I believe there is a lot of validity in your post. However, I do not believe the earth will sustain infinite geometric growth...unless...there are technological advances, as there were since the 1700's that proportionately increase resources or decrease utilization, manage waste, provide food and protect the environment. So which was the chicken and which was the egg....sitting around doing nothing is not a good option.

 

I did not mean my post to say to do nothing, In fact I believe we can make advances to take care of the problems we face. I'm 62 and the changes that mankind has seen in those 62 years is amazing. One tech leap that I know some young people cannot believe we lived without was the 'TV remote'.

I did not mean my post to say to do nothing, In fact I believe we can make advances to take care of the problems we face. I'm 62 and the changes that mankind has seen in those 62 years is amazing. One tech leap that I know some young people cannot believe we lived without was the 'TV remote'.

 

Remote? Shoot there's a fair amount in our age group who lived without TV for their first several years.

Remote? Shoot there's a fair amount in our age group who lived without TV for their first several years.

 

We had a TV, but it was black and white...and we received 3 networks + public broadcasting channels.

 

But, I still believe in education to control the population. And agreed, birth rates since all of man's time have been political factors and controlled for political reasons. But these politicians can only control and influence the uneducated.

Then one has to assume you were born after 1977 when the Ohio River froze over. I do not remember the exact number of days below freezing, but there was a stretch of entire days below zero and it hit -25 below one or two nights. The next winter was cold, colder than this winter, but not as bad as 1977.

 

Yep, not that old. So this winter is the winner, by far.

Just looked at this week's Falmouth Outlook. It has an article about the winters of 1977, 1978 and 1963. Reading article reminded me of '63. I remember it being snowy, the article talked of -24 to -40 temps on local thermometers. I recall trying to scrape at least a 1/4 " of ice off of the family car windshield so my dad could get us kids to school. The bus finally came with chains flapping to take us to school

This is going to sound really bad, but oh well...I just don't care about Global Warming. I've tried to care, I just can't bring myself to. It's something that, if it exists (and I'm not saying it does or doesn't), is occurring over the course of hundreds of years. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to care about something that might happen 300+ years from now. :idunno:

The Good Lord gave us brains, so when scientists figure out stuff, we should rejoice in the revelation rather than try to discredit their findings because of some political agenda.

The most brilliant scientific minds of their time once thought the world was flat. Freakin geniuses. That damn Columbus is gonna sail his tub of teak right off the edge.

The most brilliant scientific minds of their time once thought the world was flat. Freakin geniuses. That damn Columbus is gonna sail his tub of teak right off the edge.

 

Meh. The notion that scholars in the middle ages subscribed to a flat earth theory is a myth. The spherical Earth theory was nearly universally accepted within a few hundred years of Aristotle's death. By the time Constantine was emperor and onward, almost no educated person thought the world was flat.

 

Truth be told, the myth was popularized by people who had an agenda against religion in the 19th century in an attempt to make church leaders look out of touch with scientific advancement. None of it was true.

Meh. That theory pre-dated Columbus to be sure. However, several of the leading thinkers of eras past thought that the land floated in a larger mass of water. I was making jokes with the Columbus thing. Kinda like the portrait:

Meh. That theory pre-dated Columbus to be sure. However, several of the leading thinkers of eras past thought that the land floated in a larger mass of water. I was making jokes with the Columbus thing. Kinda like the portrait:[ATTACH=CONFIG]42582[/ATTACH]

 

I do love that picture. I think flat-earth theory hung around for centuries in literature and art because there's something romantic about daring sailors heading out to sea amid dreadful sea serpents and sailing for the edge of the world. It's also worth noting my bias here: I've spent years as a medieval apologist. I think the bad wrap of the "dark ages" is the result of pretty unscrupulous characters in and around the Englightenment and later, in the 19th century, who liked the idea of looking down at a European dark age that they -- oh so smart as they were -- had emerged from.

 

In truth, it goes straight to your earlier point that scholars at all times have thought they really had things figured out only for others to find out later that they were absolutely completely wrong.

 

No doubt that the flat-earth thinkers were out there, but with rare exceptions, they're a lot older than is commonly thought. By the sixth century B.C. Pythagoras already had a pretty good conception of how a spherical Earth worked. Aristotle (who was practically revered by medieval scholars) laid out the evidence in such a way that few dared to contradict it.

