Polarization in the US?

[shrewsbury]

jim, thanks for the reply.

you have to understand by just saying what someone should or should not pay attention to seems sketchy, and though I don't see you as such, the statement can be seen as such. also the best scientist statement is an opinion simply because the greatest theory is still just a theory.
but I hope to gain more insight from your opinions, and certainly can change my mind.

so here are a few of my issues

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279/

The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.

when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed:

An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland — showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

second issue,

weather pattern changes are obvious, some say it is due to a change in the polar vortex, which I obviuosly do not know. but even if there is a change in the vortex which is causing weather changes, it still cannot be soley blamed on humans and the part that can be blamed is debatable. if there are obvious weather cycles, and obvious warming and cooling patterns, then these could have been caused by a change in the vortex and we would have never known.

but please go one, I am up for a lesson on earth weather, patterns, and cycles.

[Wickabee]

If I may interject (oh who am I kidding...)

I would actually expect a genuine man of science to tell me not to pay attention to any non-official source, especially any mass media. I don't think it was a sketchy statement at all.

Do we know OJ killed Nicole and Ron? No. We have a pretty good idea he did, but we do not know 100%. None of us.

Officially, history will show he did not. That is all we can ever know. In the end, science comes down to fact, no matter what is reported by whom. We have to go with what we know, and nothing else, or what the hell are we really doing?

Opinion doesn't come into it, no matter how many force it in. Religion creates the same problem for theists.

[Good Ole Jim]

jim, thanks for the reply.

you have to understand by just saying what someone should or should not pay attention to seems sketchy, and though I don't see you as such, the statement can be seen as such. also the best scientist statement is an opinion simply because the greatest theory is still just a theory.
but I hope to gain more insight from your opinions, and certainly can change my mind.

so here are a few of my issues

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279/




second issue,

weather pattern changes are obvious, some say it is due to a change in the polar vortex, which I obviuosly do not know. but even if there is a change in the vortex which is causing weather changes, it still cannot be soley blamed on humans and the part that can be blamed is debatable. if there are obvious weather cycles, and obvious warming and cooling patterns, then these could have been caused by a change in the vortex and we would have never known.

but please go one, I am up for a lesson on earth weather, patterns, and cycles.

I'll give you that, it's a fair point to make. I believe I did give credible reasoning as to why I suggested that we don't always follow such news reports though, but debating that point has no constructive end.

I actually am familiar with that study. The point I would bring up is that the suggested study is almost 9 years old, and we've found new discoveries and have linked new data points together since then. I may have been too frank before. I don't believe that human's are completely to blame for our climate's change, but I do believe, and our research that has been ongoing for 15 years has suggested that human's are partly to blame for it.

My hope that in this argument-ridden debate filled topic is that we can come to an agreement that as humans, we have a responsibility to protect our Earth. Part of this is keeping it clean. We can all agree that we can do a better job at this. I, along with 99% of the scientific community are screaming at the government to fund renewable energy. Our voices have almost been unheard. I'm not a huge political debater, so I'll leave that up to them, but I am an expert in my field, and our sources of energy that we're currently using are dirty and will run out.

I've done research on oil and fracking as well. That's a pretty hot-button topic at the moment. Yellowstone, where I'm currently conducting tests and research is another hot topic right now. There's a lot of speculation going around about a possible eruption soon and claims like that. I can do a thread shedding light on that as well if interested.

My goal in this forum is this: To trade cards, and to share my scientific opinions with you guys, while being respectful to each person that has a different opinion than me.

[JustAlex]

Jim, since you are a geologist, what do you think about certain people who believe our planet is only 6000 years old?

What about those that continue to deny evolution despite all the evidence and the fact that rock layers even show that the species from today are Never found with....lets say a dinosaur.

Surely, its a scientific conspiracy, right?

[Good Ole Jim]

Jim, since you are a geologist, what do you think about certain people who believe our planet is only 6000 years old?

What about those that continue to deny evolution despite all the evidence and the fact that rock layers even show that the species from today are Never found with....lets say a dinosaur.

Surely, its a scientific conspiracy, right?

Thanks for the questions, Alex. I'm happy to answer them for you.

The following information is in no way intended to insult anyone, regardless of religion or religious opinion:

I've read the Bible. I believe it does hold power in building an open and wise mind. I believe there are many lessons that we should take from it, and there are many morals and good essence we should take from such a book. The men who wrote the Bible were wise men, that we can all agree on.

After reading it through twice, I also believe that the Bible is taken out of context often. Biblical Theory hasn't changed since it's development, and there is no practical place in the Bible that compares the Earth to being 6,000 years of age. This idea was brought up by religious scholars who were behind the times.

