Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by commanding View Post
    In the constant discussion of how much man's activities cause drastic change in the earth environs.......I was reading online this morning and wish to quote some information from an archeology website in Texas:



    source: https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/kincaid/env.html

    my point being that the earth's historical climate has always been in change, and always will be, without man even being present in large numbers. These numbers were in north America where the population of humans was extremely low at that time.


    I think one aspect that is important is who people handle problems. What they believe and want VS what is happening. I agree with you, change is always happening. The issue can be hoaw people view it. For many people reality needs not to participate in the discussion. One side POV about if global warming is mad made, then mad can change or mitigate the problem. If it is not mad made/cause, that could mean we can not do anything about it. What POV do you think people want to believe. I would think it is man made, ergo man can fix it. There is hope there. I tend to think our environmental science is still very young. Problem with extrapolation, events are not always linear and the farther out one goes the less probable it becomes.

    I have a issue with probability, 99% probable can end up 100% wrong. Probability is kind of like belief in science.

    Also science gets a bum rap for our internet intellectuals. One term I liked from Bill O'Reilly was "bloviate" Lots of bloviaters out think, or "I think therefore I know for a fact"

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Hollis View Post



      I think one aspect that is important is who people handle problems. What they believe and want VS what is happening. I agree with you, change is always happening. The issue can be hoaw people view it. For many people reality needs not to participate in the discussion. One side POV about if global warming is mad made, then mad can change or mitigate the problem. If it is not mad made/cause, that could mean we can not do anything about it. What POV do you think people want to believe. I would think it is man made, ergo man can fix it. There is hope there. I tend to think our environmental science is still very young. Problem with extrapolation, events are not always linear and the farther out one goes the less probable it becomes.

      I have a issue with probability, 99% probable can end up 100% wrong. Probability is kind of like belief in science.

      Also science gets a bum rap for our internet intellectuals. One term I liked from Bill O'Reilly was "bloviate" Lots of bloviaters out think, or "I think therefore I know for a fact"


      agreed. My point again is in archeology these lads study extremely long (compared to the industrial and historical periods) time frames ......and via varied methods, can determine the plants and animals as well as climate existing at certain times.

      here in texas we had camels, giant sloths, horses, lions, cave bears, mammoths, saber tooth tigers, mastodons etc. All were extinct by 1492.

      i never have disagreed that there is some climate change, just that i refuse to think it is "all man's fault" and that earth is doomed because we all dont cease using coal.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Hollis View Post



        I think one aspect that is important is who people handle problems. What they believe and want VS what is happening. I agree with you, change is always happening. The issue can be hoaw people view it. For many people reality needs not to participate in the discussion. One side POV about if global warming is mad made, then mad can change or mitigate the problem. If it is not mad made/cause, that could mean we can not do anything about it. What POV do you think people want to believe. I would think it is man made, ergo man can fix it. There is hope there. I tend to think our environmental science is still very young. Problem with extrapolation, events are not always linear and the farther out one goes the less probable it becomes.

        I have a issue with probability, 99% probable can end up 100% wrong. Probability is kind of like belief in science.

        Also science gets a bum rap for our internet intellectuals. One term I liked from Bill O'Reilly was "bloviate" Lots of bloviaters out think, or "I think therefore I know for a fact"
        @ Hollis
        Indeed there is the issue of what is happening vs what people believe or want happening
        However, what people believe is two way street : you have people believing one extreme or another for few obvious reasons
        -Media drumming
        -Political speeches (so authority argument)
        - self interest about why change my way of life/oil will be more expensive/i don't care or we all gonna die/think of the children/protect the furries
        And mainly the fact that the references of belief are narrow in most people because they use as references the own little circle of where they live and don't understand how a big system can work
        I see that the discussion has come back to GW or CC or whatever

