Global Warming: The New Religion

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Oreo

60-70% of the earth's oxygen production from CO2 is done by the algae in the oceans. (no source).

That's correct.

[Messy1]

The problem I have is with all of this is most of the time, opinions and views and even news and info on GW is split along party lines. Al Gore comes out with a video touting his view, and then many Replublicans and talk show hosts come out and say that a large amount of his info is in the video is not true, and has been altered. I do not know who to believe! Who is correct? Although I do find it hard to believe the individuals who say with 100 percent certainty that man is responsible for GW. I do not believe any scientist can say with 100 percent certainty that man is responsible for GW when 30 years ago, they were worried about global cooling. I do not believe scientists can study the past 200-300 years or whatever the basis for their comparision is, which too me is such a small and miniscule amount of time on the earth's overall history or age, and tell me that GW is happening and it is man's fault. I have not done very much research on this myself, so this post is full of great info.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Messy1

The problem I have is with all of this is most of the time, opinions and views and even news and info on GW is split along party lines.

Does that mean I should go against what people in my party believe even when I came to the same conclusion independently?

In the US, unfortunately, it is not even split on party lines: All the Democrats seem to believe in GW, and about half the Republicans. That is one symptom of the reason I am not going to vote for either one for President, or any other office where there is a 3rd choice. I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin for President.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Messy1

Who is correct? Although I do find it hard to believe the individuals who say with 100 percent certainty that man is responsible for GW. I do not believe any scientist can say with 100 percent certainty that man is responsible for GW when 30 years ago, they were worried about global cooling. I do not believe scientists can study the past 200-300 years or whatever the basis for their comparision is, which too me is such a small and miniscule amount of time on the earth's overall history or age, and tell me that GW is happening and it is man's fault. I have not done very much research on this myself, so this post is full of great info.

I believe you are absolutely right about that, Messy. 300 years worth of more or less dependable data is nothing to base a trend on for a planet most people believe has been around for billions of years, or even the 6-8,000 years Creation Scientists and Biblical literalists believe, like me.

[Marcel]

300 years eh?

From Carbon Dioxide Concentration





Last picture came from a site that actually counters the Global warming theory, so is also worth reading:
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

300 years eh?
Last picture came from a site that actually counters the Global warming theory, so is also worth reading:

They can make an effort to PROJECT back that far, but no one was keeping records at the time. Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence to give them an idea of what happened, but there was no one out there taking temperature readings or using meteorological instruments and making daily calculated records of data before that time. That's what I meant, and I think that's what Messy meant, too.

Apart from all that, anyway, it then becomes a question of, with all the data that IS out there, are we being shown accurate data, or is it being tweaked by Al Gore and others, for political reasons? Coming from the man who claimed to have invented the internet, when he had nothing to do with it, and who also said that he wished he knew more "latin" so he could understand people's speach in "Latin America" the only thing we have to wonder about his outrageous statements is: Is he lying, or does he really believe that bunk!

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Oreo

They can make an effort to PROJECT back that far, but no one was keeping records at the time. Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence to give them an idea of what happened, but there was no one out there taking temperature readings or using meteorological instruments and making daily calculated records of data before that time. That's what I meant, and I think that's what Messy meant, too.

Problem with science is that it is usually only comprehensible for the ones that have been working in that particular field of science, in this case physics. The methods have been explained in one of the links I posted.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Apart from all that, anyway, it then becomes a question of, with all the data that IS out there, are we being shown accurate data, or is it being tweaked by Al Gore and others, for political reasons? Coming from the man who claimed to have invented the internet, when he had nothing to do with it, and who also said that he wished he knew more "latin" so he could understand people's speach in "Latin America" the only thing we have to wonder about his outrageous statements is: Is he lying, or does he really believe that bunk!

About your last comment, I think a little of both. IMO All Gore is one of the extremists that mis used the science, as I complained earlier. What I'm trying to do is finding data from both sides and try to measure them to make up my mind, meanwhile trying to avoid being subjective. This won't happen over night and a few of these websites though as this is rather difficult. Here, I only try to show you and others that there are means to form your own opinion if you are willing to let go what you want to believe, thus keep an open mind.

[Messy1]

They can make an effort to PROJECT back that far, but no one was keeping records at the time. Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence to give them an idea of what happened, but there was no one out there taking temperature readings or using meteorological instruments and making daily calculated records of data before that time. That's what I meant, and I think that's what Messy meant, too.

You and are are on the same page Oreo. That's exactly what I meant! You said it much better.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Problem with science is that it is usually only comprehensible for the ones that have been working in that particular field of science, in this case physics. The methods have been explained in one of the links I posted.


About your last comment, I think a little of both. IMO All Gore is one of the extremists that mis used the science, as I complained earlier. What I'm trying to do is finding data from both sides and try to measure them to make up my mind, meanwhile trying to avoid being subjective. This won't happen over night and a few of these websites though as this is rather difficult. Here, I only try to show you and others that there are means to form your own opinion if you are willing to let go what you want to believe, thus keep an open mind.

That is good, Marcel. That is what all of us ought to strive for. I'm not always successful at objectivity, but our own personal core beliefs about life in general will always affect the way we think about other things. It is a difficult thing in life for anyone to change their core beliefs, especially after they reach, say, age 20-25. I've come too long in life and too deep in my spirituality to consider changing my core beliefs now. My core spiritual beliefs have given me inner peace regarding GW and led me to believe it is not an important issue for humans to concern themselves with, but that there are much more important issues to deal with. However, for people who have different core beliefs, I can see how it (GW) can be a real stress-inducer.

