Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

a reply to: Sargeras

Anyone who makes a bunch of unfounded claims like you have without backing them up is anti-science.

But what would I know, I am antiscience because I don't blindly believe what I am told.

Considering that there isn't a single anti-climate change argument that isn't originated in political propaganda you ARE blindly believing what you are told. If you'd actually break down some scientific papers on the subject, you'd open your mind up to it.

I've yet to see someone present an ACTUAL scientific refutation of AGW. It's always just fallacies and political reasoning. That is anti-science.

Not sure if anyone has ever asked this question or not...


But could the rate of climate change be a driving evolutionary force behind mankinds evolution? Maybe man will be classified as an extremophile someday in the distant future Just a thought, and not a super serious one...but hopefully thought provoking at the very least.

A2D

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.

Nor is there 100% proof that man is causing this one that is happening now...only causation equals finding and stretching ways for it to equal correlation. Contributing factor? Sure. Cause of? Doubt it.

There is plenty of evidence correlating human activity with the changes now. Just because you don't want to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As you stated before, correlation does not equal causation. Can't argue both sides for your one argument...

a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.

I don't have a pony in this race. I couldn't care less who is right or wrong, we should be trying to live without gumming up the world. That being said, there is no "smoking gun", that I have been shown or seen, that is proof positive. Even they use the terms theory and hypothesis.

As stated before, correlation does not equal causation. If it did, the world would be a mighty weird place!

originally posted by: Justoneman
I am an Environmental Scientist and I will attempt to explain the margin of error in plain English, which isn't easy to explain a lot of things in science.

I read scientific journals on my spare time. I appreciate the layman explanation, but I would much rather read the information from the source.

Being a Scientist yourself, you should have no problems citing the information within your post

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Not sure if anyone has ever asked this question or not...


But could the rate of climate change be a driving evolutionary force behind mankinds evolution? Maybe man will be classified as an extremophile someday in the distant future

Just a thought, and not a super serious one...but hopefully thought provoking at the very least.

A2D

The short answer would be no, it isn't a driving force behind Human evolution. This, of course, doesn't mean that Humans are not evolving, just that the environmental impacts that affect us now are much different than what they were in pre-history.

For instance, if environment is a key factor in natural selection of new mutations, then humans are (for the most part) exempt from natural environments because we live in synthetic homes, heated and cooled by synthetic means, and we where synthetic clothing that all goes to reduce natures affect on our bodies.

So we're not the ones really being affected by any climate changes at the moment. The only way we could would be if specific foods started going extinct and we were forced to eat a bit of a different diet. However, even then we may simply develop nutritional supplements.

What mutations are being selected for now is the environments we've created for ourselves. Feet have changed dramatically from a person who wears constricting footwear to a person (say, in a tribe) that wears little to no footwear. So we are adapting to the environments we're creating for ourselves, more than what the climate is doing.

What's worrisome is how other creatures are going to be able to handle a quick change in climate.

Just a thought to add;

They say that 95% of climate scientists all agree with the fact that man is causing this warm up.

What the actual wording is:

Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree with the consensus that global warming is most likely attributed to man made causes.


That's a far cry from fact. They would have to agree with the consensus otherwise they would have to prove otherwise, or even possibly risk losing jobs, funding, etc. This isn't some altruistic career.

I'm sure 95% of scientists also thought the sun went around the Earth, the Earth was flat, etc, etc. Not saying it isn't true, but I also cannot say it is true, because there are not enough facts to make that assertion. There is correlating facts, but not proof.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.

Nor is there 100% proof that man is causing this one that is happening now...only causation equals finding and stretching ways for it to equal correlation. Contributing factor? Sure. Cause of? Doubt it.

There is plenty of evidence correlating human activity with the changes now. Just because you don't want to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As you stated before, correlation does not equal causation. Can't argue both sides for your one argument...

So absolutely NO correlated data has causation? That is what you are trying to say here. Because that is also not true.

a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.

Nor is there 100% proof that man is causing this one that is happening now...only causation equals finding and stretching ways for it to equal correlation. Contributing factor? Sure. Cause of? Doubt it.

There is plenty of evidence correlating human activity with the changes now. Just because you don't want to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As you stated before, correlation does not equal causation. Can't argue both sides for your one argument...

So absolutely NO correlated data has causation? That is what you are trying to say here. Because that is also not true.

I didn't say that. What I was saying is that you can't say it doesn't count in one instance, only to use the same process to arrive at your facts.

Correlation does not equal causation. Causation has to be proven by using the data. Otherwise those graphs I linked to would all be correct.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.

Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

a reply to: Ghost147

I understand it all...It was more so a question of intrigue and possibility than a serious academic question. I'm just trying to show that it's not NECESSARILY a bad thing...sometimes these things just happen and we have to adjust and move on.

Yes, the world has warmed slightly since around the 1880's, I think somewhere along the lines of 1 to 1.5 degrees F. Yes, part of that is due to human activity, namely the burning of unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels. HOWEVER, I for one feel that natural cycles have a much larger role in the warming than any human activity could possibly ever produce. Not only that, but the atmospheric greenhouse effect is responsible for, from what I understand, nearly 60 degrees of warming...If not for this effect, the earth would be inhospitable for human life. When you put things in perspective...1 to 1.5 degrees of warming in the last century and a half is literally nothing to be worried about(at least IMO). (I would be more worried if the earth were cooling.....)

A2D

a reply to: superman2012

Causation has been proven.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

No. I was showing how they are misrepresenting their side by making it appear that over 95% of every climate scientist agrees with them!

Maybe just maybe, the only way to get published in those journals is if they agree with your work. Ever think about that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Causation has been proven.

Link please.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.

Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

No. I was showing how they are misrepresenting their side by making it appear that over 95% of every climate scientist agrees with them!

Maybe just maybe, the only way to get published in those journals is if they agree with your work. Ever think about that?

Bull#. A scientist adequately disproving a theory like climate change would make him a superstar in the scientific community. Scientists spend their whole careers looking to discover new things that overturn paradigms.

You can't just assume what you said is true then argue based off of that. You have to prove it is true first.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Causation has been proven.

Link please.

Plenty of proof has been posted in the OP for climate change.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.

Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.

I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.

Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

You know. You said you don't have a dog in this race, but you seem clearly intent on just believing that climate change isn't real. So I'd say you do have a dog in it. You want to confirm your biases without questioning them.