Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 19th, 2015, 12:56 PM   #151

Sharks And L0ve's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: In My Mind
Posts: 231

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knarly Dan View Post
More accurately, 97% of the 77 earth scientists who Doran and Zimmerman felt were qualified to answer question #2 of their survey agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. How the other 3069 respondents (97.5%) felt isn't much mentioned, SFAIK.

Click the image to open in full size.
No. It was a survey of their publications, and most of the papers didn't take a position on climate change explicitly, just like most biology publications do not take a position on evolution, as both evolution and human caused climate change are not disputed by serious climate scientists or biologists.
Sharks And L0ve is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 19th, 2015, 04:26 PM   #152
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 1,991

Which study are you referring to?
Knarly Dan is online now  
Old July 19th, 2015, 07:38 PM   #153
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2015
From: United States, west
Posts: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks And L0ve View Post
... as both evolution and human caused climate change are not disputed by serious climate scientists or biologists.
Not remotely true. A Chinese paleontologist was giving a lecture here in America and pointed out many aspects of macroevolutionary theory which have very serious problems. When challenged he replied, "In China we can criticize evolution but not the government. In America, you can challenge the government but not evolution."

Just like global warmists pick and choose their data and findings, and silence dissent, so too do evolutionary biologists.

The space, or number of possible combinations, of a polypeptide 500 amino acid sequences in length, is something like 10 to the 65th. That is just one of thousands of such organic compounds necessary for life. Richard Dawkins has defined "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power. So the synthesis of just one polypeptide is trillions of trillions times more impossible than the garden variety of impossibility.

Ten to the 50th grains of sand would fill spheres the size of our solar system to Pluto 15 times. Blindfolded, you must select the one specially marked grain of sand on your first and only try. You can't keep on trying forever, until you find it. The statistic is ONE chance in...., not an INFINITE NUMBER of chances.

So macro, not micro, evolution shares some of the same characteristics of global warming. Questions, challenges, and dissent are utterly rejected, and dissenters are angrily ridiculed in a most unscientific manner.
Vietnam Veteran is offline  
Old July 19th, 2015, 08:42 PM   #154

Sharks And L0ve's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: In My Mind
Posts: 231

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vietnam Veteran View Post

So macro, not micro, evolution shares some of the same characteristics of global warming. Questions, challenges, and dissent are utterly rejected, and dissenters are angrily ridiculed in a most unscientific manner.
Yeah, dissenters are hated so much in scientific circles that we give them nobel prizes for proving their theories.

What utter nonsense.

If global warming or evolution were to be disproved, the people who disproved them would win nobel prizes.

Instead, we have people who go around trashing the scientific community because they can't produce the evidence to disprove evolution or man made global warming.

Last edited by Sharks And L0ve; July 19th, 2015 at 08:45 PM.
Sharks And L0ve is offline  
Old July 19th, 2015, 08:45 PM   #155

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks And L0ve View Post
No. It was a survey of their publications, and most of the papers didn't take a position on climate change explicitly, just like most biology publications do not take a position on evolution, as both evolution and human caused climate change are not disputed by serious climate scientists or biologists.
evolution has plenty of evidence and can be tested using domestic animals ( one should not confound the origin of life with evolution). That said, there's plenty of debate regarding evolution -- for example, this, which is relatively new:
Epigenetics

Epigenetics: The sins of the father : Nature News & Comment

Quote:
The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle.
Where one's ancestors lived, or how much they valued education, can clearly have effects that pass down through the generations. But what about the legacy of their health: whether they smoked, endured famine or fought in a war?

Quote:
As a postdoc in Kerry Ressler's laboratory at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, Dias had spent much of the two years before his son's birth studying these kinds of questions in mice. Specifically, he looked at how fear associated with a particular smell affects the animals and leaves an imprint on the brains of their descendants.
Quote:
The subject remains controversial, in part because it harks back to the discredited theories of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a nineteenth-century French biologist who proposed that organisms pass down acquired traits to future generations. To many modern biologists, that's “scary-sounding”, says Oliver Rando, a molecular biologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, whose work suggests that such inheritance does indeed happen in animals3.[COLOR="rgb(0, 255, 255)"] If it is true, he says, “Why hasn't this been obvious to all the brilliant researchers in the past hundred years of genetics?”[/COLOR].
So yes, there may be consensus on "it happens" but not necessarily on how exactly, even though evolution has been studied for centuries. In comparison, "man caused climate change" is presented as an absolute "finished science" despite the fact that multiple models of climate experts have been shown wrong, despite the fact that the study of such is recent and despite the fact that the predictions have been in error. (for example: UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. for 2012, that there would be more hurricanes due to global warming.
Click the image to open in full size.
Arctic sea ice at highest extent for the date in last five years - Ice Age Now,

The difference is that there may be a consensus that the climate is "changing" (always has, probably will always do so until the Earth is engulfed by the sun) just as there is regarding evolution. BUT there isn't data proving the "man caused",nor for the "warming" (which is why the name was changed to "climate change"). And one can certainly debate the effect of epigenetics, RNA and DNA plus changes caused by chemicals in evolution whereas challenges on climate are rejected. (one ongoing argument regarding evolution is the argument regarding if birds decent from dinosaurs. Despite the fact that a lot more evidence is available regarding that they do, skeptics get published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Feduccia and here in a text book: Developmental Biology 10e Online: Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?


