BajaNomad

Sand under the Cabo San Lucas Arch?

 Pages:  1  2

woody with a view - 10-18-2009 at 06:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
When Bascom did his work at Scripps these processes weren't well understood. For example, Santa Barbara harbor was created by building a protective sea wall along it's north edge. This resulted in sand being dumped at the end of the wall, right at the harbor entrance. In effect the construction was causing the harbor to fill up because the waves lost their force right there. This resulted in an ongoing dredging operation to keep the harbor open.

The US Army Corps of engineers greatly benefited from Bascom's work and began to develop models at the start of every project. These models simulated the coastline in structure, with waves being generated and sand movement being observed. I don't know, perhaps much of this is now being done with computers. These days the Corps probably knows as much about the dynamics of Shell Beach and Land's End as anyone.


The following link contains one of their recent projects in Maine. Page 11 (pdf page 20) is of interest as it shows an image of a completed model ready to collect data. Changing the variables will affect how and where the sand will be deposited.

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/7/8/2/CERC-TR-95-11.pdf

It's unlikely that the Escalera Nautica is researched to this degree. That's unfortunate. It should be.


there is always a new wave to go with their missteps.... unless, of course you factor in dana point!

Iflyfish - 10-19-2009 at 03:28 PM

I know that this thread has veared way off the original post, or it seems to me that it has. There has however been significant interest in it and an extensive range of views expressed.

I appreciate the range of views held by Nomads and I have a question that has been niggling at me. I am interested in Theology. I know that Mexico is primarily a Roman Catholic Country though I understand that Mormanism and Pentacostalism are growing by leaps and bounds.

I know that some view the embrace of the belief in Glabal Warming as a form of a naturalist religion. The Roman Catholic Church has weighed in on the subject:

"Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, said that three themes from Catholic social teaching inform the theology of climate change: priority for the poor, pursuit of the common good, and practice of prudence. The poor will suffer the most from the effects of climate change, and humanity needs to make sure their needs are not forgotten. Passing on the gift of creation to future generations, without doing irreversible harm, is an aspect of serving the common good. The practice of prudence demands that we act thoughtfully but with urgency to halt further climate disruption."

I am curious about why other religions might oppose Global Warming on Theological grounds. I know the arguments about science and global warming, I don't understand the theology. Do Fundamentalist Christians oppose the existance of global warming on theological grounds?

This topic is highly debated in the USofA. Is there a debate on this issue in Mexico? My reading of Spanish is not sufficient to inform myself about this. I know that Enviornmentalism is on the rise in Meixco amoung educated youth, is there opposition to this by churches?

Again, I promise not to flame anyone, I am just curious.

Thanks

Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 10-19-2009 at 03:42 PM

There is a theory out there, probably backed up by the fact that the previous US administration was packed with Christian fundamentalists, that folks are waiting for the rapture. The idea is why should we spend money or make any effort to protect this wonderful earth of ours because we're hoping to not be here soon. JMHO

David K - 10-19-2009 at 04:52 PM

'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet.

The sun (the big hot thing in the sky that makes the world warm daily) is the reason the temperatures change... CO2 levels increase AFTER periods of heating... CO2 is NOT the cause... In fact, just the opposite happens... After CO2 levels rise (following the solar caused warming) is when the earth COOLS...

I am talking about periods of hundreds of years between the warm and cool periods... The same as Al Gore shows in his movie, only he doesn't point out the higher CO2 levels FOLLOW global warming! Also, he has no explanation for the changes happening long before burning of fossil fuels.

NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science.

One volcanic eruption can produce more ozone depleting/ greenhouse gasses than ALL produced by man... and volcanoes have been erupting long before man has been making smoke or eating beef!

Don't be fooled... The sky isn't falling... They (Government and government paid scientists) want your money and more power for themselves.

30 years ago they predicted a new ice age was starting and worked on plans to warm the planet... That didn't give them the power and control over you...

Use your own mind, read the facts from non-government paid researchers...

Bajahowodd - 10-19-2009 at 05:01 PM

NOPE.

Iflyfish - 10-19-2009 at 05:43 PM

Bajahowodd

George Bush was an avowed Born Again Christian and his views were informed by that perspective. I believe that Bush II both denied the existance of Global Warming and if it existed that it was not caused by man. I am wanting to better understand that perspective and I appreciate your input.

So is one theory that the end is near and the sooner the better? I think I understand that perspective. It is all God’s plan so humans should not interfere with it. It is Predestination; it is all planned before the dawn of man. God has a plan and it is playing out. So by interfering or defining human causation for global warming then one is presuming the power of God and committing the sin of blasphemy or interfering with God’s plans for the world?

I believe that your post is saying something else also, if I understand it. There is the belief that we are in "end times" and it makes sense to do as much as possible, as fast as possible to get to Armageddon and the Rapture when all believers will be taken up to be with God. I see how this could lead to a "non interventionist" approach to this issue. It’s the best of all possible worlds so don’t mess with it.

Does this mean by implication that if man is causing global warming that it is part of God's plan and a form of arrogance on the part of man to try and take responsibility for it and to do something about it? Is this another variant of Predestination?

I have read that some Fundamentalists view Environmentalism as a form of Nativistic Religion, a view of Nature as God, and that when man defiles nature and the environment that s/he is acting against or defiling God (Nature). If Environmentalism is seen as a Heresy then it is a sin that violates the First Commandment of the Bible: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I wonder If there is also a rift along the lines that Science itself is a form of religion that posits itself upon “theories” like “the Theory of Evolution”, “The Big Bang Theory” etc. So Science is always to be suspect in its conclusions? So from this perspective all “Scientific” findings are based upon hypotheses that postulate causality not related to the “Prime Mover” that is God.

There is a lot of passion on this issue and that level of passion indicates to me that fundamental underlying issues are at play either beyond or in addition to economic issues.

I am curious. Again I want to understand. I will not flame anyone who responds to this question. There must be very real fundamental beliefs, beside the scientific debate, that underlies the Religious opposition to the two issues involved, the existence of Global Warming and the belief that man has caused it. These two may be separate issues in the minds of some religious people, or maybe they are the same to some.

I have already posted a Roman Catholic perspective that focuses on the responsibility of mankind to be stewards of the enviornment for the good of mankind. I would imagine that this is the common belief system in Mexico at least as far as the Catholic Church doors, if this issue is even one that is considered by the common person.

It may be that the newer Christian religions have a different perspective and I believe that they do. These beliefs will inform generations of believers and will directly affect efforts to affect enviornmental change on many levels i.e. fisheries, estuaries etc. and I think it is important to clearly understand these perspectives.

Thanks,

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 10-19-2009 at 06:08 PM

Thank you David, I appreciate your input.

You wrote in part, and I have quoted what appear to be the theological issues in your post. If I have omitted, taken out of context or misunderstood, please clarify.

"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."

"NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science."

It appears that you equate Global Warming and Man Made Climate Change and see both as products of a "religion" because it a "theory" about something that has existed in Gods domain, that is before the existence of man. "First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!")—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named. Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies". etc. That is a very interesting perspective and I appreciate your sharing it. If I understand what you are saying; man is claiming responsibility for that which belongs to God. Man does not create nature or modify nature, only God does.

Your second point seems to go along with the Blasphemy idea that Man has usurped that which belongs to God, the power to create this sort of change, and that is Blasphemy in that Environmentalists claim that man can change only what God can. In other words Environmentalists are claiming to have the power of God.

Iflyfish

vgabndo - 10-19-2009 at 07:32 PM

Iflyfish: Shari Bondy told me I was going to like you!

These are legitimate questions and well phrased. As an atheist I may even have a different take on the answers; if we had them.

There is a fundamental unfairness in a society that allows wide open religious freedom within the bounds of a republic to have any substantial number of the citizenry hand over their destiny to what appears to be an Armagddon sect. For many with no interest in "ever-lasting life" an unfair burden must be shared by those who continue to effort toward making the world a better place. In my judgment there are a meaningful number of people whose lives could be better today if it were not for those with a vision of the gates of heaven swung wide and lit like noon-day by the fires of World War III.

I was instructed by my friend Don Chico in San Nicolas' that the perception that Mexico is a Catholic nation is even less true than the degree to which the USA is a Christian nation.
We were discussing G W Bush having made comments about how he was chosen by God to lead America at this time. Chico told me that it would be a HUGE scandal if the President of Mexico ever said such a thing. It is my understanding that Mexico has a separation of church and state.

