SkepticLance

lucaspa said : Also, eventually, population growth can outstrip ANY technology In theory that is correct. However, you might like to check with http://www.un.org/popin which shows the United Nations projections for population growth. It is now expected that the world population will not exceed 9 billion. My optimism extends to believing that humanity can feed 9 billion without causing any kind of global ecological catastrophe.

The answer is no. Radiation that is part of the electromagnetic spectrum will not render other materials radioactive. Is it possible you got it mixed up with particulate radiation? A rain of alpha particles or neutrons can do it.

Food or sex, yeah. I find a picture of Pam Anderson does it more efficiently, but each to their own.

The stm does not really show what an atom looks like. That is probably a meaningless concept anyway. However, it does show how atoms are arranged with respect to each other. In my opinion, that is pretty damn cool.

Dak asked do you mean that, without negative feedback loops, an increase in [CO2] will cause the temperature to go up and stay up, or do you mean that temperatuer and [CO2] will keep feeding-back to one another, causing an infinite temperature increase (i.e., inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> etc for infinity)? Obviously neither situation is correct. Ultimately something happens to stop temperature rise, and that is a negative feed-back. I am sure that you and others like 1veedo would agree with this. I was pointing out that the New Scientist article, in outlining only positive feed-back mechanisms, was biased. A number of negative feed-back mechanisms have been proposed. The most basic is the increase in plant growth with warmer temperatures and higher CO2, thus absorbing CO2 and decreasing the greenhouse effect. But there are many others. For example, we know that dimethyl sulphide is produced by phytoplankton. Warmer seas lead to more phytoplankton and more DMS. The DMS is know to be a very effective cloud seeder, thus producing more low altitude cloud, which is cooling. It is possible that more warmth leads to more water vapour, which produces more low altitude cloud, which is cooling. Some satellite studies have shown more cloud over warmer seas, backing up this hypothesis. Similarly, more water vapour in cold areas leads to more snow, and more reflectance of heat into space. There are many mechanisms proposed. They are not necessarily all correct, or all very potent. However, the proposed negative feed-back mechanisms have been published, and an article which describes only the positive mechanisms is clearly biased. We see bias in publication in many areas. 1veedo talks about warming being dominated by GHG increase since 1900. He says that statement came from an IPCC document. If so, that is an example of catastrophist bias, since the data clearly shows that the warming from 1900 to 1940 is much more closely linked to solar activity. Another biased statement toward catastrophism, often quoted, is to say that GHG has been the major (90%) driver of warming for the past 50 years. Of that 50 year period, the first 20 was a time of either cooling or no significant change up or down. So we had only 30 years of actual warming. To say 50 years, instead of the more accurate 30 years, is clearly an attempt to cause alarm, since 50 sounds more alarming than 30. I think, Dak, your first question is answered. ie. What is catastrophism? As the examples above show, catastrophism is an attempt to portray change as being unrealistically disastrous, when the evidence does not bear that out. This approach is totally counter to the spirit of good science.

Depends what you mean by 'photographed'. Normal photography needs light, and that has limitations. It is exceeded by electrons, which can be used in an electron microscope to photograph much smaller items, such as a small virus. However, if you extend your definition of 'photographed' further to mean 'detected and imaged', then we look at the scanning tunnelling microscope which can form images of individual atoms, though not their structure. This may be called a bit of a cheat, since there is no direct image. Instead, the signal is translated by a computer, which forms the image on a screen.

To 1veedo and Dak. I suspect there is a degree of misunderstanding here in terms of what we mean by sceptic. Sure, if someone tries to tell you the world is not warming, that's not a sceptic. That's a crackpot. A sceptic does not argue with good data. A sceptic challenges interpretation. I am a global warming sceptic because I challenge some of the interpretations made by the catastrophists. And I see some strong evidence of bias in their views. For example : there was an article in New Scientist which talked about feedback mechanisms for global warming. Four mechanisms were mentioned, and all four were positive feed-back mechanisms. Now, if no negative feed-back mechanisms existed, then every time the world warmed (about a million times so far), there would be runaway temperature increase (with no contrary mechanism to slow or stop the warming) and all life on the planet would die. Obviously that is nonsense. Sooner or later, a negative feed-back mechanism becomes stronger than whatever is causing the warming, and the world cools. A balanced article on feed-back mechanisms would discuss the possible negative feed-backs as well as positive. Clearly, the New Scientist article was horribly biased. Sceptical climate scientists are needed to try to get some balance back. Yet these guys have difficulty getting papers published. That is NOT due to the papers being inferior.

