Real cause of extinction? Whens it happening next? - Page 7

On August 06 2009 15:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


I doubt it. The fact that there are already water, and food crisis right now and the fact that Humans are already stripping resources at a enormous rate, not to mention pollution. And if a warmer earth is apparently good for Humanity I find it hard to imagine where the hell were gonna put the population boom with the rising sea levels it would produce. It may have been good in the past but not the future.

On August 06 2009 16:10 Aegraen wrote:



Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

On August 07 2009 03:49 XoXiDe wrote:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
Area of Expertise: Dubbed by Business Week "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics" in 2000, Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of Science during the 1960s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973, he received the National Medal of Science.

From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, Seitz worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hot Politics editorial consultant Mark Hertsgaard reported in Vanity Fair that helped the cigarette maker distribute $45 million for scientific research, which the company then touted in its advertising. Seitz himself eventually made over $585,000 during the approximately ten years that he worked for the tobacco industry.

In the 1990s, Dr. Seitz began publishing opinion pieces dismissing the dangers of global warming. In 1998, he circulated a petition through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz was also a signatory of the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, which disputed that there was any scientific agreement about climate change.

Affiliations & Funding: Among the several skeptical organizations with which Dr. Seitz has been affiliated, he has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005, according to the Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon's financial documents. Seitz also served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $472,000 from Exxon from 1998 to 2005, according to the same sources.

http://digg.com/d3zKZ4

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

On August 07 2009 02:18 Kwark wrote:

"Just because some of the arguments he passionately puts forward are laughably stupid doesn't mean we should think less of his judgement."


When he genuinely put forward that argument which you agree with outlandish and comical as something he believed to not only be true but a well thought out argument that pretty much discounts him from being taken seriously.

On August 07 2009 03:46 rei wrote:
I see many people are mis informed about this video.

The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.

Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.

First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.

2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.

On August 07 2009 04:04 EchOne wrote:

I believe theism is strange, unjustified, and really somewhat amusing, but there's no way someone's belief in it would cloud my judgment of their arguments. One argument is not literally another just because it is expressed by the same speaker.

I agree with the advice that one should separate the argument with the arguer. I hope you do too.

Inference on someone's judgments based on another of his judgments that is unrelated relies on the assumption that they are consistent. It may be convenient for people to hold consistent beliefs, but it is in no way guaranteed or even provable to be common. Of course, if you feel one argument's premises or conclusions directly relate to how another should play out, the story is different.

On August 07 2009 03:46 rei wrote:
I see many people are mis informed about this video.

The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.

Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.

First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.

2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.

On August 07 2009 04:15 Klogon wrote:


See this is where one finally realizes that these scientists who put their reputations at stake by presenting such a "theory" are not easily refuted by know-it-all-netizens. lol

On August 07 2009 04:48 Lenwe wrote:

Without going into the whole climate change debate, I just want to back this up a bit by saying that the first real mass extinction actually happened about 3 billion years ago and was actually caused by Oxygen. As most probably now, there are still organisms alive now that consider O2 poisonous (I can't think of a better word at the moment), but back then the earth was mostly populated by them and most of them got extinct when the organisms that produce O2 started populating the earth.

On August 07 2009 05:16 Eniram wrote:
This is so speculative its not even worth discussing imo

On August 07 2009 01:42 Kwark wrote:

You may not have considered this but the bits of land which people have chosen not to farm/mine/develop have less potential than the bits that they have decided to develop. People start by developing the most profitable bits of land and then move down the scale. You can't just take the best bits of land and multiply them by the total.
What you've done is comparable to taking the example of oil in Texas, saying Texas is only one of fifty states, then declaring the US energy fears over because the US now has 50x the oil it thought it did.

On August 07 2009 01:50 RaGe wrote:
Don't try to argue with him, it's pointless.