octave

As silly as this is, it's no sillier than some of the christian beliefs that the eucharist actually transforms into the body of christ.

[ATTACH]47591._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Don't mess with Octave's understanding of what science means Bex, it's a dark place!

Turbs that is a pretty disappointing post from you. Whilst I am happy to have my understanding of "what science is" challenged, you will have to be a little more specific otherwise this looks like a cheap ad hominem attack.

My understanding of science comes from a "dark place" what does this mean?

In my postings, I am usually very careful to only challenge ideas and not people.

Are you serious?

Peers of that era were using calculations from centuries before that made satellites and computers even possible. The only thing satellites and computers have done is confirm their findings and made things a bit faster. A human being still has to do all the calculations at some point or do you think satellites and the software for them were left on Earth by Aliens?

 

The abacus is over 4000 years old and the slide rule was invented in the 1600's btw.

 

But anyway, if your stance is to null and void any information prior to satellites then you fail badly with GW because any reasonable person from either side will not deny for a moment that to prove it either way means historical evidence over a very long period, it's called "Science", and 50 years of satellite info just doesn't cut it at all.

 

sci·ence

 

(sī′əns)

 

n.

 

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

 

2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limited class of natural phenomena.

 

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

 

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

My point is that science doesn't give the correct answer as such but gives the best answer given the evidence available at the time. You seem to be suggesting that new technology or techniques have not improved in the last 100 years. For example, we now have many more data points for temperature measurements. Observations and calculations from 100 years ago whilst still extremely important are not the last word but are proven, disproven or refined by modern knowledge. Cherry picking one article is not good science.

So Bex I am assuming that you agree with Svante Arrhenius was saying? His view was that industrial CO2 would increase the temperature in the arctic by 8 degrees but he saw this as potentially a good thing.

When Svante Arrhenius talks about the seas ability to absorb carbonic acid he makes no mention of how ocean acidification could affect the ocean, we now have much more knowledge of what this would mean to the world's fisheries. Perhaps he addresses this elsewhere but I can't find anything.

He does not fully address the implications of an 8 degree temperature increase in the arctic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

For more on the work of Svante Arrhenius - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/ here is an excerpt:

By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

Of course I am not dismissing the work of Arrhenius, he was largely in agreement with modern science, he only really differed in that he thought the warming climate would be a good thing.

In terms of the old argument that scientists aren't really interested in good science but just getting buckets full of research money, it seems to me the scientists at CSIRO are a bit foolish, whilst this may have been a clever ploy with previous government we now have a government that would be more generous to any scientist that could provide evidence to contradict the theory.

Yes, it is important to consider funding, that is why scientifically rigorous papers require a declaration of financial interests. I am assuming you apply the same rigour to the video "Follow the money"?

To let you know where I am coming from, I am not a rabid leftie greeny, in fact nothing annoys me more than people who say "Climate Change" - look at the scientific evidence, "evolution" - look at the evidence, "GM foods" look at the ev.......... wait a minute that can't be right (those nasty scientists)

For those of you that work in the fossil fuel industries, I most definitely do not point the finger at you and suggest that you are damaging the planet, you are merely selling me the products I wish to buy. All I say is that the evidence for climate change is strong, the likelihood of negative consequences is also strong. In any case the fossil fuel era will end one way or another. Those countries that are on the cutting edge of the new technologies will the winners

Who? Never heard of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius 1859 - 1927

so obviously cutting-edge research with the benefit of the latest satellite technology and knowledge - NOT

I don't believe every bit of nonsense politicians make up to impose a new tax

I don't necessarily believe everything politicians say, I am, however, more likely to believe peer-reviewed research from NASA, CSIRO etc. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[ATTACH]47590._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]47589._xfImport[/ATTACH]

"He showed how to determine the mass of the Sun and the planets. He proved that the gravitational force of the moon and the sun causes tides in the oceans of the earth, that sping tides occur when moon and sun are pulling together, neap tides when the forces are opposed. Such a wonderful uniformity as he found in the planetary system must, Newton said, 'be allowed the effect of choice' by a Supreme Creator.

There is no doubt that Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists ever and the Principia Mathematica is one of the foundations of modern science. This does not mean that his every pronouncement is sound. Newton also believed in the occult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

Have you guys never watched "Religulous" ?

http://v.pps.tv/play_31QT5V.html#from_soku

When I put my first solar system in 150W panels were $2000 each, they are nothing like that now but they aren't cheap yet either. While ever China controls most of the rare earth metal reserves world wide, they won't get cheap either.

CSIRO is doing some great work with low-cost solar panels, even printable solar cells http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Printing-Australias-largest-solar-cells.aspx of course without good storage photovoltaics can not be the whole solution. Thermal solar shows promise.

The idea that we will only generate energy from one source in the future, be it coal or solar or wind to my mind is a foolish notion.

Yes, but getting cheaper from a far higher baseline!

so what are the relative "baselines"

Extracting oil from shale is getting cheaper all the time as technology improves.

As is the cost of renewables.

