Vaginas, Sea Level, and the Beginning of Reality

[89Hen]

Anyone can make a broad claim, but backing it up is harder. Pardon me for pointing out the stupidity of tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber who make dumb claims

In the meantime, this is somewhat of a serious issue wouldn't you say?

Making a law that they can't consider something is dumb.

[youngterrier]

Anyone can make a broad claim, but backing it up is harder. Pardon me for pointing out the stupidity of tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber who make dumb claims

In the meantime, this is somewhat of a serious issue wouldn't you say?

Making a law that they can't consider something is dumb.

it's censorship though....

Look, I'm not a fan of creationism or ID, as I've already made clear many a-times, but the one way you don't combat the problem is by censoring it, which is exactly what this is. For one, you make the opposition a martyr and if anything you hurt your cause, for two, you could very well be wrong and should open up to that possibility.

With that said, I'm more than comfortable in the scientific merits of evolution without creationism or ID, so I don't feel threatened by the discussion of those ideas. With that said, I prefer school board officials and teachers to refrain from using those arguments because I feel they are fundamentally flawed and by showcasing them you showcase your ignorance in the subject and therefore ignorance as a teacher.

So, I wouldn't support (though I wouldn't see much harm from an educational perspective) official, state-sponsored, anti-ID/anti-creationism in schools.

This situation with sea level is different because it is out-right censorship of an idea that has merit behind it. It's the equivalent of being unable to use science efficiently to prove your case, so those who disagree are rage quitting and just telling the opposition to shut up.

This doesn't solve anything. And if global warming is a thing (which I accept due to the scientific evidence presented to me), all this does is delay progress in terms of solving it. We can pretend something isn't true and ban people from talking about it all we want, but the world and the universe doesn't necessarily conform to what we want it to be.

[D1B]

Scientific consensus = indisputable truth. Like when Tesla, Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, and many other top scientists from the early 20th century insisted we needed eugenics programs to save humanity.

Also, there was no medieval warm period or any ice ages in history, either. That is all capitalist creationist catholic corporate-coal propaganda.

You dumbfuck. That shit don't matter. WE changed the game by burning all the forests and overpopulating the planet with billions of consumers.

We do need limits on human reproduction and we're gonna have to face that ugly dilemna sooner than you think. Thank you to those men and more for starting the discussion.

[89Hen]

Making a law that they can't consider something is dumb.

it's censorship though....

Look, I'm not a fan of creationism or ID, as I've already made clear many a-times, but the one way you don't combat the problem is by censoring it, which is exactly what this is. For one, you make the opposition a martyr and if anything you hurt your cause, for two, you could very well be wrong and should open up to that possibility.

With that said, I'm more than comfortable in the scientific merits of evolution without creationism or ID, so I don't feel threatened by the discussion of those ideas. With that said, I prefer school board officials and teachers to refrain from using those arguments because I feel they are fundamentally flawed and by showcasing them you showcase your ignorance in the subject and therefore ignorance as a teacher.

So, I wouldn't support (though I wouldn't see much harm from an educational perspective) official, state-sponsored, anti-ID/anti-creationism in schools.

This situation with sea level is different because it is out-right censorship of an idea that has merit behind it. It's the equivalent of being unable to use science efficiently to prove your case, so those who disagree are rage quitting and just telling the opposition to shut up.

This doesn't solve anything. And if global warming is a thing (which I accept due to the scientific evidence presented to me), all this does is delay progress in terms of solving it. We can pretend something isn't true and ban people from talking about it all we want, but the world and the universe doesn't necessarily conform to what we want it to be.

That's a long reply to just agree with me.

[UNI88]

it's censorship though....

Look, I'm not a fan of creationism or ID, as I've already made clear many a-times, but the one way you don't combat the problem is by censoring it, which is exactly what this is. For one, you make the opposition a martyr and if anything you hurt your cause, for two, you could very well be wrong and should open up to that possibility.

With that said, I'm more than comfortable in the scientific merits of evolution without creationism or ID, so I don't feel threatened by the discussion of those ideas. With that said, I prefer school board officials and teachers to refrain from using those arguments because I feel they are fundamentally flawed and by showcasing them you showcase your ignorance in the subject and therefore ignorance as a teacher.