I also believe that the Bible is an adaptable tool. This means that we can learn new moral lessons that the Bible doesn't teach based on our current happenings in every day life.

An answer on the Earth is this, it is most definitely older than 6,000 years old. The law of horizontal layering(fossil evidence in older to younger layers of sediment) contradicts that by itself. The fact that we don't find human remains until after dinosaurs in the law of horizontal layering proves this.

Evolution is a law. What remains to be answered is why adaptation happens the way it does, and why in the world it is so random. The concept of DNA, and the complexity of it still defies, not contradicts, but provides some inaccurate detail in evolution-based adaptation. Long story short, we don't know all of the answers, and some aren't testible for us to determine. The reason why scientists are claiming evolution as it is now is because most go by what we can see and prove. Can you blame them? I think not. I learned from Yale professors for 5 years about evolution, and how it doesn't always add up, but it's the best thing we have, and it does have sound reasoning.

In closing, I believe anyone should be able to believe what they want to believe, without the repercussion of being ridiculed for thinking as such. Alex, you have every right to be an atheist, and shouldn't be ridiculed for it. Other theists on this site have every right to be a theist, and shouldn't get ridiculed for it. We do have to eliminate religion influence on law. Our founding fathers believed in the respect to worship, but the separation of church and state.

I hope this all make sense, and I can answer questions. :) My brain and eyes are tired from a long day of analysis....Time to relive my child hood and watch some Pokemon on Netflix(scientists can be cool too).

[Wickabee]

What a genuine, honest, and respectful answer.
I also have to comment on how close our ideas on the bible and religion are. It's nice to see someone else look at the bible the same way I do.

And thank you for definitively saying the earth is not 6000 years old. Hearing this reaffirms my belief that the earth is not 6000, and I have also often wondered what scripture that was taken from, exactly. Hearing it from a person who ages pieces of the earth on a much more regular basis that I is quite reassuring.

[JustAlex]

Thanks for the questions, Alex. I'm happy to answer them for you.

The following information is in no way intended to insult anyone, regardless of religion or religious opinion:

I've read the Bible. I believe it does hold power in building an open and wise mind. I believe there are many lessons that we should take from it, and there are many morals and good essence we should take from such a book. The men who wrote the Bible were wise men, that we can all agree on.

I've read the bible a lot too....A LOT....I can tell you without criticizing anything in particular that IMHO, if more people read the bible fully (and not just the Jesus parts) they would be very surprised, and probably not the good kind, but I'll just leave it at that.

Evolution is a law. What remains to be answered is why adaptation happens the way it does, and why in the world it is so random. The concept of DNA, and the complexity of it still defies, not contradicts, but provides some inaccurate detail in evolution-based adaptation. Long story short, we don't know all of the answers, and some aren't testible for us to determine. The reason why scientists are claiming evolution as it is now is because most go by what we can see and prove. Can you blame them? I think not. I learned from Yale professors for 5 years about evolution, and how it doesn't always add up, but it's the best thing we have, and it does have sound reasoning.

It's not just that Evolution is all we have and that there are mountains of evidence for it....it's the fact that there are no other good scientific theories out there to say anything else regarding the diversification of life on this planet.

Creationism (for example) is NOT a scientific theory, it's not even a regular theory....it's a religious hypothesis and not a very good one considering that it has absolutely no evidence for which it can stand on.

What frustrates me is the fact that creationists (all types) love to poke holes into evolution, but the second that anyone says anything about creationism to them, they immediately bring up special pleading, false dichotomies, and a variety of other logical fallacies.

There's a good reason why many Scientists really disliked the idea of Bill Nye debating Ken Ham on the subject of evolution....it's because scientists (and I know Bill Nye is not an actual scientist but he does do a good job representing the scientific community) should NOT debate creationists because it makes it seem as if both sides are equal or if there really is some conflict in the scientific community.

There isn't any.....the overwhelming majority of scientists (last time I heard it's about 99%) accept the theory of evolution, they are not debating it and they are certainly not giving creationism any credit because it has no evidence....it's just not science, period.

And I thought Bill Nye did a fantastic job, personally I wouldn't have been able to control myself the way he did against Ken Ham and his pseudo-intellectualism nonsense.

In closing, I believe anyone should be able to believe what they want to believe, without the repercussion of being ridiculed for thinking as such. Alex, you have every right to be an atheist, and shouldn't be ridiculed for it. Other theists on this site have every right to be a theist, and shouldn't get ridiculed for it. We do have to eliminate religion influence on law. Our founding fathers believed in the respect to worship, but the separation of church and state.

I'll just say this....I do not attack anyone personally on this forum unless they attack me.

I do however attack ideas and I believe that ideas should be scrutinized and criticized.

The problem is when people get attached to their ideas to such a level that it becomes indistinguishable to them.

I'll give you an example:

As a sports fan, imagine I say "Lakers suck! Kobe is old, they're not going anywhere and the good ol' days are behind them....enjoy being mediocre to bad in the upcoming years!"

^Now, this criticism has some truth to it, but it is also hyperbolic and inflammatory as well, but who am I attacking? The Lakers or the Laker fans?

Obviously I'm attacking the Lakers.

Nowhere in that post did I attack Laker fans.....and yet some Laker fans will probably be offended by that post and believe I am attacking them.


The very same thing happens with religious people.

I would say that the overwhelming majority of the time, I attack religion, and I'll be honest....I sometimes go overboard, but unless actually stated, I don't attack the religious.

One group I do criticize over and over again is far right christians and fundamentalist (most of the time they are one and the same).....either way, this is probably the only group I actually do criticize head on and it's because they are the ones who do a lot of damage as I perceive it.

[Wickabee]

Funny. I believe in God, which would ultimately make me a creationist, but that doesn't mean I try to poke holes in evolution, though I do question it as with most things. I just figure, and this is putting it into the simplest terms possible, we keep finding things, so we probably don't know everything. If we don't know everything, we cant fully understand everything we do know. I look at science as the ultimate search for God. So I guess it's not all types of creationist.

I will also say that I agree all ideas should be scrutinized. That goes as much for science as it does theism.

Oh, and you tend to attack religion more, but you attack the religious, and non religious theists as well. Mostly not realizing what exactly you're saying. But what do I know, I'm ignorant, right?
(He asked the guy who assumed he was describing me earlier)

[shrewsbury]

Jim,

So it seems even though we are on two separate sides, we actually are thinking the same thing.
1) humans have messed up the climate a little, but we do not know how much.
2) we can do a better job on keeping the earth clean
3) human evolution is logical, but not proven and thus could be wrong
4) The Bible does not teach science
5) the Bible was written by humans

so it would be easy to conclude that two different people could take waht you have written to back their different beliefs.

example;

someone could say, see human evolution is law and this guy studied at yale, so human evolution must be true.
another could say, this guy who studied at yale admitted human evolution is not proven and is full of holes.

but back to climate change

in your opinion, is what we are experiencing a mixture of natural climate cycles and human interference?
I would agree even if humans only have 1% of the mess, we should be trying to do better.

here in another article

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; and Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/MarcMorano/Ev...#ixzz2vTvajTeX
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

are you familiar with the Spencer & Braswell’s papers? if so, what is your opinion on them?

are you familiar with the work of Ferenc Miskolczi?

The optical depth is a kind of proxy measure of the greenhouse effect. Global warming says that more CO2 will increase the optical depth. Miskolczi showed that available empirical measurements of the optical depth are consistent with no change in 61 years. This means that even though CO2 has increased over the 61 years of measurement and increased the optical depth slightly, “variations in water vapor column amounts” [Figure 11, Miskolczi 2010] have decreased the optical depth by a similar amount. Paltridge et al.23 have confirmed a decrease in water vapor for this period.
If the optical depth has not increased overall, it suggests the slight warming of the 20th C has not been due to an increase in the greenhouse effect.

thoughts on this?

I can't stop now

McKitrick et al [2010] also use the extended data and addressed the data adjustment issues but used a greater range of statistical analysis. They found that the model predictions are about 4 times higher and outside the error bars of the weather balloons and satellites measurements [see Figure 7].
McKitrick et al’s findings have been replicated by Fu et al 30 who also find a discrepancy between the models and observations about Troposphere warming, although not to the same extent as McKitrick et al do. However, in a follow-up paper, McKitrick 31 not only confirms that the predictions of warming by the models have been exaggerated but also shows the small amount of recent warming was due to a natural climate shift in 1977. This climate shift has been noted by many other researchers 32 and means global warming is playing an even smaller role then predicted by the models.

thoughts?

I have plenty more but will leave it there for now. As you can see, warning someone as to what is real or not on the internet is fine for a child, but most adults have the ability to research and research some more. The internet was born from sharing data and using it. Though I agree there is more junk than good stuff on the net, there is still an endless amount of legit stuff anyone can access, if they have the time and desire to do so. perhaps the real issue is not finding what is "real" but how to interpret what you have found.

and for the record, I am just picking your brain so I can have another opinion and perhaps learn something new, which may or may not change my opinion.

now to alternative energy,

the issue I have is we spent a whole lot of money and it and they all went bankrupt.

I, for one, am considering either solar panels on my barn or maybe even a wind turbine in the field, but they ain't cheap.

[centrehice]

America's founding fathers have nothing to do with the age of the Earth, and Climate Change, why even bother, you sound like you are running for Mayor somewhere.