Bill, as far as I know only two of us in this discussion thread have actually read any journal articles about this subject. Both of us "accept the theory" based on the data we have seen. (Maybe three? Didn't Ms. Perky say something about formerly keeping up with the science and also being convinced?)

Anyway. if you want an understanding based on the science rather than hearsay about the science, I've already pointed you to the place to start. Read the IPCC reports. Then if you have any questions, read the articles referenced in the IPCC reports. Then if you want more data, start scanning the articles in the journals that those articles are in.

It's not so much that we "can't explain" what's going on. The explainations are already published -- if people won't take the time to read them, why should we try to paraphrase them yet again?

The basic explanation is very simple -- the changes to the earth's atmosphere that have been caused by industrial civilization have resulted in a net increase in the amount of solar radiation that is retained by the earth.

The detailed explanations are very complicated and still being fully worked out, and if you want them it is best to read something like the IPCC report to get them.

 

Which is exactly their intent. Unlike real science, they are trying to increase confusion rather than increase understanding.

But no, real scientists don't bother to debunk stuff like this. They have learned that it is pointless. If these guys had any real evidence to present, they would do so in a peer-reviewed journal, not on a website.

 

[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Nov 11 2005, 08:58 AM] Its interesting to me how many of us accept the theory based on what the experts are doing, rather than an actual understanding of the science.

 

Why is number two any less reasonable than number three? Is it less likely that a group of scientists are wittingly or unwittingly acting out in self-interest than a group of industry people denying that global warming is happening?

Has anyone here ever read about eugenics? It was at one time considered a grave threat to the survival of mankind and some of the greatests minds at the time were working to eradicate the threat. The theory was studied at nearly every major university and was supported by the National Academy of Sciences. Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill agreed with the theory. Of course, they were all wrong. Millions of people died because the theory was wrong.

Is the atmosphere changing? Yes. Are we responsible? Possibly. I believe that the system is so complex and our understanding is so limited that it will be some time before we can answer the responsibility question...and even longer before we can take an action to somehow negate the changes. A bigger question may be: Should we take any action at all?

 

Couple comments...we had black helicopters with stuff hanging off them and black hummers with someo kind of sattelie antennas on them flying over us after Wilma.

Occam's razor is very sharp


fltsfshr

 

[QUOTE=JWN6264,Nov 11 2005, 06:08 PM] Why is number two any less reasonable than number three? Is it less likely that a group of scientists are wittingly or unwittingly acting out in self-interest than a group of industry people denying that global warming is happening?

 

Actually, most of the early research in eugenics was done in the US in the early 20th century. The Nazis became the eugenics powerhouse in the 1920s. There is a very detailed section in the Holocaust Museum on eugenics and Nazi involvement.

As far as examples of eugenics, applying it to plants and or animals is in a slightly different light than applying it to humans.

 

The idea originated in England during the nineteenth century and was first proposed by Darwin's cousin shortly after Darwin's publication of "Origin of Species". It was an idea founded on nothing more than racism and cultural superiority. Had science, as well as the rest of society, not been dominated by affluent, white males, I imagine the idea would have been fairly short-lived.

Which was my point - one is science and one is the deliberate abuse of it to bolster a self-serving socio-political agenda.

I haven't visited the Holocaust Museum yet, but I hope to one of these days.

 

Eugenics is a completely different topic. And in fact, there are various levels of eugenics.

Level one, the most basic, is practiced every day. People tend to have sex with the people who look most attractive to them. Modern research has started to break down just what it is that makes someone more sexually attractive than someone else, and it turns out that quite a few of the factors are related to healthy genes. One widely known example is "bilateral symmetry". The more exactly bilateral a face is, the more attractive it is rated. Many genetic copying errors show up as non-symetrical features. Thus, there is a theory that our attraction to bilateral symmetry is a mechanism designed to avoid passing on genetic errors.

Level two is where this practice is carried on consciously. People look at the family of a prospective spouse and consider things like "are they all obese or sickly?" "Do they have a history of dying young?" "Does athletic or war prowness run in the family?" "Does intelligence run in the family?" These things are all about whether we want to make our parental investment into kids with the genes that run in this family.

At some point, though, eugenics departs from the level of free choice of individuals and extends into the realm of coercion. This has profound consequences for the individuals involved. It is this level which has (rightly so, in my opinion) given the subject a bad name. It is acceptible (to me, IMHO) to breed cattle for certain traits, and to "cull the herd". It is not acceptible (to me, IMHO) to do the same thing to people.

However, what if a genetic defect could be corrected in the womb? Then what? We would be fundamentally changing the entire life of this person yet to be born. Do we have that right? What if the "defect" is a disease that will kill the child before the age of five? What if the "defect" is that the child is not the sex which we wished for our child? What if the "defect" is that the child will grow to be 7 feet tall? What if the "defect" is that the child will have red hair?

This is going to be a question that increasing comes up in human society. To say "Hitler tried it, so it is bad" is a overreaction. But to say correcting genetic defects is an umitigated good is an oversimplification.

 

Bilateral symmetry is used in reference to an animal's overall body plan - the left side is a mirror image of the right. Whereas, other animals exhibit radial symmetry - the body radiates outward from a central axis. The vertebrate body plan is one of bilateral symmetry, while the body plan of some invertebrates such as jellyfish and anemones is one of radial symmetry. I have never seen the terms used to describe asymmetrical characteristics of faces. It must be those heretics over in the Psychology department stirring up trouble again.

In evolutionary biology, those behaviors and tendencies are referred to as sexual selection. The term, eugenics, fell out of favor long ago because of the term's history and connotations.