 

But getting back to the topic of climate change...

 

The word that political proponents of climate change theory love to toss around is "consensus". I hate that word as a scientific term; science doesn't work on consensus. A theory is either correct or it isn't.

 

Stephen Hawking and the people who thought the same way he did were absolutely, unequivocally, and terribly wrong about black holes. They exist. We have mountains of evidence now that they exist... so far as we know.

 

We could find out in 60 years that the evidence we thought indicated black holes existed turns out to be evidence of something else entirely. Still.

 

Scientists take the best evidence they have and compile it in a way they can only hope is useful for people. As of now, science is VERY good at analyzing data taken from soil, rock and ice samples to determine climate shifts going back several millenia. Science is less good about knowing exactly what the causes of those shifts are.

 

For me, I'm less worried about climate change on a grand scale than the simple truth that spitting millions of tons of poison into the atmosphere from all around the world can't possibly have a positive impact on human health. Look at cities all over China in the summer and tell me that things like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act haven't been huge positive steps for us.

 

Conservation is key; human health is key. The rest... we'll figure it out in time.

I do love that picture. I think flat-earth theory hung around for centuries in literature and art because there's something romantic about daring sailors heading out to sea amid dreadful sea serpents and sailing for the edge of the world. It's also worth noting my bias here: I've spent years as a medieval apologist. I think the bad wrap of the "dark ages" is the result of pretty unscrupulous characters in and around the Englightenment and later, in the 19th century, who liked the idea of looking down at a European dark age that they -- oh so smart as they were -- had emerged from.

 

In truth, it goes straight to your earlier point that scholars at all times have thought they really had things figured out only for others to find out later that they were absolutely completely wrong.

 

No doubt that the flat-earth thinkers were out there, but with rare exceptions, they're a lot older than is commonly thought. By the sixth century B.C. Pythagoras already had a pretty good conception of how a spherical Earth worked. Aristotle (who was practically revered by medieval scholars) laid out the evidence in such a way that few dared to contradict it.

 

But getting back to the topic of climate change...

 

The word that political proponents of climate change theory love to toss around is "consensus". I hate that word as a scientific term; science doesn't work on consensus. A theory is either correct or it isn't.

 

Stephen Hawking and the people who thought the same way he did were absolutely, unequivocally, and terribly wrong about black holes. They exist. We have mountains of evidence now that they exist... so far as we know.

 

We could find out in 60 years that the evidence we thought indicated black holes existed turns out to be evidence of something else entirely. Still.

 

Scientists take the best evidence they have and compile it in a way they can only hope is useful for people. As of now, science is VERY good at analyzing data taken from soil, rock and ice samples to determine climate shifts going back several millenia. Science is less good about knowing exactly what the causes of those shifts are.

 

For me, I'm less worried about climate change on a grand scale than the simple truth that spitting millions of tons of poison into the atmosphere from all around the world can't possibly have a positive impact on human health. Look at cities all over China in the summer and tell me that things like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act haven't been huge positive steps for us.

 

Conservation is key; human health is key. The rest... we'll figure it out in time.

 

 

Agree with the bolded. The Flat Earth Society enjoyed a resurgence actually in the 1800's and on into the 20th century as people used the theories to support biblical representations of the earth rather than scientific.

The most brilliant scientific minds of their time once thought the world was flat. Freakin geniuses. That damn Columbus is gonna sail his tub of teak right off the edge.

If you wish to be labeled a scientific Luddite, do so at your own risk.

Conservation is key; human health is key. The rest... we'll figure it out in time.

 

I agree. However, I'd like to think some common sense will prevail and the political issue would be more pointed towards just that. Sadly, we will continue to hear about climate change because those words have become softer and more politically palatable than "global warming". It will be an issue debated for the next presidential candidates anyway because media types want to hear their "position" on it. So, politicians will fabricate their positions and expound away, all the while being picked apart by those covering the other side. It's exhausting really.

If you wish to be labeled a scientific Luddite, do so at your own risk.

As opposed to a scientific Don Quixote like yourself?

As opposed to a scientific Don Quixote like yourself?

1. Science

2. Pooh-pooh science; hang your hat on myth.

 

Take your pick.