KVolk says:

#61 nightstar

Thanks for asking any way

1-Crabs require only food to survive and the ability to procreate. Humans as a species start with food, clothing, and shelter. Then they have to not only procreate they have to have environments to raise children that are shleters from many dangers for many years. You then have an increasing level of less concrete needs as well as outlined in Maslows hierarchy of needs.

2- so we weren’t around 600, 000 years ago you must believein a divine orgin for the species? Homo sapiens maybe weren’t but homo erectus probably was or other direct anscestors that survived until homo sapiens evovled from them.

3- see my post above about this but I would add that monkeys and dogs didn’t put themselves their we sent them a pretty big difference in capability I think we would probably agree. The other point is that people didn’t believe men could fly either at one point.

nightstar says:

No apologies necessary mate. I’m massively dyslexic and thus not much of a spelling Nazi.

I don’t think human needs differ much from crabs’. The only difference I perceive is the strategy for addressing those needs. Crabs live in the shelter their bodies create. Humans build theirs. Same needs different methods.

I don’t believe in divine origins or creation. I was merely pointing out the intent of Scott’s comment as I interpreted it.

I don’t see much difference in your average monkeys ability to leave orbit vs your average human. In addition despite our ‘advanced’ technology we humans are yet to establish a self sustaining colony outside the earths atmosphere. Until we do so it’s all science fiction.

nightstar says:

I understand your take on this and while I agree that one shouldn’t underestimate man’s resourcefulness I think the odds of our establishing a colony off planet before destroying our ability to do so aren’t very good.

Given adequate time(say 600,000 years) and evolutionary pressure doubtless monkeys or dogs would manage the same feat. However this is all speculative and that’s why I’m relegating it to the realms of sci-fi.

MikeN says:

I’d say it’s the pro-global warming side that’s a religion. Any weather announcement is immediately blamed on global warming. If it’s warmer, that’s global warming of course. If it’s colder then there is some theory given as to how that is because of global warming. Flooding is because of global warming, as well as record rainfall. But so is droughts.
Take ocean saltiness as an example. If the oceans are getting saltier, we are treated to the theory that global warming had dried up the oceans and is increasing the saltiness. When we find that in fact the oceans are getting less salty, we are told it is because global warming caused icecaps to melt, increasing the amount of freshwater in the oceans. Global warming is all powerful, and whatever happens in the word it is because of global warming.

Misanthropic Scott says:

KVolk,

Why is always so easy to believe the worst and not the best? or the most likely? You know 1000 years ago no one had heard of space flight or automobiles or refrigeration or vaccines or computers so 1000 years from now I think the same will have happened.

I agree. A thousand years from now, no one will have heard of space flight, automobiles, refrigeration, vaccines, or computers. And, if we’re not careful, humans will be in that list as well. It’s not disasturbation if it’s A) real and B) something we’re trying to avoid.

Since we’re past peak food and not past peak humans, how do you plan to solve the issue of increasing humans and decreasing food?

Personally, I favor voluntarily reducing the population dramatically. If we fail at that, our population will be reduced for us, but it will be painful.

You are completely deluding yourself if you think we have the ability to survive off planet without a habitable earth behind continuously shipping supplies. The nearest earth-like planet is far from our current ability to reach, and hasn’t even been found yet. So far, just one candidate may even be the right general type. We won’t really know for a long time and it’s quite far away.

As for your refusal to consider the longevity of other species when speaking about survival just means that you are looking for an answer that means we can survive and have fabricated one to your liking.

The only measure of survivability is survivability, by definition. So, species that have survived far more changes than we can imagine are, by definition, better survivors, duh.

Smith says:

I’m getting to this thread late, but I see nothing new in any of the posts. However, I think a comment on the article is in order:

“Melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a lake 500 metres deep which was causing the glacier ‘to float on land.’ These melt-water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic.”

