waitforufo

Unfortunately we are quite poor a deciding what to do to prevent extinctions. For example, currently on the Columbia River salmon are considered both threatened and endangered. Three causes have been identified. 1) Both the Columbia River and Snake River have been significantly dammed. This has changed the habitat. 2) Caspian Terns have been introduced. These birds nest on man made islands constructed from dredging debris. The Columbia River is dredged to open up water ways for barge traffic which extends to Lewiston Idaho on the Snake River. The birds eat young salmon during spring. Caspian Terns are an endangered species. 3) California sea lions is travel 145 miles up the Columbia River each year to prey on thousands of spring chinook salmon and steelhead that congregate below Bonneville Dam before moving up the dam's fish ladders. California sea lions are an endangered species. Sensible people would correct this problem by submerging the man made islands and killing the sea lions at the Bonneville Dam fish ladders. The emotional proposal is to remove the dams from the Columbia and Snake Rivers to protect the salmon. Now if they do that there won’t be much reason for dredging the Columbia for non existent barge traffic, so the Terns will go. Since the salmon won’t be easy prey at the fish ladders, the sea lions will go. This solution will however teach man not to mess with nature when the Northwest US economy collapses. Of course we could always build coal fired power plants to make up for the loss of power generation. Also, it’s good that trains can run on coal since we will have to ship all that inland grain by train over the Cascade Mountains instead of by much more efficient river barge. Won’t that be a plus for the environment. A parting note. I appreciate the fact that you call for stopping poachers and not sport hunters. Legal sport hunting has always improved species recovery. Sport hunting places a monetary value on wild animals and therefore gives people a financial incentive to protect the species. Banning all hunting creates the opposite effect turning endangered animals into pests which encourages poaching. The over hunting mentioned often in this thread which has lead to species decline is market hunting (legal selling of the animals taken). Market hunting should always be prohibited in all forms.

Some might find the following read interesting. http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm It is titled “Religious Belief, By Charles Darwin” In it you will find: William Paley was the big ID man of Darwin’s time. As a student Darwin admired Paley and agreed with his philosophy. Later of course Darwin changed his mind. One can also find: My guess is that Darwin would tell scientists to spend their time discovering how species came to be and leave the why to theology.

Dak, SkepticLance presents a paper in post 21. 1veedo scoffs the paper in post 22 in part because it’s old and can’t be found on Google. I point out that global warming is a new proposition and that peer reviewed journals only publish new propositions. If they didn’t, no one would read them because they would be filled articles about agreed science. Agreed science can be found in text books. Google has existed for how long? How many peer reviewed 50 year old journal papers do you think you can find on Google? Then there is your post, post 25, claiming the papers written in the last few years about climate are the new settled accepted science. When did natural science starting working that way? The mere fact that there are so many new papers on this subject work against your claim that it is settled science. People are still gathering evidence. Also, the near hysteria from global warming proponents that 1) global warming science is settled, and 2) that global warming will lead to catastrophic consequences if not acted about immediately also work against your claim. Both are classic elements of any confidence game. The burden is still on anthropologic global warming proponents to prove they are correct. It’s not on those that hold previously long held opinions.

Bascule, Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Global warming proponents are advocating a new proposition. Aren’t they the ones with something to prove? If I agree with the commonly held scientific understanding of gravity, and someone comes along and says “no that’s wrong” you are suggesting that I need to write a paper to prove that I’m correct. If I wrote such a paper, no peer reviewed journal would publish it. They would all say “this is well known science, come back if you have something new.” If journals didn’t reject such papers, they would be full rewrites of old papers written by people trying to pad their curriculum vitae.

Its called Deism.

CDarwin, Of course I meant “literary” not literal. Thank you.

Most Christian faiths teach 1) that god made all that is; seen and unseen, and 2) that the bible is a divinely inspired work (scripture). To understand god therefore, a Christian must attempt to understand his creation and his scripture. Now some Christians teach a literalists interpretation of the bible. Most, and by most I mean the large denominations, teach a literal interpretation. What’s the difference? If you write someone a letter and begin with “Today it’s raining cats and dogs so instead of moping I’m writing to my good friends.” If your receiving friend is a literalist, they will think that where you live, cats and dogs were falling from the sky. If your friend takes a literal interpretation with an appreciation of your colloquial writing stile style, they understand that where you live it was raining vary hard. Christian literalists have a hard time with evolution because the bible tells them that the universe was made in 7 days and that the earth is 5000 years old, give or take. (This, by the way, has been confirmed by the extra terrestrials observing the earth from its creation on the Simpson’s.) Most other Christians, when they look at a fossil or the Grand Canyon appreciate that somehow their interpretation of the bible must be reconciled with this observation. If god created X, it trumps any interpretation of his inspired work (see 1 above). So, there are plenty of Christians that agree with evolution science. Since evolution is part of his creation, to understand god they must understand evolution.

agreed.