So, I wouldn't support (though I wouldn't see much harm from an educational perspective) official, state-sponsored, anti-ID/anti-creationism in schools.

This situation with sea level is different because it is out-right censorship of an idea that has merit behind it. It's the equivalent of being unable to use science efficiently to prove your case, so those who disagree are rage quitting and just telling the opposition to shut up.

This doesn't solve anything. And if global warming is a thing (which I accept due to the scientific evidence presented to me), all this does is delay progress in terms of solving it. We can pretend something isn't true and ban people from talking about it all we want, but the world and the universe doesn't necessarily conform to what we want it to be.

That's a long reply to just agree with me.

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

[youngterrier]

That's a long reply to just agree with me.

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

I do have a terrible habit of rambling

I try to keep it relevant and not in the "tl;dr" category

[JohnStOnge]

If you want to debate facts, I will debate facts, for the facts are in my favor as I believe I can demonstrate

Ok. How about the fact that the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis report says that unequivocal attribution of climate change to any particular cause or set of causes would require experiments that are impossible to conduct?

You're always talking about "how science works." Yet you say something in one of your posts in this thread that seems to indicate that the lack of an alternative explanation infers the explanation you described. That's not how science works. Someone does not need to provide an alternative explanation in order to correctly point out that you can't infer cause and effect from the type of evidence generated by the climate science community with respect to climate change. And you don't need to be a climate scientist to say that either. Certain rules transcend particular disciplines.

[JohnStOnge]

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

Oh not it's not. The difference between me and YT is that I understand how science works while YT thinks he does but really doesn't. Some day, since he's interested in it, he may. But right now he doesn't.

[youngterrier]

If you want to debate facts, I will debate facts, for the facts are in my favor as I believe I can demonstrate

Ok. How about the fact that the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis report says that unequivocal attribution of climate change to any particular cause or set of causes would require experiments that are impossible to conduct?

You're always talking about "how science works." Yet you say something in one of your posts in this thread that seems to indicate that the lack of an alternative explanation infers the explanation you described. That's not how science works. Someone does not need to provide an alternative explanation in order to correctly point out that you can't infer cause and effect from the type of evidence generated by the climate science community with respect to climate change. And you don't need to be a climate scientist to say that either. Certain rules transcend particular disciplines.

None of that changes the facts already aforementioned. The level of exact certainty you require is unattainable for about 99% anything.

Most physics is theoretical nowadays, but in this case it is not, as a matter of fact is demonstrated. The same physics on Venus work on Earth, and though the situations are not 100% the same, they are similar and we know enough about the physics of the universe and the development of climate to deduce that AGW is a thing.

[UNI88]

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

Oh not it's not. The difference between me and YT is that I understand how science works while YT thinks he does but really doesn't. Some day, since he's interested in it, he may. But right now he doesn't.

I wasn't referring to your use of scientific arguments, I was referring to your tendency to hammer the same argument home over and over and thus use 500 words where 50 would do. Your logic can be sound but your arguments lose their effectiveness when they go on and on and on.

And I tend to agree with YT. Just because there is not definitive proof that man is impacting climate doesn't mean that he isn't. Definitive proof is impossible at this time and from what I understand most experts believe there is a correlation. If there is a chance that mankind is impacting the climate in a negative way, can we afford to put our heads in the sand and completely ignore it? I'm not advocating over-the-top environmentalism but I do advocate prudent and rational environmentalism.

[youngterrier]

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

Oh not it's not. The difference between me and YT is that I understand how science works while YT thinks he does but really doesn't. Some day, since he's interested in it, he may. But right now he doesn't.

