Slashdot Mirror
Once-Shrinking Greenland Glacier Is Now Growing, NASA Study Shows (nbcnews.com)
kenh shares a report from NBC News: A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday's Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings. God is an imaginary being that only your clergy can communicate with and whose existence cannot be documented. This invisible being that only the clergy can communicate with tells them how it wants you to behave and that it will smite you and cast you into a place of eternal torture called hell whose existence cannot be documented either. Give me climate science over your imaginary friend any day.
I can also see the terminal moraine left by the glaciers in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the glacier ends now. I wonder why they likewise move higher up.
And I can see the postcards with pictures from the same spot in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the snow line ends now. I wonder why it moved higher up too.
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
(YA-cobs-HA-ven)
Sig?
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters.
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.)
But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
I wonder if in fifty years they'll be going on about global warming, even when it still isn't happening?
Here you go: http://berkeleyearth.org/globa..., now rejoice in the fact that your life long quest is over. Perhaps you can spend the rest of your life waiting for Trickle-down economics to start working?
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters. That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.) But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
The changes I'm seeing all over the N-Atlantic tell me that this is more than a 'local climate change', science confirms this and we have examples of what happened earlier in the earth's history when this much carbon dioxide was de-sequestered into the atmosphere. Long story short, it wasn't pretty. Given the choice between believing thousands of scientists saying the climate is changing and a few useful idiots shilling for the fossil fuel industry who say it isn't, I'm going to pick the scientists.
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
No sig today...
You basically called ~82% of the world population stupid
Yeah, that number does seem far too low ...
Wasn't there a a thing in the book about camels and eyes of needles?
What about the part that tells you to sell all your Apple products, SUVS and plasma TVs and give the money to the poor? That doing so accumulates riches in the afterlife...?
No sig today...
"A natural cyclical cooling" aka. winter.
You basically called ~82% of the world population stupid [1]. And over 70% of them are "Minorities" [2]
You are basically everything the nu-Left hates these days...
[1]https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/ [2] https://www2.palomar.edu/anthr...
No, I'm an atheist which means that I'll only believe in your deity if you can prove it exists. Now please prove to me that your god exists or stop bothering me.
I'm not religious, I'm just sick and tired of people blaming Christians for everything that is wrong with the world when they are clearly not.
Hindis have way more (insanely retarded) shit to prove than Muslims and Christians do, but nobody blames them for anything.
Muslims are less educated per capita, but no, Christians are the ignorant group.
Fuck off.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Agreed, these climate skeptics don't even know how to spell glacier.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Wasn't there a a thing in the book about camels and eyes of needles?
What about the part that tells you to sell all your Apple products, SUVS and plasma TVs and give the money to the poor? That doing so accumulates riches in the afterlife...?
I'm an atheist, as far as I know there is no afterlife so I am planning my life based on that fact. What that means is that I'm going to acquire as much wealth as I can and live my life as comfortably as I can. It's the US Christian community that has turned Christianity into a cult of Mammon which, having read the bible, I find immensely amusing given what the scriptures (particularly Jesus) had to say. To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible. The main reason for my superior knowledge seems to be that unlike your average Christian I've actually read the bible cover to cover. The only people who seem to have any worthwhile knowledge of the Bible are formally educated priests and Atheists who debate the religious a lot.
You could've just refuted OPs points on why consensus and science are polar opposites to one another, just like OP could've left out the appeal to authority and just made that point directly.
So I do it here:
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled. Experts are good and nice for science, and it is likely they are right on the next issues, but not certain. Politics is not science, either, so large scientific organisations, ever growing aggregates of consensus, old experts and politics, will only produce an ever shrinking amount of actual science.
For as long as humanity existed, science wasn't settled on anything, experts have been wrong on almost everything and hence all consensii that ever existed have been proven wrong years, decades or millenia later.
If your only argument is "consensus" and the agreement of measurements, your scientific theory is a sad mess, because your agreement of measurements just got BTFO by another set of glacier expansion data, just as the various mountains all across the world should have been devoid of snow on their summits by now but still aren't. Unless of course growing AND shrinking glaciers are confirmations of your theory. But then the theory is not a theory but a religion. As "man made global warming" has adherents who want to ban dissent, criminalize "climate change denial" with actual prison sentences, demand that everyone makes sacrifices everywhere, and proceed to ramble about things that are unknowable and cannot be understood by laymen anywhere everm, we have a few other components of "New Religious Movements" already.