Haezed, It appears to me that you are making my point. Perhaps if I stated my point in this way: Group X is trying to promote a political agenda. To get traction they need a political base. So they go shopping for popular beliefs or ideas that align, or more important, that they can make appear to align with their agenda. The more such alignments they make, the larger their potential political base. In politics, appearances can be more important. If the political agenda appears to be aligned with something that is true or good, it gives the appearance that the agenda is true or good. So once the alignments are made, just add the gullible or ignorant. Now you have the start of a political movement with leverage. So for example: “Well all smart people support the science of evolution. Evolution describes how species are improved in nature by eliminating the weak….” You can see where this is going. Another example: “All good people believe in God. The Bible is and inspired book of God. The Bible describes the lineage of Jesus from Adam and Eve. The earth therefore must have been created ….” Same thing, different game. The above becomes even worse when people start promoting science or religion because they like the associated politics. Racists promote evolution because they like the idea of eliminating or subjugating those they believe to be inferior. Bigots promote their religion because they like steeling the property of their neighbors who worship a different god. The average person never gives one thought to how things work. Most are simply looking for affirmation of their pre conceived notions. It is far better if science, economics, and religion stand on their own. Each should pick at the other, and in this process perhaps religion will fade away. This was Darwin’s belief. All three can inform politics on how best to govern but watch out if any one of them becomes government.

Perhaps articles like this one <http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm> make me think there is a link between communism and evolution. These Marxists seem to think there is a link. I am not trying to divert this discussion to that of religion, nor am I trying to suggest that evolution caused world war two. I was trying to suggest that people don't get science and as a result good science can cause bad things to happen in politics.

Lets all face the fact that most people don’t get science. The vast majority of people believe that the lights come on because they flip the switch or that the toilet flushes because they pull the handle. They also believe that it is some great injustice that these “rights” will stop if they don’t pay their electric or water bill. These bills must be paid due to the mighty power of “Big” business. I sometimes wonder if the word “Big” hasn’t replace the word “god” at least from the perspective of fear. I think another reason people reject evolution is that evolution has not had a great track record in politics. Evolution supporters brought us eugenics. Not too many happy outcomes there. It also brought us Nazism with at the master race and all its purifying humanity crap. Then there is Communism where the masses are more important than the individual. This is just survival of the species through political action. You often here people talk about the human casualties brought about by religious belief. All the human suffering brought about by all the worlds religions throughout the ages don’t hold a candle to the bright inferno of politics motivated by evolution that came about in the 20th century. Evolution is marvelous science, but it has so far brought us mostly horror is politics.

1) All scientists should be skeptics. Without doubt a scientist will not move past pre conceived notions. 2) Computer models are used to predict anthropogenic global warming. I write computer models for dynamic physical problems in Matlab every day. I get paid quite well to do it. The science behind the problems I model is well known. Even with this knowledge, it is very easy to get it wrong. Our climate is a very complex dynamic system making it even easier to get wrong. 3) Our climate is still within the expected statistical distribution. 4) Climate is an average of weather which is chaotic. Someone on these GW threads keeps claiming that our climate is full of interacting feedback mechanisms. All chaotic systems have interacting feedback mechanisms, each feedback mechanism producing its own competing stability point or chaotic attractor. Having interacting feedback mechanisms does not guarantee a chaotic system but does make it quite likely.

200/(1000000) = 0.0002 or 0.02%. Other than that I agree with your post.

I know better and yet I still get it wrong. Thanks!

I recommend that you read "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard P. Feynman. This lecture was written by Feynman to explain difficult concepts to the general public. It's a very enjoyable read from a Nobel laureate. You can read through in a few hours. By the way Feynman goes out of his way in the book to explain that physics and physicists are in the business of studying and understanding “how” things behave not “why” they behave that way. I know it’s a bit of a nit, but science is easier to except and understand when you give up on the notion that there is cognitive reason behind it.