Pardon me for the physics lesson, but do any of you GW worshippers know that an earthquake releases one hell of lot of energy? And what happens when that energy is released into ice? And which part of a kilometer high column of ice is closest to melting? (Here’s a hint: pressure.)

So which came first, the earthquake or the melting?

I’d need a whole hell of lot more data than what is presented here before I’d buy into the explanation offered by Vali Kallio.

MikeN says:

I want’ referring to global warming being blamed for individual weather events, but rather climate. Periods of more rainfall is global warming, and periods of drought are global warming. Ocean saltiness was supposed to be the proof that man-made global warming is happening. If you want to disown all of the gloom blamed on global warming, feel free, but you can’t make the claims made by others disappear. One poster on this site even linked to a report from the UN that ethnic cleansing in Darfur was caused by global warming.

KVolk says:

#67 nightstar

well pessism is a valid philosophy I guess though how you think it just will take sme evolutionary pressure to make the dogs etc the eqqual of the human species I can’ t begin to understand. Evolutionary pressure isn’t something that is turned up like the dial of the oven it is or isn’t and after this amount of time if a self aware intelligence hasn’t emerged then you won’t see one in a given observed species unless you want to alk science fiction again.

#71 MS

Malthusian scare tactics aren’t an argument you might as well say that if the sun explodes tommorrow we won’t have to go to work. We do feed ourselves and we have feed our selves and we will continue to feed ourselves. As a species we will continue to move forward and find ways to grow and prosper as a species. Name a species similar to humans. The only critieria would be what have they created, besides genetic reproductions of their species, that is recognized by current members of their species as such an item. Hum can’t do it? that is why you can’t compare humans to other species or just use surviabillity to dum down the comparision to fit the argument, it is about the potential of that species and how it is expressed and concerning humans there is no other comparable species. If you want to keep comparing apples to oranges and insisting they are the same go right ahead but your argument will have no surviability with me.

Glenn E says:

I’ve read nothing here (so far) about the evidence of the other planets showing a warming trend too. Even NASA scientists admit as much. But they realize that this couldn’t possibly “human caused” and might contradict the assumption that earth’s temperature increase is. So they quickly, sight all sorts of excuses for each planet’s warming trend. It’s always something acceptional and unrepeatable for these worlds. And always mankind’s fault, for earth. A rhetoric of denial of plain and simple evidence, that smack of religious dogma.

And yet, anyone who expresses a healthy skepticism about global warming being caused by mankind, is labeled (at least here they are) religiously dogmatic or something. Which doesn’t even make sense. To not believe in something that may be widely held as true, is not a dogmatic view! This is a completely backward definition. Those that hold to a believed truth, and ignore any mounting evidence to the contrary, or always dismiss it out of hand, are the ones being dogmatic. And it need not have anything to do with a religious frame of mind. But this seems to help sell the notion that Global Warming unbelievers are being religious fanatics, somehow. Leave it up to the atheists to be so clueless about others’ beliefs that they blame all the worlds ills on everyone else but themselves. I know one eco-headed atheist, who owns a motorcycle, a mini-van, and at one time a large RV. And he smuggling casts his distain on the rest of us economy car users for not taking more drastic steps to curb global warming. Like chopping our own firewood, like he grew up doing. I’d call his a hypocrit, if he weren’t a friend of mine. I just tolerate his inconsistant views, and hope he’ll eventually come around. As he probably does about me. We’ll see.

joshua says:

#84….actually, I have seen the articles from NASA and other space groups talking about the warming trend on other planets in our solor system. I keep looking for them again and only found 1 small one. I have some memory problems, so can’t always remember where I saw things, but it will come to me…..lol

I think I mentioned this planet warming thing in at least one of the weekly global warming sermons provided here at DU by thoughtful atheists….lol

I know that once I was foolish enough to provide 3 reports by Russian and Norwegian climate experts that global warming was being caused by the Sun and (i can’t remember which) either rain/mositure at high levels in the atmosphere or clouds. I was inundated with scathing comments about *peer* reviews and how the Russian was working for big oil. etc, etc, etc……..the usual response here to unorthadoxy.

