Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[RickG]

What part of the story would you like me to argue against?

So your intent on the CF is to argue against things rather than discuss them?

 

[SkyWriting]

So your intent on the CF is to argue against things rather than discuss them?

Which things?

 

[RickG]

Which things?

You are the one who asked what you could "argue against". You tell us.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might actually learn something here through an exchange of information and ideas instead of looking for arguments to start?

 

[grasping the after wind]

You asked me not to support my claims.
You also said you would be happy with my
responses because you have no preconceived
vision of how I am supposed to respond.

Your second quote is mis attributed. lewiscalledhimmaster
said that not Rick G.

 

[RickG]

So when I found this essay on the Charles Darwin & Evolution site coupled with my current interest in it (though it seems to be getting to be quite a "hot" topic now days), I thought it might be worthwhile learning about the different views others have about this: Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

The current climate change can and most likely will affect evolution much sooner than the average layman realizes. This affliction of course deals with the overall food chain with respect to ocean acidification, which affect the bottom of the food chain significantly.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Science is not done through debate (eventhough I have no idea about what "debate" you are talking about).
Science is not done by "winning arguments".

Between scientists there is certainly healthy argument, discussion and debate.

Science is done by forming hypothesis and presenting evidence for such hypothesis and then submitting your findings to appropriate journals for others to review and build upon it.

Yes, these are also contested.

 

[RickG]

Yes, these are also contested.

Are you familiar with the Berkerley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project funded by the Koch Foundation?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The current climate change can and most likely will affect evolution much sooner than the average layman realizes. This affliction of course deals with the overall food chain with respect to ocean acidification, which affect the bottom of the food chain significantly.

I've been watching The 100 and though it's post-apocalyptic, the 100 are returned to earth from space and have to deal with changes that have occurred -- double headed buck?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Are you familiar with the Berkerley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project funded by the Koch Foundation?

Not until now: (Transparent -- nice!)
'We continue to lower the barriers to entry into climate science by posting all our raw data and our analysis code online to provide an open platform for further analysis. We also post all our Berkeley Earth papers, memos, graphics and analysis code.' ( http://berkeleyearth.org/ )

 

[RickG]

Not until now: (Transparent -- nice!)
'We continue to lower the barriers to entry into climate science by posting all our raw data and our analysis code online to provide an open platform for further analysis. We also post all our Berkeley Earth papers, memos, graphics and analysis code.' ( http://berkeleyearth.org/ )

Well, the thing is, the BEST project was a research project to look into the validity of global surface temperatures and causes of GW. The team was comprised completely of GW skeptics. What they found out was "yup", there are valid and GW is anthropogenic. The project was headed by skeptic Richard Muller. Here's a statement he made:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."​

 

[DogmaHunter]

Between scientists there is certainly healthy argument, discussion and debate.

Sure. But hypothesis don't turn into theories by mere clever use of words.

Clever use of words wins debates, but doesn't substantiate hypothesis.
Science is evidence driven.

The outcome of debates is determined by the "debating skills" of the participants. Not necessarily by who has the actual best idea. Rather, who has the best social skills to present his idea.

There's a very important distinction here. A distinction that I shouldn't have to explain.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your second quote is mis attributed. lewiscalledhimmaster
said that not Rick G.

Thanks.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are the one who asked what you could "argue against". You tell us.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might actually learn something here through an exchange of information and ideas instead of looking for arguments to start?

No, I asked what you wanted me to argue against. It's hard work to cut a quote
down to two words. Do you really gain from all that wasted effort?

 

[RickG]

No, I asked what you wanted me to argue against. It's hard work to cut a quote
down to two words. Do you really gain from all that wasted effort?

The point I made was that you want to argue "against" things rather than "for" things. In other words, arguing from the position of a "negative approach".

 

[PsychoSarah]

You then need to show that the total elimination of human influence will reverse any imagined current predictions.

Why? There is such a thing as a point of no return, you know. Even if ceasing our activities that contribute to Global Warming wouldn't stop it, continuing them certainly makes it happen faster. Also, there are studies for what you want, I just wanted to clarify that they wouldn't be necessary to provide solid evidence that current Global Warming is caused by us.

You THEN need to show that YOU would personally be willing to do this, yourself.

