Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (18597)	12/18/2007 2:38:28 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

A Catholic Priest first proposed what really happened before evolution. Many even Einstein said come on now... But then obeservation proved the Priest correct and even Einstein said damn I was wrong. In 1927 , the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître made one of the first modern proposition of the occurrence the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". He based his theory, published between 1927 and 1933, on the work of Einstein, among others, as well as ancient cosmological-philosophical traditions. Einstein, however, believed in a steady-state model of the universe. Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.

To: TimF who wrote (18597)	12/19/2007 2:33:38 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

There is very little wiggle room in the basic physics of how CO2 works as a green house gas. There is TONS of wiggle room about how the warming works as part of the massively complex system of the earth's environment with many other things that cause warming and cooling. There is very little wiggle room in the basic biology of DNA mutation and heredity. There is TONS of wiggle room about how these mutations work as part of the massively complex system of any modern animals body & genome with many other things that effect survival and reproduction of any individual. Its clear that all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a net marginal effect of adding upwards pressure on temperatures. It is clear that all else being equal, most DNA changes have net NEGATIVE effect, so this theory does not support macro evolution. What is less then clear is exactly how much upward pressure it will exert, how much of the CO2 will stay in the atmosphere (rather than being collected in to various carbon sinks such as the oceans), and what other factors may be at play and how much effect each of these factors will have. What is far from clear is how complex systems evolve in anywhere near the timespan scientist claim, given the difficulty of showing even simple proof of observed natural selection in the lab. About the best we can do is show single protein adaptations for pathogen resistance, which is hardly surprising if one looks at say the human immune system which is basically a system designed to do this. We have not a clue how to explain the difference between human and chimp intelligence with only 5-7mya. We can say that the 1990's and the 2000's where warmer than the middle of the twentieth century and warmer than the 19th century. That doesn't mean we can say that the 2010's or 2020's or 2030's will be warmer than the 2000's let alone how much warmer they will be. You seem to think these statements are just based on looking at history, and the future is a mystery. People back in the 70's and 80's predicted the 90's and 00's would be warmer. This is an excellent example of why you are ignorant. Science is largely about prediction. You seem to think that since the future can't be predicted ACCURATELY (whatever metric you use for accuracy), therefore climate predictions which involve the future can't be taken seriously. This is funny, given the almost mirror image argument creationists use. For them, evolution is history, and history can't be replayed, therefore evolution is not science since it is not repeatable. For you, climate modeling is not science since it is predictions about the future, which can never be 100% accurate. LOL! You like the comparison to evolution. Fine. I'll throw in another one. Evolution is solid and important science, but we can't with any high degree of confidence predict what species will evolve in the future. I agree. I know of no modeling efforts based on sound science which claim too. Astonishingly, this must surprise you, as you seem to think there is a link between science's inability to predict future species evolution and you think this says something about climate models? Are you really making that claim?