It has been concerning to many to see the rise in visibility of fundamentalist concregations who seem to behave like there was always a god in the pledge of alliegence and they'll bleed before it comes out. The constitution is clear on this issue. Yet, in a period of post-war rush, radical anti-communism, and conservative religous politicians in power they were a pushover for the lobbying power of the Knights of Columbus. The world's largest organization of Roman Catholic men at that time had a massive budget and went on a crusade to get their god "over all" in a new pledge of alliegence. The government folded. Different from Mexico, the USA has a national religion, we are bombarded by it every time we touch our money. I hope I've not been incivil.

Iflyfish - 10-19-2009 at 11:24 PM

vgabndo

I am pleased that our mutual friend would suggest that we would get on well. I hope to meet you some day. I am acking to get back to Baja. Lots has been in the way of that happening of late. Thanks for the personal note.

I appreciate your sharing your perspective as an Atheist. I believe we could have some very interesting discussions.

Your friend Don Chico makes a good point and one that my Anthropologist brother makes. He says that when one observes worshipers in a Roman Catholic Church in Mexico you might actually be observing a person worshiping an ancient pre-Columbian god. I have seen the plumed serpent woven into the architecture of a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Mexico. I have seen the Otome people dance around a Cathedral that they claim is their pyramid. The Cathedral in the Zocalo of Mexico City is built of the stones of the Pyramids. Native symbols appear in the paintings of many Mexican Cathedrals.

I wonder if there are more Theological issues at play in this dialogue. I appreciate David's clarity in his response; I hope I got it right. I wonder if others know of Religious reasons why one would question the existence of Global Warming or that Global Warming, if it exists, is caused by man. I am still curious about this.

I would like to know if I got what David was saying and would like to hear from others on the subject. I think there is much for all of us to learn from this dialogue. I think there is more here than meets the eye and that firmly held Religious beliefs have something to do with the talking past each other that happens with this topic.

If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that would keep one from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and once one believes then one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I have this right David? I don't want to distort what David is saying.

From this perspective one could postulate that an Atheist is a person with a belief system about Theism (the belief in the existence of a god) is actually taking a Theist position in postulating that there is no god. One could say using David’s logic, if I understand him correctly, that Atheism would qualify as a Religion also. It might be that the opposite of Theism is not Atheism but a state of Indifference (Yawn). It's an interesting perspective don't you think?

I hope others will pitch in their ideas as to the Theology involved in this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the thinking on this. It may be one of the most important issues of our time.

Iflyfish

Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 04:57 AM

Don't forget the Pantheists who have the whole thing surrounded. Since God is Nature magnified to infinity, changes in climate are both natural and Devine. Won't see those people in many fistfights after a couple of six packs of loudmouth. I've been a practicing member all my life and continue to feel safe, holy and satisfied. Why I think I could play handball with the Pope and Algore on a court in Sedona.

[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Osprey]

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 08:03 AM

Do Pantheists play the flute? Do they worship at the sacred pan? Is Panamerican?

If I read Davids post accurately the argument goes that believers in Global Warming and that it is man made are essentially Pantheists who postulate that Nature is God. Therefore any conclusion that there is global warming or that man caused it is a Religious belief.

" 'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."

"NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science."

I don't want to misrepresent David's position and hope to hear if there is more to this on a theological level.

Your position sounds similar to David's a Theist position that God is Nature. " Since God is Nature magnified to infinity, changes in climate are both natural and Devine" You do not accept that it is an either/or proposition but a both/and proposition and that you avoid arguments that involve six packs of loudmouth. Your position, if I understand it is that global warming exists and that you believe it to be both man and god caused because it's all part of the same ball of infinite yarn.

This is getting very interesting. I knew that there was more to this than data about weather patterns.

Iflyfishwhennotponderingquestionslikethiswithamigosaroundthenomadfire



This is getting very interesting.

David K - 10-20-2009 at 08:17 AM

Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:

"If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that would keep one from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and once one believes then one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I have this right David?"

Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions, ie. that man made global warming is a fact. No true unbiased scientist would make such a statement... specially with so much data that supports just the opposite (that global warming and cooling has been going on for centuries).

Since global warming has happened many times before without man, what is the REAL purpose in the campaign to blame man THIS TIME???

Thank you Iflyfish for such a mature discussion on this! Maybe we CAN discuss global/political/scientific issues without name calling and insults?

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 09:06 AM

Thank you David, I appreciate your clarifying this for me.

"Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:

"........the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that would keep one from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and once one believes then one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I have this right David?"

“Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions, ie. that man made global warming is a fact. No true unbiased scientist would make such a statement... specially with so much data that supports just the opposite (that global warming and cooling has been going on for centuries).”

So you posit that Religion is a "closed system of beliefs" that do not allow for new information to change ones already firmly held beliefs. The Philosopher Kant would call this "a priori assumptions" and he claimed that all philosophic positions contained them. In Immanuel Kant’s. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. he took the position that all Philosophical (read religious) debates should start with an analysis of these a priori assumptions.

You have stated clearly some of these assumptions in your posts.

If I understand your position you have conclude that it is impossible, by definition, for science to ever come to any conclusion. You have also and that belief in. It would also appear that you have concluded that science is another form of religion. "Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions"

I would also conclude from your statement that if one is has a fixed set of beliefs (religion) that one is not amenable to changing ones opinion if the new information challenges ones pre-existing beliefs.

Am I understanding your position? If so then I think we are getting at the crux things.

I appreciate your sharing your perspective, one that I think may represent clearly the religious opposition to ideas like Global Warming and the notion that man has caused global warming.

Let me know if I got this right. I really do want to understand this.

Iflyfish

edited for clarity

[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Iflyfish]

Skipjack Joe - 10-20-2009 at 09:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:

If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that would keep one from taking in new information.

Thank you Iflyfish for such a mature discussion on this! Maybe we CAN discuss global/political/scientific issues without name calling and insults?


I, too, think you got it right.

Most of us gather information and draw conclusions.

DavidK has drawn conclusions and is now looking for facts to support them.

Thank you for making me understand how this reversal has come about.

[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Skipjack Joe]

Ken Bondy - 10-20-2009 at 09:34 AM

David stated it quite clearly in an earlier post in this thread:

"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."

A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion.

Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 09:48 AM

flyguy, don't denigrate Panthieism by asking if we have a Flute. We don't have Idols but we have one of the best Icons: Pan Bimbo

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 09:54 AM

O, I get it so Panamainia is excessive panning. Is a diseased Pantheist deadpanning?

flyguy

David K - 10-20-2009 at 09:55 AM

>>> If I understand your position you have conclude that it is impossible, by definition, for science to ever come to any conclusion. You have also and that belief in. It would also appear that you have concluded that science is another form of religion. "Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions"

I would also conclude from your statement that if one is has a fixed set of beliefs (religion) that one is not amenable to changing ones opinion if the new information challenges ones pre-existing beliefs. <<<


Nope, not quite... Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time.



WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example.

The 'man made global warming' group seem to say it is a conclusion and are ignoring the facts when given to them by non-political scientists. Common sense about the history of warming and cooling for thousands of years or more is also beyond this group's grasp.

Why is it the politicians in the majority right now cannot accept that global warming might actually be a natural event that man cannot alter? You have to ask yourself why this issue now... when the economy is hurting so bad? Could it be a distraction so we don't focus on the economy going down the tube? When polled, people don't put health care near the top of what needs attention either... hmmmm. IT IS THE ECONOMY and this government doing so much to ruin it... Health Care, Climate Change... all smoke and mirrors folks.

David K - 10-20-2009 at 09:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
David stated it quite clearly in an earlier post in this thread:

"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."

A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion.


Not global warming, but man made global warming Ken.

The world has warmed and cooled again and again without man... and it continues to do so with man... The graph (evidence) shows it. Global warming IS science, Man-made global warming is a religion... ie. a populist belief and not a conclusion of science.

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 10:09 AM

Ken,

Thanks for weighing in on this. I think we are getting to the nub of it.

"A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion."

So if distilled then David's argument goes like this?

Science = Religion

Religion = Science

Religion = Rigidly held belief system not subject to change via new information

Science = Unending series of examination of data with out conclusion

Therefore Science is an unending examination of data with out conclusion that is used to reinforce rigidly held beliefs which is called Religion.

Using this logic by definition science is religion and so all scientific argument is reduced to religious belief, or opinion, including your statements about science.

I think I am getting the theology and logic here. Please correct me if I am not getting this right.

