Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

But you didn't address whether there's any truth to them, which is the question.

The geologic evidence demonstrates that the world was not completely covered at any time in the last 100 million years, at a minimum.

How much further have they dug?

Every fossil they dig up supports this finding, and the genetic evidence also supports it. The differences between the chimp and human genomes puts our common ancestor at 5-8 million years ago.

3 million years ago we find Australopithecines. No modern humans, and no Homo species whatsoever. It isn't until about 1.5 million years ago that we start seeing early Homo species that still have ape-like features. At about 200,000 we start seeing modern humans. The Neanderthal genome also supports this, showing that our common ancestor existed about 500,000 years ago.

 

[Aldebaran]

So are you taking the position that anthropogenic global warming is real, but the extra warmth isn't harmful?

No. I'm showing you that the earth has warmed up before and melted the precious glacial ice that everyone seems so concerned about and that it all happened without human intervention. I was originally responding to what JackRT said in Post #322 about all the ice that's melting, as if it was such a horrible thing. People like to bring up these things with the implication that we must "do something" to make it stop, and that only the evil, arrogant, selfish people would oppose the measures suggested by those on the Left. But when it's pointed out that much more massive ice melts have happened in the past, and that it wasn't such a bad thing, and that humans had nothing to do with it, the point is dismissed or the subject gets changed.

If you'd like to engage in the subject rather than dismiss or change it, I'm open to the idea.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I was doing what you say, you'd be right. But mankind's actions are as natural as a cheetah's.

Then would you agree that man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for recent global warming? Yes or no?

And what I've been saying all along is that climate change is normal, natural. Not primarily man-caused.

Based on what evidence?

Hogwash. We can see with our own two eyes that no damage mankind has caused is irreversible.

Can you show me a living dodo bird? What about a living passenger pigeon?

Those are just two examples that prove you wrong.

I have no question that the earth warms and cools. That's the science. The question of what causes it, and the answers scientists have come up with, are where I depart from the scientists.

What evidence do you base this on?

And they, using your words "use politics to shape policy based on stuff that simply isn't true."

Except that you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't true.

I do care about facts. I don't care about people drawing wrong conclusions from the facts.

You haven't shown that the conclusions are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I'm showing you that the earth has warmed up before and melted the precious glacial ice that everyone seems so concerned about and that it all happened without human intervention.

People have died of natural causes. Does this mean that no death is caused by human intervention?

I was originally responding to what JackRT said in Post #322 about all the ice that's melting, as if it was such a horrible thing. People like to bring up these things with the implication that we must "do something" to make it stop, and that only the evil, arrogant, selfish people would oppose the measures suggested by those on the Left. But when it's pointed out that much more massive ice melts have happened in the past, and that it wasn't such a bad thing, and that humans had nothing to do with it, the point is dismissed or the subject gets changed.

It wasn't such a bad thing in the past because billions of people didn't live on coasts that will be flooded by rising oceans.

 

[RickG]

As soon as someone shows me what 97% of scientists agree with concerning global warming, you got it.

There have been several published peer review studies that have examined the published peer review climate research literature. It is not opinions of scientists, it what 97% of the research shows. Would you like links to some of them?

 

[RickG]

The upper one third of the United States and all of Canada was once covered by glacier ice. It all disappeared 11,700 years ago, long before SUV's, factories, or humans exhaling carbon dioxide. Nobody is complaining about it though.

The reason for the current inter-glacial is due to Milankovitch Cycles. That cycle is now in a down turn where we should be cooling, but instead we are warming at a rate faster than any previous warming rate in geologic history. Furthermore, there were not 7 billion people on earth 11,700 years ago. Things are a bit crowed now with deforestation increasing, climate conditions changing in agricultural areas, and ocean acidification increasing. 11,000 years ago AGW would not have been a problem, today it is.

 

[Aldebaran]

People have died of natural causes. Does this mean that no death is caused by human intervention?

Total non sequitur. I said I was open to a conversation.

It wasn't such a bad thing in the past because billions of people didn't live on coasts that will be flooded by rising oceans.

But it happened, and now billions of people are here after the fact--as a result of what happened.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Science could not disprove the claim that God planted fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene. Does that mean we have to ignore all fingerprint and DNA evidence?

Am unfamiliar with the concept within science of the idea of "proof" which would be required for such a comparison to legal definitions of admissible evidence possible.
BTW am not sure the idea would work successfully in the legal world any more than the concept imagined to exist in science would.

 

[Loudmouth]

Total non sequitur. I said I was open to a conversation.

It is completely relevant to the topic at hand. You are making the argument that if something occurs naturally it is impossible for man to also cause the same outcome. That argument makes no sense.

Yes, temperature fluctuated through natural processes in the past. Why does this exclude the possibility that temperature can also fluctuate in response to what humans do?

But it happened, and now billions of people are here after the fact--as a result of what happened.