Yes, the climate changes. NY is not under a glacier. The N. American continent is not largely under ice. How much is "man caused"? no, the science is NOT settled nor are the politically driven "solutions" necessarily effective or even beneficial: Big organic farms may actually add emissions - Futurity
Quote:
Large-scale organic farming operations aren’t reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to a review of almost a decade of data from 49 states.
How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?
Quote:
As the world seeks cleaner power, solar energy capacity has increased sixfold in the past five years. Yet manufacturing all those solar panels, a Tuesday report shows, can have environmental downsides.
Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.
Solar Panel Makers Grappling With Waste - Business Insider
Lowell2 is offline  
Old July 19th, 2015, 08:53 PM   #156

Sharks And L0ve's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: In My Mind
Posts: 231

The implication here is that evolution and climate science are unique among scientific fields which are ever evolving.

Well guess what, every scientific field is always evolving. You might as well tell us that doctors don't believe cigarettes cause lung cancer because lung medicine is evolving.

The underlying fact is that since the 1960's the vast majority of climate science papers and scientists have said that global warming is being caused by humans, and this will not be refuted, because that is what the evidence shows.

You can cherry pick all you want, but the fact will remain that most climate scientists and scientific papers have always maintained that humans activity has caused global warming.

Last edited by Sharks And L0ve; July 19th, 2015 at 09:10 PM.
Sharks And L0ve is offline  
Old July 20th, 2015, 06:04 AM   #157

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks And L0ve View Post
The implication here is that evolution and climate science are unique among scientific fields which are ever evolving.

Well guess what, every scientific field is always evolving. You might as well tell us that doctors don't believe cigarettes cause lung cancer because lung medicine is evolving.

The underlying fact is that since the 1960's the vast majority of climate science papers and scientists have said that global warming is being caused by humans, and this will not be refuted, because that is what the evidence shows.

You can cherry pick all you want, but the fact will remain that most climate scientists and scientific papers have always maintained that humans activity has caused global warming.


The analogy provided regarding cigarettes is incorrect. it would be like asserting that nicotine is universally bad and demanding no further discussion is allowed:
Quote:
The risk of Parkinson's disease is reduced by cigarette smoking, which raises some unanswered questions. Nicotine, a major component of tobacco smoke, could exert either nonreceptor-mediated biological effects or, more importantly, act on the different subtypes of nicotinic brain receptors, in particular those associated with the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway. There is now robust experimental evidence for a neuroprotective effect of nicotine upon dopaminergic neurons.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/746713

another study shows:
Quote:
The effects of nicotine on Alzheimer's disease are controversial, but it has been shown that patients with Alzheimerís present large reductions of nicotinic receptors in both the neocortex and hippocampus compared with healthy people. The positive effects of nicotine on cognitive function suggests that nicotinic receptors may contribute to normal cognitive functioning, and that patients with Alzheimerís disease may benefit from nicotine therapy.
Nicotine, the Wonder Drug? | DiscoverMagazine.com

In converse, any discussion of climate change being different than the current assertion of "man made" and "this rate of change' and "this is how to deal with it" are all denied as the "science is settled". No, it isn't.

As for cherry picking: Falsifiability - RationalWiki
Quote:
Scientific conjectures, hypotheses and theories

A conjecture or hypothesis is an idea that a researcher believes may be true. The researcher can test this idea using the scientific method.
A theory is a well substantiated explanation for some aspect of nature; it is different from a hypothesis.
Scientists constantly investigate even highly supported theories.
If evidence is found that contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or revised.
A solid scientific theory should be proof against "cherry picking". If one can find evidence that contradicts it, the science is NOT "settled" and banning discussion or contradiction is about as nonscientific as it gets.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2015, 10:43 PM   #158
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Australia
Posts: 1,566

I wasnít aware that Lamarck was largely discredited, for sure he fell into the background with the rise of Darwin but heís been getting some good press lately. I think thereís probably some basis to his theory and some recent studies (like the one above) have indicated that.

Iím still surprised at how much Climate denial there is around. Get a story on climate change and youíre sure to have 60-70% comments in the denial category in some press. Iím afraid that itís too late for that, we will need to act quicky to stop Brown the Californian governor from having too much prescience.
Boethus is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2015, 05:42 PM   #159

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boethus View Post
I wasnít aware that Lamarck was largely discredited, for sure he fell into the background with the rise of Darwin but heís been getting some good press lately. I think thereís probably some basis to his theory and some recent studies (like the one above) have indicated that.