1veedo You are correct in suggesting that sceptics have fewer peer reviewed papers published. When you read the writing of sceptics like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, one of the recurring themes is the difficulty faced by sceptics in getting papers published. They will tell you that there is a serious barrier to publication based on the preconceptions of those who adhere to the catastrophist paradigm. This is the main reason that we see sceptical material from good climate scientists published in non standard publications. They just cannot get their work published against the bias present. In spite of this, though, there are a number of peer reviewed sceptical climate papers published. Even though people like Richard Lindzen bring out the venom in the catastrophists writing in this thread, they are still widely respected in their profession. Thus, by searching around, they find less prejudiced editors and peer reviewers willing to give them a fair go.

To imp. We could be getting into a whole new thread here. That is : how good is GM. I will address only the seed buying issue. You show concern that seed suppliers control a big part of agriculture. Welcome to the post WWII era! That issue has nothing directly to do with GM. Control of seed supply by virtue of the fact that a company sells the best seed is a reality has been with us for the past 60 years. Certain companies, such as Pioneer, Monsanto etc., produce superior seed and offer it on the market. Farmers want that seed and buy it. That happened long before GM came along. Farmers still have the option of buying seed that is capable of producing a harvest, from which they can collect seed, and plant again. The only problem is that they cannot compete with the more productive farmers growing from superior seed. Incidentally, the reason they cannot collect that superior seed and replant is legal - not genetic. Technically, they can replant from seed collected at harvest. It is just illegal. The scientific means to render seed sterile is available. The problem is that when it was about to be introduced, it was vehemently opposed by anti-GM groups, and never got off the ground. The technology was developed by the US government, to avoid the risk of cross-pollination of GM stock to wild stock. In other words, to fix one of the main objections of the anti-GM groups. Only they opposed the fix.

Actually, MC, there is no reason at all to believe that agriculture is not sustainable. Sure, some techniques result in such things as topsoil erosion, and nutrient depletion. However, there are so many methods of preventing or reversing those that we have no reason to accept them as inevitable. Even hydroponics can be used. It has been calculated that the United States alone, if it converted wholesale to hydroponics, could produce enough food to feed the 9 billion that is projected to be the maximum human population. Wonderful soil can be made by mixing ground up rock with compost. We are not exactly short of rock! And this soil is immensely fertile. GM herbicide resistant crops permit no till techniques, with continuous increase in organic composition of the soil. This is already in widespread use with soy beans. The best farming methods, for total sustainability, come from all possible techniques. There are some who talk of organic farming as being sustainable. It is not. This is because it requires high tillage. However, the best methods using organic and conventional agriculture can be.

To foodchain. In this topic, speculation becomes the main thrust of opinion. This is because real facts are minimal. One fact we know is that, if you take a simulated atmosphere of Earth as of 4 billion years ago (water vapour, methane, CO2 etc) and put strong energy into it (electric sparks simulating lightning, Ultra violet, or high temperatures simulating local conditions around meteor entry) then we see the formation of a large number of organic molecules such as amino acids and the raw materials of nucleaic acids. Deduction suggests that this process over millions of years, with rain washing the organics into ponds, lakes and the sea, will create the primeval soup. This is deduction, not fact. Other researchers have shown that some of the organic raw materials, exposed to such substances as montmorillonite (a type of clay), and calcite crystals, will adhere to the crystal surface in such a way as to line up, and chemically bond, forming a polymer. This is fact, not deduction. Deduction suggests that, over a long period, such polymers will increase in concentration in the primeval soup. Deduction also suggests that chemical reactions may occur between polymers and other substances. Speculation suggests that a self replicating molecule may form. Speculation also suggests a form of molecular evolution may follow. Another fact is that, in rocks in northern Canada, organic residues have been found dated to 3.8 billion years. What this means is open to interpretation. Another fact is that, in rocks in Western Australia, structures have been seen that look remarkably like existing stromatolites (cyanobacteria), and this has been dated to 3.6 billion years ago. If you throw together the facts, and the deductions, and season with a little speculation, you develop a picture which has a chance of actually being correct.

lucaspa Honeybee numbers are down. That is a long way from going extinct. And no. We do not depend on honeybees for 30% of our nutrition. The main bulk foods are such things as wheat and corn, which do not need insect pollination. In terms of kilograms or calories, the amount of our foods that need honeybees is closer to 5%. Human history shows a trend away from dependence on natural ecologies. In recent times, there have been several attempts to set up a small population inside a closed environment (the biodome). So far, these attempts have failed. However, each attempt leads to learning more. It is easy to predict that some such attempt will, in the next 100 years, succeed. After that, the next step is to set up a community that does not even need the sun. It will use energy from nuclear fission or fusion. Once that has been proven, humans will be able to set up habitats either underground, or in space, which can survive, and even grow indefinitely. Long term, I predict that there will be habitats (cities?) in space. These will consist of rotating wheels or cylinders, spinning for gravity, with the ability to live independently from the Earth. Once these exist, the destruction or depletion of humanity by natural disaster will become seriously unlikely.

