another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. Knothead -
    I apologize if my post came across as condescending. My reference to "educated or not" was to the opinion, not to the person expressing that opinion. I apologize if the structure of my sentence made that unclear. Even the most highly educated person can have uneducated opinions about subjects on which they are not intimately familiar.
  2. Dr. Olmstead,

    I have read the IPCC report in its entirety and have read many articles that are both pro human caused global warming and those that say otherwise. The one thing that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is that there is not widespread consensus on this, despite what you and others have posted. Instead of widespread consensus, there is rather a a range of conclusions from yes it is man-caused and we have to do something now to it probably is not man-caused. And what I have been attempting to point out is this diversity of conclusions and acceptance of different conclusions by those involved in meteorology, climatology, oceanography, earth science, etc.

    This wide range of conclusions by the scientists working in this area is precisely why I chose to use the word "belief" instead of acceptance because it is accepted by some and not accepted by others. In other words, some believe and some don't believe, which is a perfectly correct use of the word believe.
  3. This is absurd. First, show me evidence of a "fervent revival" in recent years. Secondly, there is clearly no "inherent conflict with science". Many of the greatest scientific advances in history have some from a person of faith and reason.


    Dr. Francis S. Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He currently leads the Human Genome Project, directed at mapping and sequencing all of human DNA, and determining aspects of its function. His previous research has identified the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchison-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. For the rest of his credentials, click on the link here: Collins spoke with Bob Abernethy of PBS, posted online at, in which he summaries the compatability of fact and faith thusly:

    "I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

    "Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, 'Faith is actually plausible.' You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone."

    Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders. "It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." [Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961 p:62]

    Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor at Yale University, wrote, "Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.

    "… By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature."
  4. Some interesting thoughts, but I will tell why it doesn't add up to an effective argument:

    1) You and some others base your opinion on the existence of a consensus. The main problem with that is, well... there isn't one. Did you get that from the IPCC? Let me pose a question about the IPCC: If the IPCC had come out with a report stating that humans were not the cause of global warming, what would have happened to the IPCC? That would have been it, they would have terminated their own purpose. When was the last time a major government panel terminated themselves? No, there is far too much power and prestige in their position.

    2) The question of whether or not quarks and neutrinos exist is not a pressing issue. Outside of the nuclear physics realm it is little more than a interesting tidbit. AGW on the other hand, is an issue that could leave a lasting mark on this planet and on the creatures that inhabit it. So before we head down a road with devastating economic effects and more government control, I am pretty sure that we should get this one right.

    The fact is that there is no consensus and the models have been wrong.. time and time again.
  5. lets take your last post point by point WEPB:

    - if the IPCC has concluded that climate change is not man caused, presented their data, discussed those conclusions, and published that result, the science community was have simply moved along.

    - the folks on the multi-national IPCC panel, once their results had been published, went back to their day jobs, now worries about that.

    - the economy is already devistated and continues to sink, wake up. focusing on renuable energy sources is just one way to bring our economy back to life.

    - no computer model of climate has ever been able to summarize and predict with accuracy any more than the WDFW computer model has succeeded in predicting anadramous fish returns.

    - if we, however, do as the IPCC did and look at T-R-E-N-D data over an extended period of time we find that temperatures are rising faster than at any other point in studied history of this planet.

    - when one looks at the hand full of variables that could be responsible for this metoric rise in temperatures, the fickle finger of fate points at man.
  6. They were pretty sure about this crisis too... Calling it the begining of the end of the world... I especially love the line "erroneous computer-generated estimates by the UN had led to "misleading" numbers" From one crisis to another, getting rich along the way!
  7. Lets go through your post point by point

    Ok... If you think that involvement in the IPCC does not have a significant positive impact on the careers of it's members, then you got another thing coming. And then they hop on a plane to Bali and "discuss" it some more. There is far more politics and power in play with this panel than you would like to hope, gt.

    And the problem is that there is still a portion of the scientific community (and growing) that hasn't just accepted the report and moved along, as well they shouldn't.

    You have an interesting outlook on the economy...wrong, but interesting. The economy is sluggish right now, but many think that it will pick up within the next year or so. To quote gt, "for anyone to latch on to a valley" and think that the economy is devastated is irresponsible.

    The economy will do its thing, and by that I mean come out with new renewable energy without added government control. Its all about profit. And to thrust ourselves into meeting arbitrary levels of carbon output would have devastating effects on our economy. It would make the depression in the 30s look like child's play--and that would lead to famine, wars, etc.(hey, if you can talk about worst case scenario, so can I)

    What does the WDFW have to do with this? Hey, if you think anadromous fish returns has a lot of variables just wait 'til you hear about global weather... The two aren't even comparable.

    100 years at the very most? Extended period of time? 30 of those years were cooling dramatically. Yeah, I am latching onto a valley again, though it is a damn big valley in the course of 100 years. The temperature rise isn't really all that dramatic for a interglacial period. And if you look at the really long term, our temperature has been raising "dramatically" since the last major ice age. Isn't it time for another one of those?

    Maybe we really do wish we were God, so we could have this much control. Do you believe that we are at or past the tipping point? If so, there is not a damn thing we can do about it. We can pump out as much crap as we want to. 5 billion years this planet has done fine without us, and in the 100 years we start pumping out some CO2 we have drastically changed the weather on this planet. I think I will go start a tire fire, so I can add to it.

    If CO2 is really this good of an insulator, I think I will start pumping it into my walls for the coming ice age. :rolleyes:
  8. Actually Methane is at least 20 times more damaging than C02 and some scientists believe they have been underestimating its impact, and the amount of impact is double what it has been assumed to be.

    But of course one of the largest human sources is rice cultivation. And the cultures that rely on them don't have the deep pockets we do... So the 7 international newspapers GT reads won't talk about it. But let's go after the rich folks eating all those cows! we can make some money... I mean make a difference that way!

    By all means reduce your personal carbon footprint. It's a great hobby. It won't do shit while the developing world is ramping up its output... But you'll enjoy sniffing your own farts like on southpark... Of course that just adds methane to the atmosphere:p

Share This Page