I might be wrong, but so do you. Unless you accept that you could be wrong and all the experts could be wrong if a simple observation X and Y happened tomorrow, you are not scientific. And yes, glaciers growing is a pretty strong refute of what we ever heard about what Global Warming would bring. And if climate change is the new thing, we can just give up on the science part and start praying already because climate has and always will warm and cool. Climate will keep changing until the sun burns out. If that is "proof" of your theory, good luck, because now every single observation ever can prove your point. You might as well look at chicken bones and the 50th digit of a household digital thermometer to confirm your points.
I'm not religious, I'm just sick and tired of people blaming Christians for everything that is wrong with the world when they are clearly not.
Hindis have way more (insanely retarded) shit to prove than Muslims and Christians do, but nobody blames them for anything.
Muslims are less educated per capita, but no, Christians are the ignorant group.
Fuck off.
I just pointed out that it is irrational to: believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven and whose priests tell you how to live your life so you follow their instructions for fear that this invisible entity whose existence cannot be proven will toss you into a hell that nobody can prove exists. My statement applies to the irrationality of religion in general. The reason I picked on Christians is that in my neck of the woods they are the most pervasive, and tend to be the most kooky and irritating. It's their missionaries who keep shoving stacks of leaflets into letter box, it is their fundamentalists who complain and pour pigs blood on the ground when somebody wants to build a mosque and it is they who show up at public schools and try to evangelise my kids. To their credit the Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahá'í and the Jews don't behave like that. If I lived somewhere else, like India, I'd probably be complaining abut Hindus, the hygiene issues I have with their temple of the rat god down the street and their obsession with cows. Finally, you have obviously not read the Book of Revelation if you think that Hindus have way more (insanely retarded) shit to prove than Christians do.
As for the rest of your post I'm going to have to decline your kind offer to 'sexual intercourse off' (N-American slang is very amusing to us foreigners).
Doesn't that sound normal that the glacier grows from Sept to March?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I'm not religious, I'm just sick and tired of people blaming Christians for everything that is wrong with the world when they are clearly not.
They're responsible for an awful lot that's wrong in one of the few countries with enough resources to do something about the problems in the rest of the world.
No sig today...
Sorry, my everyday language isn't English and Glaciar is the correct spelling over here.
No sig today...
German racism isn't amusing to anyone, particularly German law enforcement.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.
...
Your turn
NASA says glacier is speeding up ? NASA is lying.
NASA says glacier is slowing down ? NASA is lying.
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
So can climate models. That's how religion works.
Ever notice how when you see the predictions from multiple hurricane projection models, there often is one or two that are utterly different from the consensus of all the other 10-15 models used to predict hurricanes?
Why don't any of the climate models predictions we see ever do that? They're all really, really close. That's preposterous. How could they ALL BE ABOUT THE SAME?
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
But yet you worship the output from those models, and expect the rest of the human race to agree with you and expend trillions of dollars over decades to address YOUR beliefs, to the point of using non-scientific words dripping with emotional content to denounce the disbelievers: DENIALISTS!! You might as well drop the hypocrisy and just call them heretics.
You got the balls to actually look at your own beliefs critically?
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
So can climate models. That's how religion works.
Ever notice how when you see the predictions from multiple hurricane projection models, there often is one or two that are utterly different from the consensus of all the other 10-15 models used to predict hurricanes?
Why don't any of the climate models predictions we see ever do that? They're all really, really close. That's preposterous. How could they ALL BE ABOUT THE SAME?
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
But yet you worship the output from those models, and expect the rest of the human race to agree with you and expend trillions of dollars over decades to address YOUR beliefs, to the point of using non-scientific words dripping with emotional content to denounce the disbelievers: DENIALISTS!! You might as well drop the hypocrisy and just call them heretics.
You got the balls to actually look at your own beliefs critically?
No I don't, worship has nothing to do with it. You will not find the word worship used anywhere in science except in the study religion and even then only because worship is a central concept in religion. I don't think climate models are an omnipresent entity that only scientists can hear. So far no scientist has delivered to me a message from climate models that only they can hear that instructs me on how to live my life or else the almighty climate models will cast me into hell for an eternity of sadistic torture for refusing to 'believe'. That's how religion works. Climate science, like all science, is a method of procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion.
Right? Maybe tge USSR or China should use tneir vast resources to help the rest of the world for a while. Im sure their non-religious belief inudes helping other people out.
Like the new wave of slavery in Africa led by Chinese corporations. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/31/china-in-africa-win-win-development-or-a-new-colonialism
I can see floods. I can see ice bergs melt. I can't see gods.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ramen, brother!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Only 82%? I'd have guessed it would be more.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It always amazes me how the creator of the universe needs such a large sales force with such high pressure sales tactics. You would think an omnipotent, omniscient product would sell itself. But wait it gets better! All said sales people are cursed because one of their ancestors was social engineered by a talking snake into a eating a cursed fruit in a magical garden. They are all doomed to suffer eternally from the Dunning Kruger effect.
