298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
How many people have changed their lives at some level in order to mitigate “man-made global warming”?[/quote]

I have to admit I have only done so recently and only through recycling as much plastic/paper as I can. I walk a lot also, to cut down on fuel consumption, but that’s about it. Sadly I never really concerned myself with recycling when I was younger.

  • note that I don’t actually consider either of these exactly life-changing practices, but we all gotta start somewhere.
    [/quote]

At the risk of sending this waaay of topic or into PWI…

I guess what I’m getting at is that the whole mm-global warming fiasco is the perfect example of impure and agenda driven “science”. There is misinformation abound from all sides. Most, I would even venture to say 9/10 or more of people’s understanding and beliefs of this phenomenon come from news/media reports.

In otherwords, any discussion of the science of climate change, natural or otherwise, is based on “faith” that what they’re being fed is absolute truth according to their belief. “Al Gore said it, it’s true”.

My advisor in grad school was fond of saying “They’ll give ANYONE a Ph.D. these days…”

I challenge folks to do some Googling about what the Earth’s climate is estimated to have been when the forest in the OP was alive (during the Permian). No SUV’s around then…

[/quote]

Any objections to this argument?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Any objections to this argument?

[/quote]

Besides being grossly oversimplified, unrealistic, and presenting no real conclusion except his presumptuous opinion that “action in the face of uncertainty is the only responsible choice”? - nothing.

Sounds like a fun little exercise to do in a gradeschool environmental studies chapter.

This is more binary thinking-- Action? Yes or No. If no action, inevitable catastrophe. So if we take action, no matter what, the force of nature will be stopped and the world saved? Sorry- not that easy.

No one’s been able to poke holes in this so far? Who’s he showing this to, 3rd graders?

OMG Stop everything!!! This guy made a decision matrix!!!

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
How many people have changed their lives at some level in order to mitigate “man-made global warming”?[/quote]

I have to admit I have only done so recently and only through recycling as much plastic/paper as I can. I walk a lot also, to cut down on fuel consumption, but that’s about it. Sadly I never really concerned myself with recycling when I was younger.

  • note that I don’t actually consider either of these exactly life-changing practices, but we all gotta start somewhere.
    [/quote]

At the risk of sending this waaay of topic or into PWI…

I guess what I’m getting at is that the whole mm-global warming fiasco is the perfect example of impure and agenda driven “science”. There is misinformation abound from all sides. Most, I would even venture to say 9/10 or more of people’s understanding and beliefs of this phenomenon come from news/media reports.

In otherwords, any discussion of the science of climate change, natural or otherwise, is based on “faith” that what they’re being fed is absolute truth according to their belief. “Al Gore said it, it’s true”.

My advisor in grad school was fond of saying “They’ll give ANYONE a Ph.D. these days…”

I challenge folks to do some Googling about what the Earth’s climate is estimated to have been when the forest in the OP was alive (during the Permian). No SUV’s around then…

[/quote]

Ahhhh, I was wondering where you were going with this.

While I certainly don’t buy into every source of media propaganda, at the same time I have to exercise a certain degree of common sense in dealing with my own shit. Things like the trash island phenomena in the North Pacific Gyre make me grimace.

However I don’t know many people who have actually turned their lives upside down solely on the basis of the world’s climate. As I mentioned above - recycling, quite a common practice now, isn’t really THAT much an effort. Outside of recycling and, I suppose, ‘eco’ cars, limiting your fuel/electricity/gas usage, how can a person dramatically change their lives under the threat of global warming aside from moving to a cabin in the woods? Apart from that drastic example the other measures all seem fairly beneficial for all concerned - walk more, use less energy, save more money. These are all positives.

Although I remember reading about the negative impact of recycling, there’s only so much a layman can do to try and look after their own. Even if you kept up to date with the scientific data and counter arguments, it’s enough to make your head swim when all you want to do is limit the effect you ‘might’ be having on the planet. I’m an artist Jim, not a scientist.

Having said that, I completely agree with the point you’re making. Just in this particular example my decisions are based more on what seems to me to be the right thing to do, as opposed to a reaction to fearmongering. I guess you could say I take it on faith that my effort to divide my trash into pretty multicoloured boxes is making a fraction of a difference.