Fuck off old man, your definition of science is statistics and an overwhelming disrespect to those who know more about a subject than you do. Case in point:

-you continuously say texting/cell phone use doesn't contribute to accidents, despite the demonstrable evidence and tests that say otherwise
-you continuously say homosexuality is a mental illness despite the overwhelming professional disagreement by those who are actually certified in the area, as well as contradicting evidence with homosexuality being present in other species
-I have a good feeling that you're an IDer, which automatically means you're resigning your "I know science" card
-You demand high evidence for something like global warming, of which is nearly unattainable, but you accept practically anecdotal evidence to fortify your bigoted views against homosexuality (As you've started one thread with "My friend who does occupation ________ told me that my basic conclusion is right" and used ONE study to use as evidence, of which none was conclusive)
-and finally you think your understanding of physics makes you certified to discredit the conclusions of multiple international associations, comprising of people with multiple science degrees, that come to the conclusion that climate change is in fact a real thing that is happening, despite you not having even a physics degree or any form. Appeal to authority doesn't solve an issue, in fact it can be fallacious, but in this case it's a good indicator.

As far as I'm concerned, it's clear you only use science when its convenient for you. Your method is whacked and wreaks of conformation bias. When it comes to physics and cosmological events, we can use experimentation other than making predictions and seeing if they come true. We don't call Newtonian or relativity physics bad science or fail to listen to those who understand it because it's untestable in the same way that AGW is untestable. In the case of AGW, the predictions vary in terms of the extremes, but one thing is for sure in that the climate is changing at an accelerated rate (just look at animal migration patterns throughout the world), and the temperatures continue to increase despite other factors that aren't carbon emissions falling in overall activity.

So again, yeah again, fuck off. Your philosophical argument for "it's untestable" wreaks of a flat-earth understanding of the world. AGW may be an inductive argument, but it's a pretty damn solid one. Based on all we know of the physics of climate and the ways its changing, AGW is the leading candidate. If you have another idea, I'll be glad to listen, but I highly doubt that. I mean really, our understanding of Venus is comparable to the same way; saying we can't have some good ideas about how earth's climate operates based on Venus because venus is a radically different planet is a lot like saying you can't use some basic ideas about how dog biology may work to induce how human biology may work in similar ways; yes we can see that dogs (Venus) and humans (Earth) have fundamental differences, but the science of biology (physics) that holds together is the same and operates under similar rules.

I have a low tolerance of science denialists flaunting around as if they know science. Therefore, I repeat the phrase thricely: Fuck off

[youngterrier]

Oh not it's not. The difference between me and YT is that I understand how science works while YT thinks he does but really doesn't. Some day, since he's interested in it, he may. But right now he doesn't.

I wasn't referring to your use of scientific arguments, I was referring to your tendency to hammer the same argument home over and over and thus use 500 words where 50 would do. Your logic can be sound but your arguments lose their effectiveness when they go on and on and on.

And I tend to agree with YT. Just because there is not definitive proof that man is impacting climate doesn't mean that he isn't. Definitive proof is impossible at this time and from what I understand most experts believe there is a correlation. If there is a chance that mankind is impacting the climate in a negative way, can we afford to put our heads in the sand and completely ignore it? I'm not advocating over-the-top environmentalism but I do advocate prudent and rational environmentalism.

Winner!

And I'm not advocating a radical environmentalist agenda, just a moderate approach, because I understand that if it's rushed people will suffer. At the same time, if we don't act, said policy could be ineffective. Either way, we have to start at square one in establishing that it's happening and secondly if we're contributing it.

As far as this global warming thing is concerned, the only way you are going to convince me that man isn't the main contributor to the accelerated temperatures is if you propose an alternative (the only remaining alternative involves clouds)

Call me stubborn, but at least I know what it would take to change my mind. That's how science works, you can't postulate into abstract definitions, you have to maintain a level of certainty. You take the best conclusions and stick with them until they are disproven or a better explanation arises (and you're always cautious when people's live are at stake or when proposing a solution that will directly effect people's lives). That's how science is different today than it was in the times of Galileo (and JJ don't jump on me on this one, I'm using a broad example here) or Eugenics; those who opposed Galileo already had their conclusions and were not going to have their opinion changed no matter what evidence was proposed, and the eugenics people flat out didn't understand Darwinism (and I can tell you that for sure seeing as the vast majority of Americans TODAY don't understand Darwinism, let alone back then when we didn't know as much as we do now)


Was this a tl;dr post? NO FUCKS GIVEN.