We'll make great pets
climategate was nothing interesting though (except to deniers). Some emails from one research centre in the UK were leaked that indicated raw data was manipulated before being fed into models. It was then externally audited and was found to be the correct kind of manipulation for the data. I'm sure you can read whatever you want about it somewhere on the internet.
I'm sure we don't know the exact effects. We can only look back in time to see when the planet was last warmer - not good, or when it last had higher concentrations of CO2 - really not good. And now the average temp has started climbing in line with the graphs climate scientists have been producing, actually a little higher than the earlier ones.
So when should we be alarmed? If we wait until the climate is already too warm then its too late. (my reading is that it is already too late. we didn't listen and act while everything was ok, now its starting to turn bad we're starting to pretend to act, by the time we actually act we'll have written in at least the end of our current phase, possibly the end of ourselves)
but what are the scientists saying, because there is a lot of sensationalism in the media of what they are saying and there is what they are really saying. What they are really saying is all sorts of things but not a unified consensus about what will happen and what the cause of what has happened is. There is a problem with media and true believers (not yourself probably) who have spouted stuff and then they followed up by staying with the program. There is a thing called climate gate. When chicken little runs around saying the sky is falling he gets enough media attention and says everything that happens is a sign of the end of the world and what not it becomes difficult to sift out the crap and get to the truth. Have a look at climate gate and you may get a insight into the mindset here. None of that proves anything just that there is a lot of fud. For example these glaciers were supposed to disappear now they are not disappearing but it is bad news and some people expect us all to stay convinced and fearful about the end of world in 7 years. Some of us are a little jaded by the climate stuff being the end of the world and every news story having to follow the same path.
Try reading up on the Permian–Triassic extinction event it was caused by an 8 degree increase in global temperatures due to CO2 emissions (or a breakdown of the carbon cycle as scientists called it) it killed every terrestrial animal over 5 kg in weight and 96% of all marine species. I don't know if you'd call that the end of the world but in my book it is pretty close and even if the damage is limited to a subset of what happened during the PT event is bad all on it's own. We have currently raised the temperature of the planet by 1 degree over pre-industrial levels so that's 1/8th of the P/T event increase and we are on track for 2-4 which is 1/4 to 1/2 of the PT event if nothing is done and so far the increase in temperature has always beaten projections because of unforeseen feedback loops. The thing is that if the temperature increase reaches a certain point the warming became a runaway process in the past and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen this time.
To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible.
Should not be a surprise, but I agree with the rest of your post, too.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
Unless you're crazy, the obvious answer is that this is a repeatable scientific study.
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
The same book also says that Earth was given to Man to care for. And yet somehow worrying about global warming is anti-God because nobody actually thinks that responsibility means anything.
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
See, that doesn't make sense to me. If, as the Bible says, God both created the Earth and made man in his own image to be the stewards of his creation, then by letting the world basically go to hell we aren't being very good stewards are we? We've basically failed in our reason for existence. If God tossed Adam and Eve of Eden for simply eating an apple, imagine what he would have done if they had burned the whole place down. And, since the only heaven or hell we can absolutely 100% prove exists is right here on Earth, only seems to make sense to try and make it heaven, not hell.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Agreed, these climate skeptics don't even know how to spell glacier.
Well duh. Anyone who has ever watched Bear Grylls know it's spelled glassear.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I can't see gods.
You smoke the wrong things, bro!
You should at least see some goddesses!!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Chemtrails work.
I call bullshit on your argument. That's the same logical fault that is used by the anti-vax movement: because there is one "scientist" that published a link between autism and vaccination, the science is not settled. Let's just ignore that this "scientist" had his paper and approbation revoked for gross misconduct.
The question of "Is the human burning of fossil fuels affecting the world climate?" is settled. There is a small number of nay-Sayers, many with political and financial reasons, but that's completely normal. The on-going debate is only about the precise impact. Much of the projections in research papers is by nature conservative. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of "let's assume the unknown factors compensate as much as reasonable possible for humanities impact". Of course, media likes to quote the most dramatic projection instead, so for the layman it might look like drawing doomsday scenarios. A 50 feet raise of the ocean level doesn't sound that extreme, e.g. if you compare with https://xkcd.com/1225/ Not a scientific source and there is a ~10% difference in density between ice and water, but good enough.
Some of the big open questions are "Where is all the extra energy going that we do not see?" and "How does the raising ocean temperature affect the ocean and air circulation streams?". The former is difficult to answer because temperature monitoring for the world oceans is spotty at best. It's also an insanely large reservoir of storage capacity for heat, so small temperature changes reflect vast amounts of energy. The latter question is difficult to answer because there are a lot of small scale and large scale interactions all getting mixed up.