Iflyfish

Ken Bondy - 10-20-2009 at 10:11 AM

You are right David, I should have said "man-made". Nonetheless I think there is science to support the hypothesis that human activities are affecting climate. For me, the most persuasive evidence includes the (relatively) recent melting of polar ice caps and glacial modifications.

David K - 10-20-2009 at 10:13 AM

Nope... Science is the collection and analysis of data, conclusions not set in stone, open mindedness.

Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.

David K - 10-20-2009 at 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
You are right David, I should have said "man-made". Nonetheless I think there is science to support the hypothesis that human activities are affecting climate. For me, the most persuasive evidence includes the (relatively) recent melting of polar ice caps and glacial modifications.


Thanks Ken, I do hear that where polar melting happens on one pole, it is growing on the other... Glaciers do move (melt back and advance). Been to Yosemite? Thanks to global warming (way back when) we have a beautiful place to visit not covered in ice.

Skipjack Joe - 10-20-2009 at 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Ken,

Thanks for weighing in on this. I think we are getting to the nub of it.

"A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion."

So if distilled then David's argument goes like this?

Science = Religion

Religion = Science

Religion = Rigidly held belief system not subject to change via new information

Science = Unending series of examination of data with out conclusion

Therefore Science is an unending examination of data with out conclusion that is used to reinforce rigidly held beliefs which is called Religion.

Using this logic by definition science is religion and so all scientific argument is reduced to religious belief, or opinion, including your statements about science.

I think I am getting the theology and logic here. Please correct me if I am not getting this right.

Iflyfish


Science is a philosophical system that people use to acquire facts. Science doesn't claim that those are facts. It merely proposes that those who buy into it accept them as facts. So, first of all, science does not uncover 'the truth'.

The system involves empirical information that will give the same results no matter how often the experiment is reproduced. If we come across such a phenomena we all buy into it and agree that we now have knowledge.

This approach to finding 'facts' has been wildly successful in history, allowing us to conquer diseases and reaching the moon. We have bought into it so completely that the approach is no longer questioned and is being used to 'prove' or 'disprove' global warming and man-made global warming.

Good science relies totally on information and has little interest in what the conclusions will be.

I really see little connection between science and religion with the exception that in both cases you have to 'buy into' the system. But beyond that: one is based upon questioning, information gathering and deductions from that information, and the other is based upon unquestioning belief in a book.

So Science = Religion? I don't agree with that. I find that a conclusion puzzling.

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 10:44 AM

Iflyfish

"........"Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."

You state "Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time."

“Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.”

"WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example."

You say “science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”. Isn’t this “science” by definition just a religious belief, a belief that one day may be refuted in the never ending, ongoing, examination of data that is science?

I am not arguing with you, I am confused.


Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 10-20-2009 at 11:52 AM

Iflyfish- Sorry I had to bail on the board and never saw your subsequent questions. There has been an interesting discussion since I left. I do wish to make one last contribution along the lines of my earlier post about end-timers, in particular. And yes, Roman Catholic religion stands out for its encouragement of stewardship of the planet. And you will find similar philosphies in other ancient religions including Judaism and Islam. It's the latter day Christian fundamantalist religions that appear to be yearning for the rapture that primarily subscribe to positions that are anti-climate change in the sense that nothing need be done about it. Historically, a substantial number of these adherents were found in the South. And they were not politically active. We can thank folks like Ralph Reed and his brethren for taking up the political cause. That said, I find it obscenely cynical that big business is in bed with these folks. The Wall Street guys and the corporate CEOs are far from end-timers. They just want to make money. And as far as I know, no one has devised a way to "take it with you". So, obviously people who willingly obstruct any process designed to reign-in man-made pollution on the basis of its cost should not be thought of as end-timers. GWB and his ilk have been and are being played.

Ken Bondy - 10-20-2009 at 02:32 PM

For a fascinating look at the influence of evangelical religion on American politics and business, read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet. One of the most frightening books I have ever read, and it's non-fiction.

Bajahowodd - 10-20-2009 at 03:32 PM

Ken- You're so right!. I picked it up after seeing the author interviewed on TV. What scares me the most is Sharlet's pessimism regarding any sort of reversal. A few months back, there were several stories floating around about the C Street gang, who personify the absolute certainty of this crowd. I don't want to make any journalistic recommendations, but in reality, I think Rachel Maddow is the only one who really persued C Street.

I copied a link that provides a decent flavor for this. Be afraid.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/

[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Bajahowodd]

Skipjack Joe - 10-20-2009 at 03:45 PM

I later went back to Shell Island to confirm David's findings and came across this scene.

nun4.jpg - 33kB

Crusoe - 10-20-2009 at 03:47 PM

Good one Joe...To funny:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: ++C++

DianaT - 10-20-2009 at 04:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
For a fascinating look at the influence of evangelical religion on American politics and business, read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet. One of the most frightening books I have ever read, and it's non-fiction.


While it really is a myth that history repeats itself, there is some truth in the idea that people repeat history, and in this case, I certainly hope it is so.

There have been some really strong and influential periods of revivalism at different times in the history of the US. Fortunately, while they left their mark, they did die down in power and influence. The liberal thought and reason upon which the US was born, once again prevailed.

We can certainly hope that will again be the case----the current wave is growing right now, and they do give good cause for fear.

One thing I recently read was that while the one political party could always depend of the votes of these people, they did not expect these people to start taking over and running their own candidates, etc.

When a group like the members of the C Street gang only answer to each other, it is not a good thing. Rachel Maddow is one of few real journalists around these days.

[Edited on 10-20-2009 by DianaT]

Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 05:48 PM

I like your photos. Would like to see more of them. Any kind. You have an eye for photos. Good photo eye. Great photos. Love your photo posts.

Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 06:09 PM

David, I think that this discussion is illuminating and I appreciate your participation as you are knowledgeable about the Theology involved. I have given this some more thought that I would like to share with you and others.

You state:

You state "Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time."

“Religion is not at all like science... it is a belief that requires one to have faith without scientific evidence.” Yet you also say that Science is Religion. I believe that Skipjack is saying that the method of science involves gathering information and then drawing conclusions about that data. I understand you to be saying then ones Religious beliefs affect ones beliefs about Science. So that Science is approached with a set of Religious beliefs that overlay the gathering of evidence.

"WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example."

You say “science proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”. Isn’t this “science” by definition just a religious belief, a belief that one day may be refuted in the never ending, ongoing, examination of data that is science?

If one defines or redefines Science as a Religion then any “fact” or finding of Science can be discounted as belief and therefore not a fact. Any use of Science then by Religion is by definition an act of distortion in an attempt to prove its a priori assumptions. This viewpoint leaves us with a very real dilemma. How can we ever know “facts” if we view the system of generating those “facts” as fundamentally flawed. How can we ever rationally discuss science if it is just Religious belief? Is it any wonder then that we are in the soup we find ourselves in?

It seems that Bajahowadd and Ken are both saying that Science has been hijacked by Religion and used as a political tool to support the economic interests of the ruling class. There is of course some precedent for this in the case of Galileo, who was excommunicated and locked up in prison for asserting the “science (that) proved the world is not the center of the universe, for example”.

Skipjack says “I really see little connection between science and religion with the exception that in both cases you have to 'buy into' the system. But beyond that: one is based upon questioning, information gathering and deductions from that information, and the other is based upon unquestioning belief in a book.

So Science = Religion? I don't agree with that. I find that a conclusion puzzling."

David says “"Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time.” So it would seem that both Science and Religion are both reduced to belief or opinion from this perspective, there are no immutable facts to be found, although David does say that Science can sometimes “prove” things like the earth is not the center of the universe. This does confuse me and is also puzzling to me. It may be that in David’s Religion the earth is not the center of the Universe and your Religion might concur with that opinion.

This sort of logic does indeed make for difficulty when attempting to do Science. One’s scientific conclusions in this paradigm are always subject to the charge that you are only expressing an opinion when you say that The Theory of Evolution or Germ Theory is proven fact. This makes for a very slippery field of dialogue and now I see more clearly why this is so. In this dialogue it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific Method. One person’s assertion is equal to any other person’s assertion regardless of the experience and knowledge of each person. In this situation the hospital janitor (who may also be a clergyman) has an opinion about your need for surgery and it carries equal weight as your surgeon. The janitor can simply say that his religion is different than the physicians and so has equal intellectual status. This is in part why we are still dealing with issues of parents allowing their children to die when antibiotics can save their lives. They simply do not believe in Germ Theory, they instead believe in Devine intervention and the power of prayer. This may also be why it is so difficult to separate Church and State and how the Church has come to have such a powerful influence in the houses of Congress and the White House.

