Davos Debate
01-30-2009, 03:10 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
What I said wasn't supposed to refute his statement. Something like this might:
I couldn't find any data going back more than that, my guess is that there isn't any. Which still makes that statement unfounded.
I'd love to know where you read that. It's very possible, but THOUSANDS times bigger (400.000) ?! I doubt THAT
And even so, if it was BEFORE humans were even around, maybe humans couldn't live there, and we might as well try to do something to avoid going back to an inhabitable planet instead of saying "well... it's just the way it is", at a time where 99% of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to our activities.
I couldn't find any data going back more than that, my guess is that there isn't any. Which still makes that statement unfounded.
QUOTE
BEFORE humans were even around the earth has had CO2 concentration over 400 ppmv
I'd love to know where you read that. It's very possible, but THOUSANDS times bigger (400.000) ?! I doubt THAT
And even so, if it was BEFORE humans were even around, maybe humans couldn't live there, and we might as well try to do something to avoid going back to an inhabitable planet instead of saying "well... it's just the way it is", at a time where 99% of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to our activities.
01-31-2009, 10:09 AM
#12
Super Moderator
Every single long timeline graph like that is 100% pulled out of some scientist's hat. You would be surprised, all of you, if you knew how many variables there are in play and how many are completely un-knowable. Even things as simple as radiometric dating have variables in every case that make them unreliable in the extreme. The Official Truth changes when someone makes a big new discovery. It happens frequently enough that someone seeking Truth might want to take any new Official Truth with a grain of salt.
Of course, this whole topic is an easy one for a biblical creationist: The earth looks way older than it is, and conditions have most definitely not been gradually changing since the beginning. Besides that, we have a divine promise that as long as the planet is still here, seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, will continue. To me, that says anthropogenic global warming should literally be the least of our concerns.
Good stewardship and conservation of resources, yes. Destruction of prosperity via expensive measures that will not prevent the sun heating our planet, no.
Of course, this whole topic is an easy one for a biblical creationist: The earth looks way older than it is, and conditions have most definitely not been gradually changing since the beginning. Besides that, we have a divine promise that as long as the planet is still here, seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, will continue. To me, that says anthropogenic global warming should literally be the least of our concerns.
Good stewardship and conservation of resources, yes. Destruction of prosperity via expensive measures that will not prevent the sun heating our planet, no.