G’night good people.
You too trolls.

That’s yet another theory! Is our entire understanding of how the universe works based on theories!?

Oh, the humanity!!!

/sarcasm off

Asteroid impacts or massive volcanic flows might have occurred around the time dinosaurs became extinct, but a new arguemet is that the mightiest creatures the world has ever known may have been brought down by a tiny, much less dramatic force — biting, disease-carrying insects.

“In dinosaur feces, we found nematodes, trematodes and even protozoa that could have caused dysentery and other abdominal disturbances. The infective stages of these intestinal parasites are carried by filth-visiting insects.”

In the Late Cretaceous, Poinar said, the world was covered with warm-temperate to tropical areas that swarmed with blood-sucking insects carrying leishmania, malaria, intestinal parasites, arboviruses and other pathogens, and caused repeated epidemics that slowly-but-surely wore down dinosaur populations. Ticks, mites, lice and biting flies would have tormented and weakened them.

“Smaller and separated populations of dinosaurs could have been repeatedly wiped out, just like when bird malaria was introduced into Hawaii, it killed off many of the honeycreepers,” Poinar said. “After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases. But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them. Massive outbreaks causing death and localized extinctions would have occurred.”

I am open to the science. But, again, for me I think it’s spliting atoms, which we know, is impossible.

I am open to the science.

In the same way the Vatican was open to the ideas of Galileo.

Wow, pete. Your performance on this thread has been just awesome. Truly worthy of some wide recognition. Thanks.

May I second that sentiment?

So, the environment has always been a particular area of interest. Once one starts reading the science, the conclusions are pretty obvious. And, though I haven’t done any formal research, I do have a lifetime of intimate participation in nature to add meaning to the theories and raw data.

I’ve also seen some local successes. We can restore some damage. Careful regulation has brought remarkable increases in some, formerly threatened, species. In many cases we know what to do but no one is throwing in the first dollar, or committing to long term investment.

So,I try to spread the word where I can. Feel free to quote me. I’m not above shameless self-promotion.

I am open to the science. But, again, for me I think it’s spliting hairs.

I agree with most of the initiatives, because they’re good for the environment (regardless of the cause of the warming).

Penicillin, vaccination, computers, space travel, plate tectonics (A theory! Gasp!) -just to name a few.

Should I mention that space travel was made possible partially by our understanding of gravity (another theory!), and that vaccinations are a reality thanks to our understanding of virus and cells (Cells? Another theory!).

Prehistoric environmental changes showed similar patterns to what we are seeing now. The difference is that we don’t know, in all cases, what caused the similar increase of the greenhouse effect. I might remind you that the measure of the greenhouse effect is temp and atmospheric gases combined. Some past events are attributed to volcanic activity, some to drastic changes in temp initiating a “cascade effect”, some for a hundred other causes. There is even some evidence that Solar activity can cause brief, dramatic changes. But, contrary to some rather questionable sources, there is no model of Solar activity that would cause the long warming trend we have directly observed. And many we don’t know.

That is, we don’t know specifically what caused the event. But we know with some precision what the environment does to initiate extinction events. And all the independent science indicates the human race is directly causing conditions which, historically, lead to catastrophic events.

Today we DO KNOW what is causing the increase in the greenhouse effect. We measure the increase, and our contribution to that increase, in great detail. We precisely weigh the exhaust of a million smokestacks and tailpipes and have hard numbers for what we are contributing. And, while it’s not 1-1-1, human emissions, greenhouse gases, and global average temps have risen in direct proportion since the beginning of modern industrialization and scientific discovery.

It doesn’t matter how many billions Mobile spends to cloud the issues. Any curious person with internet access can judge the data on their own. Start with Google and follow links. Check the vetting of the publication. If one examines the flawed reasoning of energy industry shills? There’s only one logical conclusion:

Humans are destroying the whole planet’s ecology by burning fossil fuels. There is no way to spin the discussion away from that conclusion. All that can be argued are time frames and matters of degree. Perhaps some discussion over weather a species was lost to toxicity or climate change.

I try to avoid the “worst possible case” for two reasons. 1. The worst possible case, though unknowable in degree, would already be inevitable. 2. The “best possible case”, which would be everything continues as is without imminent catastrophic effects, still results in the human race eventually destroying themselves and most everything else. To put it crudely, “we seem destined to poop ourselves out of existence”.

I defy anyone to find one reputable source which claims the Earth can simply heal itself, of our worst ravages, without a profound change in energy use and disposal of waste. Or our use of any resource.

It could be too late to prevent the damage. But we owe it to our descendants to mitigate the damage and strive to find ways to reverse it.

Will one see many people with financial/political agendas arguing for drastic action? Yes. Though the overwhelming number have scientific agendas. The same agenda as the ancient Greeks. To expand knowledge and improve the Human condition.

But I guarantee that every single one arguing for no change have a radical financial/political agenda. None have scientific agendas. And none seem to be expanding Human knowledge and improving the Human condition.

Yes, science is fallible. But even more fallible are the fools who decide to believe blindly, in spite of the lack of evidence, and sometimes in spite of the evidence. Much like our latest troll here.

If not, that consitutes something like a straw man argument, doesn’t it?

Oh, and Piltdown Man always makes me think of the Cardiff Giant. Not a clever as Piltdown, but then, the only ones it fooled were fundamentalists of the day.

backup Says:

ralph. the dinosaur comment was from shoeless.

I provided the link to the video explaining that CO2 follows temperature. If the temperature rises due to a cyclical (non human caused) warming cycle, it would explain the rise in CO2 levels.

As far as the “dinosaur’ remark goes, I was referring to this comment, Cap’n:

backup Says:

And all of the dinosaurs died.

I believe in climate change. But, doesn’t this example indicate that the climate changes regardless of man’s activities?

So, yes, you are technically correct that you weren’t the one who made the “dinosaur” comment. But, as is your habit, you somehow misread what I posted and, because I used the word “dinosaur”, you seem to have decided that my criticism was misdirected, even though I was clearly referring to the defense you posted in response to shoeless’s ‘dinosaur” comment.

As for the CO2 comment, yes, you provided a link that CO2 follows temperature. And pete addressed that claim very efficiently at 6:37.

I guess you are refuting my claim that I’ve only seen two variations of denier arguments, by demonstrating that you can, when it suits you, offer scientific evidence. I stand corrected. I generally consider uncompelling or easily dismantled scientific arguments to be worthless in debate, but it must be admitted that you did go beyond the typical script that I identified.

Please accept my apology.

Science and scientists are not infallible, that is true. It is, however, self-correcting -something that the people who argue against it often fail to grasp.

If it has been said before, I will say it again: There is consensus in the scientific community that global climate change is a reality and that human activity has an impact on global climate. The ’scientists’ who disagree are not ‘castigated’ -talk about conservative victim syndrome!- they are challenged to present facts to support their contention that the current rise in global temperatures either isn’t actually happening, or that it is unrelated to human activity. Global warming deniers have merely failed to make their case.

Much progress has been made since the times of the Piltdown Man fiasco. That is another scientific fact creationists tend to overlook.

But, scientists are not infallible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

If you consider Piltdown Man, it took scientists over 40 years to figure out they had been wrong about something much more obvious than climate change.

I also believe that we are currently in a political environment where, when people bring up contrary evidence to climate change theory, they are being castigated. Similar to the environment here, when someone brings up objections.

In that atmosphere, it is possible that an honest debate (even among scientists) about how critical the warming is, may not be possible.