I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with us David. You have said it as clearly as it could be said. I think you have identified the fundamental issue of why this topic of Global Warming and its causality is so contentious on a Theological level.

It is easy to see in this debate how one could believe in a conspiracy on the part of Environmentalists or on the part of the Ruling Class and Religion to manipulate the discussion to “prove” ones point of view for political and or economic gain. It is a sad day indeed when we cannot even agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate. Unfortunately like a child of warring parents the problem child does what it wants and can wreak havoc on us all. The unfortunate affect of this is that it is very difficult to have real science inform out conclusions about how to deal with the issues of our forests, air, seas and land. Even observations about the eventual disappearance of the Himalayan Glaciers and the drying of the Ganges River are simply opinions, religious opinions for that matter.

In the mean time the glaciers recede and the affect of that has the potential to do us all in. Even if one believes that Global Warming is just a theory I would think that it behooves us all to do what we can to stop it, if that is at all possible. This however is just an opinion based upon my own value system and of course mine is the same value as yours. The conclusions that we draw from this debate may be a matter of life or death.

If there really is no science that proves Global Warming or that man is causing Global Warming it ought not to stop us from doing things to deal with what MIGHT be one of the contributing factors in this problem. If we can build redundant stockpiles of nuclear weapons to fight a potential war with an enemy that might emerge, it would seem we could use the same logic to do what we can do to stop Global Warming even if we currently believe that it does not exist.

Iflyfish

From this discussion, I conclude:

The Gull - 10-20-2009 at 07:33 PM

Sand = Religion

Proof came with the photo of the penguins splashing in the surf.

Skipjack Joe - 10-20-2009 at 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
In this dialogue it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific Method. One person’s assertion is equal to any other person’s assertion regardless of the experience and knowledge of each person.
Iflyfish


Wow. I can't believe you wrote this.

The very basis of scientific knowledge are experiments that can be repeated at any time by anyone with identical measurements every time. A 'fact' has no exceptions. If there is a single exception the fact is no longer supportable. How do you come up with the statement that everyone's assertion is of equal value.

Furthermore:
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish

It is a sad day indeed when we cannot even agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate.
Iflyfish


This statement has left me scratching my head.

Science and religion have virtually nothing in common. Except that their goals (searching for truth) are the same. Science pursues truth through empirical experiments and measurements and religion does so by pure faith. Religion doesn't require proof. It accepts matters on faith and subsequently looks for anything to support it. If the data isn't there then it is only a matter of time when it will become available.

The world is not chaotic. A tree that's fallen in the forest without anyone seeing it has still fallen in the forest.

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 12:36 AM

Skipjack, I fear that my prose is too dense and difficult to follow. I have tried to carefully restate David's perspective as I understand it and to this point have tried to not interject my own opinions. At this juncture I will do so.

I believe that the Theological issues raised by David are the following:

1. Science is a set of theories in constant change therefore have no proof of fact....though he says that it is a fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and that this has been proven by science. I find these statements inconsistent but understandable since David has said that his beliefs are grounded in religion. I am not trashing his perspective here I am only sharing my conclusions about them.

2. Religion is based upon beliefs that are static, fixed, matters of belief, unproveable by science and therefore static and unchanging...though he states that the earth has been proved to not be the center of the universe which was one of the main axis around which medieval Christianity pivoted and that beliefs change.

I also find these statements confusing. I believe that Religion is highly adaptive and one can clearly see a morphing of Religion over time i.e. the generation three distinct religious belief systems with untold splinter groups growing out of the Abrahamic tradition, the Protestant Reformation etc. and the adaptation to the findings of science. The Vatican has recently released a paper supporting evolution.

3. Science is a form of Religion and therefore its conclusions are based upon beliefs and propositions that cannot be proved using the scientific method because they are based upon faith. I see this as a classic redefinition of the issue, redefining science as religion.

In this paradigm it is impossible to prove anything by Science or Scientific Method. In this way of thinking one person’s assertion is equal to any other person’s assertion regardless of the experience, data or knowledge of each person. This is part of the reason I believe that your scientific conclusions about the movement of sand are refuted, ( see gull above) just your opinion my man....your opinion equal to all others because it's all based upon religious belief and in this case your religion is science. This logic is self referential, circular and cannot further the investigation of climate change through the use of the scientific method. All scientific findings can be debunked by simply calling them religion.

I maintain that it is a sad day indeed when we cannot even agree what is science and what is religion and how to keep them separate. It is this confusion created by these assertions (religion = science) that makes it so difficult to come to any agreement on even the most fundamental definition of the issues. My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is religion because science is based upon observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified.

If science is seen as a form of religion then scientific data is seen as simply a way that the scientist is validating their pre conceived notions. An argument cannot be resolved in this way of thinking because it is self referential and circular. A conclusion or consensus is not possible because there is no agreement on what the problem is or what the variables are that one can study to determine what the fact are.

These are the sort of religious arguments that had congregations of theologians arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Start with the wrong premise, there are angels, which is improvable, and you wind up engaging in arguments about their nature that are insolvable and that is why there are so many denominations in every religion. Religious arguments are not based upon the scientific method so they really muddy the water when it comes to scientific method and proof.

The Religious opposition to science is essentially an ad hominum argument...for example saying that your point is irrelevant because you base it upon your religion which is science. It is a circular argument.....there is no exit.... and that is what makes me sad. The discussion is no longer on what we observe and quantify but focuses on your personal beliefs about the nature of God and Man. This sort of redefinition short circuits the scientific method by essentially changing the subject.

I have concluded from this discussion that Religion has hijacked science by redefining it so that science can be argued in its own terms. Religion is not based upon observation and scientific method but on emotion, belief and faith so it cannot be used to define science. David has been very clear about this and his statements have been very helpful in allowing us to see the theological underpinnings of opposition to the science of climate change in particular and science in general.

Science has its own method of understanding data and facts, you have clearly described that method. That method is the Scientific Method, establish a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, reproduce the test and see if the results are the same or not. Minimize as many variables as possible so that your results are not contaminated with extraneous variables etc.

I hope this clarifies my perspective. I stated earlier that I don't intend to trash anyone's perspective on this issue. David has said clearly that his beliefs have a religious basis. I have wanted to better understand the theological opposition to the science of climate change and in doing so am much clearer about what those issues are.

My position is that no matter how you reach your conclusion about climate change it is time to do something because the consequence of not doing anything can be suicidal.

My argument is that we have common ground in that we have before invested massive amounts of human and economic capital in the creation of weapons of war, designed for potential enemies that we anticipated would exist so it is within our experience to address potential threats to our safety by pro-active activity like building the next generation of war making materials and also decreasing green house gasses, decreasing pollution, recycling and becoming less dependent upon fossil fuels.

I hope this clarifies my previous comments.

Iflyfish

pratelliz - 10-21-2009 at 07:10 AM

People really don't care bout religion today. And that makes me so sad...


Regards,
pratelliz
Disque dur multimedia

David K - 10-21-2009 at 08:03 AM

Just what 'David' are you talking about Iflyfish? I sure didn't say a lot of those things you are saying I did...

"I believe that the Theological issues raised by David are the following:"

The following are statements you make above that I disagree with:


1) 1. Science is a set of theories in constant change therefore have no proof of fact... <NOT>

2) since David has said that his beliefs are grounded in religion. <NOT>

3) 3. Science is a form of Religion <NOT>

4) This is part of the reason I believe that your scientific conclusions about the movement of sand are refuted, ( see gull above) just your opinion my man....your opinion equal to all others because it's all based upon religious belief and in this case your religion is science. This logic is self referential, circular and cannot further the investigation of climate change through the use of the scientific method. All scientific findings can be debunked by simply calling them religion. <NOT, I did not have issues with sand movement... I have witnessed sand movement at Bahia Santa Maria. The sea level has not changed, but the beach location has, thus houses built on the beach have been undermined.>


THIS (you said) I DO agree with: "My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is religion because science is based upon observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified."

That is why I call (man made) Global Warming a religion... One reason is because I have made observations of the sea level in Baja over 40 years, and it has either not changed or has changed so little, as to not affect anyone's ability to live and work along the shoreline. The other reasons I have given above (obvious historic record of natural temperature changes over hundreds or thousands of years, not caused by man).

Man made Global warming is like a religious belief because the facts (observations) are ignored, and the hysteria is believed. Some people need a reason to complain, afterall!