But with all those open questions, the data base is getting better every day and the quality of the models used is improving constantly as well. So far, the actual data has pretty consistently out-paced the conservative predictions for the temperature raise. That should be deeply troubling to everyone...
Presumptive faith though, not assumptive. There is at least some evidence to build the foundation of belief, with faith being the glue. In religion, the whole thing is made of glue.
Science is as much of a religion for most people as religion is...
Surely you donâ(TM)t understand every aspect of climate science in order to verify the findings, right? So you accept some stuff on faith.
Worst case I can get somebody who does know climate change to verify the research results because they are physical mesuralbe observable and verifieable. Come to think of it, science already does that, it's called peer review. Now will you please submit your evidence for the existence of god and hell and explain why only designated clergy and prophets have a direct line to god and why god is so obsessed with the way the general public lives their lives?
So yes, we have plenty of data how CO2 influences surface temperatures.
We also have historical data on CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Starting in the 1870ies, chemists were able to analyze the atmosphere very exactly, and at least since the 1890ies, we have complete data. We know that in 1900, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm (or 0.0270 percent). We know that it grew to 300 ppm in the 1950ies, 330 ppm in the 1970ies and to 410 ppm now. We can also calculate the amount of additional carbon dioxide necessary for the increase: It's 700 billion metric tons. We can also calculate the amount of coal and oil we need to burn to get 700 billion metric tons. It's about 270 billion metric tons. That means: burning about 2.1 billion tons of coal and oil per year for the last 120 years would result in the increase of carbon dioxid we measure right now. In fact, we burn about 4.1 billion tons of oil and 1 billion tons of coal per year right now.
No I don't, worship has nothing to do with it. You will not find the word worship used anywhere in science except in the study religion and even then only because worship is a central concept in religion. I don't think climate models are an omnipresent entity that only scientists can hear. So far no scientist has delivered to me a message from climate models that only they can hear that instructs me on how to live my life or else the almighty climate models will cast me into hell for an eternity of sadistic torture for refusing to 'believe'. That's how religion works.
Yes, and climate alarmism is absolutely a religion cut from the same cloth. Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization. That's always about 10-15 years from now. Penance is made by deindustrialization and return to nature. Plus, of course, state control over all aspects of everybody's lives. Honest lefties will tell you that they also want the human population to decrease significantly. Of course, with entire countries disappearing under the rising oceans, that will happen, anyway according to their religion.
That is a very standard religious model.
Climate science, like all science, is a method of procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion.
Right, this is the standard fallback position.
There actually is "climate science", and it mostly tells us that the earth is getting warmer.
Climate alarmism, on the other hand, comes up with gems like this:
While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term...
Everything is "bad news". Everything! It doesn't matter what happens, it'll be twisted to "I told you so!"
This is what religion looks like.
Science says "The glacier is growing again, I wonder what is making that happen since my hypothesis is that it should be shrinking."
See the difference?
Do you have ESP?
I bet you vacinate your kids as well.
Science: what has it ever done for us? (Insert Monthy Python script)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure. --George Carlin
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
It's not "shrinking slower", it's "growing".
I find it ironic, though, that you're accusing him of this. Read the summary. There, you'll find that:
Glacier shrinking - Bad news! It's climate change!
Glacier growing - Bad news! It's climate change!
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
Do you have ESP?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas Iâ(TM)ll never know.
Your turn ...
Tried to remove the tusks but they were imbedded too firmly. Of course in Alabama the tusks' a' loosa'
A stumbling step is often one floor above you.
...
Your turn
Ramen, brother!
Sunday services at 12 noon, we will consume our lord in the form of Pasta Neapolitano with a nice Chianti.
Scepticism is quite interesting too.
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
This. I had a lovely experience with a similar credit system but for water. The EPA made it too expensive to upgrade a waste processing facility and so it was cheaper for the company to buy "clean water credits" instead of actually fixing an actual problem with their waste processing plant because of what the EPA regulations. Why fix a problem when you can buy "clean" whatever EPA measures and say "Oh look see we are clean!".
I lost a lot of respect for the EPA after that experience. When they make it more difficult to upgrade a waste processing facility to reduce pollution and instead focus on empty credit systems that do nothing,
That was never proven and never a scientific theory.
That was a view of the world that was assumed, not scientifically proven. Even though some scientists worked to make their models fit that assumption, it was "disproven" by theories using better measurements..
That idea came from was a religious scholar who added up all the begats in the bible to come up with an estimated age. It had nothing to do with science.
