Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
twoshots wrote:
How on earth is the burden of proof on me? Do you have any experience with the subject beyond the sensationalist reporting of popular media?
The burden of proof is on you, because you're saying that it's man-made. According to Occam's razor, the man-made climate changes is non-existant until someone can prove their existence. Debunking BS like global waming isn't something people do because they have to, but because they're critical to mass hysteria in general. One can't prove a negative, and believers of the man-made global warming myth will often use the negative proof fallacy to their advantage.
Occam's razor says no such thing. The physics of the situation is clear - CO2, methane, chlorofluorcarbons etc increase the retention of heat in the atmosphere. Humans are pumping large amounts of these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global temperatures are going up. The simplest interpretation (Ockam's preferred choice) is that human activity is making some contribution to the increasing temperatures. Ockham's razor cannot prove anything - it is heuristic rule that generally makes sense, but is quite different than proof.
jrknothead wrote:
I remember readint that the bee mystery had been solved... it was a combination of a virus and a parasite... the bees that had either the virus or the parasite survived, but the bees who had both didn't, and died off in large numbers...
I don't think think the mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder has been solved. Most scientists do feel that it is a combination of factors, but it has not been clearly shown to be the combination of a virus and parasite. I think free trade is more of a factor than global climate change - the international movement of bees both intentionally and accidentally has led to an increase in the number of diseases and pests that beekeepers have to deal with.
Last edited by monty on 29 Sep 2008, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
monty wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
twoshots wrote:
How on earth is the burden of proof on me? Do you have any experience with the subject beyond the sensationalist reporting of popular media?
The burden of proof is on you, because you're saying that it's man-made. According to Occam's razor, the man-made climate changes is non-existant until someone can prove their existence. Debunking BS like global waming isn't something people do because they have to, but because they're critical to mass hysteria in general. One can't prove a negative, and believers of the man-made global warming myth will often use the negative proof fallacy to their advantage.
Occam's razor says no such thing. The physics of the situation is clear - CO2, methane, chlorofluorcarbons etc increase the retention of heat in the atmosphere. Humans are pumping large amounts of these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global temperatures are going up. The simplest interpretation (Ockam's preferred choice) is that human activity is making some contribution to the increasing temperatures.
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%. Occam's razor says that the simplest answer to a question is the best sollution. If something can't be proved (or at least indicated), it's not a good answer.
_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.
Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
twoshots wrote:
How on earth is the burden of proof on me? Do you have any experience with the subject beyond the sensationalist reporting of popular media?
The burden of proof is on you, because you're saying that it's man-made. According to Occam's razor, the man-made climate changes is non-existant until someone can prove their existence. Debunking BS like global waming isn't something people do because they have to, but because they're critical to mass hysteria in general. One can't prove a negative, and believers of the man-made global warming myth will often use the negative proof fallacy to their advantage.
Your argument is invalid. I'm not the one who needs to or is proving that global warming is due to human causes, as I am not a climate scientist. The burden of proof, on the contrary, is on you to demonstrate that climate scientists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so as to invalidate our source. And, as I've shown, that's not the case.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%. Occam's razor says that the simplest answer to a question is the best sollution. If something can't be proved (or at least indicated), it's not a good answer.
Carbon dioxide has increased by 30% since the industrial revolution, and there is a general agreement among scientists who study the global carbon cycle that humans are the cause. Consider this from Woods Hole Research Institute:
Quote:
Most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations came from and will continue to come from the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy, but about 25% of the increase over the last 150 years came from changes in land use, for example, the clearing of forests and the cultivation of soils for food production [Figure 1].
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm
monty wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%. Occam's razor says that the simplest answer to a question is the best sollution. If something can't be proved (or at least indicated), it's not a good answer.
Carbon dioxide has increased by 30% since the industrial revolution, and there is a general agreement among scientists who study the global carbon cycle that humans are the cause. Consider this from Woods Hole Research Institute:
Quote:
Most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations came from and will continue to come from the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy, but about 25% of the increase over the last 150 years came from changes in land use, for example, the clearing of forests and the cultivation of soils for food production [Figure 1].
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm
Volcanic activity and continental drift have also increased in the same period, which is the major source of the co2 increase.
_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.
Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.
LKL wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%.
*snort*
Are you really assuming that cars are the only source of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses?
No, but human activity is only responsible for 3-3,5% of the co2. The rest is caused by Mother Nature.
_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.
Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
LKL wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%.
*snort*
Are you really assuming that cars are the only source of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses?
No, but human activity is only responsible for 3-3,5% of the co2. The rest is caused by Mother Nature.
amen..
ShawnWilliam wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
LKL wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Cars are responsible for 0,5% of the carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. The nature itself is responsible for 96,5%.
*snort*
Are you really assuming that cars are the only source of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses?
No, but human activity is only responsible for 3-3,5% of the co2. The rest is caused by Mother Nature.
amen..
Wait, I thought it was your side that claimed that we were creating a religion around global warming. In fact, you'se guys are chanting unprovable dogma and ending it with amens and hallelujahs!
Ishmael wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
While those facts may technically be true, it may only take 5% to actually tip the balance in favour of global warming.
Not exactly, at least not while within the confines of physics and climatology.
Remember the Butterfly effect. Only a small difference can potentially lead to a larger difference later on.
Personally, I think that there are too many people who are oxygen thieves in custody (pedophiles, serial/mass murderers), and I think getting rid of these will help a little. The knock-on effect is enormous! Not only do you get rid of their direct carbon dioxide production, but you also reduce the amount of power, food and need for construction of new prisons. Or else you give the prison resources to those who deserve rehabilitation.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
here is a scientific paper regarding cannibalism in polar bears. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic52-3-307.pdf It was published in 1999.
No, the possibility of starvation and cannibalism among polar bears did not start last week or last year. That isn't the question - the reason that the US Government put the bears on the endangered species list is simple. Changing weather patterns have increased famine and lowered reproduction.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
No Ice Possible in the Arctic Sea Within the Next 10 Years |
05 Mar 2024, 8:48 pm |
Melting polar ice is slowing the Earth's rotation |
Yesterday, 7:24 pm |