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 08:58 AM

Sorry David, I did not mean to imply that you disputed Skipjack's statement about sand movement based upon religious grounds. My bad for unclear writing. My point was that any scientific argument can be refuted by claiming that the proponent of that argument is using religion (a fixed belief system), in this case science, to rebut the claim. It is that circular logic that I was pointing out. Gulls comment could be read as an example of that point of view, though it might have been made in jest, it can be read that way.

I don't mean in any way to trash your religious beliefs and I hope that I am clear about that. I am clear now how the debate about global warming is contaminated by religious thinking, which oporates out of a different way of looking at the world than does science.

You stated the following:

THIS (you said) I DO agree with (Iflyfishes statement): "My own thinking is that scientific method is a more reliable way of defining reality than is religion because science is based upon observations that can be tested and results repeated and verified."

That is why I call (man made) Global Warming a religion... One reason is because I have made observations of the sea level in Baja over 40 years, and it has either not changed or has changed so little, as to not affect anyone's ability to live and work along the shoreline. The other reasons I have given above (obvious historic record of natural temperature changes over hundreds or thousands of years, not caused by man).

To this I would say that your observation is what is called in scientific research an N of 1. That is the research group is composed of one person. That is too small of a group to draw any conclusions from. The preponderance of scientific findings, based upon many thousands of observations is that global warming is a fact. Large N scientific study vs. Single N study published in Bajanomad.

I mean no disrespect. In fact I respect your taking the time to clearly and with civility share your perspective, provocative as it is. I just see a flaw in your argument and I think it is the one that tends to short circuit logical discussion of the issue. I hope that you are not offended by my saying this. Reasonable people can and do disagree. I believe that as a nation that we need more civil discussion about what we disagree about.

I realize that there are scientists who argue that global warming is not manmade and use the historical record as proof that climate has changed and sometimes dramatically over eons of time. It is also evident in the historical record that cataclysmic climate change has been triggered by events that have changed the amount of sunlight that gets through the atmosphere. Scientists today have demonstrated a growing hole in the Ozone Layer over the Arctic that corresponds with the melting that is clearly evident now. Ditto the findings with increased carbon consumption and its subsequent by products in the atmosphere. These are not the observations of single scientists but the accumulated observations hundreds of highly regarded scientists from around the world with the backing of highly regarded and very clear thinking scientific organizations. There does seem to be a clear consensus on the matter and governments are now taking action to do something about it. The risks of doing nothing are life threatening and most agree on at least that point.

Much of the non scientific opposition to the findings of science on global warming come from those with a particular axe to grind i.e. those who would try to support some political/religious agenda that the notion of manmade global warming confronts. These people argue with the findings and/or interpretation of these studies, not the method of the studies. So the findings are it seems beyond dispute, the ice caps are melting, the glaciers are melting and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is rising and the amount of certain frequencies of sunlight are being blocked from penetrating the atmosphere. There is scientific consensus on these findings and there is sufficient consensus to make these findings fact. It would require a great deal of evidence to refute these studies and a philosophical/religious argument doesn’t do the job in the arena of science.

I realize that you say that those who believe in manmade global warming are doing this very thing, advancing their viewpoint, which is from your perspective a product of the religious delusion, that they call science. A clear example of this is your most recent statement "Man made Global warming is like a religious belief because the facts (observations) are ignored, and the hysteria is believed. Some people need a reason to complain, afterall!"

My second point, and a secondary one, is that this argument begs the question of the data and is directed not at the data but the reporter of the conclusions from the data. This is in essence an ad hominum argument that does not address the data. Another way of saying this is that one can read your statement as saying that those who believe in manmade global warming are experiencing something like or equal to a religious delusion. The discussion of the causes of global warming is then short circuited to a debate about religious beliefs and escalates from there into some form of name calling because the argument has turned personal. One could say that the person who uses this form of refutation is using a verbal subterfuge to pick a fight and thereby avoid dealing with the data. I am not saying that you are doing this, it is just a thought that I have as I think about the many times I have seen discussions of global warming turn into a "six pack of loudmouth" as Osprey so well put it. Having a full case of the brew myself I found myself laughing out loud about that one yesterday.


I have been interested in the theological underpinnings of the argument that you are using and I think that you have expressed those underpinnings very clearly and for this I am grateful to you. I also appreciate your civility in this discussion. As a product of this dialogue I better understand the use of theology in this debate and why it will never be resolved. When there are hidden agendas, and you point to what you believe they are for those of a scientific bent, it is impossible to ever prove a point based upon objective data.

Iflyfish

Skipjack Joe - 10-21-2009 at 09:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pratelliz
People really don't care bout religion today. And that makes me so sad...


Regards,
pratelliz
Disque dur multimedia


I agree with you. I think this happens when religion is used to explain physical phenomena. I feel religion has a very important purpose and fills an important need in us. A life lived where science is 'God' is just - unliveable. For one thing, there are things I just don't want to understand.

Ken Bondy - 10-21-2009 at 09:54 AM

Igor I think there are many better ways to experience spirituality than with what we have come to know as "organized religion", i.e., the three major monotheistic religious establishments. I like Harris's thesis in "The End of Faith". What if everyone on earth suddenly lost all memory, as if our brains were all "rebooted" at the same time? The capacity would still be there but our brains would contain no information. We would still have all our accumulated knowledge about ourselves, the world, the universe, in books, machines, computers, etc., we just lost all of our memory, like a hard drive crash. We would have to re-learn EVERYTHING. What would we do first? Probably important things like learning how to feed ourselves, shelter, big stuff like that. When do you think we would need to reinvent religion? When would it be important to think that Jesus was born of a virgin? Maybe never....?

[Edited on 10-21-2009 by Ken Bondy]

tripledigitken - 10-21-2009 at 10:00 AM

In following this thread I'm struct with how rightous and in some cases pompous the proponents of Global Warming et al have become. You accuse the sceptics of trying to bend evidence to fit their belief system, and you insult their intelligence. There is room on both sides of this issue dispite your confiction to the contrary.

By the way, have you not noticed that the Global Warming crowd is scrambling to make the current cool off fit their model?

How do you take comfort in insulting fellow Nomads that disagree with your point of view?

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 11:03 AM

92 percent of Americans believe in god, only 6 percent athiest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/2...

In a 1982 study in which 92 percent of all Mexicans claimed to believe in a religion, an even higher percentage, 97 percent, believed in God

http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ty0-krS068C&pg=PA111&a...

No shortage in religious belief in either country.

It is not wonder that with all this religious belief circulating around that so much confusion exists about the findings of science. Some now demand that creationism be taught alongside evolution as an equally plausible explanation about how nature came to be how it is today.

Iflyfish

Ken Bondy - 10-21-2009 at 11:12 AM

I have heard similar statistics, Iflyfish, and they are truly frightening. When large groups of people believe in different conflicting things, all without evidence, and their respective holy books each instruct their faithful to kill those of the other flocks (and they all do), and nuclear weapons are available to the strongest believers, the fate of life on earth is threatened. Killing people because they believe in a different fairy tale than you do has gone out of fashion in some parts of the world, but obviously it hasn't in others.

[Edited on 10-21-2009 by Ken Bondy]

From the Washington Post/ Pew Research Poll linked By Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 10-21-2009 at 11:34 AM

Much of the strong belief in the supernatural is being driven by the growth in Pentecostalism and charismatic churches, said John Green, a Pew senior fellow in religion and American politics. Pentecostals and charismatics practice what they regard as the gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues and praying for miraculous healing.

The report found that almost one in five Christians speaks or prays in tongues -- ecstatic worship or prayer using unintelligible speech -- from time to time, with 9 percent speaking in tongues weekly.

At Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church in the District, a Pentecostal church, worshipers say that they speak in tongues frequently and that it brings them closer to God.

Better than science?

mtgoat666 - 10-21-2009 at 12:22 PM

the preceeding conversation was pure drivel...

god saves us! you guys are responding to DK's nonsense!

now, back the the original topic. someone go to the arch right now and see if yesterdays hurricane caused sea level to rise or fall at the arch. if the sand is gone, we have proof that hurricanne caused localized global warming and localized rise in sea level :lol:

mtgoat666 - 10-21-2009 at 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
The report found that almost one in five Christians speaks or prays in tongues -- ecstatic worship or prayer using unintelligible speech -- from time to time, with 9 percent speaking in tongues weekly.



Do they let these people out in public?