That was speculation made when the Milankovitch cycles were first becoming known. It seemed that if those cycles held true, we would be returning to a glaciation maximum in the next few thousand years, give or take a few thousand, and it was unkown how quickly that might occur. Combined with the cold winters in the 70s that gave the press something sensational to write, but it had nothing to do with scientific proof.
"Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion."
Yea, gonna have to stop you right there and called that a bald faced lie. There is even a famous yak about just this exact thing.
---The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."---
Scientists are humans too... and many scientists are religious or agnostic. In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone. The absence of evidence is no proof of anything, and you seem to lack the understanding of why this is.
"Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion."
Yea, gonna have to stop you right there and called that a bald faced lie. There is even a famous yak about just this exact thing.
---The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."---
Scientists are humans too... and many scientists are religious or agnostic. In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone. The absence of evidence is no proof of anything, and you seem to lack the understanding of why this is.
But the people Planck talked about all still based their work on observation, experimentation and math. Later generations may have corrected their theories with better data but they also based that on observation, experimentation and math. No scientist ever took the fact that the earth is round or that barnacle geese hatch from eggs as opposed to growing on trees on 'faith' without any evidence. Somebody did the math and proved the earth is round, somebody else went to wherever barnacle geese breed and observed them laying eggs and hatching them like all other birds.
"Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary." Could you put a timescale on that? After all, many scientists believe that the Earth is temporary.
Glaciers growing again?
Ocean cooler than predicted by a lot?
How can we possibly spin this news as bad... oh I've got it, claim that obviously that since the water temperature also lowered it must mean that water temperature and glacial retreat are strongly linked!
What's that you say the water would have to get warm again to cause a problem? Shh!!
Important life lesson for people: If someone claims everything is bad, they are often wrong about everything.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
God is an imaginary being that only your clergy can communicate with...
That part depends on the religion. Not all of them require clergy as an intermediary.
"Operation enduring freedom" or something like that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait, are you a noodelist or rigatonist? I just want to make sure I don't sit down with a heretic!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, this is certainly news.
Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
I didn't make their rules, I only quote them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
About the same rate? OK, so what WAS the rate of replenishment? TFA never bothers to say. Why is our time being wasted with this zero-information tripe?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible. Should not be a surprise, but I agree with the rest of your post, too.
Maybe I'm naive but if you dedicate your entire life to a region, I always figured the first thing everybody does in read the manual. I mean it's your entire life we're talking about here. I only read the thing to get a handle on what the hell they are talking about when they dive into scripture.
Not so. If you only look for extreme hot meausremensts and disregard extreme cold ones, like the climatologists now do, you add a lot of bias to your so called measurements.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
Dammit, I just used all of my mod points ... and a AC to boot.
I don't see why. Herbicides that move through the food chain and hurt eagles are illegal and food is available without herbicide use at most grocery stores, so people can choose. Whereas glacial melt is the result of a societal decision, and how much pollution we allow and how to capture the externalized costs of it.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Funny how you keep insisting on âoeproofâ to prove âoefaithâ. Kinda like you missed the definition of âoefaithâ.
Ken
1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...
1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37...
1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0...
2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp...
2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
2018 UN Only 12 years left to save the planet
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07...
2019 Greenland Glacier Reverses Decline.
Sadly you wasted them, because the AC was an idiot.
He goes through all this trouble of saying that consensus is not science, while using a single data point in a population to refute the whole. You know what's worse than taking something for granted simply because there's consensus? Assuming the consensus is wrong because you are woefully ignorant.
I can give my toddler a tape measure and watch him "measure" things too, with about the same understanding and accuracy as climate scientists.
> No it doesn't. I can measure climate change
_YOU_ can measure it in very small time increment. It might be warming up for the next 4000 years, it does not necessarily mean that's not by design.
We live 70-80 years, and we judge events based on that because we're so egocentric.
That's cool, you were able to wipe out 4 complete strawmen with only one comment! Congrats, they didn't stand a chance!
-Styopa
It looks to me like you've taken the conclusions of climate science, and formed a religious thought pattern around them. They certainly aren't doing that.
How strange of you.
Advances in science are often complicated by the fact that the old theory was usually pretty good, and thus has lots of evidence for it.
I'm going to have to rate your logic skills zero stars.
In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone.
That's pure nonsense.
He takes it on a lack of evidence.
Does he deny the possibility of there being one? Na. The atheist scientist doesn't. He just laughs when you tell them it's possible we live in an electric universe and doesn't feel like playing the "refute every single one of my crack pot ideas" game with you.
It really saddens me that people like you have grown up to be so blind.
> You would think an omnipotent, omniscient product would sell itself.