One theory is that of the primeval soup. Early in the history of Earth, enough organic molecules washed down from the air to form solutions of organics in the early seas of our planet. As previously stated, the simple compounds formed polymers which eventually formed at least one self replicating molecule. That molecule would be in the soup. Thus, it would be surrounded by a solution of organics. The organic molecules would be the 'food' used to support replication. A molecule replicating in a soup would not need the internal chemistry of a cell, since the soup provides that chemistry. After some time, there would be an enormous quantity of self replicating molecules, now in competition for the remaining 'food'. Changes would occur in those molecules in the way that mutations change nucleic acids today. The best fitted changes would survive and the others die. Thus, evolution at a molecular level would be under way. RNA molecules sometimes have the special ability that they can be catalysts for chemical change. This is a major reason why many biologists believe RNA came first. DNA based life forms need proteins to act as catalysts. If we assume that the first self replicating molecule was some form of RNA, then the evolution of these molecules would lead to a form that could catalyse chemistry that benefited that molecule. If that chemistry involved making fatty acids, then those fatty acids could form a layer around the molecule, like a cell membrane. This would be the first 'cell'. Of course, this is all speculation. My scenario above might be quite wrong!

ecoli asked why the replicating molecule came first. One answer is that a cell is a much more complex structure and would thus take longer to evolve. Another answer is that the properties of the replicating molecule are needed to create and replicate cells. No cell can reproduce and evolve without the replicating and encoding abilities of the molecule. A third answer is that this is the logical extenstion of the word begun in the 1960's which proved that organic molecules can be created under natural and ancient conditions that occurred 4 billion years ago. If the first step towards life is the creation of simple organic molecules such as amino acids, and purines, then the second step is to form these into polymers. The third step is to form, from simple polymers, a complex molecule that can replicate. To form a cell would have to follow after.

Answer : we don't know. Without doubt, some kind of replicating molecule came first. The best current candidate is RNA, but we cannot be sure. The trouble is, molecules don't leave fossils!

To Molotov cocktail. What you say is, of course, correct. However, the availability of the larger variety is still a part of modern life. If you make good use of it, that's great. Some people make poor food choices and do not make good use of the variety. Today, I eat grapes, tomatoes, nuts, broccoli every day, plus whatever local fruits and vegetables are cheap. If I visit the local supermarket or greengrocer, I am faced with an amazing choice of healthy foods, including such things as tropical fruits. If someone continues to eat crap food, that is their choice. Incidentally, that ketchup (tomato sauce to us non Americans) which you disdain, is the richest source of easily assimilated lycopenes. They are the only chemical with an absolutely clear correlation with a reduction in a cancer in humans. High lycopene intake is correlated with a 40% drop in chances of prostate cancer.

This is out of hand. Bascule made a challenge about sceptical GW peer reviewed papers. I responded to the challenge by a quick google search - found a peer reviewed paper and posted the reference. This was intended only to show that GW sceptics do produce work that appears in peer reviewed published papers. It was just a response to Bascule's snide insinuation that sceptical GW climate studies never passed peer review. This example proves Bascule was wrong. That is all the reference was designed to show. The contents of the paper and any criticism of those contents are pretty much irrelevent to the point. If need be, I can continue a google search and find other papers by sceptics that pass peer review, but I think the point is made.

To Bascule One global warming sceptic paper in a peer reviewed journal. Climate Research : Vol. 13 pages 149 to 164 Soon and Baliunas The environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. I am sure you can attack this paper, and I am sure that other people adhering to the catastrophist dogma have already attacked it. However, it meets your demand for a named sceptical paper on global warming in a peer reviewed journal. If need be, I can search out others.

Another couple of instincts. The male of our species has an instinctive drive to achieve status. He will play sport, climb mountains, strive in business, and enter assorted status games with other males. Many status behaviours are called 'showing off'. Young male children will behave in ways to achieve a position as centre of attention. This is the direct equivalent of a chimp striving to become the alpha male. The reason for this drive is clear - females are attracted to high status males. The female of our species has an instinctive drive to look good. She will spend enormous time, money and effort on shopping for clothes etc, time in beauty parlours and hairdressers, and in making herself up on a regular basis. This drive is so basic that we see it in female children who play 'dress up'. The reason for this drive is clear - males are attracted to good looking females. Both these behaviours can be seen across most, if not all, human societies. This is clear evidence that they are instincts. There is a little cross over between the genders, with a few women striving for status and some men trying to improve their appearance. This is understandable since these behaviours are mediated by sex hormones, and both genders have both testosterone and oestrogen. However, as a generalisation, men who have more testosterone are primarily motivated by the achieving of status, and women, with oestrogen, by achieving beauty.