Within the realm of my core beliefs, I do try to keep an open mind. If I had to change my core beliefs now, I would probably suffer a mental breakdown.

One part of my core beliefs is that I never allow myself to trust any one person (or group of people) completely because I believe that mankind in total, and each man or woman specifically, is fundamentally fallible. That includes myself as well, and I don't trust myself to have all the answers either.

Having said all that, you may be wondering how I can have any inner peace in my life if I don't trust anyone. I actually didn't say I don't trust anyone, only that I don't completely trust any human being. However, I do have total trust in God, Whom I believe to be an infinite being (the only infinite one) Who cares deeply about me and all mankind.

Most people don't have that as a part of their core beliefs, but I do, and that is why GW itself does not concern me. I am much more concerned about people choosing to believe God than I am about science, which I believe points to a Creator anyway.

[magnocain]

Global Warming is still a theory. There is conflicting evidence that point to bolth sides. I am more inclined to believe the side that is not full of hippies. Ive herd that some researchers went to an old dry oil well, and found it filled with oil. So oil might be a renewable resource.

[Aussie1001]

and adler i was not responding to your post, i was responding to another one.
hope that clears things up.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by magnocain

Global Warming is still a theory. There is conflicting evidence that point to bolth sides. I am more inclined to believe the side that is not full of hippies. Ive herd that some researchers went to an old dry oil well, and found it filled with oil. So oil might be a renewable resource.

I've heard such things as well, and I'm optimistic it may be true.

Speaking of oil, have you heard the joke about the three holes in the ground?

"Well, well, well!"

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Oreo

That is good, Marcel. That is what all of us ought to strive for. I'm not always successful at objectivity, but our own personal core beliefs about life in general will always affect the way we think about other things. It is a difficult thing in life for anyone to change their core beliefs, especially after they reach, say, age 20-25. I've come too long in life and too deep in my spirituality to consider changing my core beliefs now.

Most people don't have that as a part of their core beliefs, but I do, and that is why GW itself does not concern me. I am much more concerned about people choosing to believe God than I am about science, which I believe points to a Creator anyway.

Of course you're right, Oreo, being totally objective is just not possible. One's bias is always in the way. That's why I always try to look at the data instead of the conclusion . About you're last sentence: I'm not a religious person. But I work with DNA all day, and if you see the complexity and how this all comes together and is working, one quite often starts to wonder. Keep that thought, as I said science and religioun are not necessary a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Messy1

You and are are on the same page Oreo. That's exactly what I meant! You said it much better.

You mean how can they be 100% certain about the temperature or ammount of CO2 about 4000 years ago? To be blunt: they cannot.
When working with scientifical data, always consider this:
Contrary to public believes, no science is absolute, math is the only one that is (1+1 is always 2)
So the calculations are inaccurate (not meaning false) and a scientist should take that in account. Look for instance to the graph I posted:

You see a pink area which is called "area of error". It shows you the area where it is 95% certain the line should be. As you can see, the further you go back, the larger the area is, meaning that it becomes more difficult to calculate the results. Always look for these indications on scientific data as it gives you a clue about how biased the scientists were when producing the data.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

You mean how can they be 100% certain about the temperature or ammount of CO2 about 4000 years ago? To be blunt: they cannot.
When working with scientifical data, always consider this:
Contrary to public believes, no science is absolute, math is the only one that is (1+1 is always 2)

Good post, Marcel. I'm glad you realize (as many do not) that science is not absolute. Science is a mechanism through which we learn about truth, but only if and when we follow the rules of the Scientific Method (q.v.). In many cases we are unable to answer certain questions based on the S.M. because we are categorically unable to follow its rationale to a positive conclusion in our lifetime.

For those of you in Rio Linda (Sorry, that's a joke for Rush Limbaugh listeners!), or those of us in South Carolina, for that matter, theScientific Method
is the basic determining factor to whether or not research counts as science or not. If not, it is mere speculation, or abstraction on ideas not measurable by science.

The Scientific Method has, IIRC, these five steps, stated in my own words (Marcel or whoever, correct me if I'm wrong).

1. Ask a scientific question.
2. Form a hypothesis.
3. Conduct (repeatable and quantified) experiments
4. Form a theory based on the results of the experiments.
5. Establish a law when the theory is proved to be true.

The problem with many ideas, such as GW, and evolution, is that we just can't live long enough to conduct enough meaningful experiments to get to the true "Theory" stage, which is step 4. However, people who have only made it to step #2, the hypothesis stage like to use the wrong term for their project and say "I have a theory" when in fact they have a hypothesis. (For those of us in Rio Linda or South Carolina, 'hypothesis' is just a Greek word for 'guess'). They do not have a "theory" until they have conducted quantified experiments that bear out their guess as being reasonably true. So that misuse of the word theory for hypotheses such as GW or evolution really annoy me. Conduct a million-year-long experiment on evolution, and I'll sit up and take notice!

[Marcel]

Good post, one objection though. evolution is in stage 4, a theory, not a hypothesis. There is enough evidence to support it, though there's not a 100% coverage which prevents it from entering stage 5. For me personally it's even a proved fact. As you know I'm a molecular biologist and I see evolution working on a daily basis on a small scale.
Greenhouse effect (I mean the principle of it) is a proved fact (see the planet Venus), global warming (meaning the temperature is rising) itself as well. The hypothesis is if humans are the cause of it.