The omnipotent being must be pretty insecure that it demands constant affirmation from its followers.
Stachel
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Even post-reformational Christianity puts immense pressure on the average adherent to accept the opinion of an intraorganizational plant over any kind of independent thought you may have about the content.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian.
The older I've gotten, the less forgivable it seems to me that these people peddle this snake oil.
Wait, are you a noodelist or rigatonist? I just want to make sure I don't sit down with a heretic!
Our noodly lord god's mysterious ways cause him to appear in many forms.
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
Oh. From his telling, I didn't think he could win any more bigly
Well, it said that one glacier out of the tens of thousands measured grew instead of shrunk. But ya, I can see how a complete fucking moron would interpret that as a reversal of the trend. Carry on, soldier. Keep fighting that good fight.
Chianti.
Were you having an old friend for dinner?
it is their fundamentalists who complain and pour pigs blood on the ground when somebody wants to build a mosque
Holy shit this happened???
Freischutz, thank you for being a lighthouse of reason and sanity in a sea of ignorance. This is the kind of response needed to navigate these times.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming,
Actually, the location and size of a glacier is a good indicator of the average of local temperatures over many years. We call this "climate."
You're right that this is only one spot on the earth, which neither proves or disproves *anything* about global climate. However, the same observation of glacier retreat are made all over the world.
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
That is not a central tenet of the religion.
They can't be all that intelligent if they believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven
Believing in something that can't be proven is far better than believing against something that can never be disproven.
The only logical choice is to be agnostic. Being an atheist is absolutely retarded from the point of view of simple logic, and it's detrimental to society as atheists are generally selfish assholes.
No, I'm an atheist which means that I'll only believe in your deity if you can prove it exists. Now please prove to me that your god exists or stop bothering me.
No, if you're an atheist you take the position that you do not believe in any deity, anything "supernatural", etc. period.
You miss a fundamental point of the origin story and the fall.
Humans were given free will, took knowledge, and will be judged on how they use both.
If you take free will out of the equation, then there's no meaning to anything you do.
I wonder why all new structures have moved higher up.
Because advancements in transportation and construction have made it possible, and because being higher up means you have better views, longer slopes, a longer season to make money, etc.?
You greatly overestimate your intelligence and analytical skills.
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
Indeed. That's one of the things my ocean studies teacher is trying to impress into the class. Weather is what is happening in one place at one time. Climate is the average of all that.
Predicting a single human's actions is hard. Predicting the actions of a group is easier.
I don't read AC A human right
What I did is simply taking numbers everyone can look up. We know the surface temperature of the Sun. It's effective temperature is about 5777 K. We know the Solar constant is slighly less than 1.4 kW. We know the diameter of the Earth and can thus calculate how much energy the Sun radiates to the Earth. We can calculate how warm a black body the size of the Earth has to have to radiate as much energy back to Space. We know, it's 254 K if we consider the albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth, without it would be around 279 K). We also know that the average surface temperature of Earth is 290 K, as we get daily measurements in the weather reports.
We did the same for Mars and Venus (the U.S. first with the Mariner probes, the USSR with the Venera probes) already in the 1970ies. We know their atmospheres. We know their average surface temperatues (220 K and 740 K). We can calculate their black body temperature (211 K and 227 K if we include the albedo). There is no magic. There are no hidden variables. There is just the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's radiation law.
Whatever your video suggests, it contradicts what we actually measure. So I would rather trust the measurements and not some video on Youtube.
Weird that global temps have coincidentally also gone down the last 2 years(fairly under reported oddly enough). Will be fun to see where we are at in another decade.
tell me more about russian collusion the last 2 years.
My prediction is that the report says that Mueller uncovered insufficient evidence to prove [or seek conviction on the basis] that Trump was personally involved with collusion with Russians. He keeps meeting with Putin and not letting us know what was said, and he destroys evidence regularly. If he's so innocent, why is he so against there being any evidence to back up his good intentions?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
Man has been stupid and greedy, and our short-sightedness is having negative results. It's physics, which is open source, and not worship.
While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term...
Everything is "bad news". Everything! It doesn't matter what happens, it'll be twisted to "I told you so!"
No, it does matter. "Banning" (reducing production of) CFCs was effective at permitting restoration of the ozone layer. For all that it's horribly annoying, the CARB has been highly effective at increasing air quality in California. When things work, we acknowledge them. But when there's a problem, we acknowledge that, too. Hiding doesn't help.
Science says "The glacier is growing again, I wonder what is making that happen since my hypothesis is that it should be shrinking."