Osprey - 10-21-2009 at 12:32 PM

I was there early this AM just after the storm. The swells are huge and I was very surprised to see a lot of people down there watching an old man move sand away from underneath the arch with a shovel. Just a crazy old Mexican I guess. I heard some of the people in the crowd sort of cheering him on. Called him Jesus.

Bajahowodd - 10-21-2009 at 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
The report found that almost one in five Christians speaks or prays in tongues -- ecstatic worship or prayer using unintelligible speech -- from time to time, with 9 percent speaking in tongues weekly.



Do they let these people out in public?


Many of them were in the last administration.:lol:

David K - 10-21-2009 at 04:11 PM

Am I the only one who has driven the old road along Bahia Concepcion (on rock not sand), which splashes in the water at high tide... and has, ever since it was built in the 1940's? Are islands such as San Luis Gonzaga (Willard) and Requeson that connect to Baja only at low tide, STILL connect at low tide? Has Scammon's or San Ignacio Lagoon grown far beyond the shoreline into the salt flats?

If the sea levels were rising, then the Bahia Concepcion section of the old road would be in the water all the time, not just during high tide... and the two islands would no longer connect to Baja... Hotels like Serenidad and others just above sea level when built in the early 1960's, would be in the sea. The near sea level salt flats all around Baja that only get flooded during rare lunar tides would be flooded at all high tides (and low tide, too eventually).

I am just one observer here (so far), but I give you plenty of places to see for yourselves that the sea level has not changed in 40 years to any degree that it can be noticed or hinders our living next to it.

WHO else has been visiting sea side locations in Baja since the global warming hysteria began (right after they gave up with their ice age fear talk in the late 1970's)??? I am not making up what I see along the coast... the same places are still above sea level as when I was a kid in the 1960's.

Ken Bondy - 10-21-2009 at 04:34 PM

David I can understand that some people and business entities would be motivated to hype man-made global warming for profit motives, but why would scientists do that? It is my understanding that a very high percentage of climatologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers agree that global warming is real and human activities are affecting it. What's their motivation?

Oops I clicked the send button before I was done :)

Is it possible that the observations you cite are, at present, simply too far and disconnected from the primary impact global warming is having (melting ice caps and glaciers)?? And before you bring it up again, yes, I have been to Yosemite and I enjoy it very much. I am not talking about ancient glacial activity, I am talking about present-day ice caps and existing glaciers.

++Ken++



[Edited on 10-21-2009 by Ken Bondy]

[Edited on 10-21-2009 by Ken Bondy]

Bajahowodd - 10-21-2009 at 04:37 PM

David. Why on earth do you continue to feel like it's a conspiracy? Can you truly believe that engaging in efforts to lesson man's footprint on this great globe is wrong? Why? What could make you possibly believe that a constantly increasing population causes no stress to mother earth? Do you have any compact fluorescent bulbs in your home? What do you do with your empty Tecate bottles/ cans?

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 04:40 PM

David, it isn't as simple as one might think. Ice melts in Arctic and less beach is exposed in Baja. Go figure??

The reality of global warming is that some areas will get MORE water and some LESS and land will not be affected equally. Some areas will have greater and stronger storm activity and some areas will have less. The north eastern US may become colder with harder winters while the southwest becomes drier. It is not a zero sum game. It isn't like a bath tub where you add water on one end and it gets deeper at the same rate on the other end. There is actually a large amount of data on the subject. Here is an interesting site you might want to look at. I found it addresses some of the issues you are raising here.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html

I do believe that you are open to science as you have agreed that the earth is not the center of the universe and recognize that this truth was brought to you by SCIENCE.

Buddhist metaphysics do not validate Quantum Physics though they do point to many of the same conclusions about the nature of matter. Linier accelerators and looking at smashed atoms do validate the findings of Quantum Physics.


Iflyfish

David K - 10-21-2009 at 05:03 PM

Amigos... I don't do drugs, I didn't dream up the shorlines and salt flats all around Baja. Just answer my questions if you (or any Nomad) can... Here they are again:

Am I the only one who has driven the old road along Bahia Concepcion (on rock not sand), which splashes in the water at high tide... and has, ever since it was built in the 1940's? Are islands such as San Luis Gonzaga (Willard) and Requeson that connect to Baja only at low tide, STILL connect at low tide? Has Scammon's or San Ignacio Lagoon grown far beyond the shoreline into the salt flats?

If the sea levels were rising, then the Bahia Concepcion section of the old road would be in the water all the time, not just during high tide... and the two islands would no longer connect to Baja... Hotels like Serenidad and others just above sea level when built in the early 1960's, would be in the sea. The near sea level salt flats all around Baja that only get flooded during rare lunar tides would be flooded at all high tides (and low tide, too eventually).

I am just one observer here (so far), but I give you plenty of places to see for yourselves that the sea level has not changed in 40 years to any degree that it can be noticed or hinders our living next to it.

WHO else has been visiting sea side locations in Baja since the global warming hysteria began (right after they gave up with their ice age fear talk in the late 1970's)??? I am not making up what I see along the coast... the same places are still above sea level as when I was a kid in the 1960's.

==============================================================

It is not me with a conspiracy, I am only asking you to use your own intelligence and common sense. Because we all enjoy the coast of Baja, it should be easy to see the truth.

John Coleman (founded the Weather Channel) has tried to force Al Gore to debate the facts, via lawsuite... Al Gore won't debate a scientist face to face. If someone challenges Al Gore in a public forum, that person is removed by force... There is an excellent multi part show online on the lie of man made global warming, I invite anyone to watch all the episodes... specially the third.

Why is it so important to believe others instead of making your own conclusions based on what you can see for yourselves? I go to the same sea level locations in Baja (not just Shell island), and they are all still there... not one is underwater.

Have any of you been to Puerto Escondido south of Loreto? It is enclosed by very low gravel benches, just above the high tide line, on the north-east side. IT STILL IS.

I don't have an agenda, I don't promote anything more than self education using your own powers of observations. Nomads should help other Nomads... by sharing their own experiences and observations so we can better learn from each other. I am also not religious, don't attend any church and am a strong believer in FREEDOM. That is perhaps why I am taking so much time countering the man made global warming hoax being force fed the masses by the left... all it serves to do is take freedoms from us, be it personal or financial or lifestyle choices.

Now, I would like others who have been to Baja over the past 30 or more years at any of the sea level locations to confirm what I have seen, if you do not believe me.

Peace!

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 05:25 PM

David,

I would invite you to go to the website I have posted for more information on the issue you raise.

I share your basic skepticism and laud your independance. Most of us on this board are independant types who draw our own conclusions or we would have been scared away from visiting Mexico years ago.

The problem with drawing a conclusion from personal observation is that one may not have the entire picture.

I am in another group where someone on the east coast reported early snow and said that disproved the existance of global warming. I showed him a map of predicted weather patterns that showed how the North East will experience longer and harder winters while the South West will become drier. No response. He is using his personal observation to refute all of the science that has gone into the models.

I can share those maps with you if you are interested though they are not maps of Baja, but show the predicted changes in the US. If these changes apply to the US they will also apply to the Baja. Some areas more rain, some less. Some areas lose land mass, some don't. There are many factors involved in why a particlar beach would not have higher water while others do.

Iflyfish

David K - 10-21-2009 at 05:57 PM

Temperature varies... the sea level hasn't in our lives. The sea level isn't something you 'feel', it is there... in the same place as before. Will it change/ has it changed... YOU BET... Just not in our families' life times (from man made global warming)... I can show you fossil shell beds hundreds of feet above sea level and many miles from the shore... and there was no man made warming that caused the oceans to be that much bigger. It was all NATURAL... 7 million years ago! :light:

mtgoat666 - 10-21-2009 at 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Am I the only one who has driven the old road along Bahia Concepcion (on rock not sand), which splashes in the water at high tide... and has, ever since it was built in the 1940's? Are islands such as San Luis Gonzaga (Willard) and Requeson that connect to Baja only at low tide, STILL connect at low tide? Has Scammon's or San Ignacio Lagoon grown far beyond the shoreline into the salt flats?


With resepect to rock ledge road, the SL change is real, but has been much less than than tidal range, and less than you would notice w/o measurement (and, no, your childhood snapshots and memories are not measurement). Also, your "scientific observations" fail to consider tectonic change.

Other areas you mention are dynamic sediment surfaces, and rates of SL change could be matched by depositional rate, and again amount of SL change has been much less than tidal range, so you won't see it w/o measurement (and, again, your childhood snapshots are not measurement)
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
John Coleman (founded the Weather Channel) has tried to force Al Gore to debate the facts, via lawsuite... Al Gore won't debate a scientist face to face. If someone challenges Al Gore in a public forum, that person is removed by force...