[Seahawks08]

And I tend to agree with YT. Just because there is not definitive proof that man is impacting climate doesn't mean that he isn't. Definitive proof is impossible at this time and from what I understand most experts believe there is a correlation. If there is a chance that mankind is impacting the climate in a negative way, can we afford to put our heads in the sand and completely ignore it? I'm not advocating over-the-top environmentalism but I do advocate prudent and rational environmentalism.

[Baldy]

Only the facts, yt.

You mean the facts that say:
-- that the greenhouse effect has been established science for over 50 years by the USAF
--that volcanic activity only contributes to 1% of the carbon emissions that man-made activity contributes per yer,
--that temperatures have sky-rocketed in the last 50 years, as has the amount of carbon emissions
--and said increase only coincides with carbon emission activity, as volcanic activity, orbital activity, and solar activity have not coincided with the increase as each has decreased at some points while the temperatures increase still remain steadily increasing
-- the fact that the temperature of the lower atmosphere continues to increase, while the upper atmosphere is cooling, a clear indicator of the greenhouse effect in action
--and finally, but most weakly if you're going for "pure facts", a consensus has emerged among the scientific community that man-made causes are the leading factors in global warming and climate change.

But no, the above, which has all this statistical data, is nothing but a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by 10s, if not 100s of thousands of individuals in order to kill capitalism. You're right, there is no evidence and no deductive or inductive reasoning possible to reach the conclusion that man is contributing to climate change. Absolutely none. Fuck science, the Business majors and the invisible hand of the market know more about climate than those guys with degrees in climate science and physics.

So, um, what specific scientific explanation do you offer as to why the earth is warming? I'll give you a hint, saying it happens naturally is the equivalent of explaining why we poop happens naturally as a viable scientific explanation.

If you want to debate facts, I will debate facts, for the facts are in my favor as I believe I can demonstrate

- never said the greenhouse affect was a myth.
- volcanic activity? nice spin, but human activity only contributes between 2% and 5.25% of all the earths carbon emissions annually, and ONLY between .25% and .30% of all the earths greenhouse gasses annually.
- most reasonable scientists can't decide if CO2 is a net cause or a net effect of global warming.
- consensus is the enemy of science. Dominant points of view are not immune to criticism.

You are right about one thing...man is a main contributor of global warming. Just like the penny I found on the sidewalk yesterday is a main contributor to my monthly mortgage payment.

[89Hen]

I have a low tolerance of...

anyone who disagrees with you.

[Pwns]

Oh look at Venus why don't you.

Global Warming is all about physics.

Never said the greenhouse effect isn't real, genius. I was just making a point about your comparison of the AGW hypothesis to the smoking-cancer hypothesis. You don't really think there is as much validity in an observational study with n=1 (with a system that is poorly understood) as there are is in making conclusions on CDC statistics involving many millions of people, do you?

Your problem seems to be not understanding the difference between SOFT sciences and HARD sciences. Case in point: everyone "knows" higher saturated fat intake is sufficient to increase heart disease risk, but if that's so why do the French (who smoke more and eat more saturated fat) have lower rates of heart disease? Because performing actual experiments to connect diet and lifestyle factors to health outcomes is IMPOSSIBLE. And when it comes to smoking, for all we know a smoker with a diet high in antioxidants and low in red meat could have longer life spans than non-smokers with diets low in antioxidants and high in read meat. No way to know for sure. If you think that things like the greenhouse effect and Newtonian physics have as much validity as AGW you don't understand soft versus hard sciences.

[Chizzang]

He's been debating JSO a lot lately and it's rubbing off on him.

Oh not it's not. The difference between me and YT is that I understand how science works while YT thinks he does but really doesn't. Some day, since he's interested in it, he may. But right now he doesn't.

Wow..!!!

a JSO troll post...
(awesome)
I've been waiting along time for this

[youngterrier]

You mean the facts that say:
-- that the greenhouse effect has been established science for over 50 years by the USAF
--that volcanic activity only contributes to 1% of the carbon emissions that man-made activity contributes per yer,
--that temperatures have sky-rocketed in the last 50 years, as has the amount of carbon emissions
--and said increase only coincides with carbon emission activity, as volcanic activity, orbital activity, and solar activity have not coincided with the increase as each has decreased at some points while the temperatures increase still remain steadily increasing
-- the fact that the temperature of the lower atmosphere continues to increase, while the upper atmosphere is cooling, a clear indicator of the greenhouse effect in action
--and finally, but most weakly if you're going for "pure facts", a consensus has emerged among the scientific community that man-made causes are the leading factors in global warming and climate change.

