Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

Learn what an ad hominem attack is. One engages in an ad hominem when one attacks one's opponent in lieu of any actual argument. I may goad my opponent along with making and substantiating my points, but never in lieu of.

Erm, what substantial points? I saw none in relation to that particular post. You remind me of a poster in another forum who attacks his opponent and then declares his innocence. Is this a common conservative tactic? It seems so since so many of you apparently do it.

 

[orogenicman]

Which of the questions I proposed do you believe are answered on that site. Be specific.

You didn't propose a question. You presented a statement apparently declaring that macroevolution is not a valid argument. The site presented many valid instances of macroevolution. So are you going to try to refute them, or are you going to skirt around this issue?

 

[orogenicman]

What indirect "evidence"? Show me.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/8975.html

Refuted by what proof?

The watchmaker argument is attributed to William Paley back in 1802, but actually can be traced back as far as Cicero and galen. Many scientists have addressed this non-issue, as well as the courts, Palerider. Do you really want me to go into a lengthy discussion on this, or will you concede that Behe was simply wrong?

 

[orogenicman]

"How long do you believe any given CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere?"

100 years, give or take.

"Where did the gasses come from in the first place? Do you beleive we created the carbon or the oxygen?"

The CO2 we release primarily come from the combustion of fossil fuels. You didn't know this? Hmm.

No of course we didn't create either the carbon or the oxygen. What a silly notion. But the carbon cycle doesn't naturally release 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via the combustion of fossil fuels which have been locked up deep within the Earth for tens to hundreds of millions of years, now does it?

Now, anser my question:

So, what do you think happens to that 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases we emit every year? Does it magically disappear?

 

[orogenicman]

"Ocean acidification is not manmade global warming."

No, it is manmade ocean acidification due to the saturation within the ocean of human released acidic gases such as CO2 and SO2.

"Aside from that, refer to your 3 semesters of chemistry and learn that the ocean is alkaline, not acidic."

Duh.

"The ocean may becoming less alkaline, but less alkaline does not mean acidic."

I refer you to biochemistry 101. The alkalinity of the ocean has generally been stable for millions of years, as has the pH. As a result many organisms are adapted specifically to the ocean's alkalinity. The alkalinity of the ocean acts as a buffer to help mantain the pH. Now it is getting more acid (less alkaline - the pH is changing, with the ocean becoming more acidic), and many of those same species are now under duress, and some have succumbed. This is well documented.

"Hell ocean water hasn't even approached neutrality, much less acidity. More diversionary misrepresentation by your side of the argument."

It doesn't have to. Many organisms are adapted to a very specific range of alkalinity and pH. When you change those conditions, those animals suffer. Ocean water generally has a pH range of 7.8 to 8.4, with an average of about 8.1. Nearly all reef organisms are adapted to that pH range, and many only thrive in the higher end of that range.

From wikipedia - "Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of −0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration. By the first decade of the 21st century however, the net change in ocean pH levels relative pre-industrial level was about -0.11, representing an increase of some 30% in "acidity" (ion concentration) in the world's oceans.

 

[orogenicman]

"Local wether patterns, perhaps. Global patterns, lets see the proof."

How many local weather pattern changes do you think the global atmosphere can absorb? We see those changes in the Amazon, the Sehel and other regions of Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo, China, India, and even here in the States.

 

[orogenicman]

"Are you trying to make a connection between soil depeltion and your claimed "barrier" effect of CO2? Typical of the believers, when you find that you can't prove your point, you start hurling all manner of BS against the wall in hopes that something might stick."

Wow, another ad hominem. Big surprise.

No sir. I'm saying that there is a connection between deforestation and soil depletion and between soil depletion the ability of forests to recover, which inevidibly affects weather patterns.

 

[orogenicman]

"Jumping on the next bandwagon early aren't you? When AGW fails, that is the next "crisis" in line. More BS.

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-persistence-of-species

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4974/Y...nction-section

You really should try to sort out fact from fancy rather than jumping on every eco bandwagon that comes along."

Erm, I made no specific reference to Henson's work, did I? You don't actually think he is the only scientist working on thi sissue, do you? The fact is the scientists from Woods Hole, Columbia Univsersity, Ohio State and many others have and are warning of the threat to species diversification not only from global warming but due to the resulting acidification, deforestation, urbanization, and many other human activities. And in the process, many invasive species are gaining foothold in areas where they were previously unseen. We are now losing species at a breakneck speed. You don't think that cockroaches are responsible, do you?