You are skipping all over the place. Drastic changes in sea level were not that much of a problem in the past because humans were primarily hunter-gatherers that moved around anyway. This isn't the case anymore. If oceans rose another 20 feet we would lose most of Florida. Do you think that is a bad thing or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Am unfamiliar with the concept within science of the idea of "proof" which would be required for such a comparison to legal definitions of admissible evidence possible.
BTW am not sure the idea would work successfully in the legal world any more than the concept imagined to exist in science would.

Would you, as a juror, accept the claim that all forensic evidence should be ignored because it could have been created supernaturally?

 

[Aldebaran]

It is completely relevant to the topic at hand. You are making the argument that if something occurs naturally it is impossible for man to also cause the same outcome. That argument makes no sense.

Yes, temperature fluctuated through natural processes in the past. Why does this exclude the possibility that temperature can also fluctuate in response to what humans do?

I didn't exclude anything. I'm simply pointing out that the temperature of the earth has changed at times (even drastically) when it couldn't possibly have been caused by human activity. It seems that whenever this is mentioned, you get defensive about it.

You are skipping all over the place. Drastic changes in sea level were not that much of a problem in the past because humans were primarily hunter-gatherers that moved around anyway. This isn't the case anymore. If oceans rose another 20 feet we would lose most of Florida. Do you think that is a bad thing or not?

Quite a bit of ice would have to melt in order for that to happen. But that's not happening. Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't exclude anything. I'm simply pointing out that the temperature of the earth has changed at times (even drastically) when it couldn't possibly have been caused by human activity. It seems that whenever this is mentioned, you get defensive about it.

You are arguing that if temperatures fluctuate through natural processes in the past that this means humans can't do the same. This is obviously false.

Quite a bit of ice would have to melt in order for that to happen.

You are shifting the goal posts, as usual.

You are arguing that warming won't hurt anyone. Will flooding nearly the entire state of Florida cause harm?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Would you, as a juror, accept the claim that all forensic evidence should be ignored because it could have been created supernaturally?

No but why should any scientist accept that everything we see can only have a natural explanation if in fact a natural one is in many ways evident?
That would be the only way a scientist could declare that absence of evidence for anything we can see as a naturally occurring global flood absolutely precludes the possibility of a supernatural global flood. Which is why I have repeated over and over science can only preclude frpm the evidence something they know about, which would be naturally occurring floods and geological processes.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are arguing that if temperatures fluctuate through natural processes in the past that this means humans can't do the same. This is obviously false.

I never said they can't. You're simply claiming that I did. What I'm saying [staff edit] is that it hasn't been proven that humans are currently causing it. Too many questionable methods have been shown as the way to come up with the "evidence" that we are.

[Staff edit].

 

[RickG]

Quite a bit of ice would have to melt in order for that to happen. But that's not happening. Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

In reading the article in full, it is make the case that sea ice globally over all is decreasing and also makes the very clear point that the Antarctic and Arctic are completely different situations (topography). Furthermore, that is a 2014 article, Antarctica has lost much ice volume in that time. Also, note the word "volume". That is much more important than extent (area).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It appears we have reached a consensus of opinion from Christians, which was the OPs quest. It is easier for some Christians to accept the "evidence" of humans being an alleged major factor in warming temperatures around the globe than to accept that God could create a global flood. And the only valid reasons presented for the ease of acceptance or rejection that has been given; is the imagined weight of the evidence and/or physiological effects from herd mentality.

 

[Loudmouth]

No

Then why should geologists reject all of the evidence for local floods spanning billions of years simply because someone makes the claim that the supernatural created that evidence?

How are the characteristics of a sediment layer any different than a fingerprint? We can observe natural processes produce these same sediments in the here and now just like we can observe fingers leaving fingerprints.

but why should any scientist accept that everything we see can only have a natural explanation if in fact a natural one is in many ways evident?

Because that is how science works. When you are doing science you have to use a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

If you want, you can certainly reject the scientific method and believe that everything is made through supernatural means no matter if there is evidence for a natural process. However, I think you can see that such a method just isn't that useful for understanding how the world around us works.

That would be the only way a scientist could declare that absence of evidence for anything we can see as a naturally occurring global flood absolutely precludes the possibility of a supernatural global flood. Which is why I have repeated over and over science can only preclude frpm the evidence something they know about, which would be naturally occurring floods and geological processes.

The same argument could be used to throw DNA and fingerprint evidence out of a court case.

 

[Loudmouth]

It appears we have reached a consensus of opinion from Christians, which was the OPs quest. It is easier for some Christians to accept the "evidence" of humans being an alleged major factor in warming temperatures around the globe than to accept that God could create a global flood. And the only valid reasons presented for the ease of acceptance or rejection that has been given; is the imagined weight of the evidence and/or physiological effects from herd mentality.

The weight of evidence isn't imagined.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And yet all those cultures soldiered on without a hiccup. There is no gap in Chinese history, as one example.

On top of that, there is no interruption in known geologic processes, such as annual lake varves and annual ice layers.

"known" being the operative word. Regarding Chinese history, how do you know there's no gap? And what if the Chinese culture started at the end of the Flood?

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review

MOD HAT OFF​