[

So tell us about this affordable solar which is getting cheaper every day. Do we have a system capable of powering a house yet? Has anyone solved the issue of power companies reducing their buy price for your solar generated power to the point where it got below break even?

Between 1990 and 2011 I lived in a house which was solar powered. The cost of bringing wires to the property far outweighed the cost of solar. Throughout this time, the cost of solar panels has dropped markedly. Installing solar in this case was the economically rational thing to do.

In terms of the economics of renewables this article from the " The Economist" magazine is quite interesting. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21639020-renewables-are-no-longer-fad-fact-life-supercharged-advances-power?zid=313&ah=fe2aac0b11adef572d67aed9273b6e55

Tony Abbott is one of 150 members of the House of Representatives, and I'm surprised Don that you are not aware that in any policy matter, the Liberal Party requires the Leader to do the talking. This is to prevent the message being diluted by others who may or may not be in tune with the intent.

I'm not sure of the history of this decision, but from what I just trawled on the net, it seems to be general liberal policy both here and in the US, rather than the thought bubble of a Prime Minister.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-11/curriculum-critic-wants-more-religion-to-be-taught-in-schools/5195410

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/parents-support-judeochristian-teaching-lnp-20111115-1nh29.html

 

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8575.html

Although initiated by the Howard government the Labor government was not really much better. The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) seems to exert an enormous amount of influence on both parties. In my view religion has no place in school other than in a historical sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Christian_Lobby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_school_chaplaincy_program

You're good at missing the point.

Oh be nice turbo! I merely wanted to know whether your objection to the posting was in relation to the factual content of the video or the posting of it at all.

You have to admit that

What other people might be doing, or might do may be of great interest and fun to you, and who am I to try to stop you dreaming, spurred on by the guts of #1839

is quite an awkward sentence.

Anyway how is that original research you are doing into mitochondrial DNA going? I await your findings with great anticipation. (#1813)

then perhaps you could explain it to me

We're talking about #1839 Octave.If you are walking down the street minding your own business and some idiot comes along and, without any provocation, gives you a backhander, most people are going to respond.

 

What other people might be doing, or might do may be of great interest and fun to you, and who am I to try to stop you dreaming, spurred on by the guts of #1839

Yes I am aware what you are talking about. I have watched the video you refer to, it is basically quotes from the bible, you could perhaps mount an argument as to the context of these quotes. The quotes are accurate. My question is why is it ok for believers to quote the bible to non believers but not the other way around.

What's wrong with just saying "I'm an Atheist", being happy and going about your business without finding one way after another to launch ridiculous attacks.

One could reverse that and say why can't believers just be "happy going about their business" etc

You seem to think that religious folk DO quietly go about their business, although many do, quite a few don't. I have never had an atheist stop me in the street or knock on my door. I have never felt judged by an atheist. I don't see any equivalent the Australian Christian Lobby exerting pressure on politicians.

Still the Atheist not being able to help himself ridiculing someone else's faith...........................

in what way is this ridiculing someone else's faith? In what way is it more offensive than the post that started this thread?

[ATTACH]47547._xfImport[/ATTACH]

The average income earner is paying around $25 000 to $30 000 in tax. Which IMO is BS.

the average income in Victoria is $71765 the tax on this is $16328 including medicare and excluding tax deductions.

Not a problem Marty if we both evolved from the same ancestor we all will share the same mitochondria.

no it would not be the same, it would would have been the exactly the same. Since the time we went our separate ways there will have be some mutations.

Hominoids and monkeys may well "Look" like humans, but unless they had that mitochondria, we did not evolve from them.

I am not sure what you mean by "that" mitochondria

Here is short video demonstrating the multiple lines of evidence

Turbo you may be interested in looking up Human Chromosome 2 and also Endogenous Retro Virus (ERV)

I am always surprised that people who argue for the existence of a god are quick to try to discredit the evidence for evolution. I never use evolution as a way of disproving the existence of a creator because I don't think it is a particularly strong argument. Many Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution, they believe evolution is the mechanism used by the "creator" just like sex and pregnancy and birth are the mechanisms through which new humans are created.

If the theory were falsified tomorrow by perhaps a fossil of a rabbit being found in the precambrian layer, I would not suddenly think "oh well, no evolution, no other scientific theories to explain it, it must be god"

Turbs I look forward to your "study on mitochondrial DNA" and if by chance you manage to overturn the current standard model of biology (as taught in Universities all around the world) I will happily pay your airfare the Geneva to receive your Nobel prize.

That's a stunning admission for an evolutionist, and my bet is the ancestor is Homo Erectus Erectus

what is a stunning admission?

You may have to clarify, it sounds like you are saying that the common ancestor that humans an amoebas share is homo erectus erectus?????? Surely this is not what you are saying? My point is that the amoeba and humans share a common ancestor who lived in the distant past, and who is not alive today. This is like how you and your cousin share a grandparent. Your cousin is not your grandparent. The amoeba that exists today is not the organism we descended from. The amoeba that exists today comes from a lineage that has been evolving for just as long as humans have been evolving, only the forces of natural selection have caused them to remain relatively simple and superficially similar to their distant ancestors.

This is not a stunning admission this is what the theory suggests.