An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter michaeledward
- Start date
- Status
mrhnau said:
Maybe, maybe not. During past magnetic shifts, the Earth's magnetic field has drastically weakened. And in some cases, almost dissappeared. This would let the solar wind blow directly onto the planet. Radiation levels would get a lot higher and the usage of electronics would get much more difficult.
I would buy that.
upnorthkyosa said:
Recent events with Tsunami in the South East Asia caused by plate shift, which is either plates moving together or apart. If one is moving together usually the other side is moving apart which causes magma to release in some cases.
Just curious if we can also add in other points for the discussion. Not trying to derail the discussion, with Red Rider BB guns and such. I am serious about there may be myltiple reason for this Inconvenient Truth to be occuring. I was just trying to keep an open mind and possible a scientific mind to look at the earth system and not spout politics only or personal faith in an unproven theory. (* NOTE: Many theories in Science are unproven just data suggests they are in the right direction. Hence the use of Theory *)
If my discussion points and questions have caused any of you problems, then please accept my apologies and move on.
It was not my intention to be sarcastic but to be someone who would discuss possibilities.
Peace
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Bigshadow said:
Full agreement here. We are overusing our resources, in large part due to tremendous population growth, but also due to greed and tunnel vision. Population overgrowth and resource depletion lead to huge problems, including massive die-offs, until the population vs. resources regains a new balance, assuming that is possible.
In the natural world, we see this typically as an overabundance of a type of animal, with a scarce food supply. The animal population starves to death until depleted to a point where the food supply can once again support it.
That isn't exactly the case with humans. Instead, we consume other natural resources, many of which are petroleum based. Science is showing us that this consumption is having other effects on the globe, that could lead to some massive problems. Initially it may not be a question of food supply and starvation, but that will certainly come into play if global warming succeeds in changing climates enough to affect our ability to grow food, and if oil reserves crash, crippling our transportation ability and preventing food from getting to the populations that don't actually grow and produce it, like people living in cities. If this happens, we actually could see massive starvation, including in first world countries like the US.
Most people today are very removed from the food producing process. Many of us living in cities and towns do not grow a vegetable garden, do not grow livestock, and do not have fields of produce. We don't even know how to go about creating or finding food for ourselves, if normal food supplies become scarce.
If the people who do know how to produce food, typically farmers, become compromised and taken out of the equation during a massive starvation and the political, social and economic chaos that would accompany such an event, then it will be even worse. If this was a situation with animals, it would be somewhat different. Every animal knows how to find food. Once a new balance is struck, the animals can find enough food, and they begin to survive again. With humans, because most of us have no idea how to make and find food, even if a new balance could be established, lack of food finding skills could lead to a more pronounced catastrophe than might otherwise happen.
I'm just thinking down the line here, about what could be the worse possible scenario. Are we heading for this? I don't know, and I hope not. But it is something interesting to think about, and realize that our behavior could have some tremendous consequences.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
elder999 said:
Thanks for finding this. I think this is tremendously important for the public to know.
Flying Crane said:
And the media is silent...
upnorthkyosa said:
A group of 60 highly-respected senior scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush administration of altering the facts to fit the views. A document signed by the group charges, "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." It goes on to say, "This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."
According to USA Today, the signatures read like a who's-who of the scientific community with "20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science."White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the document, calling it a "conspiracy report" because you just know how readily those crazy Nobel Prize winners buy into conspiracy theories and how poorly they reason.
The full report is available here .
and, yet another moronity in a like vein:
Bush places limits on science
The AP reported here in 2004 that government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization (WHO), a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science.
"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) sees this as yet another attempt by the Bush [mis]Administration to " [tighten] their controls over their professionals and their scientists ... to favor its right-wing constituents". Waxman wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to rescind this policy, but as expected Thompson rebuffed the request.
Phoenix44 said:
aka...Peak Oil.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Rich Parsons said:
Actually, I believe that when the scientific community uses the term "Theory", it indicates that there is very strong evidence that the theory is in fact truth.
