mistaken belief, that the sun's activity plays a major role in the earth's warming and cooling? It sure as heck isn't the Bible! It was scientific assertion. And later it was a corrected "arithmetic error": but the damage was already done: millions of credulous Americans believed the earlier scientific pronouncement. At least the Bible sticks with what it said from the getgo….

Hi

A couple days ago, Jacques Cousteau's grand son was on the telly telling the world that back when his dad said we were killing the oceans and were doomed back in the 70s, that finally the world caught up with him.

he was ahead of his time.

Well, except that like "five metals Holdren" Obama's science advisor, our date of death was supposed to be somewhere between 1994 and 1998.

Doug, as a medievalist you are probably aware of the dead coral reefs in the Sinai currently 26feet above sea level. The reefs have moved up and down and all around adapting to the changing conditions of the last, oh 420,000 years.

Oh, and the bible might be consistant, but its track record isn't any better than "five metals Holdren"…both seem to be "Malthusian" buffs.

Rocky

Because if warming is our lot, then upwards of 40 feet deeper oceans are the ultimate result; which would totally destroy present coral reef habitats anyway, yet reduce ocean acidification from dilution.

Dilution doesn't reduce the acidity. There is more carbon dioxide in the air. The warmer water acts as a better solvent than cooler water. The carbon dioxide more easily dissolves into the water.

We have an equilibrium:

H2O + CO2 <> H2CO3 <> 2H+ + CO3--

Increased warming shifts the equilibrium to the right, therefore more carbonic acid, therefore lower pH.

Now guess what those scientists have been finding over the last few decades?

My answer to your question stands. Now you are framing another one?

Ralph

At least the Bible sticks with what it said from the getgo….

Then you haven't read it very carefully.

We have an equilibrium:

So warmer Is better. What's all the fuss? We avoid an ice age. We warm up, the icecaps melt, the oceans rise, we move inland and the coral reef habitat establishes itself forty feet higher.

Then you haven't read it very carefully.

Haha. What's changed? Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah; it's complete and it's the same as the Isaiah we have in our Bibles. There hasn't been any editing or excising in over 2,000 years, ergo it is as far as we can tell the very same Isaiah that Israel had (or more accurately, Judah had) from c. 530 BC….

Doug, If you have to ask:

Haha. What's changed?

Then you don't know your bible. It doesn't "stick with what it said from the getgo…". It doesn't even get the facts right between stories of Jesus' birth.

Rocky,

I'll rise to the bait of your "the oceans were dying" theme that you can't let go of.

There is a BIG difference between individuals (including non-scientists like Cousteau) proclaiming "the oceans are dying" (what does that even mean?), and the policy and position statements of scientific societies and organizations. Try as I might, I cannot find corroboration that the NAS, NRC and the Royal Society claimed that the "oceans were dying" back in the 70's and the 80's. You may have better luck.

Ralph

We have an equilibrium:

So warmer Is better. What's all the fuss?

Oh boy. Here is the problem trying to describe a scientific concept to someone with no scientific background at all. Maybe I should have used "chemical equilibrium".

Equilibrium is not used in the colloquial sense here. Same with the conversational definition of "theory" and the scientific meaning that endlessly confuses the scientifically ignorant in the ID arguments.

A chemical equilibrium is where the direction of a chemical reaction goes backwards and forwards depending on surrounding conditions. Therefore setting a piece of paper on fire is an irreversible chemical reaction that goes only in one direction. Having a dissolved gas react with the solvent is an equilibrium reaction that can shift from back and forth, depending on conditions like salinity, solute saturation levels, pH and of course, temperature.

So no, warmer isn't better, and that is what the "fuss" is about.

Ralph

Then you don't know your bible. It doesn't "stick with what it said from the getgo…". It doesn't even get the facts right between stories of Jesus' birth.

Oh, THAT! You think that inerrancy changes the Bible? The people I talk to accept that the Bible is the product of human effort, i.e. filled with the inevitable disagreements that arise from multiple versions of the same story. None of those disagreements are germane to the meaning conveyed. What is being "said" remains today as it was first written down. What it means to me or to you is, as always, a different matter altogether.

So no, warmer isn't better, and that is what the "fuss" is about.

Warmer isn't better than colder? We're going to get one or the other, later rather than sooner (we hope). If it doesn't continue to warm it will get cooler and the result will be the next ice age. We can't keep the temp the SAME. Look at all the non AGW periods going back c. 420K years: we didn't cause any of that, and we won't be stopping the next one either….

