Dr. Dalek

Furthermore, what the hell is this guy talking about?

Inspite of the coyotes the deer are doing well, foxes are prevelent, and rabbits are making a comeback. I don't know about other preadators. I'll do some reasearch and get back to you.

Humans are certainly influencing the way that animals develop and are selected for. However natural selection is certainly not something we directly control. I should think the reason that we humans cause problems in the world around us is that unlike other animals who have well developed instincts and natural habits, we humans have no idea what we are doing. However acting creatively has cause things such as pollution (which always represented a lack of efficiency on our part). Animals do have to adapt to us and I have no doubt that they can. After all there were problems faced by other animals long before we humans reached our current massive population, some of those problems were thousands of times worse than anything we have done due to our lack of efficiency. One example of animals adapting to the presence of man is the Eastern Coyote. In this case it seems that the coyotes and the wolves, in effect "survived" by hybridizing resulting in a new subspecies that filled the ecological niche left by the wolf. I would assume that human selective pressures are to a certain extent outside the norm for the natural world, but not even close to possible catastrophic natural disasters that have been occurring for about four billion years. I sure that as new technology developes, polution problems will eventualy level out. Human population on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.

I havn't heard of anything like that. Are you sure you don't mean billion years?

Luck does have a part to play, and it dosn't mean that an antelope is unfit because it can't fight off a lion.Antelopes who are "unfit" are usualy the slowest, because they don't fight lions, they run.

Not if you live in a state park! I'm sure you could work something out with the state, and a few lawyers.

Humans are a very strange species in the fact that we beileve in survival of the fitest, only when it aplys to other animals. Not sport exclusivly, I hunt with the intention of eating. I also believe heavily in ethical hunting. aka: not taking what you won't use.

Oh I see, . . . . Sorry, I used the grade school definition by mistake. Then here is what my last post should say: Yes' date=' there is a lot of uncertainty in evolutionary biology, but evolution, being a theory, is not comapirable to the scientific opinion that humans are the dominant cause of Global Warming. Current climatological theory indicates that there are many factors that effect the climate. Most of which are uncertain, or not readily understood. In fact I presented an article from the National Academy of Sciences a short time ago by climatologists that said just that. They said: Both sides are effected by politics and ideology. Those on the fringe extreams have galvanized all the people in the middle.

Yes' date=' there is a lot of uncertainty in evolutionary biology, however, that is why evolution is called a theory, rather than a law. Also as far as I know there are no plausible alternatives to evolution as a theory. Where as Mankind, and doomsday global warming are treated as fact rather than as a theory, which of course makes me suspicious. I could counter your argument in saying that evolution is a widely accepted theory, just like global warming, however there is a plausible alternative to global warming. That being natural variation. In fact I presented an article from the National Academy of Sciences a short time ago by climatologists that said just that. They said:

I was pointing out that we, on this thred are not using the scientific process. Sorry, I seem to have typed Swanspot, instead of swansont. One survey was from two German scientists, my point was that the so called consensus could be a result of The other study was by a coalition of businesses. My point was to try and call attention to my source so I could point out bascule's source (wired mag.) not being a peer reveiwed journel.

I digress. The real point is that Scientific Concensus is NOT scientific evidence. Both sides of this debate have presented evidence to support their opinions, or at least show evidence that they are not wrong. However I'd like to point out that we all seem to be debating about science but none of us use the scientific method: Interestingly enough, SwanSpot pointed out a lack of the scientific method. This might be the one thing we have agreed on this whole time. Hmmmmm....... Wikipedia Source

What do you mean the majority of news stories? In the newspapers I receive and television I watch it is directly the opposite. Majority? You need a larger sample size my firend.

There is a huge difference between "is dominant" and "consistent with." Furthermore the paper clearly states that though the climate data is "consistent with" an dominant anthropogenic influence . . . . This paper clearly supports my position that mankinds effect is "uncertain." I also stated that my opinion was that nature was the primary driver. It's an opinion. It then stands that I do not claim to know that nature is the dominant influence, only that I believe it to be based on the cyclynal nature of the climate. I cannot say that I will find a paper that proves nature to be the dominant influence because if those who have found evidence to support my opinion use the same methods as your sources then all of the data regurding natures influence will be as uncertain as mans, therefore asking for proof that I am right could proove to be impossible. I will continue looking for papers never the less.