We already knew it was cyclical, but also that it was tending to lose mass. Now it's grown at "about" the same rate at which it was shrinking, although we don't know what "about" means because this article wasn't written (or perhaps just not edited) by someone who thought that was important. This article is hardly worth arguing over.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, ok.
In that "Christianity" can actually be separated into a thousand different religions, sure. You're right.
But it's largest single denomination absolutely believes what God's representative on Earth decrees- and that is that the Pop and his Bishops are uniquely vested in the authority to interpret the scripture.
Sure, as the various sects have liberalized post-reformation, the idea of universal priesthood has gained a lot of ground, but it's still hard to argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the concept of the Magisterium, ranging back to the time of the early church isn't a central tenet, is frankly, fucking boneheaded.
Relying on consenses is flawed of course. But relying on politics is even more amazingly flawed. If someone does not know the science and they can't crunch the numbers themselves then they are much better off figuring out what most of the scientists think than they are by asking politicians.
Look what you did, dumbass. Why did you have to trigger 50-year old atheist imbeciles?
Now instead having bunch of usually interesting +5 comments we are having atheist circlejerk shitfest.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"that doesn't magically solve other environmental problems like air and water quality, pollution disposal, habitat loss, and species extinction": If we discover that global warming is predominately a natural thing, rather than a man-made thing, that could well *help* solve these other problems, in the following two ways.
First, if global warming is natural, then it might be a random (or even cyclic) effect. In either of these is true, then warming is not with us forever. Many would consider that to be good.
Second, if it's natural, then perhaps we should stop trying to solve it, because our solutions--which by hypothesis are not based on the real cause--won't help. And we can turn our time, effort and money to solving problems that we actually are causing, and which we can solve.
For example, suppose coral bleaching--to the extent that it's worse now than it once was--might be due to any number of other human causes: over fishing, pollution from land sources, pollution from ships and boats, damage by tourists (touching coral, using harmful sun screen, dragging anchors), and so forth.
Similarly for habitat loss, which IMHO surely has much more to do with farming, logging, mining etc. than with warming. All these are things that we can (if we have the will, and if all our effort isn't going to combating something else) fix.
My sense is that there has been a huge amount of progress in the last half century (yes, I'm older than that) in addressing pollution: air pollution from automobiles (leaving out VW-gate...), air pollution from steel mills, water pollution in the Great Lakes (I grew up near Lake Michigan), and in many other areas. We can continue to work on eliminating such sources of pollution, or we can try to address global warming; we'll have less success if we try to do both. (You'll notice I'm not treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.)
I thought this story would bring out the science denial crackpots.
/. was a little bit intelligent?
Do you remember when
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled.
On the other hand, it's pretty well accepted that the Earth goes around the Sun now.
And it's unlikely to need revisiting.
Similarly, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so that increasing the concentration of it will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science. The problem is only that the fossil fuel industry has put a lot of PR money into establishing misinformation about this.
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period.
Here we have an example of complete bullshit.
In 2008, Petersen et al. published a comprehensive literature review of scholarly papers on that had an opinion on the subject: THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
From the abstract:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
This figure from the paper shows that even then, the papers predicting warming dominated.
But in the denialosphere, this is still a much repeated lie.
Stop it.
The problem is, between then and now, climate itself became a political baseball bat.
Nope. The problem is that if fossil fuels are reduced a lot of people who are very rich now will earn less. And they can pay PR groups to stop that happening.
Something that changes meaning with the whim of those who weild it. Used to beat those who disagree into submission.
...okay, I'm going in ...
How has the meaning of climate been used to beat people who disagree, and who are some people who've been beated by the meaning of climate becasue they disagree?
Feck global alarmist and their facist ways.
It's just science, mate.
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
I must have missed that price mentioned in the IPCC reports. Do you have a link?
It was well known and *PROVEN* at one time, though these scientific methods and the observable information at hand that:
The Earth was flat
When was that considered proven?
What was the proof?
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
The increasing global mean surface temperature.
The rising sea level
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
Um .. no. You are commanded to love others as yourself, to put others needs ahead of your own.
No, you're wrong. If you were old enough to read the newspaper back in those days (I am), then you'll recall that the GP is telling the truth. That's not to dispute your claim of what was in scholarly papers, it certainly wasn't reported that way.
Just another day in Paradise
Here ya go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
Ever notice how when you see the predictions from multiple hurricane projection models, there often is one or two that are utterly different from the consensus of all the other 10-15 models used to predict hurricanes?
This is very similar to how the consensus polls all predicted HRC was going to crush Trump in 2016. FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver) even talked extensively about how there's a tendency to herd because nobody wants to be seen as being way out of line, and if you're wrong, well then it wasn't your fault because everybody else was wrong too.