But no, the above, which has all this statistical data, is nothing but a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by 10s, if not 100s of thousands of individuals in order to kill capitalism. You're right, there is no evidence and no deductive or inductive reasoning possible to reach the conclusion that man is contributing to climate change. Absolutely none. Fuck science, the Business majors and the invisible hand of the market know more about climate than those guys with degrees in climate science and physics.

So, um, what specific scientific explanation do you offer as to why the earth is warming? I'll give you a hint, saying it happens naturally is the equivalent of explaining why we poop happens naturally as a viable scientific explanation.

If you want to debate facts, I will debate facts, for the facts are in my favor as I believe I can demonstrate

- never said the greenhouse affect was a myth.
- volcanic activity? nice spin, but human activity only contributes between 2% and 5.25% of all the earths carbon emissions annually, and ONLY between .25% and .30% of all the earths greenhouse gasses annually.
- most reasonable scientists can't decide if CO2 is a net cause or a net effect of global warming.
- consensus is the enemy of science. Dominant points of view are not immune to criticism.

You are right about one thing...man is a main contributor of global warming. Just like the penny I found on the sidewalk yesterday is a main contributor to my monthly mortgage payment.

-you're implying it.
- that number is SIGNIFICANT in unsettling the balance, especially since we cut down trees that help balance out the equation. The fact is that it's building up in the atmosphere, and we're continuing to burn.
-"Most reasonable scientists?" dude 99% of the scientists say humans are a factor, is your definition of "reasonable scientists" someone who agrees with you.
-No one said that, you just fail to produce an adequate alternative explanation for the spike in temperatures, other than saying "it's natural"

[youngterrier]

Oh look at Venus why don't you.

Global Warming is all about physics.

Never said the greenhouse effect isn't real, genius. I was just making a point about your comparison of the AGW hypothesis to the smoking-cancer hypothesis. You don't really think there is as much validity in an observational study with n=1 (with a system that is poorly understood) as there are is in making conclusions on CDC statistics involving many millions of people, do you?

Your problem seems to be not understanding the difference between SOFT sciences and HARD sciences. Case in point: everyone "knows" higher saturated fat intake is sufficient to increase heart disease risk, but if that's so why do the French (who smoke more and eat more saturated fat) have lower rates of heart disease? Because performing actual experiments to connect diet and lifestyle factors to health outcomes is IMPOSSIBLE. And when it comes to smoking, for all we know a smoker with a diet high in antioxidants and low in red meat could have longer life spans than non-smokers with diets low in antioxidants and high in read meat. No way to know for sure. If you think that things like the greenhouse effect and Newtonian physics have as much validity as AGW you don't understand soft versus hard sciences.

you undermine how much we know about the physics of the climate. Process of elimination and other methods make AGW the clear leading candidate.

There's a difference between that and the science behind the human body, which is deeply connected to genetics, of which we don't know nearly as much about

[youngterrier]

I have a low tolerance of...

anyone who disagrees with you.

We need more zealots, what's the point of arguing if you aren't sure of your position

[Pwns]

There's a difference between that and the science behind the human body, which is deeply connected to genetics, of which we don't know nearly as much about

No, there is not really much of a difference in health sciences and climate science. Both involve complex systems with many interacting subsystems that are poorly understood. Why did the climate get cooler at the end of the mesozoic and kill the large reptiles? No one knows. Why do ice ages occur with no real periodicity or predictability? No explanation for that. Do you expect me to take man-made global warming theories seriously when how climate changes over time is not really understood?

