Tiptup

Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
You seem to have a similar idea of "science" as you do of "islam". One big mass of stuff that threatens you. Except you seem to have divided "science" into "hard science" and "soft science". An interesting observation. We now have two types of "science" when we previously thought it was all alike. Interesting... Perhaps your radical theory could be applied to other things? "Hard muslims" and "soft muslims"? "Hard cheese" and "soft cheese"? Hey!! I've heard of that!! I think you're onto something!!!!

Interesting statement. I’m picking up a lot of hostility from you, aural. That is a bit sad for me since, in the past, I have had a lot of respect for your opinions, and I would still like to keep it that way if possible (if that’s alright with you).

(Oh, and if you would keep your replies from going off on extreme tangents, that would be nice as well. I’ll certainly try discussing as many issues with you as I can, but my interest is severely limited, and I might have to start ignoring some of your more wild comments, should they continue.)

Anyways, yes, I most certainly divide a firm approach to science, with clear observations and predictions, from weaker forms of so-called science. Playing with statistics in an effort merely incite political fear, for instance, is not what I would define as a reliable form of knowledge. I don’t really see how that perspective is a “theory” of mine, much less a “radical” one, but I’m perfectly interested to learn why you would say that. For instance, you don’t happen to believe everything you’re told simply because it claims to be science, do you?

Weather changes, aural, and I don’t believe we should be irrational about that fact. With everything that I know, concerning modern science, we cannot even come close to predicting what our future temperatures will be in a continually reliable fashion. At best we can formulate an average temperature for the earth, based upon our past measurements, but even that “average” can drastically change depending upon how far into the past you choose to consider your measurements. Even our best weather models cannot reliably predict temperature fluctuations, much less the flawed models that many “global-warming” proponents have devised. (I believe their models are heavily flawed because they rely upon very short-term temperature trends and our entire world is far too chaotic for us to be limiting our focus to that degree.)


Otherwise, as for dividing up my understanding of Muslims, I could easily say that there are radical followers of it, in which certain Islamic teachings are held in an extreme, fundamental way, while at the same time recognizing other Muslims that are far more reasonable. So, based on that example alone, yes, aural, I do classify Muslims into different groups. I can and do make many such classifications of Muslims according to many different bases in fact. Is that somehow strange of me?


Oh, and as for cheese . . . I’m glad that you’re thrilled by your discovery. Good for you.




Alright, while I must inform you that I don’t consider my belief concerning sustainable anthropogenic CO2 increases to be “irrefutable,” I’m certainly more than willing to share them with you.

To begin, recently huge increases in CO2 are undeniable, and I also think it’s fair to say that we don’t have the most exact data regarding how much of that global CO2 increase is directly related to human action. Yet, all of the data that I’ve ever seen shows that the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to that increase is still greatly dwarfed by the naturally occurring contribution. So, then, does it make sense to claim that man-made CO2 emissions are unsustainable while the earth itself is increasing our current CO2 levels in a far more drastic way?

Second, there have been many times in the past that CO2 levels have been comparable to where we are now. Going back hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data, we see that CO2 levels increased in the past as temperatures rose, and decreased as temperatures fell. Looking back at those heights of CO2 specifically, we can clearly see that today we are probably in another one of those naturally-occurring, increased-CO2 periods as our global temperature is ascending in another one of those warming periods. Looking at this data, it is fair to say that human action has added a lot of CO2 on top of this naturally occurring increase, but I do not believe this anthropogenic addition is at all big enough to be called “unsustainable” compared to the natural addition which is much larger and would occur either way.

If we go back millions of years, we’re pretty sure that the CO2 levels were insanely gigantic at times (immensely higher than what we have today). While this not only proves that the earth can handle vast amounts of more CO2 than today’s levels, studies have also shown those higher CO2 levels clearly did not cause the historical earth’s temperature to rise as our “Global Warming” scientists would claim it has the power to do. (This was because low temperatures were seen to accompany very high CO2 levels [unlike the impoverished levels of today].) Therefore, if this data is correct, the earth, in prehistoric times, has sustained itself with far higher levels of CO2.

If you really want to know what truly affects the earth’s temperature, you’ll find that cycles of the Sun’s output and the earth’s movement and orientation around the Sun has a far, far more drastic effect than “greenhouse gases” (then if you figure in the total human effect on the greenhouse gas effect, you probably wouldn’t even notice the temperature change). Therefore, I’m pretty sure that we can conclude that temperature changes from higher CO2 levels are not “unsustainable.” If they were, we’d have much bigger worries due to the much more dramatic changes in temperature that occur at the same time from our relationship with the Sun.

Another fact to consider is how CO2 is actually beneficial substance on our world, in a general sense. Plants live off the stuff and non-plant life benefits from strengthened plant life. CO2 is used to stimulate plant growth by growers. Plus, even considering all of the CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, our planet recycles it on a regular basis. How is a slight CO2 increase from human activity “unsustainable” if it actually helps “sustain” our life?

Lastly, let’s just even assume, for the sake of argument, that high CO2 levels can cause a noticeable temperature change on our planet (which it probably doesn’t), are warmer temperatures then, themselves, “unsustainable” and threatening to all life on our blessed earth? Science clearly answers that with a resounding “no.” Our planet had higher temperatures in the warming periods that occurred during the Middle Ages (compared to the height of our current warming period measured in 1998 [we’ve cooled since then]). The most dramatic warmimg period was much, much warmer than today and was generally of immense benefit to mankind. Therefore, what makes our current warming period “unsustainable,” when previous warming periods, looking back just a few hundred years, were much higher in temperature (so far) and when the added warmth associated with them was actually helpful to life on this planet?


Anyways, aural, while there are some prominent scientists that claim that higher CO2 levels are bad and damaging to our life on this earth, there are many others who do not believe that. From my point of view, as one who is somewhat well versed in science, an increase in CO2 is rather harmless to our lives on this planet and probably helpful if anything.

The “Global Warming” controversy, in my mind, is mostly a political movement that is anti-technology and anti-capitalist. If they hate capitalism and the advancement of mankind, they shouldn’t make up bullshit fears to scare people into submission. After that, in the actual scientific world, I see how the primary scientists in support of the idea have huge financial interests involved and I don’t call them unbiased (plus, people like Michael Crichton have shown them to be incompetent in certain regards as well).

All of that said though, I don’t want you or anyone else to have the impression that I like air pollution from our cars and factories. I actually believe it’s rather disgusting and wasteful; I believe we can do better. But, in the meantime, fossil fuel energy is the best thing we have and we shouldn’t be limiting our economy’s access to that energy in an unwise, artificial manner. We should be encouraging research into new forms of energy instead. Positive expansion is better for humanity than negative restrictions. If discover better technology and better ways to do things, then we won’t want to burn fossil fuel anymore. That’s the way to go if you ask me.

Do you drive a car, aural? Does it run on gasoline?


Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Though I think we can all probably agree that pollution from our cars and factories is still undesirable (plus, I don't like how we're consuming all of the "fossil fuel" on our planet)