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stern wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
How many people have changed their lives at some level in order to mitigate “man-made global warming”?[/quote]

I have to admit I have only done so recently and only through recycling as much plastic/paper as I can. I walk a lot also, to cut down on fuel consumption, but that’s about it. Sadly I never really concerned myself with recycling when I was younger.

  • note that I don’t actually consider either of these exactly life-changing practices, but we all gotta start somewhere.
    [/quote]

At the risk of sending this waaay of topic or into PWI…

I guess what I’m getting at is that the whole mm-global warming fiasco is the perfect example of impure and agenda driven “science”. There is misinformation abound from all sides. Most, I would even venture to say 9/10 or more of people’s understanding and beliefs of this phenomenon come from news/media reports.

In otherwords, any discussion of the science of climate change, natural or otherwise, is based on “faith” that what they’re being fed is absolute truth according to their belief. “Al Gore said it, it’s true”.

My advisor in grad school was fond of saying “They’ll give ANYONE a Ph.D. these days…”

I challenge folks to do some Googling about what the Earth’s climate is estimated to have been when the forest in the OP was alive (during the Permian). No SUV’s around then…

[/quote]

Ahhhh, I was wondering where you were going with this.

While I certainly don’t buy into every source of media propaganda, at the same time I have to exercise a certain degree of common sense in dealing with my own shit. Things like the trash island phenomena in the North Pacific Gyre make me grimace.

However I don’t know many people who have actually turned their lives upside down solely on the basis of the world’s climate. As I mentioned above - recycling, quite a common practice now, isn’t really THAT much an effort. Outside of recycling and, I suppose, ‘eco’ cars, limiting your fuel/electricity/gas usage, how can a person dramatically change their lives under the threat of global warming aside from moving to a cabin in the woods? Apart from that drastic example the other measures all seem fairly beneficial for all concerned - walk more, use less energy, save more money. These are all positives.

Although I remember reading about the negative impact of recycling, there’s only so much a layman can do to try and look after their own. Even if you kept up to date with the scientific data and counter arguments, it’s enough to make your head swim when all you want to do is limit the effect you ‘might’ be having on the planet. I’m an artist Jim, not a scientist.

Having said that, I completely agree with the point you’re making. Just in this particular example my decisions are based more on what seems to me to be the right thing to do, as opposed to a reaction to fearmongering. I guess you could say I take it on faith that my effort to divide my trash into pretty multicoloured boxes is making a fraction of a difference.

[/quote]

I know people, many people, who preach with all the fervor of the most fundamentalist born-again Christian (or muslim) the evils of behaviors that could possibly contribute to global warming. Faith like no “religious” people I’ve ever met. Al Gore, et al are gods.

My point is that there is Faith and there is Science. And while those who claim no Religion very well may have only Faith in what they’re fed from (eg. Global Warming mania in the media) versus understanding the complexity of the science.

In this thread alone, people just know that the Earth is not “young”, however, they know not one thing about the science that says otherwise except that someone said it on a TV show, or wrote it in a magazine, or posted it on Wikipedia. That is FAITH.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I know people, many people, who preach with all the fervor of the most fundamentalist born-again Christian (or muslim) the evils of behaviors that could possibly contribute to global warming. Faith like no “religious” people I’ve ever met. Al Gore, et al are gods.
[/quote]

I’m curious what measures these people take to differentiate themselves from the rest of us in regards to ‘saving the planet’? Are they just preachers, or do they actually practice? Just curious.

Maybe we should take this to another thread.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Besides being grossly oversimplified, unrealistic, and presenting no real conclusion except his presumptuous opinion that “action in the face of uncertainty is the only responsible choice”? - nothing.

Sounds like a fun little exercise to do in a gradeschool environmental studies chapter.

This is more binary thinking-- Action? Yes or No. If no action, inevitable catastrophe. So if we take action, no matter what, the force of nature will be stopped and the world saved? Sorry- not that easy.
[/quote]

He’s saying, assuming we have the tools to stop/slow global warming, we should invest in them. That was the conclusion. Are you saying you’re not confident in the tools we have to slow emissions and so forth?