Many people like to jump on the word Theory and use it to cast doubt upon the findings of the scientific community. They claim that the term implies that it is, at best, an educated guess. But this is really far from the truth. When the scientific community accepts a scientific theory, it is their belief that, according to the evidence, this is in fact the truth. Of course nothing can be known completely, 100% and in every detail, but we really are discussing truth, when discussing scientific theory.
Yes, I know, some scientific theories have been overturned with new evidence, but don't let the term itself fool you into thinking that the evidence is not rock-solid.
Flying Crane said:
I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can. Hance the three seperate models to represent what we can "see" from observation. Nothing wrong with any of them it depends on how one is looking at the system and what you are trying to measure.
So I was trying to look at a system of the earth not just the of the earth, and jokes were made. Yet, these same people will condemn people for not believing in Global Warming. I never said I do not believe, what I said was I do not have enough data to show a specific single cause, so I tried to look at the whole system to better understand.
But it seems everyone is just after the BUZZ words and knee jerk reactions and ready to condemn those who do not believe like them.
Example: The world is Flat. I walk and it does not end, so it is flat. I do not see for ever so the horizon is not a good measurement of angle. Yet as soon as you look at objects that all you to move in a straight line and arive back one sees a globe, and then you can use the horizon to see the curviture of the earth, and then from there you can begin to understand more of the system. But if one just looks at a small optimized piece and tries to make sweeping global statements and not look at the global system then I try to point this out to continue a positive discussion.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Rich Parsons said:
I understand where you are coming from, and yes, there certainly can be additional, non-human caused contributors to the environmental changes we are seeing. I just wanted to point out that when the Scientific Community referrs to a Theory, they are not referring to anything even remotely resembling a guess, even an educated guess. They are referring to something that has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it, and the scientific community has accepted the theory as the best, strongest explanation possible, supported by the evidence seen so far.
There are those who try to use this term to undermine the credibility of the Scientific Community, suggesting that they are really just making wild guesses based on little evidence. This is a common tactic of those advocating things like Intelligent Design, or other Bible-based teachings regarding the beginnings of the universe and the earth. I am not suggesting you are one of them. I just wanted to clarify what the term means, when used by the Scientific Community.
If one does not understand the scientific community's intent when using this term, it is easy to assume there are glaring holes in the theory when this is really not the case.
heretic888
Senior Master
Actually, there are two different meanings of the term "theory" within scientific contexts.
The first definition sees a "theory" as a broad explanatory paradigm that makes sense of a number of existing hypotheses (testable predictions). An example of this is Freud's psychoanalytic theory.
The second definition sees a "theory" as essentially a time-tested hypothesis that has more or less been accepted as "fact" by the scientific community that studies it. An example of this is the cell theory in biology.
The theory of evolution falls into the second definition of "theory"; it is a hypothesis that has survived the test of time. Darwinian evolution (the theory of evolution via random selection and natura/sexual selection) falls into the first definition of "theory"; it is a broad explanatory paradigm that tries to make sense of a number of evolutionary hypotheses.
This in no way condones pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" (or what passes for "Biblical Scholarship" these days), but it's important to keep both of these definitions in mind when discussing a "theory".
Laterz.
The first definition sees a "theory" as a broad explanatory paradigm that makes sense of a number of existing hypotheses (testable predictions). An example of this is Freud's psychoanalytic theory.
The second definition sees a "theory" as essentially a time-tested hypothesis that has more or less been accepted as "fact" by the scientific community that studies it. An example of this is the cell theory in biology.
The theory of evolution falls into the second definition of "theory"; it is a hypothesis that has survived the test of time. Darwinian evolution (the theory of evolution via random selection and natura/sexual selection) falls into the first definition of "theory"; it is a broad explanatory paradigm that tries to make sense of a number of evolutionary hypotheses.
This in no way condones pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" (or what passes for "Biblical Scholarship" these days), but it's important to keep both of these definitions in mind when discussing a "theory".
Laterz.
elder999 said:
I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two.
As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.
Rich Parsons said:I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two.
As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.
Well, and I meant that I could reconcile all three; I just can't prove it.
No Nobel for me......
- Status