Furthermore, another big problem I have with AGW theories is that they don't tend to look at the world as a biosphere. For example, insect respiration produces almost double the mass of CO2 as all fossil fuel burning. A global increase in insect population would have a much greater affect on CO2 production than a few million new cars on the road. And what about plankton? Their biomass is even bigger than insect biomass. Could increases in zooplankton population or decreases in phytoplankton population (which have actually happened) cause the higher CO2 levels? And what about aerobic and photosynthetic bacteria, whose biomass is even HIGHER than the plankton?

Seriously, if we're going to stupidly implicate CATTLE as being a significant contributing factor to global warming, why not look at the biomass of livings things which are far greater biomass. Scientists can't even agree on what types of organisms produce the most CO2 and oxygen.

[youngterrier]

There's a difference between that and the science behind the human body, which is deeply connected to genetics, of which we don't know nearly as much about

No, there is not really much of a difference in health sciences and climate science. Both involve complex systems with many interacting subsystems that are poorly understood. Why did the climate get cooler at the end of the mesozoic and kill the large reptiles? No one knows. Why do ice ages occur with no real periodicity or predictability? No explanation for that. Do you expect me to take man-made global warming theories seriously when how climate changes over time is not really understood?

Furthermore, another big problem I have with AGW theories is that they don't tend to look at the world as a biosphere. For example, insect respiration produces almost double the mass of CO2 as all fossil fuel burning. A global increase in insect population would have a much greater affect on CO2 production than a few million new cars on the road. And what about plankton? Their biomass is even bigger than insect biomass. Could increases in zooplankton population or decreases in phytoplankton population (which have actually happened) cause the higher CO2 levels? And what about aerobic and photosynthetic bacteria, whose biomass is even HIGHER than the plankton?

Seriously, if we're going to stupidly implicate CATTLE as being a significant contributing factor to global warming, why not look at the biomass of livings things which are far greater biomass. Scientists can't even agree on what types of organisms produce the most CO2 and oxygen.

You've brought up lot of points but at the same time you've exposed your idiocy.

We know a lot more about physics, at least in terms of how climate and molecules work, because we can test how molecules, gases, etc interact with each other in a lab setting. I mean really, your post shows a complete ignorance of our understanding of physics at the molecular level. One thing we do know for sure is that we know a lot more about physics than we do molecular and genetic biology, because physics stuff is easily tested, whereas the genome of the human body, though mapped, has enough information in it to to where it will take a very long time to know what genes or combination of genes will do exactly what function in the human body.

Physics doesn't really have that discrepancy, at least on the atomic level because there isn't a molecule of which we study the interactions with that are millions and millions and millions in parts. We know how the atmosphere works because the simplicity of it with it's Nitrogen, oxygen, etc makeup. We know that it doesn't matter if it's 10 atoms of oxygen interacting with 10 atoms of element x, or a thousand atoms of oxygen interacting with a thousand atoms of element x, it's going to act in the same way, except amplified by 100 because of the amount of atoms involved. Contrast that with our understanding of genetics and biology when literally there are millions or billions of factors and variables contributing to the body, whether it be genetic or otherwise, and it is MUCH simpler and clearer to draw a distinction.

I also think you're selling scientist short in terms of what we know about past climate, but I haven't done enough research on said topic so I won't acknowledge that point.

Also, NO SHIT ANIMALS CONTRIBUTE TO CARBON EMISSIONS.

No one is saying that it doesn't, but what some people fail to understand is that, generally speaking, before there was industry, etc in the world pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, there was a natural balance of carbon emissions because there was a balance of life forms who created energy via aerobic respiration (inhale oxygen,releasing CO2) and photosynthesis (inhaling CO2, releasing oxygen). It developed naturally. Originally, there were more organisms that contributed to via photosynthesis, as the early earth had very little oxygen in it. It was through the flourishing of photosynthesis that aerobic respiration organisms came to be.

Now the problem is that we are reducing the number of agents that do photosynthesis, while pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. It's like have a scale, both sides being 100 lbs, adding 2 lbs (using Baldy's numbers) to one side, and taking off a small amount the other side. You repeat this process over and over, except after weigh-in you basically take the 2 pounds off to the side and after every weigh in you let them accumulate. The accumulation symbolizes the carbon emission building up in the atmosphere, because it doesn't just disappear after every year and we are most certainly not matching that accumulation with an accumulation of photosynthesizing agents to offset that increase, in fact we're decreasing them (though I don't have an exact number to give for that).

I'm open to the idea that the number of carbon emissions are naturally increasing with more aerobic respirating life forms, however you'll be hard press for me to believe that the increase is that of which matches 2% to 5% of emissions we produce artificially per year. That's insane. the issue is that that 2%-5% is accelerating the process of the greenhouse effect, leading to an increase in global warming. Regardless of whether or not the "balance" was tipped in the direction of their being more carbon emissions put forth in the atmosphere before we started dumping, the fact remains that putting more in the atmosphere, while not compensating on the other end of the scale, leads to an accelerated green house effect.

So, I reiterate, the issue is not that CO2 is getting pumped into the atmosphere, the issue is that we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, thus accelerating the process.

[JoltinJoe]

You've brought up lot of points but at the same time you've exposed your idiocy.

We know a lot more about physics, at least in terms of how climate and molecules work, because we can test how molecules, gases, etc interact with each other in a lab setting. I mean really, your post shows a complete ignorance of our understanding of physics at the molecular level. One thing we do know for sure is that we know a lot more about physics than we do molecular and genetic biology, because physics stuff is easily tested, whereas the genome of the human body, though mapped, has enough information in it to to where it will take a very long time to know what genes or combination of genes will do exactly what function in the human body.

Physics doesn't really have that discrepancy, at least on the atomic level because there isn't a molecule of which we study the interactions with that are millions and millions and millions in parts. We know how the atmosphere works because the simplicity of it with it's Nitrogen, oxygen, etc makeup. We know that it doesn't matter if it's 10 atoms of oxygen interacting with 10 atoms of element x, or a thousand atoms of oxygen interacting with a thousand atoms of element x, it's going to act in the same way, except amplified by 100 because of the amount of atoms involved. Contrast that with our understanding of genetics and biology when literally there are millions or billions of factors and variables contributing to the body, whether it be genetic or otherwise, and it is MUCH simpler and clearer to draw a distinction.

I also think you're selling scientist short in terms of what we know about past climate, but I haven't done enough research on said topic so I won't acknowledge that point.

Also, NO **** ANIMALS CONTRIBUTE TO CARBON EMISSIONS.

No one is saying that it doesn't, but what some people fail to understand is that, generally speaking, before there was industry, etc in the world pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, there was a natural balance of carbon emissions because there was a balance of life forms who created energy via aerobic respiration (inhale oxygen,releasing CO2) and photosynthesis (inhaling CO2, releasing oxygen). It developed naturally. Originally, there were more organisms that contributed to via photosynthesis, as the early earth had very little oxygen in it. It was through the flourishing of photosynthesis that aerobic respiration organisms came to be.

Now the problem is that we are reducing the number of agents that do photosynthesis, while pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. It's like have a scale, both sides being 100 lbs, adding 2 lbs (using Baldy's numbers) to one side, and taking off a small amount the other side. You repeat this process over and over, except after weigh-in you basically take the 2 pounds off to the side and after every weigh in you let them accumulate. The accumulation symbolizes the carbon emission building up in the atmosphere, because it doesn't just disappear after every year and we are most certainly not matching that accumulation with an accumulation of photosynthesizing agents to offset that increase, in fact we're decreasing them (though I don't have an exact number to give for that).

I'm open to the idea that the number of carbon emissions are naturally increasing with more aerobic respirating life forms, however you'll be hard press for me to believe that the increase is that of which matches 2% to 5% of emissions we produce artificially per year. That's insane. the issue is that that 2%-5% is accelerating the process of the greenhouse effect, leading to an increase in global warming. Regardless of whether or not the "balance" was tipped in the direction of their being more carbon emissions put forth in the atmosphere before we started dumping, the fact remains that putting more in the atmosphere, while not compensating on the other end of the scale, leads to an accelerated green house effect.

So, I reiterate, the issue is not that CO2 is getting pumped into the atmosphere, the issue is that we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, thus accelerating the process.

[D1B]

Nice work,YT.

[JoltinJoe]

Nice work,YT.

You're like a love struck teenaged girl that just got the latest issue of Tiger Beat.