Hi

Ralph, sigh.

The issue isn't that things are warming. Or that there is a consensus on the warming.

In other parts of this discussion, Gore's movie gets cited, and the UN gives him awards..and he isn't a scientist either. HOWEVER, we are talking about individuals with influence who are getting politicians to effect laws that affect us all.

And these influential people all cite the science, and while the incipient disaster is often different, new ice age, algae blooms, sea dying, global warming, trash disposal, oil spills, whatever, the solution is always the same.

Rocky,

In other parts of this discussion, Gore's movie gets cited, and the UN gives him awards..and he isn't a scientist either. HOWEVER, we are talking about individuals with influence who are getting politicians to effect laws that affect us all.

And these influential people all cite the science, and while the incipient disaster is often different, new ice age, algae blooms, sea dying, global warming, trash disposal, oil spills, whatever, the solution is always the same.

Ah so it's NOT the actual science that you object to? It's the expensive, knee-jerk reactions of the politicians in response to the science that gets you down? I'm with you there, buddy. These people have a hard time repairing the pothole on the road. "Fixing the Earth" is out of their league.

That doesn't mean we don't have a problem. It's just that politicians aren't the answer.

Ralph

Doug,

Oh, THAT! You think that inerrancy changes the Bible?

Accepting that the Bible is full of errors is not, "At least the Bible sticks with what it said from the getgo…."
Not by a long shot.

By the way, that makes your friends in the minority in your country.

Warmer isn't better than colder? We're going to get one or the other, later rather than sooner (we hope). If it doesn't continue to warm it will get cooler and the result will be the next ice age. We can't keep the temp the SAME. Look at all the non AGW periods going back c. 420K years: we didn't cause any of that, and we won't be stopping the next one either….

But no one is arguing that Doug. No one. Either a very hot OR a very cold Earth is going to be very, very bad for humanity. Both are inevitable. Lets not speed up the process is all the AGW proponents (that you like to sneer at) are saying.

Ralph

I'm not sneering at GW proponents, just the anthropogenic ones who have hopped on the UN band wagon and are whining for gov't intervention on a global scale.

Isn't an ocean level c. forty feet above the present level only caused by "very warm"? How can that be bad for humanity or the rest of "us"? We'll have to adapt: and CRAP! we'll have to move inland or move altogether: that's the eventual lot of those cities sited on the edge of a fluctuating shoreline (any idiot knows that NOW, but not, I suppose, back when Venice was first built). 99% of the animal species that have lived on the planet are already extinct: this, too, appears to be the normal way of Nature on Earth. Why should we listen to cry-babies whining about how MAN is responsible for the extinction of present day creatures because WE are killing their environment? If we sit back and become a few million hunter-gatherers OTHER animals will go extinct before our very eyes: then the whiners will whine that it's our fault for not DOING something!

If the solution didn't always wind up being the same (as we keep saying) I might seriously consider listening. But extinct animals are not the fault of homo sapiens: oh, a few exceptions do not prove the RULE – NATURE kills off a hundred times more animals than all of the species we've hunted or driven to extinction.

Our species is in the unique position to notice at all: and to do something about what WE do with the rest of the planet. I'm all for saving diversity. But the long-term threats to diversity are not within our purview….

Isn't an ocean level c. forty feet above the present level only caused by "very warm"? How can that be bad for humanity or the rest of "us"?

Are you serious? Think of the 100's of millions of people that would be displaced. Think of the millions of hectares of cultivated land underwater. Think of the famines that would result. Think of the wars that would result. You honestly think you won't be affected as you sit high above sea level?

Our species is in the unique position to notice at all: and to do something about what WE do with the rest of the planet. I'm all for saving diversity. But the long-term threats to diversity are not within our purview….

Unless it's the dwindling rain forests that create about 40% of the O2 you breath.

Ralph

Are you serious? Think of the 100's of millions of people that would be displaced.

SLOWLY, Ralph. They don't lose their ocean-based habitat, it merely moves inland. The total loss of square miles of land would be negligible. The cost? Well, isn't that what global COOPERATION is all about? VOLUNTARY cooperation, though: not some UN-mandated plundering of the developed nations to give redistributed wealth to the undeveloped peoples of the earth (after, of course, the "Management" siphons off its cut).