Iím still surprised at how much Climate denial there is around. Get a story on climate change and youíre sure to have 60-70% comments in the denial category in some press. Iím afraid that itís too late for that, we will need to act quicky to stop Brown the Californian governor from having too much prescience.
Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...cle/history_09

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance).
Quote:
George Gaylord Simpson in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) claimed that experiments in heredity have failed to corroborate any Lamarckian process.[71] Simpson noted that neo-Lamarckism "stresses a factor that Lamarck rejected: inheritance of direct effects of the environment" and neo-Lamarckism is closer to Darwin's pangenesis than Lamarck's views.[72] Simpson wrote "the inheritance of acquired characters, failed to meet the tests of observation and has been almost universally discarded by biologists."[73]
and yet:
Quote:
Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence.[1] Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable, although the use of the term "epigenetic" to describe processes that are not heritable is controversial.[2] Unlike genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the prefix epi- (Greek: επί- over, outside of, around).[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Epigenetics

[URL="http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/des-exposure"]http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/des-exposure[/URL
Quote:
] DES was used less in the 1960s, after studies showed that it might not help women carry pregnancies to full term. Later, it was learned that infants whose mothers took DES during the first 5 months of pregnancy were more likely to have problems in their reproductive systems.
http://www.desaction.org/des-grandchildren/
Quote:
Scientists are taking what they learned from animal studies to investigate whether a drug given to their grandmothers has affected human DES Grandchildren. As study results come in, there is growing evidence that the DES Grandchild generation has been adversely impacted.
http://www.bonduriansky.net/AREES-2009.pdf
Quote:
Modern evolutionary biology is founded on the Mendelian-genetic model of inheritance, but it is now clear that this model is incomplete. Empirical evidence shows that environment (encompassing all external influences on the genome) can impose transgenerational effects and generate heritable variation for a broad array of traits in animals, plants, and other organisms.
so yes, Lamark's theory was largely discredited. For quite a while it was considered that DNA was the sole method of inheritance. The science was "settled". And then there were discoveries regarding MTDNA (inherited solely from the mother) and epigenetics. Lamark wasn't right, exactly. But neither were those asserting that ONLY DNA "counts".



as for Brown? no problem at all with disregarding ecological damage done by his "high speed rail" while failing on ANY of his terms in office to put forward additional reservoirs despite it being well known that California has drought cycles (global warming or not.) If global warming was "settled", his failure is even more objectionable. People need water more than they need a train ride.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2015, 08:20 PM   #160
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 1,991

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boethus View Post
Iím still surprised at how much Climate denial there is around. Get a story on climate change and youíre sure to have 60-70% comments in the denial category in some press.
One reason denialism persists is because of frequent news reports that cast doubt on the consensus position. At present the CCGS Amundsen is being diverted from providing a platform for researchers studying the extent of climate change to helping supply ships reach communities on the east side of Hudson Bay. Ice, and a lot of it, is the problem - presumably the same ice that Al Gore promised us would be long gone by now, this time of year anyway.

Another reason is the plethora of dodgy tactics that some (but by no means all) AGW activists use to support their cause. That often-cited 97% consensus, for instance, implies tens of thousands of earth scientists agree human activity contributes significantly to global warming, when it's actually based on the responses of a mere 75 climate specialists who were genuinely qualified to have a worthwhile opinion, according to two self-elected judges - Doran and Zimmerman.

Labeling anyone who questions the extent of anthropogenic climate change as a 'denier' is self-serving. It conflates everyone - no matter their credentials - with Holocaust deniers, 9/11 skeptics, people who think the moon landings were faked, etc.,. In other words, no researcher with an ounce of real scientist in him would disagree with the consensus.

I'm skeptical of AGW claims for several reasons, but lately focused on the argument that temperatures have been on hold for 15 or 20 years because - even though CO2 ppm numbers are skyrocketing - all the excess heat is being absorbed by the oceans. That will all come back to haunt us, so we are told.

Some scientists deny this. In Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, Itís Not ĎGlobal Warming, Dr. Robert E. Stevenson says
Quote:
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
Maybe I should buy a copy of This Changes Everything, by Naomi Kline. If she nails AGW down like she did disaster capitalism in The Shock Doctrine, I'll realize the error of my ways, and come in from the cold.
Knarly Dan is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
change, climate, denial, extinction, koch brothers



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before Climate Change was around... Congo Natural Environment 57 September 26th, 2014 11:27 PM
mpact of climate change on politics Port Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 22nd, 2014 03:25 PM
Climate Change (% influenced by Man) Congo Natural Environment 713 June 21st, 2013 04:09 PM
climate change c.500 BC ? Widdekind Ancient History 34 March 31st, 2012 03:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.