Oh, all knowing bascule, thank you for helping us simple minded. We only regret that your enormous ego can't possibly be capture in text alone. Alas, the party of Al Gore that dominates the US Senate had the temerity to create the following web page. Can you smite them? <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=>

A growing list of skeptics? An interesting read at: <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12>

First, when I think of the term “Jerk” I think more along the lines of Steve Martin’s classic character in “The Jerk.” Just thinking of the move makes me grin. With respect to the jerk you are describing, I think their primary problem is that they are inconsiderate. If you know such a person and have time to observe them, you will find the following behavior. 1) They stop at the end of an escalator and are upset when asked to move. 2) They never hold a door open for someone else, either before or after they have entered. 3) They never give up there seat to someone less able then themselves. 4) They take their time when being served even if the queue behind them is long. 5) They never say excuse me or I’m sorry when they bump into someone. 6) etc. The above lack of basic manners is not due to some internal malice towards others. Others simply don’t exist in there internal dynamics. Since they don’t exist, they don’t need to be considered. Hence, such people are inconsiderate. The reason they are rude in social situations is that at such times others must be considered. You are upsetting them because you are upsetting their world view which only has them in it.

I'm not sure about the Black Sea. Perhaps you are thinking of the Aral Sea. The Aral Sea, like the Dead Sea are both shrinking but more from exploitation of the rivers that feed them. Anyway, read the article in Spiegle.

Interesting read at Spiegle online. <http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html> Title "GLOBAL WARMING, Not the End of the World as We Know It" The story includes this picture below with the caption "German sunworshippers enjoy a cocktail on a Baltic Sea beach in early May. Germany could experience a tourist boom as a result of climate change." I for one can't wait!

I agree that many would use the "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" for the reasons you suggest but I don't think that would be primary reason for most. It would not be my reason. I like voting on every item on the ballot. When I first voted, I wasn't sure if any of my votes would count if I did not vote for every post and initiative. I know it's foolish and incorrect but I still don't like to leave anything blank. By having such an option, voters could vote for the issues they care and know about and option out those they don't care or know about. By the way I don't think such votes should invalidate the election outcome even if the "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" option wins. Candidates don't generally like these "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" options. I think this is because they would prefer to win by a toss of the coin than by an election of the informed and interested. During the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida, some of the re-counters admitted to counting a ballot, where no one voted for president, as Gore, if the voter voted for other Democratic candidates. I think some in Florida who did not intend to vote for president, had someone vote for them. Back to your issue on when someone shoud be allowed to vote. Voter turn out indicates that most people decide this for themselves. Generally they choose sometime after 25.

I'm grinning too. I think most people that don't vote, don't do so because they know they are not informed. This is particularlly true for most young adults. They just hope that mom and dad are thinking about them when they vote. There have been some that suggest that "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" should be included as an option for each item on the ballot. Some would use this as a protest. I think most others would use such an option to admit they don't have a clue. I know when it comes to voting for judges I often feel like I have no idea which candidate to choose. No mater how much I look for information on judges there doesn't seem to be any meaningful data. They claim that providing useful information would mean the potential or sitting judge is or would not be impartial. Some help that is to a voter. By the way, I think most people in the US vote either R or D for the same reason they root for the Rangers or the Seahawks (baseball). Many have little idea what the parties represent.

Should there also be an age when you stop voting? Say 65? An important question for young people today. Think 10 years from now when most of the voters are retired people wanting more government benefits but no longer paying significant taxes. In the US, the original concept was to only let contributing heads of households vote. A person was considered a contributing member of society if they owned land, had a profession (e.g. doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) or was a member of a workers guild. This test excluded many people. First and foremost all women were excluded. But this concept also excluded most laborers and most of the poor. Those then in favor of such a concept would argue that members of a household would not nullify each others votes. The idea was that household members would discuss things between themselves and the head of household would vote their collective will. This would produce democracy at the family level, if you will. In this way, those who did not meet the contributing head of household test would have a vote within a household. Our present system is better in that functioning households do indeed discuss things and then, in the main, vote as a block. On the other hand, dysfunctional households vote in an uncoordinated way thereby reducing their impact. Today and tomorrows elderly however create a demographic unknown in US history. Never has there been a group of people so large and so dependent on the government. They also vote in large numbers.

Since this topic is turning into another rehash of info found in other global warming threads found in this forum, I would like to return to the starting post of this topic quoted below. With regard to I have one point of confusion. The above points out that nature has been trapping atmospheric CO2 for a very long time. (Much longer than several centuries but lets not quibble, we all get the point.) Paraphrasing the above, this CO2 was until recently trapped in the earths crust as fossil fuels. Then along comes man, and in his ignorance, he finds and burns the fossil fuels returning the CO2 to the atmosphere causing global warming. (How well did I do with my paraphrasing?) My point of confusion? After all those years of nature locking up CO2, why was there any left in the atmosphere? Sounds like nature was plenty busy locking it up. Not just in fossil fuels by the way. Nature also made plenty of calcium carbonate. Just look at the white cliffs of Dover. Also, plenty of you have shown historical graphs of CO2, but none of them show a constant decline from some early proto-earth.

SkepticLance, You speak ill of the dead. A man who gave his life for others.