Unless it's the dwindling rain forests that create about 40% of the O2 you breath.

I'd like to see a consensus on THAT one. It's the oceans that supply our air, with supplementary amounts coming from the trees. I flat out don't believe that "40%" comes from the rain forests….

Just saw on CNN (don't watch Fox) that Katrina caused 81 billion in damages to the US (and counting). The most damaging storm in US history. It was a single 16 foot swell that caused the damage.

Now consider a worldwide rise of the oceans by 40 feet. Do you seriously not see how that might be detrimental to humanity?

I'd like to see a consensus on THAT one. It's the oceans that supply our air, with supplementary amounts coming from the trees. I flat out don't believe that "40%" comes from the rain forests….

So it's a belief thing again?

The number bandied about are 20%-40%. Wiki says 28%. Perhaps it has to do with 40 years ago rain forests covered 14% of the Earth's land mass. Now it is only 6%.

Either way you look at it, it is "within our purview".

If the oceans warm, then how does the decreasing pH affect the photo-plankton, phyto-plankton and algae that make the majority of the oxygen.

Warmer water and higher ocean levels cause water columns that well up to the surface, to become unstable. With them not bringing essential nutrients from the ocean depths to the surface how will that effect the O2 production?

Are any of those issues in our purview?

Hi

doug, the number is largely correct. And algae is the bulk of the rest. It was algae bloom and oceans being killed off as asserted by Cousteau in the 70s that had him promoting the UN had to control everyone's lifestyle.

In his case, he was proposing things like banning all fertilizer use. And accepted the concept of a massive starve out of humanity.

I don't consider Katrina an example of much of anything. The back story was that the French established NO after being told that the periodic hurricane comes through and floods the place. They had political reasons for the location. And for the last few centuries, foolish man has insisted on trying to beat "mother nature" here.

That wave/flood happened in a couple hours. The rise in sea levels, even worse case, will take decades meaning lots of time to either build dikes like Holland OR move.

The usual sources insist that mankind must do an 80% reduction in CO2. AND, that must be done without penalizing the third world advancement into modern times. This last is the "kicker" as we say in america.

One can with difficulty get the US and the UK down 80% with huge pain, and part of that will require massive third world die off! Simply, every famine is "solved" by the first world feeding the third world. With an 80% reduction, we would not have the ability to grow and transport the food we feed the world with.

That simple.

The UN through the IPCC is promoting that there be, as well, a massive transfer of funds to the third world to grow them into the 21st century. You cannot both wreck the US economy through "cap and trade" AND still have the money to give to Kenya. That is also simple.

Now, in the US, "5 metals" Holdren, our president's science advisor is a proponent of letting the world population "naturally" be reduced to under a billion as a "solution".

AGW isn't about science, it is about politics.

Rocky

If the oceans warm, then how does the decreasing pH affect the photo-plankton, phyto-plankton and algae that make the majority of the oxygen.

So there wasn't air enough to breathe back c. 420K years ago? Warm water grows algae like nobody's business. Just look at my wife's water feature pond! Nature will always find a way….

That wave/flood happened in a couple hours. The rise in sea levels, even worse case, will take decades meaning lots of time to either build dikes like Holland OR move.

Exactly my point.

…Holdren, our president's science advisor is a proponent of letting the world population "naturally" be reduced to under a billion as a "solution".

I agree! O! what a wonderful world it would be, with only "Me, and my wife, my son John and his wife, us four, no more, Amen"! And in the charity of my soul, I will allow a "few" others, as long as they mind their own business….

Back to Darwin gentle reader. I found this BBC documentary, sorry TJ it's on youtube, 14 years on it is still speaks to us who fight the kulturekampf;

YouTube link

Enjoy or dispair, your pick. Takes about 1 hour of your time.

Doug claimed post 1066 – I'll claim 1645 (Naseby)

Enjoy this summation on TJ's arguments.

YouTube link

BTW Is this thread finally to be put to bed?

I hope not, I've invested over a year in following it!

:->

Pete

Hi

Pete, so this was your killer post to revive the thread?

Rocky

Hey Rocky

:-)

I've been waiting for TJ to join in again before I get back to the "killer" posts.

Pete

TJ commented last time that we were merely waisting his time – so it proves the fact that real science will eventualy drive out bad psuedo-science.

TJ left this thread because we were making him gain weight??…