I would absolutely be willing to switch over to alternative power sources, they just would need to become affordable, which they would if people were making more power plants that used them. However, irrelevant in regards to whether or not Global Warming is caused by humans. In any case, we will have to make this change, potentially within my lifetime, as fossil fuels are running out anyways. Eventually, the choice will be those alternative power sources, or sitting in the dark.

You THEN need to show how you have influenced ONE other person to also stop adding to the problem.

No, that would involve you knowing who I am in a way that could lead to stalking. Not that I think you would stalk me, but on forums, one must be careful.

You then need to show how that perfected process can be applied across every other culture in the world.

Why would 1 process have to work for every culture and every government? What makes you think there aren't multiple, equally acceptable solutions that could be tailored to each region? Especially considering energy sources such as wind and solar power depend heavily on the climate of the region from which they are collected.

(You may start with line one for now.)

No, I am good with covering all of that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why? There is such a thing as a point of no return, you know.

None I know of.

I would absolutely be willing to switch over to alternative power sources, they just would need to become affordable,

Why is that? You whole movement to save humanity just got dumped because you think
your comfort is more important? 1.3 Billion, 1 of 5 do not have a light switch to turn on.
And you don't want to be one of them. Like I said, you just LOST your argument.

which they would if people were making more power plants that used them. However, irrelevant in regards to whether or not Global Warming is caused by humans. In any case, we will have to make this change, potentially within my lifetime, as fossil fuels are running out anyways. Eventually, the choice will be those alternative power sources, or sitting in the dark. No, that would involve you knowing who I am in a way that could lead to stalking. Not that I think you would stalk me, but on forums, one must be careful. Why would 1 process have to work for every culture and every government? What makes you think there aren't multiple, equally acceptable solutions that could be tailored to each region? Especially considering energy sources such as wind and solar power depend heavily on the climate of the region from which they are collected.

Sorry. You can't sit in your warm house an impress your point about going without
to 1 of 5 people who have no light switch. No matter what language you sing the song in.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point I made was that you want to argue "against" things rather than "for" things. In other words, arguing from the position of a "negative approach".

And how exactly would I argue against something without advocating for a different position?
I would just tell somebody they were wrong and then suggest what?


(In this case. I'm arguing against your complaint and suggesting
an alternative, where I would have an alternate correction.)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Sure. But hypothesis don't turn into theories by mere clever use of words.

Clever use of words wins debates, but doesn't substantiate hypothesis.
Science is evidence driven.

The outcome of debates is determined by the "debating skills" of the participants. Not necessarily by who has the actual best idea. Rather, who has the best social skills to present his idea.

There's a very important distinction here. A distinction that I shouldn't have to explain.

Debating isn't about 'clever words' though 'debating skills' can certainly help a well-informed scientist to present their ideas powerfully in what has become a very public forum. It's especially the case now that information is so freely available to so many. A well informed scientist with 'the gift of the gab' is certainly going to have a greater influence on such a colossal forum (world wide web). I can think of more than one or two scientists who have suffered as a result of being unable to articulate their science -- though some certainly make up for it in books.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, the thing is, the BEST project was a research project to look into the validity of global surface temperatures and causes of GW. The team was comprised completely of GW skeptics. What they found out was "yup", there are valid and GW is anthropogenic. The project was headed by skeptic Richard Muller. Here's a statement he made:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."​

I'd be interested to know what problems he identified in previous climate studies.

As I was reading your comment I remembered some of the arguments, discussions and debates held back when Glenn Morton was still posting to forums. If I recall he (or was it someone else) had some pretty good arguments about the way these things are measured. I'll look around and see if I captured any of those discussions, arguments and debates to file.

 

[JasonClark]

Even if global warming wasn't a thing, we are still impacting the environment via industrial waste and other toxins. Most of which cause more drastic and dire changes than global warming. Acid rain, for example, is not slow, it happens really fast once industry increases in an area, and it kills anything that cannot withstand acidic pH's, some as bad as 3 (as acidic as lemons). It can leave chemical burns on trees, and kill many aquatic based creatures. Thus, creating selective pressures that favor organisms that can survive and thrive in acidic conditions. Heck, in Chernobyl, there is a fungus that gets energy from radiation native just to that area.

During the middle of the 20th century when the north of England was pumping out millions of tons of toxic smoke via factories chimneys into the atmosphere Sweden suffered, vast areas of Swedish forests were decimated by acid rain, it took years for the forests to recover sadly not all of them did.