Now, would you car to answer my earlier question as to what you think happens to that 6 billion tons of Co2 we are emitting every year and what, if any, effects that much CO2 release in such a short time span has on our planet?

 

[orogenicman]

"Are you suggesting that methane release from the tundra is a new thing; something that didn't happen before man came along?"

Whether it occurred before is irrelevant to the fact that it is occurring now as a response to global warming, which you've already conceded is ocurring. One thing the tundra didn't do before is release all that methane while there were 6+ billion souls on the planet.

 

[orogenicman]

"Is it?"

Yes.

"Are earthquakes a concern for people who live on faults?"

Naturally.

"What do we do about it?"

We mitigate it to minimize the impact on lives and property.

"Are tornadoes a concern for people who live in tornado alley? What do we do about it?"

We mitigate it to minimize the impact on people and property.

"Are floods a concern for people who live in flood plains? What do we do about it?"

We try to mitigate it to minimize the impact on lives and property, though we don't do it very well because people like tpo live near the water. We can do better.

"Are fires a concern for people who live in areas where fire is part of the ecology? What do we do about it?"

Ditto. Are you noticing a pattern here?

"We go along for the ride, that is what we do as we are powerless to do anyting else."

So you think it is, always has been, and always will be, our fate to suffer from these things and that we therefore should not even try to mitigate them? That's a rather, erm, 'conservative' philosopyhy, isn't it? Well, alrighty then. Let's dismiss the police. After all, we are all going to suffer from criminals anyway. Let's dismiss the Fire Department. There will always be fires, and it is illegal to yell fire in a theatre anyway. In fact, let's disband the military. There will always be wars, and it costs too much anyway. Are you serious? Is this your 'final' solution?

"As to warming, show me some hard evidence that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for human habitation and you might generate some concern. Personally, I think some warming would improve our lot. Longer growing seasons, less expense to stay warm in winter. We all know that winter is a far more dangerous time than summer and the list could go on and on. Show me that the present climate is optimum."

This is a strawman argument, Palerider, and I think you know that. Winter is more dangerous than summer heat waves? You probably could tell that to the 10,000 people who died in France alone a couple of hot summers ago - if they weren't all dead. Ditto for the thousands who died in the heat wave in Russia this summer.

 

[orogenicman]

"Again, your claim of a disaster of global proportions is no more and no less than hysterical hand wringing based on nothing. Once again, prove that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for human habitation."

I'm sure the people of New Orleans thought the same thing prior to Katrina.

 

[orogenicman]

"AGW is well established within the climate science community, it is pretty uniformly rejected within the hard physical science community. Physics, chemistry, geology, astrophysics, etc.

As a geologist who is also an amateur astonomer, I can say with no reservations that the above statement is patently false. By the way, geology is not a physical science in the classic sense of the term. It utilizes principles of chemistry, physics, and biology, and so is a hybrid discipline of the three. There are few geological laws - the most notable one is Steno's law of superposition, which is gravity-based.

 

[orogenicman]

"Try looking at paleo history. We see the same sorts of climate cycles in the past that we see now. We see more dramatic changes than the present. If you look at the past with an honest eye, the present simply isn't scary. Here is a graph showing the earth's temperature history. Look closely and tell me honestly, in what direction do you believe the overall temperature will be moving with or without us?"

The issue isn't whether or not global temperatures have fluxuated in the past. They have. The issue is whether or not we are in a very short time span adversely influencing global temperatures ajd weather patterns and in the process inexorably modifying the planet in inway that is harmful not only to humans, but to many other species as well. I think we are, and so do may other scientists. What your graph doesn't make apparent to the layman's eye is that coinciding with many of those changes from warm to cold were devastating mass extinctions. Is that the future you want for your children and their children? Another Permian mass extinction?

 

[orogenicman]

"The you explain how life arose from non living materials. In your attempts you will find that your explanation is even less plausible than "God did it".

Abiogensis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Regardless of how life first came about, there is little doubt that it evolved.

 

[orogenicman]

"Their faith is strong and uncompromising. No amount of scientific proof will change their minds. They believe and that's it...well their Marxist leaders (Untied Nations) and leftist media tells them daily that their faith is real. So, that is good enough for them to believe in a LIE."

Of course, none of that is true. Unlike religious faith, science is not dogmatic, though it doesn't truly take a rocket science to realize that if you drop a ball, gravity will pull it to the ground. Present your evidence, and if I find it compelling, I am more than willing to change my tune. Got anything like that?