        I 'll put just a few food for thought
        -Yes Earth has cycles of Climate Change. However they were always done at geological time pace. Which is not the case anymore
        - Humans are terroforming earth at an unseen level before and this terraformation is known to have effects
        * at local level (example : sand suckiing from ocean's floor for concrete production is inducing or accelerating coast erosion)
        * at regional level (Aral sea vanished, not only the Aral sea water was lost but beyond, hundred of km² of land were turned in wasteland because of the air borne salt from the sea floor)
        * at National level (effect of the 3 Rivers Dam is impacting half of China at several level including earthquakes cycles, geological layers and so on)
        * at global level. We are 7 billions, 90% of the vertebates are farm animals, forests have been reduced by several hundred of thousands of km² since the beginning of the Holocene, artificial mineral areas (i. cities) have increased tremendously with pollution/heat island/pathogen concentration/waste production effects etc etc)

        Given that we have never (and not any other superior mammal) been so numerous, so invasive with such a capability to influence our environment as ever

        Given that there were already demonstrations of the burden that too much humans/land surface can apply to their nearby biosphere (Christmas Island, Angkor, the Mayas, the Pueblos)

        Given that we have already been culprit of global modification of the environment (Ozone layer, Acid rains, global distribution of Dioxin and mercury, global radioactivity since 1945)

        It is not unreasonable to think that our way of life is impacting our vessel the Earth
        The question is to what extend. CC deniers will say zilch, CC believers will say we are the only culprits
        That's were dogmatism appears
        In both cases 99% could be 100% wrong because it is an approach balck or white

        Maybe people should begin to think in shades of grey
        Last edited by Mordoror; 06-12-2017, 01:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
          ....

          I 'll put just a few food for thought
          -Yes Earth has cycles of Climate Change. However they were always done at geological time pace. Which is not the case anymore
          - Humans are terroforming earth at an unseen level before and this terraformation is known to have effects
          * at local level (example : sand suckiing from ocean's floor for concrete production is inducing or accelerating coast erosion)
          * at regional level (Aral sea vanished, not only the Aral sea water was lost but beyond, hundred of km² of land were turned in wasteland because of the air borne salt from the sea floor)
          * at National level (effect of the 3 Rivers Dam is impacting half of China at several level including earthquakes cycles, geological layers and so on)
          * at global level. We are 7 billions, 90% of the animal species are farm animals, forests have been reduced by several hundred of thousands of km² since the beginning of the Holocene, artificial mineral areas (i. cities) have increased tremendously with pollution/heat island/pathogen concentration/waste production effects etc etc)
          Things like the little ice age and the Roman warm period would suggest that the bolded bit's not necessarily true. I do agree that we've been making changes to local climate ever since we started slash and burn agriculture in the fertile cresent.

          Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
          ....
          The question is to what extend. CC deniers will say zilch, CC believers will say we are the only culprits
          That's were dogmatism appears
          In both cases 99% could be 100% wrong because it is an approach balck or white

          Maybe people should begin to think in shades of grey
          I'm pretty sure that only a few whackos at the exteme end of climate sceptics say that there is no impact from carbon emissions on climate. The argument is one of the degree of impact and the degree of necessary countermeasures. The extent of "over promising" from the Climatology community does make it pretty hard to take their alarms as urgently as they want. If they were financial advisors instead of climate ones they'd have been prosecuted by the authorities for such promises long ago.

          Comment


          • #95
            Things like the little ice age and the Roman warm period would suggest that the bolded bit's not necessarily true. I do agree that we've been making changes to local climate ever since we started slash and burn agriculture in the fertile cresent.
            Re : Little Ice Age : took 250-300 years to set up and reach its peak and was seemingly linked to massive geological events like a serie of big volcano eruptions
            About the Roman warm period you got me, i don't have any clue if there is any explanation on this warming occuring in Southern Europe, if it was global or regional and if anybody has proposed a possible mechanism....

            Comment


            • #96
              The Roman one seems to have reached at least as far north as modern day England which was pretty well known for it's grapes.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                The Roman one seems to have reached at least as far north as modern day England which was pretty well known for it's grapes.
                I know. I wondered if it was extended beyond european landmass. Like in sub saharan africa or SE Asia.

                Comment


                • #98
                  It is rather unfortunate that the Chinese were going through one of their periodic destruction of old regime records not long afterwards as I suspect that would have been rather helpful on that front. All we are left with is things like pollen records and tree rings which aren't exactly a particularly reliable indicator.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X