Well how bad is it gonna be???

[bassin_bug]

Once upon a time, people were convinced the world was flat and sailors who didn't return from a voyage might of sailed off the edge of the earth. It took years before enough scientists could convince the masses of the truth.

People, by nature, are resistant to new ideas or scientifically-derived explanations of reality especially if this novel concept is linked somehow to other aspects of their personal belief systems. Many Christians don't believe in evolution, for example, although there is a gigantic body of scientific evidence that supports it. Other religious fundamentalists don't believe in modern medicine, but believe only in the power of prayer.

I believe in science. I also hunt, fish, believe in personal responsibility and my right to bear arms. However, I also believe in an open mind and to see things for what they are. For almost 18 years I made my living assessing human health risk from exposure to chemical contaminants. I have read hundereds of toxicological studies about the effects of chemical exposure on living organisms (primarily rats) and have learned to respect science. If you remember, the pesticide DDT was once considered safe. It took years of research and evidence for the government to ban the sale of DDT in the USA and in the meantime our nations treasured Bald Eagle was almost eliminated because DDT causes egg-shell thinning and the eggs would break before they would hatch (many scientific studies proved this, although there was a smaller group of others that refuted it). Well, the Bald Eagle is back... because enough scientists conducted enough studies and the lawmakers finally acted.

At this point in the argument, even the oil companies are accepting argument that global warming is real http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...g_is_shifting/. And despite GeoFisher's claims, the consensus (which is a majority) among scientists involved in climate research is that global warming is real. Very real.

Here's a sample (the links won't work, but if you can check it all out on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."

American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”

International Union for Quaternary Research: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Australian Coral Reef Society: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases....There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....

I just hope we haven't lost our chance to do something meaningful to prevent the potential long-term effects. The intense storms are just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.

Here's a video for those with a mind open enough to watch it:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2005/...c-ice-cap.html

Tight lines,

JWP

You started your post with "Once upon a time" as if you were reading us a bedtime story. Hun, wake up! We're all adults and know the world was once thought to be flat. That is not a new revelation. How did you mention DDT and forget Agent Orange? All Vietnam vets can tell us much about it, that is those still left to tell the story.

I noticed you went to a lot of trouble to try and make your point about global warming and used one of the most unreliable web sites on the internet as one of your sources. Wikipedia is filled with misinformation and disinformation. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, can remove parts of the information, change it to whatever they desire, post unreliable information and quote nonexistent sources. Warnings to that effect are posted in Wikipedia.

Excuse my ignorance but "assessing" human health risks from exposure to chemical contaminants, in rats, doesn't sound like you were a research scientist, or an environmental scientist. Rats are not human, therefore, it is assumed results because it is impossible to give a small rat the amount of chemicals it would take to harm an average size human; it's more of a mathematical equation. It sounds like you read reports and charted the statistics which can then be used to apply for government research grants, sold it to EPA or some tree huggers organization. I have a family member who works for the CDC doing records research on cancer treatments but that doesn't make her a doctor or a scientist. She is not qualified to determine that a specific course of treatment or medication killed either the cancer cells or the patient. In that same vein I don't believe you are qualified to declare that global warming is a real threat just because you read a few articles or recorded the results of another person's work.

My opinion is as valuable as yours so I'm risking your ire {{laugh}} by saying that a 1 degree F. temperature increase over many years does not qualify as global warming. There are always checks and balances in nature; some years it's warmer, other years it's cooler, but nature always manages to keep everything balanced. I admit that we all could be better stewards of God's Great Garden but let's start where the most damage is done...airplanes, space shuttles, industrial pollution, and let's not leave out human and animal flatus.

I will open my mind to the theory of evolution as soon as it is proven, unequivocally, that it exists. So far there is not one shred of evidence. I have met some people who caused me to wonder, for a moment, if maybe I was wrong about the theory of evolution because I honestly couldn't understand how their brain could misfire so badly and still be classified as human brain.

You really missed your "calling" because you should have been a weatherman. You don't have to be right, you don't have to be wrong, just open your mouth and say something.

By the way, I am happily and proudly married to a Senior Health Safety and Environmental Specialist, graduate of ETSU Quillen College of Medicine, the smartest man I've ever known.

[Col Forbin]

I noticed you went to a lot of trouble to try and make your point about global warming and used one of the most unreliable web sites on the internet as one of your sources. Wikipedia is filled with misinformation and disinformation. .

But I guess the sources used to defend your views of the argument are more valid??

