Comments bsharp55 has made

  • I've heard this logic before.

    Predictions of evolution depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex biological systems -- from the bacterial flagellum to eye formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The evolutionary scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative. [modifications and emphasis mine]

    At what point do we know enough? What level of confidence is necessary before we trust the conclusions drawn? Is there something special about climate science that requires a higher standard than other sciences? If so, why?
    On The real reason conservatives don't believe in climate science posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

  • The death of Earth has been prematurely reported.

    the Earth's atmosphere is being destroyed by unnatural human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases

    I think you are going beyond reality here. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, whether from natural or human sources (not that humans are unnatural) will not destroy the atmosphere. No matter what we do, we cannot destroy the atmosphere nor can we destroy the Earth, although that may change in the future as technology evolves. Even if we were to destroy all humans and most terrestrial organisms, life will survive and as shown frequently in the fossil record will refill all niches.

    However, what we can do, and will do if warming proceeds as suggested, is make life very difficult for many humans and all organisms unable to adapt to the speed of change. What is most dangerous in this whole thing is not the density of the CO2, nor the extent of the warming, the biosphere has a tendency to self regulate, but in the speed the warming is occurring. That speed will destroy millions of lives. Everyone will be affected, even those in areas they believe to be 'safe' from the problems inherent in the combination of 6.5 billion people, haphazardly arranged by the ocean and in river deltas, and swiftly changing weather patterns and rising oceans.
    On Why does the Post let conservative columnists make up climate facts? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

  • I checked out the temps

    and found that the 1940s were nowhere near the warmest decade on record.

    It seems you are confusing US temperatures with global temperatures.

    According to the HADCrut3 figures, the decade from 1940 to 1949 had an average temperature .067 below the base line, while the decade from 1998 to 2007 had an average 0.421 above the base line.

    According to NASA figures, after correcting their mistake which placed 1934 ahead of 1998 for the US only the average temp for 1940 to 1949 is .046C above the baseline and for 1998 to 2007, the average is .5C above the base line.
    On Why does the Post let conservative columnists make up climate facts? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses