Welly wrote: 
is a grade 5 tomato like a grade A tomato?

And all your experiment proves is that under the right conditions a tomato can turn into a fruit fly.

 steeler wrote: 
yeah. I know.

 dionysius wrote: 

Indeed, and consistantly. I disagree with the notion that all doubt is political in nature, but you would have to be a little more objective than you seem to admit that. Personally, I believe that there is an anthropogenic index, but to the extent that it can be qualified/quantified with  absolute integrity has in fact become questionable. It seems that whenever honorable questions do arise from honorable folks with solid reputations, they are discounted out of hand. If I were as in the bank as you seem to be, I would be even more dogged in my need to listen to qualified opposing viewpoints, but that's just me. I guess I attempt to stay out of most of this because I would prefer to listen and learn rather than just roll with the general standards of righteous indignation that passes for truth and limited to ever changing scientific opinion and lag time.
Nice stab by the way...Let's hook up on health care or economic recovery some time. 

 Welly wrote: 

I did read Lord of the Flies.

That plays out here on a daily basis. 

 steeler wrote: 
Well, see you take a tomato, right? And you put it in this mason jar, see?And then you put in a few fruit flies. And then you put on the lid. And you wait. And you watch. Because those fruit flies love that tomato and they, er, love each other too. So they eat and procreate like...well like fruit flies. And eventually the tomato is mostly gone and the jar is full of mostly fruit flies. THE END.

 Welly wrote: 

I think I skipped that day. 

 oldviolin wrote: 

Indeed.  There was an Ice Age.  Wiped out dinosaurs until they became, er, well, dinosaurs.

Nothing to worry about. Move along.   

Edit:  A little more seriously . . . it does seem that there is reason for concern, which is what gets me when those out on the margin argue that it is a hoax.

 steeler wrote: 
The old grade 5 tomato + fruit flies in the mason jar science experiemt, remember?

(And I'm gonna wait for you after school.)

 Welly wrote: 

Where is your proof of that?  Huh?  Huh?  

 

 dionysius wrote: 
Meh. We're in complete overshoot. Unless we reduce consumption/growth the system will crash and not much else will matter.Unfortunately there are some who believe the only way forward is to continue growing.It's a hootenany of a debate, that much is for sure.

 oldviolin wrote: 

Having patience with wrongheadedness may be a virtue you possess more than I do, OV. The questions have already mostly been answered; the "doubt" is a politicized, artificial, manufactured thing that has nothing to do with science. Anthropogenic climate change is an unfortunate reality; almost every major published scientific paper on the subject points to it. Unable to produce similar scientific literature on their side, the deniers simply seek to create doubt, cast aspersions on what the actual scientists do, delay and deny. I'm actually not worried about it. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. In decades to come, as the sea levels rise, icecaps melt, ocean currents and temperatures change, and weather becomes more and more bizarre, people who now claim the title "skeptic" will then be saying, "Well, I knew it all along." The more things change....

 Beaker wrote: 

I'm genuinely curious when I ask this: Have you ever posted anything in support of anthropomorphic climate change? I had thought that the majority of your arguments were "it's a sham foisted on us by the environmentalists".

edit: duh s/anthropomorphic/anthropogenic.   Although anthropomorphic might be an interesting discussion as well.

 islander wrote: 


The only proof worth proving is Absolut!   

 dionysius wrote: 
Actually, I think that you under estimate the rationale and intelligence of a lot of folks with that particular attitude. The fact that climate change is a reality over time is hardly in dispute. The argument comes over just what role humanity actually plays in it. I think there is room for discussion without the snide remarks, don't you? There are plenty of questions yet to be answered, the science of tact and political strategy notwithstanding.

 dionysius wrote: 

*bump* Folks (those who aren't deniers) should have a look! Love those Danes! (With a shout out to Talalala and Bjørn.)

Actually, deniers need to look the most.

 steeler wrote: 
Absolute proof is only required for items they are opposed to, any issue that aligns with their ideals can be justified w/ any random blog post on the topic.

 oldviolin wrote: 

 steeler wrote: 
I think the proof of lack of objectivity is what amuses me. Otherwise the argument would be lost on common sense with regards to the very real and documentable issues of air, water, and noise pollution, the latter ramping up considerably most recently.
By the way, God told me to write that.

 Beaker wrote: 
Yes it will. There's this little thing called "Congress", see...

The demand for absolute proof certain of global warming amuses and mystyifies me, especially when those demands come from persons who devotedly and absolutely believe in God or some other superior being or force.

  That's just fuzzy science . . . hey, Santa's coming in a couple weeks!