[Tim_T]

If that was a little wind, I don't want to see what the bad stuff is like. An eighteen wheeler blew over on I-65 a mile from my house, right by the Bernheim exit off I-65. They had two of the big wreckers out there to get it on it's wheels. While I was driving downtown last night the ole Jeep was all over the road. It is a wonder I didn't get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving.

[apb]

...I will open my mind to the theory of evolution as soon as it is proven, unequivocally, that it exists. So far there is not one shred of evidence. ...

Actually, there is an extensive amount of evidence that proves evolution. Probably thousands of books and many more scientific papers written on various aspects of the subject over the last 150 years (since Darwin published On the Origin of Species). There is no credible biologist alive who does not accept evolution. If you want to read up on it a little, I would be happy to provide you with some suggested readings.

Andrew

[JD7.62]

Bug, evolution is really pretty credible. Heck you see it every day. Dogs for example can be used to demonstrate what evolution is and how it works. The different breeds of dogs out there today are because we took traits we wanted and bred them out. We are kind of like playing "nature" here and choosing what traits...genes...we wanted to "survive" and get passed to the next generation. Nature has been doing this for hundreds of millions of years.

Personally I believe that life is far too complex and just simply too amazing to have come from no where. Something much greater then us had it all planned out from the very beginning. I think he has a great sense of humor too...

[Tyme2fish]

I think he has a great sense of humor too...

I agree. God gave us the duck billed platypus. Now that is a joke!!

[Devils Horse]

I just want one of you learned experts to tell me where the heck my BBQ grill cover and one of the cushions off my patio glider went. Poof...gone. Much like scientific evidence of human induced global warming, they don't exist.

BTW, I'm in Bowling Green, any of you folks over there around Dale Hollow find my grill cover I want it back; and I'm willing to come pick it up.

I buzz by the ole outcasts board and what do I see? My more realistic friends on the right side of the issues up in arms. Col, up to his old tricks of being a liberal with no justification, and a pro global warming gun owner telling beddy bye stories.

Is this a great country or what?

[bassin_bug]

Bug, evolution is really pretty credible. Heck you see it every day. Dogs for example can be used to demonstrate what evolution is and how it works. The different breeds of dogs out there today are because we took traits we wanted and bred them out. We are kind of like playing "nature" here and choosing what traits...genes...we wanted to "survive" and get passed to the next generation. Nature has been doing this for hundreds of millions of years.

Personally I believe that life is far too complex and just simply too amazing to have come from no where. Something much greater then us had it all planned out from the very beginning. I think he has a great sense of humor too...

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution. The breeds are mingled, meaning merged to produce specific traits and characteristics. You started with dogs and ended with dogs, so in my opinion, nothing evolved, nothing morphed. The breeds of the dogs used to mingle continued to exist as separate breeds.

A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. I'll go even further, in 1993 there was a blizzard and all the quails either froze or starved to death in this area. Up until that time the Mockingbirds included the sound of a quail in their songs. After the quails died, all the subsequent Mockingbirds do not make the sounds of the quail. The change in their song wasn't caused by evolution but, rather, by the absence of quails in this area.

I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. It is written that God created man and woman, male and female created He them. Nowhere did it say "And God created ape and ape, or swamp scum, or swamp organisms." I am fearfully and wonderfully made; I am neither an accident of nature or an accident by my parents.

The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882. He was not a biologist, zoologist, or botanist but he WAS one of the few men of his day who could read and write. How convenient! Since people couldn't read and write, Darwin could say anything and there was no way for them to prove him wrong.

Biology professor John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861) referred to Darwin as a "naturalist." His purpose for recommending Darwin for a trip on the ship, HMS Beagle were, he wrote:

"The admirals were scouting out someone to ACCOMPANY Capt. Robert FitzRoy on his two-year survey of coastal South America. FitzRoy, only twenty-six himself, WANTED A YOUNG COMPANION, a well-bred 'gentleman' who could RELIEVE THE ISOLATION of command, someone to share the captain's table. Better still if he were a naturalist, for there would be UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES. The ship was equipped for 'scientific purposes' and a 'man of zeal and spirit' COULD DO WONDERS, Henslow enthused. Charles might not be a 'finished naturalist,' but 'taking plenty of Books' would help, and he was the obvious choice." (Taken from The Biography of Charles Darwin)

In today's society, I believe people would call them homosexual. Perhaps that's the type "evolution" that Charles Darwin was talking about. Wouldn't it have been interesting to know exactly WHAT evolved between the "naturalist" Darwin and the Captain. I believe he came out of the closet for John Stevens Henslow and that's how he knew who to recommend. Now you know the REAL TRUTH about Charles Darwin.

My sister and I were once called "naturalists." We were caught lying topless on a private beach on the Gulf of Mexico. When we opened our eyes an old man stood over us, drooling, and said, "What bee-oot-e-ful naturalists." Who is correct in their definition, Henslow or the old man?

[DJD]

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution. The breeds are mingled, meaning merged to produce specific traits and characteristics. You started with dogs and ended with dogs, so in my opinion, nothing evolved, nothing morphed. The breeds of the dogs used to mingle continued to exist as separate breeds.

A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. I'll go even further, in 1993 there was a blizzard and all the quails either froze or starved to death in this area. Up until that time the Mockingbirds included the sound of a quail in their songs. After the quails died, all the subsequent Mockingbirds do not make the sounds of the quail. The change in their song wasn't caused by evolution but, rather, by the absence of quails in this area.

I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. It is written that God created man and woman, male and female created He them. Nowhere did it say "And God created ape and ape, or swamp scum, or swamp organisms." I am fearfully and wonderfully made; I am neither an accident of nature or an accident by my parents.

The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882. He was not a biologist, zoologist, or botanist but he WAS one of the few men of his day who could read and write. How convenient! Since people couldn't read and write, Darwin could say anything and there was no way for them to prove him wrong.

Biology professor John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861) referred to Darwin as a "naturalist." His purpose for recommending Darwin for a trip on the ship, HMS Beagle were, he wrote:

"The admirals were scouting out someone to ACCOMPANY Capt. Robert FitzRoy on his two-year survey of coastal South America. FitzRoy, only twenty-six himself, WANTED A YOUNG COMPANION, a well-bred 'gentleman' who could RELIEVE THE ISOLATION of command, someone to share the captain's table. Better still if he were a naturalist, for there would be UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES. The ship was equipped for 'scientific purposes' and a 'man of zeal and spirit' COULD DO WONDERS, Henslow enthused. Charles might not be a 'finished naturalist,' but 'taking plenty of Books' would help, and he was the obvious choice." (Taken from The Biography of Charles Darwin)

In today's society, I believe people would call them homosexual. Perhaps that's the type "evolution" that Charles Darwin was talking about. Wouldn't it have been interesting to know exactly WHAT evolved between the "naturalist" Darwin and the Captain. I believe he came out of the closet for John Stevens Henslow and that's how he knew who to recommend. Now you know the REAL TRUTH about Charles Darwin.

My sister and I were once called "naturalists." We were caught lying topless on a private beach on the Gulf of Mexico. When we opened our eyes an old man stood over us, drooling, and said, "What bee-oot-e-ful naturalists." Who is correct in their definition, Henslow or the old man?

Bug,
I was on the same level with you until the "Natural" part! I know I know it's a curse that men have. OOpps My bad you said "naturalists".....

[bassin_bug]

Bug,
I was on the same level with you until the "Natural" part! I know I know it's a curse that men have. OOpps My bad you said "naturalists".....

I have no explanation for the word the old man used. Perhaps he thought we were studying the evolution of sand in a bikini; or testing to see if global warming would cause our chest 'bumps' to bloom like roses. If he thought the last part, he was half right; those things turned as red as an American Beauty rose. Ouch! We should have gone sailing as originally planned. LOL

[apb]

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution....

Check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html for a discussion on new species.

You might also consider how doctors have to change antibiotics from time to time cause they start to lose their effectiveness. Why, natural selection.

[quote=bassin_bug;355361]....A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. ...

I'm not following this logic either.

....I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. ...

Which version?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Seems to be two different versions of man's creation in the bible. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time. In the second, man was created, and later woman. Why is that? Theologins tell us that there are probably 5 different authors of the old testiment. Might explain the discrepancies. They were passing on similar stories. The main ideas behind those get lost if one tries to take the bible literally. Lets face it, there is some stuff in the bible that we do not follow. For example:

You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).
If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3).
If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).

....The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882...

And this proves what? There have been numerous drawings of the evolution of man. Fossils of human ancestors continue to be found and revisions made to those drawings of man's evolution.

Bug, how do you account for the fossils and numerous other evidence for evolution? btw, one can be christian and accept the theory of evolution. The pope does, for example.

Andrew