Of course you’ll need a complex solution, that was not the point of the video.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

He’s saying, assuming we have the tools to stop/slow global warming, we should invest in them.
[/quote]

Do we have those tools?

Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”

[quote]therajraj wrote:

… that was not the point of the video.

[/quote]

No, the point of the video was the public service announcement at the end (the link I posted).

We’re quickly approaching PWI territory because now we’re talking about ‘public policy driven by inconclusive science’.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

He’s saying, assuming we have the tools to stop/slow global warming, we should invest in them.
[/quote]

Do we have those tools?[/quote]

I do not know, I was just wanted to discuss his argument, assuming we did.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”[/quote]

It doesn’t matter.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own. This could’ve come out of the mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would make no difference on its validity.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”[/quote]

It doesn’t matter.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own. This could’ve come out of the mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would make no difference on its validity.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem-- his ‘idea’ is opinion. It’s not science. I don’t have the answer for “Global Warming”. What I understand from my education and professional experience is that these things are naturally cyclical. I’m not willing at this point to incur expense, give up liberty, or otherwise be prodded along by agenda driven ideas. The “science” is quite inconclusive. The agenda is quite clear.

“Tobacco Industry” scientists lobby government: Bad. Agenda driven.

“Green Industry” scientists lobby government: Good? Agenda driven.

Scientists who have found an influx of money need a problem to sustain their research. There is no ‘pure’ science about it- it’s a business, and they’re competing for dollars against other scientists. Whoever wins in the court of public opinion is the winner regardless of the conclusions.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

He’s saying, assuming we have the tools to stop/slow global warming, we should invest in them.
[/quote]

Do we have those tools?[/quote]

I do not know, I was just wanted to discuss his argument, assuming we did.[/quote]

Honestly, I’m not interested in discussing hypotheticals. Anybody can make shit up. Show me data, show me assessment of data, sources, methods, conclusions, and error bars.

What if I had a billion dollars? Yeah, what if…

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

He’s saying, assuming we have the tools to stop/slow global warming, we should invest in them.
[/quote]

Do we have those tools?[/quote]

I do not know, I was just wanted to discuss his argument, assuming we did.[/quote]

Honestly, I’m not interested in discussing hypotheticals. Anybody can make shit up. Show me data, show me assessment of data, sources, methods, conclusions, and error bars.

What if I had a billion dollars? Yeah, what if…[/quote]

Ok

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

…In this thread alone, people just know that the Earth is not “young”, however, they know not one thing about the science that says otherwise except that someone said it on a TV show, or wrote it in a magazine, or posted it on Wikipedia. That is FAITH.[/quote]

BING-fucking-O.

Over and over and over and over and over again doth I preach this message. Many are called, few are chosen.[/quote]

You and I may disagree over the age of the Earth, but when I come to Montana, we are going to fucking PARTY.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
For the record, my initial posts were (at least in my mind) specifically generated towards young earth creationists…

[/quote]

Most likely because you, like many others, are clueless about young earth creationism. All you know about it is that a big ol’ pile of people strongly disagree with the concept. And of course, as an admitted atheist your belief system prohibits you from considering it. Because of that you have never educated yourself on it and know little to nothing about it but somehow think you’re qualified to comment on it.

Now for about the fifth time my comments were not about the promotion of YEC but rather to provoke the mockers to prove their intellectual wherewithal by getting them to wax eloquent on why radiometric dating methods were reliable and inerrant. Your failure to do so illustrates that you are one of the many who can mock but…that’s about it.

It’s easy to live a life where you’re just one of the crowd, aint it? Doesn’t take too much effort to drift down the stream.
[/quote]

So the only people entitled to an opinion are those who have spent 4 years as an undergrad and several more in graduate school studying advanced physics and chemistry? I guess that disqualifies you as well.

You haven’t made a single logical point in this thread that hasn’t been disproved, and now you’re reduced to attacking credentials and arguing semantics about “faith”. The braggadocio you continue to display in this debate is absurd and I’m actually embarrassed for you.

The burden of proof does not lie on “the big ol’ pile of people” who have just happened to make the same objective observations time and time and time again, it lies on the group of people who believe a fairy tale written 2 thousand years ago by a bunch of guys who thought the earth was flat is literal truth.