John Coleman is a crank, and C-list scientist -- of course Al Gore is not going to debate every small town weatherman.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Why is it so important to believe others instead of making your own conclusions based on what you can see for yourselves? I go to the same sea level locations in Baja (not just Shell island), and they are all still there... not one is underwater.


I believe in collecting data using a reasoned method. I do so for a living. Through doing so, I have come to learn that memories are far less reliable than measurement using pen, logbook, calibrated measurement devices, reference datums, and a planned methodology.
Memories do not constitute defensible or useable data, particularly for measuring climate parameters or sea level changes on the order of centimeters.

[Edited on 10-22-2009 by mtgoat666]

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 06:13 PM

This is what science looks like. Please read the last sentence. This is from North Carolina, I have not done similar research for findings in Mexico. One can easily do this research by doing a simple GOOGLE inquiry and find the science. Here is a beach on the continental US where sea level has been recorded to have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. There are many such studies available for your appraisal.

EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE FOR A RECENT ACCELERATION IN THE RATE OF SEA-LEVEL RISE USING COMBINED INSTRUMENTAL AND PROXY DATA FROM THE PAMLICO-ALBEMARLE ESTUARINE SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA, USA
KEMP, Andrew, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, kempac@sas.upenn.edu, HORTON, B.P., Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Hayden Hall, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, CULVER, Stephen J., Geology, East Carolina Univ, Greenville, NC 27858, CORBETT, Reide, Geology Dept, East Carolina Univ, Greenville, NC 27858, THOMSON, Katie, Department of Geography, University of Duham, Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom, and VAN DE PLASSCHE, Orson, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands
We provide a high resolution relative sea-level (RSL) history for the last ~2000 years from the Pamlico – Albemarle estuarine system. The need for high resolution, late Holocene RSL reconstruction has increased with the realization that global warming may accelerate the rate of sea-level rise resulting in increased coastal flooding. Determining the physical response of a coastline to sea-level rise is an important problem to be addressed by applied coastal geology. This concern is acute for the Outer Banks and its back barrier estuary system which are considered as very vulnerable to sea-level rise. North Carolina does not have a reliable, long term tide gauge record to provide an instrumental measure of historical sea level. In order to consider the potential impacts sea-level rise may have on the Outer Banks it is necessary to place them in an appropriate geological framework. Scenarios for future sea-level rise are concerned with decadal to centennial timescales; as such they must be viewed in light of geologically derived sea-level reconstructions at a comparable temporal resolution. The foraminifera based transfer function approach is a quantitative methodology which can be effective in establishing these records.

Contemporary foraminifera were collected from 5 back barrier marshes to create a regional scale modern training set. The use of multiple marshes from a region increases the ecological and environmental diversity included within the training set and reduces the probability of a no modern analogue outcome. In order to merge the five spatially distinct sites and to relate each to local tide levels we used the VDatum transformation tool. This method relates all samples to a common orthometric datum (NAVD88) and reduces error.

A transfer function was developed to reconstruct former sea-levels based upon the modern, observable relationship between foraminiferal distributions and elevation (m MSL). Foraminifera were counted in a core of saltmarsh sediment from Sand Point, North Carolina. A high resolution age-depth model was produced from composite chronologies of 210Pb, 14C and pollen chrono-horizons. Application of the transfer function to fossil foraminifera was used to produce a late Holocene RSL record. There is an increase in the rate of sea-level rise at the commencement of the Industrial Revolution.

citation available upon request.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 06:16 PM

What the heck, citation below:

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007SE/finalprogram/abstract_11929...

I am not certain that it matters though given our previous discussion.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 06:25 PM

Here is another good one on the topic.

http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/climate-change-sea-l...

Enough for me.

Iflyfish

David K - 10-21-2009 at 06:36 PM

Be very brave, and watch these... here is part 1, and followthe links to all 9 parts. Part 3 contains footage from Al Gore's hoax movie, showing how the out-of-work vice president is selecting the facts to show you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=relat...

Goat, I would trust John Coleman's weather knowledge over any politician like Al Gore... A meteorologist, founded the Weather Channel, and is now semi retired and having fun doing weather on local TV in his final years. I only mention Coleman and the YouTube link above to give you guys some 'science'... I had my beliefs about global warming before I heard either of those.

cbuzzetti - 10-21-2009 at 08:18 PM

I find it very hard to believe that man has not had some negative affect on this planet. I don't buy everything about Man Made Global Warming but there is no doubt that we have had an affect. IMO

To do nothing is the crime.

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 10:52 PM

David:

"I had my beliefs about global warming before I heard either of those."

That says a lot doesn't it.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 10-21-2009 at 11:08 PM

David, I watched the video, recall seeing it before. In some ways I hope they are right, that man has not caused global warming. The science that I have been exposed to does not support that point of view. However if indeed they are wrong and we do nothing to curb green house gases and other forms of air polution that affect the amount and kind of light wave frequencies that strike the earth then we are up a very nasty creek with out a proverbial paddle. There is rapid climate change occuring and it will have a profound impact on human civilization.

Iflyfish

David K - 10-22-2009 at 07:37 AM

Don't you think that we are doing wonders in cleaning up the planet...? The United States has been a leading nation in showing the world how to make clean cars, clean coal and nuclear power plants, cleaning rivers and forests, planting trees, and recycling, etc. etc.

For all we do that puts us far and above other industrealized nations, why is it that so many here want to punish us? Too bad that so many have not seen more of the world to see how clean we are compared to places like India, China, Russia...

I for one am tired of the U.S. getting blamed for so much... and for a president who keeps apologizing for us. We have been an example to the rest of the world of how to be enviromentally responsible. Sure mistakes are made, but we learn from them and make things better.

I also (at age 52) do not see "rapid climate change"... I see some small changes, like Santa Ana winds that used to be in the fall, now coming in the winter... BUT, was it normal back then... or normal now??? We do not live long enough to see real changes in the climate...

I suggest living a clean, decent life... do the best you can, help others and be happy. You are so lucky to live in the greatest nation on earth, so appreciate that. Don't feel guilty, instead use your Americanism to show others the benefits of freedom. Give from your heart, teach from your mind. Be suspect of anyone who puts down those things that make America and Americans great. LESS GOVERNMENT and MORE FREEDOM is how and why opportunity is the key to our success.

The Gull - 10-22-2009 at 08:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
I believe in collecting data using a reasoned method. I do so for a living.




:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Heather - 10-22-2009 at 12:20 PM

Hey David, how long have you lived in O'side? Ever driven down the strand? Did you know that it used to keep going quite a way further south than it does now? Have you ever seen it flooded? Why do you think it's filled with boulders on the beach side? I could use that as "evidence" that the sea level has risen here in CA. There are many other local beaches where it appears levels have risen as well.

John Coleman...please!

Saludos, from science teacher extraordinaire, Heather

Bajahowodd - 10-22-2009 at 01:06 PM

Clean coal?? Hasn't been invented. Still an oxymarooon. As for nuclear power, I'm must have been dozing when they came up a failsafe method for disposing the spent fuel.

capt. mike - 10-22-2009 at 01:10 PM

screw global warming - that is old news.
what i am worried about now is tectonic plate shifting!!!
my God people - the dang continents are drifting apart....we HAVE to stop this or air fares between countries are gonna go sky high!!

Ken Bondy - 10-22-2009 at 01:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by capt. mike
screw global warming - that is old news.
what i am worried about now is tectonic plate shifting!!!
my God people - the dang continents are drifting apart....we HAVE to stop this or air fares between countries are gonna go sky high!!