Lets not get into that, as far as I have read none on this thred are climatologists, yet we all have a strong opinion about something involving climatology.

They are found in other parts of the world. Including Austrailia, North, and South America.

Here! These people agree with SkepticLances opinion quite clearly! As for my own, I will emphisise the fact that they repeat in the text several times about the uncertainty about human and natural forcings. The asertion that human forcings are dominant is in fact theoretical, here you see they say that climate trends are consistent with some predictions based on human and solar forcings but they also state that there is a likely that there is another natural trend force at work! Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8314 This also supports my asertion . . . .

Perhaps, human arogance. Dispite the fact that we revolve around the sun we still think the world is centered around us. Still looking for a paper. The Library science section has turned up nothing will try google scholar.

There are strong arguments for the opposing veiwpoints, I've been using those arguments to support my veiwpoint that climate science is uncertain, and that natural causes for warming are likely explanations. I honestly don't know with pure certainty whether my asertions are right or not. But I've been supporting them with facts! You've been ignoring those facts and figures! When I dissagree with one of your points I say why! When you disagree with mine you go back to the "anthropogenic" this and "FUD" that! What does "FUD" even mean? Whatever it means it seems like it would be rude and entirly unproffesional.

Look let's make it clear that there is no conspiracy here! I'm doing reasearch as we speak. Scientific concensus is not empirical evidence! If it was, the French scientifc establishment would still be saying it's impossible for meteors to fall from the sky! Furthermore your concensus could easily be an illusion caused by groupthink, a common psycological phenominon.Here is a basic description of Groputhink from Wikipedia

This was the topic of an episode of "The Outer Limits". A Scientist proposed that because of the nature of human society humans are surviving and breeding that wouldn't in the wild. So he claimed that ingerous mutations were compunding in our gene pool, making each generation weaker and more dependant on the last. So of course they went strait to the cheesey sci-fi plot where he genetically engineered himself into a caveman, in an attempt to combine his evolved brain with the Neanderthals physical prowess. He ends up being kept in a cage for reasearch.

Here is another thing that gives me reason to be critical about your argument. Me and the others have pointed out a number of facts and arguments that show at the very least, the asertions reguarding anthropogenic climate forcings are uncertain. Yet you act completely certain almost constantly. Certainty, with or without data, makes for bad science. In fact it makes for creationism!

The cretatious period was warm because there was more concentrated land mass to absorb heat from the sun (Pangea, etc), the Tertiary period, acording to Wikipedia, saw the split of several continants from one another, thus the land masses sperated, and there was more room in between continants for heat to escape into the oceans or be reflected into space.

There could be a thousand explanations for that platue. Could be CO2, natural, or other wise. (I think natural, but you seem not to). Dust levels are at an all time low, so less sunlight is obscured. Maybe that has something to do with the lasting tempeatures. Noisy? What? What are you talking about? This seems not to belong in your paragraph? I tend to think that we were just coming out of a cold spell. Thats what caused all the perceived warming, now we are going back into one if my information is correct.

Even so, the ammount of current CO2 is not the highest its ever been, even in the last 400 thousand years. (From the graph)Also: Why would it be such a dramatic peak? From the statistics I've read, (sources including Wikipedia, IPCC, and a few others) the tempeature sice the begining of the 20th century has only increased by about 1.4 degrees. So at least in that respect you may have a point, Uh, not meaning to offend but I think you may be reading the graph the wrong way, 0 (the left side of the graph) is the most recent while the right is 400 thousand years ago. Actually, in my section of north America at least, a lot of trees have grown back since the industrial revolution, and yes albedo does have a definite effect. In fact it is the only major thing I worry about global warming wise. However I don't believe even our massive cities can have a devistating ecological effect, in terms of heat, I only worry that it may effect albedo and indirectly heat water sources, thus it may have an effect on the weather in general and throw off surface measurements of "climate change"

The CO2 level has increased since the industrial revolution, but in even the last couple of decades, when the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is suposidly more than at the begining of the industrial revolution, the amount of man made CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 3%. That implies that the remaing CO2 increase is likly of a natural process. Especially since we are in the middle of a natural warming cycle when CO2 is suposed to increase. As you can see from this graph (that I must have posted a hundred times!) we are currently in the middle of a warming trend that very closly resembles the natural ones that have preceeded it. Homo Sapiens have only been around (as far as we know) for about 40,000, years, and the current warming trend has clearly started before the industrial revolution!