To wormood, re the smile. Humans smile at each other as a form of non verbal communication. The use of a smile in that way to pass on the information that you feel good will towards them is not a reflex. However, it is an instinct, as shown by the fact that it is universally used with that meaning. Molotovcocktail said : Chimpanzees and Gorillas, both of which are primates like humans, are also known to commit murder Yes, and the commonest killing within chimp tribes is during battle with another tribe. I may be wrong, but I do not believe gorillas killing other gorillas is something that happens much.

Jackson I disagree totally with your statement that human instincts are few or none. You probably are not aware of this, but that is a horribly arrogant idea. It says that humans alone, of all life on Earth, have risen above their basic nature and do not have instincts. Sorry, we are animals too. And like other animals, we have instincts. The easiest way to distinguish between learned behaviour and instinct is to see how universal a behaviour is. If something is learned, it will vary from culture to culture. If instinctive, it will be pretty much universal. As an example, take sign language. If I hold up my thumb and first finger in a circle, in my culture it means 'OK'. In certain mediterranean cultures it represents a female sexual organ, and tells the person being indicated to, to undergo a sexual act. A major insult! This piece of sign language is learned. However, if you smile at someone, that gesture carries pretty much the same meaning in any human culture. A smile as a gesture of good will is universal, and is based on an instinct. Of course, humans do undergo massive learning. This means that any instinctive behaviour may be modified by learning. Thus, the natural antipathy to a stranger is modified by the teaching of courtesy and diplomacy. You will still see that antipathy rearing its ugly head in those people whose learning of courtesy has not been strong. I could give lots of examples. Let me just say that the influence of instincts is still powerful, despite learning, in many humans.

Bascule said. Oddly enough the option to present peer reviewed research to the contrary is sitting at a big fat 0. Actualy, there is a very large literature of peer reviewed research which is sceptical of the central catastrophist global warming dogma. If you are suggesting that such research papers have to deny global warming to be sceptical, you are applying a personal definition of sceptic which bears little resemblance to reality. If we see, for example, a Richard Lindzen paper describing a negative feed-back mechanism, involving clouds, which will reduce the impact of global warming, do you define this as sceptical? I know this paper exists. I call it sceptical because it is contrary to the catastrophist paradigm. Similarly, there are plenty of 'sceptical' peer reviewed papers by many climate scientists, which suggest that the catastrophe is exaggerated.

Since this is the science forum, we should avoid legalistic or pop psychology responses. I am going to attempt a reply based on evolutionary behaviour ideas. Our behaviour, at the level of inbuilt instinct (as opposed to learned) evolved during the time of our hunter-gatherer tribal forebears. After all, this period, including Homo erectus, was over several million years giving time for behvioural evolution, while the period since agriculture was only 10,000 years - hardly enough for much behavioural evolution. So the ability and propensity to kill other humans, at the instinctive level, evolved while we lived in tribes. Clearly, killing a member of your own tribe would carry a major penalty, and reduce your chances of survival in the Darwinian sense. However, killing a member of another tribe would not carry that penalty, and might even assist in your reproductive sense. eg. an inter-tribal battle that goes well leads to capture of females as slaves, who are reproductively available. The male that most successfully kills the 'enemy' might gain status and reproductive opportunities. Thus, killing a stranger becomes a type of killing that our instincts do not prevent us from doing. If a stranger behaves in such a way as to identify himself as a member of a hostile tribe, then the killing follows. I am sure we can all think of lots of examples. This still does not explain the other common type of killing, which is a member of the killers own family. I suspect that this falls into the category of either calculated killing for personal gain, or temporary madness, otherwise called a crime of passion??? Any other ideas?

I'm not enormously knowledgeable in physics, but this article was an easy read. I doubt if it would appreciably alter our everyday life. When Einstein superceded Newton, it did not make Newton's equations go away, and they are still used today. It just added other equations which were much more accurate. A two time theory would probably do the same.

To Molotovcocktail. I disagree on what you say about lack of food variety. I eat far more variety today than I did as a boy 50 years ago. Also, life spans continue to increase. The best is women in Japan (86). 20 years ago, their expectancy was only 80. Life expectancy in all OECD countries continues to rise, and I am sure that the access to a wider variety of foods is one factor.