Funny isn’t it…..so many people who post here won’t believe 90% of what the goverment or the establishment says or writes, but when it comes to global warming being caused by humans they believe every single word written or spoken by these same groups….weird, just weird.

joshua says:

#87….Global warming, caused by Humans, is a lot like stem cell research. The powers that be have decided this is the issue, these are the facts(as we, the scientific elite, see them) and anyone else is an unbeliever, therefore are ….**insert insult of your choice here**……

The same happened with embryonic stem cell research, all kinds of *cures* and medical advancement was possible from ESC research. When those who differed suggested Adult stem cell research as an alternative, when this administration limited the cell lines that could be used and still get goverment funding, all hell broke loose. But the facts are, the only real, honest to goodness advancements have been from adult stem cell research. Then they said that was only because the goverment limited the amount of ESC lines….but thats just a red herring…..ESC research is still allowed with as many lines as can be developed, as long as GOVERMENT funding isn’t used….plus many goverments in other countries are doing the research, so the lack of cell lines arguement is bogus…..the problem is those who do the research lost their money tree when the goverment limited what it would pay for.
At the same time, those who advocated adult stem cell research were vilified and called cruel and heartless because they didn’t want Parkinsons patients to get well, or to cure diabete’s in children…..etc., etc, etc…..same tactics as global warming by humans advocates use.

The fanatics with their shrill screaming dominate the air waves with their descriptions of doom and gloom, in this age of the 30 second attention span by citizens and touchy-feely warm and fuzzies as policy rather than common sense.

iGlobalWarmer says:

Just like any other religion, the Global Warming (TM) crowd would be tolerable except for one difference: In normal scientific debates, two or more groups go after each other in the intellectual arena only. The GW crowd however is dangerous in the fact that they try to actively legislate away freedoms to an unprecedented scale. It’s perfectly fine for Scott and others to drive a hybrid and preach to others how they should also. It is quite wrong however to force someone else to drive one. And when a government adds a new tax, say on fuel, simply to “encourage” (coerce) people to drive different vehicles, they have crossed into social engineering which is simply immoral.

Global Warming (TM) is a power grab and nothing more.

Speaking of legislating away freedom and how dangerous the GW group is: Let’s discuss CFL’s and the attempts to outlaw incandescent bulbs. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ban smoking yet try to require everyone to introduce a health hazard into their homes?
http://epa.gov/mercury/spills/cflcleanup.pdf (check the part about cleaning up a broken bulb.) I wish I were a lawyer – I smell a great opportunity for a class action lawsuit against a state government.

JimR says:

Misanthropic Scott, LOL, i was falling asleep last night during my last post and today i have much to do. Let’s wait until another DV evniro topic and I’ll respond where we left off. In the meantime, take care. 🙂

Misanthropic Scott says:

#95 – Thomas,

This is the latest I can find on the hockey stick debate.

http://tinyurl.com/yomce5

BTW, the paper you posted first is exactly the paper I referenced in an earlier post about what I have been able to find. Apparently there was some more debate after the latest that I had read. So far though, the hockey stick is still holding up well, IMHO. It is also far from the only paper showing that warming is occurring and is human caused.

You should also make note of the fact that Stephen McIntyre is an employee of the Northwest Exploration Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Follow the money. It often points to the bias.

Your second link seems to be about the controversies that exist over the precise magnitude of change, not over whether the change is happening. The authors of that article seem quite content to let the long standing statement that the global mean temperature is increasing as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases stand.

That last link is not on the list of academic journals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals

From their own website, this is precious:

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

These guys, since they do not believe in relativity and especially quantum mechanics should shut down their computers and hide under a rock. Quantum mechanics is integral to the workings of the semiconductors in modern computers. If they’re going to deny that, the should not use the products built on the technology.

Certainly, Thomas, you may want to avoid citing this source again in the future. I’m sure it did NOT come up on google scholar.