Depends on where you are and where you want to go. Some continents are getting closer as others are drifting farther apart :)

vgabndo - 10-22-2009 at 03:08 PM

David I invite you to look at your last post from the READER's point of view. I was amazed at the number of things you claim are good about America that I project you would ascribe to tin-foil-hatted, left wing socialist, bleeding heart liberal radical environmentalists. While I do not agree with all the above, I am a proud environmentalist and I remember having to pry every one of our successes out of the steely grip of the unregulated (read less government) capitalists. We had to sue the government to even get them started cleaning up all the nuclear contamination in the country, and now they want us to believe there is such a thing as clean coal. The "greed is good" mentality has not been good for the sustainability of our country and I don't believe it has proven effective historically. When the predominantly Lutheran Germans took up arms with the predominantly Catholic Italians in the 1930s and set out to dominate the planet, a predominantly Christian USA built a war machine like the world had never seen and in quelling the Christian on Christian bloodshed, participated in the destruction of the major cities and industry all across Europe. The US emerged with its cities intact, its industry booming and the competition in ashes. Did the US do good with all the wealth and manpower and firepower after the war. Yes. But we also immediately began manipulating the rest of the world, meddling in their economies, fomenting coups, assassinating leaders. Ultimately, to introduce the current holy war quagmire, let me first say that the Republicans had proof that the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden had serious high tech weaponry. Rumsfeld and Reagan had kept the receipts from when they sold them to Saddam and Osama. Such is the meddling in the affairs of others, and the accompanying fear of America by the rest of the world, that PNAC and Geo. W Bush got away with invading and occupying Iraq, dismantling its power structure, and shock and awe, presto-chango civil war. The pent-up religious war that is the Iraqi people has paid with the lives of hundreds of thousands of its citizens for the crime of having absolutely nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. The US is "pulling out" but we are being very quiet about the 14 permanent US military bases that we will be occupying to protect our oil. If we would do this to our ally Saddam, who else might we destroy. Does our government think it can do this because it has slipped in a national religion on us and there is PLENTY of old testiment hell-fire reserved for those who don't believe on Jejova. In America with a living first ammendment there could NEVER be any question if a politician or this nation was waging a holy war. I can't tell any more.

Martyman - 10-22-2009 at 03:44 PM

blah blah blah...
I just want you to drive faster

David K - 10-22-2009 at 04:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Heather
Hey David, how long have you lived in O'side? Ever driven down the strand? Did you know that it used to keep going quite a way further south than it does now? Have you ever seen it flooded? Why do you think it's filled with boulders on the beach side? I could use that as "evidence" that the sea level has risen here in CA. There are many other local beaches where it appears levels have risen as well.

John Coleman...please!

Saludos, from science teacher extraordinaire, Heather


Hi Heather,

Yes, I am a beach person afterall... Why the boulders or road missing?:

That is beach erosion, not a higher sea level.

I lived on the beach in Del Mar for the first 7 years of my life (2010 Sandy Lane... the most northern home in Del Mar, by the river). In the 60's there was tons of sand in front of the homes in Del Mar. Then the El Niño conditions (as they were called) of the 1980's took away all that sand (also from other California beaches).

The sand buffer was removed... so big boulders were brought in to help keep the waves from breaking into homes, businesses, highways... all along San Diego County.

But, my old street, the lot my home was on (a newer home replaced mine), etc. are ALL STILL above sea level...

Beach erosion brings the ocean closer, but the sea level is unchanged. If sea level had rose a few feet, then the homes and streets that were only a few feet higher than high tide would be in the water... they aren't.

As I said before... perhaps the sea levels have 'technically' risen, but if so they have risen so tiny as to not cause any problems for people along the shoreline... inches or less. All within the 'normal' and natural changes caused by Nature, not by man.

Cheers!

The Gull - 10-22-2009 at 06:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by capt. mike
screw global warming - that is old news.
what i am worried about now is tectonic plate shifting!!!
my God people - the dang continents are drifting apart....we HAVE to stop this or air fares between countries are gonna go sky high!!


Depends on where you are and where you want to go. Some continents are getting closer as others are drifting farther apart :)


Scientifically prove your point about some continents moving closer together or get off this board, Mr. Bondy. There is no room for people who provide their unsubstantiated knowledge.
Have you the published history to prove your position?
Have you spent your last 40 years in the admiration of countless others, slaving away on measuring those distances on your hands and knees, proving that very point?
Have you forsaken earning a living and having a family while you took those measurements?

If you cannot answer in the affirmative on each and every question above, you are considered nothing more than a DK, mimic. So there!!!!

David K - 10-22-2009 at 08:31 PM

Yah! (what Gull said) :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ken is good people, he can camp with me on Shell Island anytime... Heck, with his H-1 Hummer, he can go anywhere he wants!:o:light:

and IF the sea level ever does rise (while we are still alive), we may need Ken's H-1 to get onto Shell Island!;)

capt. mike - 10-23-2009 at 08:54 AM

hummmm good point Ken.... if we have a finite space, the earth - if some are moving apart...then others HAVE to be moving together...

hey!! good news, i can someday get to Hawaii on my 90 gal range and not have to bother with one of those plastic long range ocean ferry tank rigs in the cabin! makes me nervous around all that volatile fuel!

David K - 10-23-2009 at 08:59 AM

Problem is California (west of the San Andreas fault includes all of Baja) are moving north, towards Alaska!

[Edited on 10-23-2009 by David K]

The Sculpin - 10-23-2009 at 10:40 AM

I have been lurking this thread and have found it somewhat amusing, thought provoking, and, at times, speechless! Sometimes it's difficult to tell when someone is either pulling a leg or is just plain ignorant. My biggest concern in this entire discussion is that the variables contained in the hypotheses are given short shrift. Much of this discussion has been binary. The world is not binary. Relativity forced us to think in more than 3 dimensions. Quantum Mechanics increased the number of dimensions, and string theory has blown the doors wide open. An attempt was made to explain rises in sea level that were hidden or masked in a changing tidal range. That discussion showed promise, but battering ram thinking nipped it in the bud. Plate tectonics is an interesting topic - and it's not a zero sum game. The space of the earth is not finite - it creates and takes away land regularly. It expands and contracts ocean basins, and the amount of water in any particular form at any given time is constantly changing. The theological bent was fascinating, but there was no discussion about the absence of god. It stands to reason that if man's early survival rested in a god-type gene (one that pomoted a collectivist notion in battling the adveristies of the enviornment), then at some point it would no longer be needed (I tend to think that I am an evolutionary frontrunner in that department). It has also become painfully clear that those who think deepest about these subjects tend to be retired, have considerable time to "sleep on it" (since that's all they really do - hahah), and tend to focus, and relish, the nuances. The rest are working stiffs who are just trying to catch up. Frankly, some of this stuff has gone right over other's heads, but hey - if you don't stretch, you don't learn! However, the best part is this has to be the most far reaching discussion on this board that has absolutely nothing to do with physical baja, and everything to do with the ephemoral baja. Regardless of your age, gender, ethnicity, orientation, profession, status, nationality, at the end of the day, when you're gazing at the last vestiges of the campfire, isn't this what's milling about in your mind? For that reason alone, this thread has reminded me of baja most. Thanks!

Iflyfish - 10-23-2009 at 03:26 PM

Sculpin

I am not entirely certain that I understand what you said, but damn, you sure said it well and that has merit in and of itself around the Nomad fire!

I for one love Elmore Leonard. I hate his characters, really despicable, disgusting characters, but their dialogue is absolutely mesmerizing. You can see the bullets being taken carefully out of the box, slowly loaded into the chamber and all the time you know that this schmuck is going to blow his foot off. Ya gotta love that sort of writing.

At this juncture I have to raise a cold one to Osprey for his six pack of loud mouth, I nearly blew good beer out my nose on that one. Still makes me chuckle.

I have been around string theory enough to see it is a ball of yarn that challenges my view of the universe that has my Pacifico dead center in it.

Thanks for bringing your six pack to the camp fire. Mine is about gone at this point. Mind if I have one of yours? I would love to hear you elaborate a bit more on your view of things and strings and the rising tide of dispute about hem lenth next season.

Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 10-23-2009 at 05:13 PM

God = The guy in charge. Doesn't matter if it's a deity. Helps, though. How else do you maintain order?

BajaWarrior - 10-23-2009 at 07:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Heather
Hey David, how long have you lived in O'side? Ever driven down the strand? Did you know that it used to keep going quite a way further south than it does now? Have you ever seen it flooded? Why do you think it's filled with boulders on the beach side? I could use that as "evidence" that the sea level has risen here in CA. There are many other local beaches where it appears levels have risen as well.

John Coleman...please!

Saludos, from science teacher extraordinaire, Heather


The reason for lack of sand on the beaches is the fact that sand is no longer being deposited on the beaches naturally because the sand is being held back by up river dams.

If the sea level was rising places like the Strand in I.B and Pacific and Mission Beaches would be underwater...

woody with a view - 10-23-2009 at 07:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaWarrior
[

The reason for lack of sand on the beaches is the fact that sand is no longer being deposited on the beaches naturally because the sand is being held back by up river dams.

If the sea level was rising places like the Strand in I.B and Pacific and Mission Beaches would be underwater...


please don't muddy the water with facts!

:light:
 Pages:  1  2