-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
im not sure it is worth debating with someone who doesnt think NewsCorp is right wing.
The study below puts the figure at 8%. Not a big ratio, but it equates to a substantial number of people.
Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States
Thanks DJ. The article says the 770Gt emitted naturally is also absorbed naturally, so nett zero give or take in pre-industrial times. Doesn't make sense to talk about the % of human induced atmospheric CO2 wrt this number. At least not to me. My conclusion based on that would be that 100% of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere is of human origin. The article does make this statement: "About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."
This is one of the most interesting (and potentially terrifying) data sets. From my reading it is not well understood how the ocean is managing to continue to absorb CO2 past its historic levels. This gap in the knowledge is worrying because it means no one knows how or when it may breakdown.
Sometimes, like now, I just need to remind myself that i am on a site whose patrons are probably close to 100% Victorian.
Smoke is back in Melbourne.
Theyve changed the rules for the Australian Open re air quality this year. Am worried that it's going to affect the event.
No doubt the AFLPA will also be watching..
Theyve changed the rules for the Australian Open re air quality this year. Am worried that it's going to affect the event.
No doubt the AFLPA will also be watching..
Speaking as a Biologist, you simply can't be a biologist and a creationist. Nothing in biology makes sense unless viewed through the lens of evolution.
Unless your perspective on creationism is that a 'creator' kick started life on Earth using early replicating, information carrying molecules. There's room for that, because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life itself (and doesn't attempt to). It's still a terrible hypothesis, because it's entirely untestable, but it doesn't directly contradict what is known to be true in Biology.
But the idea that creationism is an equally valid theory to evolution by natural selection (or that it's even a theory at all), or that it could be used in place of evolution by natural selection, is incompatible with any non superficial understanding of biology.
Hmmm. Here's another one.
One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism
I'd agree that creationism doesn't belong in the classroom (beyond mention that the school of thought exists and students are free to pursue it in their own time, but it won't be taught here).
US state curriculums are under control of state governments and republican states often push creationism as an alternative science. So if the state obliges the teaching of creationism it does not mean that the teachers necessarily agree or in fact whether it is taught by science teachers in some instances. So the 1 in 8 stat is misleading.
It reserves the stupidity for the conservative political class rather than science teachers.
www.statesman.com
By the way creationist scientist is an oxymoron like jewish muslim or enlightened conservative.
It reserves the stupidity for the conservative political class rather than science teachers.
The controversy of teaching evolution, state by state
On Wednesday, the Texas State Board of Education signed off on a preliminary version of the state’s pared-down biology curriculum and voted to
www.statesman.com
By the way creationist scientist is an oxymoron like jewish muslim or enlightened conservative.
Really? Then you’ll be able to point to specific examples to support that claim.
I’ve read quite a bit of Spencer, including a book, and none of it gave any hint of his creationist leanings. First I heard about it was in this thread.
That too, my favourite non appearance your worship, Science, Math n most other things educational. Cook the crap out of 2 billion ton of really heavy coal n wind up with 7 billion ton of gas floating around in the sky, sneaky bastards is that something like inflation? Musta been some fancy sack n scales they had way back then to catch n weigh all that fluffy gas.
Correct me if I am wrong but are you implying you are no good at maths but still casting shade on those that know the maths?
Who me? Wouldn't dare such a thing. Was just enquiring in my own humble way as to how they got there.
Coburg put the details up for me, guess burning the coal requires *smile* loads of oxygen which then somehow merges with the coal atoms to then become CO2 atoms which while fluffy n floating around up in the sky somewhere are still seriously heavy.
Guessing that with all these bush fires burning up all the plants n trees at the moment that there'll be no plants or trees available to need all the extra CO2 pumping into the atmosphere at the moment, so hopefully the breeze might blow all the smoke over to N.Z they've got plenty of trees n shrubs that need CO2 to grow.
Back to the BoM for a second, and a little observation of my own...
I noticed the maximum daily temperature recorded for Melbourne on Sunday 29/12/19 is shown by the BoM as 33.2 degrees. Having monitored the Melbourne temperature on that day while watching the cricket and keeping tabs on the bushfires and not seen it exceed 27.0 degrees, I emailed the BoM to suggest that their daily maximum for 29/12 may be in error.
The response received today stated that the daily maximum is recorded between 9am and 9am, and that the maximum for "Sunday December 29th" was recorded at 8:58am on Monday December 30th, and therefore there is no error in the data. Monday was a one-off hot day with a maximum of 40.8 degrees, so the BoM effectively "double dips" in such circumstances, reporting a false maximum for the previous day and enabling it to claim more "record hot" months and years.
Naysayers may well try to justify this as valid practice, but to me, "Sunday December 29th" covers the period from midnight to midnight, and nothing outside. Forgive me if my faith in the Bureau has not been restored...
I noticed the maximum daily temperature recorded for Melbourne on Sunday 29/12/19 is shown by the BoM as 33.2 degrees. Having monitored the Melbourne temperature on that day while watching the cricket and keeping tabs on the bushfires and not seen it exceed 27.0 degrees, I emailed the BoM to suggest that their daily maximum for 29/12 may be in error.
The response received today stated that the daily maximum is recorded between 9am and 9am, and that the maximum for "Sunday December 29th" was recorded at 8:58am on Monday December 30th, and therefore there is no error in the data. Monday was a one-off hot day with a maximum of 40.8 degrees, so the BoM effectively "double dips" in such circumstances, reporting a false maximum for the previous day and enabling it to claim more "record hot" months and years.
Naysayers may well try to justify this as valid practice, but to me, "Sunday December 29th" covers the period from midnight to midnight, and nothing outside. Forgive me if my faith in the Bureau has not been restored...
Last edited:
well that's pretty much the case.
he said himself, when he was a great footballer, he was a shithouse JW
Now he's not a great footballer, he'll probably make decent Witness?
Put it this way, I had no aircon for the previous two summers and am still alive. Maybe there's some sort of award I'm eligible for?
"And the Global Warming Medal for 2019-20 goes to... LeeToRainesToRoach!"
- Richard Di Natale
