Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 As you mentioned earlier, variation within 'kind' (microevolution (sic.)) is allowed. Speciation, apparently, isn't.... wiki: microevolution you say "not allowed"...what new creatures have ever appeared? I ask this as it is a common argument used by jehovers witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 At the risk of sounding elitist that illustrates the problem with any sort of public debate - the public swallow that sort of answer, but the creationists don't have an answer to that question. They've hypothesised something is all but being able to invent a hypothesis is irrelevent. From my point of view it just says that they are more likely to work on the basis of implausible hypotheses. but creationists DO have an answer. God dun it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 you say "not allowed"...what new creatures have ever appeared? I ask this as it is a common argument used by jehovers witnesses. If we're talking literal fundamentalist beliefs, I understand the answer to be 'none'. Bio diversity took a considerable knock when Noah passed up on packing any dinosaurs in the Ark. As an aside, I must confess to not being much of a gradualist and more inclined to favour a punctuated equilibrium narrative. I discussed this with a fundamentalist once and he suggested that punctuated equilibrium was consistent with a creationist viewpoint. My response was that would require hundreds and thousands of multiple Creations stretched out over millions of years. His response was, no just the one and all those different strata and apparent progression from sea to land in the fossil record were the product of one big flood which laid everything down in order, in one go. Which isn't working for me at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 How is it a surprise? Scientific opinion and fact are two different entities. Funding bodies have the ability to pick and choose researchers and the areas of research, withdraw funding on projects they don't agree on, etc... Happens all the time. Just ask somebody lucky enough to have worked in big pharma. Vested interests are seeking to enforce 'green' taxation across rich western nations AND to the developing world that they can strong arm to do so. These same interests are not seeking to ration energy, only price like it is under ration. Follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Follow the money. Oil Industry Coal Industry. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Oil Industry Coal Industry. Hmmm. If we don't want to buy their oil, coal and gas the Chinese will be ever willing to oblige. Without "alarmism" the various multinational environmental pressure groups cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 If we don't want to buy their oil, coal and gas the Chinese will be ever willing to oblige. Without "alarmism" the various multinational environmental pressure groups cease to exist. How does that tie in with China has embarked on the greatest push for renewable energy the world has ever seen? And who are these multinational environmental pressure groups whose incomes compare with multinational fossil fuel companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 If we don't want to buy their oil, coal and gas the Chinese will be ever willing to oblige. Allow me to instruct you in market economics sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 How does that tie in with China has embarked on the greatest push for renewable energy the world has ever seen? And who are these multinational environmental pressure groups whose incomes compare with multinational fossil fuel companies? Isn't it more accurate to say that China has embarked on the greatest push for any energy the world has ever seen, including a lot of coal-fired electricity generation, with a strong emphasis on energy security therefore they're also doing as many renewables as possible? There is a significant difference in emphasis and principle motive, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This is a classic example of why any debate is impossible. Don't address the point, don't who the alternative model or research, just repeat along-debunked talking point. Debunked by whom, and how? Those wonderful people who brought us the broken hockey stick, and computer algorithms full of let's adjust the constants later. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 What about creationists who start with - And God created Adam....... Even Mathematics starts with axioms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This is a classic example of why any debate is impossible. Says the chap who starts throwing ad-homs around the moment the subject comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 What we know absolutely for certain and that all sides agree on. Scientists agree that the climate is changing (as it has done for years). The bones of contention are: 1. The cause of climate change is overwhelmingly natural 2. The cause is overwhelmingly man-made. 3. The cause lies on a continuum between natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities Sadly, if you don't go with number 2 then you are demonised as a "denier". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Even Mathematics starts with axioms! parlais vous Anglais? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Scientists agree that the climate is changing (as it has done for years). The bones of contention are: 1. The cause of climate change is overwhelmingly natural 2. The cause is overwhelmingly man-made. 3. The cause lies on a continuum between natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities Sadly, if you don't go with number 2 then you are demonised as a "denier". Excellent summation. My own opinion is your option 3, towards the anthropogenic end of the continuum, and therefore I'm almost in the camp of the Number 2s (see what I did there?) Can't stand the witch-hunting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 parlais vous Anglais? For Mathematics, You have to "believe" in "numbers"! Pretty hard to define. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Scientists agree that the climate is changing (as it has done for years). The bones of contention are: 1. The cause of climate change is overwhelmingly natural 2. The cause is overwhelmingly man-made. 3. The cause lies on a continuum between natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities Sadly, if you don't go with number 2 then you are demonised as a "denier". Actually, the vast majority of scientists already agree that it is number 2. They agree that the warming seen over the past century or so has almost certainly been caused primarily by human emissions, and that the climate will continue to change as a consequence of these emissions. Of course the climate has varied naturally in the past, but most of the current observed variation is generally accepted to be the result of human emissions. The link is to a recent statement by the Royal Society, but pretty much the same opinion is held by all the main scientific organisations. What they don't agree on is exactly what consequences this will have for humans. Scientific opinion covers the spectrum from minor to catastrophic, with most expecting something in the middle, depending on whether we act to curb emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Excellent summation. My own opinion is your option 3, towards the anthropogenic end of the continuum, and therefore I'm almost in the camp of the Number 2s (see what I did there?) Can't stand the witch-hunting though. A quick trawl of the internet would seem to indicate that most of the witch-hunting is directed towards high-profile mainstream climate researchers such as Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Says the chap who starts throwing ad-homs around the moment the subject comes up. I would ask you to back that up with evidence (ignoring for a moment the irony of posting such a comment in a thread with the given title) but those who style themselves 'skeptics' don't, in my experience, understand the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Scientists agree that the climate is changing (as it has done for years). The bones of contention are: 1. The cause of climate change is overwhelmingly natural 2. The cause is overwhelmingly man-made. 3. The cause lies on a continuum between natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities Sadly, if you don't go with number 2 then you are demonised as a "denier". As far as I can tell you have taken the subject, split it into two of its component parts and then offered a third option which is the sum of the two again. I would be interested in focusing on 3 (encompassing everything) teaching know-nothings like me what the basic model of global heating and cooling is without any human interaction. Then layering on effects of CO2 and other known phenomenon. Then investigating what natural factors might compensate for these (eg, higher CO2 concentrations leading to increased prevalence of algae that subsequently trap it forming the oil fields of the future - or something like that). There would be an opportunity for different points of view on the factors, and perhaps a range of possible outcomes based on what you choose to include in the model. Sprinkle in a few interviews and I think you'd have a really interesting documentary (if said documentary doesn't already exist and I've missed it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 As far as I can tell you have taken the subject, split it into two of its component parts and then offered a third option which is the sum of the two again. I would be interested in focusing on 3 (encompassing everything) teaching know-nothings like me what the basic model of global heating and cooling is without any human interaction. Then layering on effects of CO2 and other known phenomenon. Then investigating what natural factors might compensate for these (eg, higher CO2 concentrations leading to increased prevalence of algae that subsequently trap it forming the oil fields of the future - or something like that). There would be an opportunity for different points of view on the factors, and perhaps a range of possible outcomes based on what you choose to include in the model. Sprinkle in a few interviews and I think you'd have a really interesting documentary (if said documentary doesn't already exist and I've missed it). Although I'm not a climatologist, I do have a scientific background, and I find climatology a fascinating subject. I've read up on the topic quite a bit, but I'd also like to see a few decent programmes on it. It all starts with the following conundrum: There is copious evidence that Earth's climate has undergone considerable, semi-periodic changes in the past - ice ages, etc. How can that be, given that the amount of heat that the Earth receives from the sun only varies by small amounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 It all starts with the following conundrum: There is copious evidence that Earth's climate has undergone considerable, semi-periodic changes in the past - ice ages, etc. How can that be, given that the amount of heat that the Earth receives from the sun only varies by small amounts? That's life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 That's life So I gather! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 If we don't want to buy their oil, coal and gas the Chinese will be ever willing to oblige. Without "alarmism" the various multinational environmental pressure groups cease to exist. The biggest strategic issue for the coal industry here in Oz is the fact that China is rapidly losing its appetite for coal given its air pollution issues. China now has the biggest renewable energy and nuclear power programs in the World that dwarf anything any other region. Expenditure on renewables in China exceeds that of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The biggest strategic issue for the coal industry here in Oz is the fact that China is rapidly losing its appetite for coal given its air pollution issues. China now has the biggest renewable energy and nuclear power programs in the World that dwarf anything any other region. Expenditure on renewables in China exceeds that of the EU. You can't see CO2 - but you can see, smell and taste smog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.