Just another day in Paradise
Maybe people who are concerned about the climate changing shouldn't have used glaciers shrinking as an example of climate change. Now, morons can easily shoot down claims of climate change.
People on both sides are too stupid to tolerate. *sigh*
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The changes I'm seeing all over the N-Atlantic tell me that this is more than a 'local climate change', science confirms this and we have examples of what happened earlier in the earth's history when this much carbon dioxide was de-sequestered into the atmosphere.
This is not a refutation of what nonBORG was saying. All nonBORG was doing was acknowledging the local changes that were occurring to Sique, but in themselves, are not proof of climate change.
By doing this, he did not deny climate change. Here is a quote of his post to demonstrate:
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is ...
And then you say this:
Given the choice between believing thousands of scientists saying the climate is changing and a few useful idiots shilling for the fossil fuel industry who say it isn't, I'm going to pick the scientists.
Well sure, but that is a false choice. There is a more reasonable path of action here, which Sique touched upon: Look for yourself. Pay attention to the details. Seek out more information.
I am not a professional scientist. I have not attended college. I did not graduate high school.
I have lived in various locations around the world. All of them, except the equatorial regions, appear to have, on average, grown warmer. That is one person, and is not a scientifically significant data point by itself.
I "know" that all things balance out. All scientific "laws" appear to agree. Take the three main "laws" of thermodynamics, they all talk about balance. Same with Newton's "laws", such as an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by another force.
That being said, we know that CO2 acts like a blanket; therefore, more heat is being contained because we know we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. What happens to a system that receives more energy? Well, according to Newton, that system changes.
I REALLY don't understand what all the controversy is about. I see how it happened, but I fail to see how people fail to discipline their minds in such a way that they are unable to go find the fucking truth (as much as we can understand anyways) themselves.
Climate *IS* changing. Every prediction about the exact changes has been dead wrong. But climate is definitely changing, and using "probability", those changes are not likely to be useful and could possibly even be extremely deadly.
The only solid solution we have so far is reducing CO2 output. This is an untenable solution as the only way this planet can support billions of people is to extract energy in ways that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I mean, try selling "4 billion people have to die today to avert a disaster a thousand years from now" to the general public. Most people will just deny that there is a problem to begin with. Their lives depend on not doing anything about climate change. This should not be a surprising result.
Where the fuck did I go just now? I apologize, but I will still hit submit anyways. Just ignore my ramblings.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
Catholicism has a lot of this "your priest is better than you" kind of thing. I can't stand it, myself, and I'm a Christian.
That's not a central tenet of Christianity. It's a central tenet of Catholicism.
Christianity is very much about you and God. Nobody else is involved. It's your personal choice, and your personal responsibility.
I interpret it myself, and every Protestant I've ever met does the same thing. That's not to say we don't look for advice on particularly troublesome bits*, but everybody searches for help on every subject if they don't understand something. Either that, or they defer to experts. That's what you do with climate change, after all. You haven't done all the experiments, set up temperature monitoring stations and satellites, correlated all the data, etc, yourself.
So, you defer to experts, or at the very least, seek advice from experts.
There's a huge difference between "seeking advice to help understand" and "priests must interpret the words for you."
Don't confuse the two.
* I've got an Israeli friend who I can go to for help with the original Hebrew wording of the Old Testament. It helps a lot with understanding if you know the original wording, and what implications were in it that don't translate well, if at all. I know a couple of Greeks who can help with the same for a lot of the original New Testament. Assuming a modern translation has the exact same meanings and implications as the original is where a lot of our problems come from.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The same book also says that Earth was given to Man to care for. And yet somehow worrying about global warming is anti-God because nobody actually thinks that responsibility means anything.
That's not it. Responsibility means everything in Christianity. But the way we're approaching global warming is anything but. Al Gore lives in a gajillion square foot mansion, and flies around the world in private jets, while telling us we need to cut our carbon footprint from our 1400 square foot house.
Canada's PM, Justin Trudeau, is hugely into trying to fix climate change, has brought in a carbon tax, and regularly shames Canadians for their energy usage. He was on vacation in Florida recently, and only two days after arriving, flew back to Canada for 3 or so hours of meetings one morning, before heading back to Florida to continue his vacation.
Roughly 5 1/2 hours of travel in a government jet, for 3-4 hours of meetings. The Bombardier Challenger jet in question uses something like 1325 litres of fuel per hour.
This hypocrite burned 7500 litres of fuel for meetings that could have waited until he was back, or been held over a secure telecom link if they were urgent, all the while telling us that we should be walking and taking public transit.
Talking about global warming is fine. Even doing something about global warming is fine. But "I'm going to tax you because you're warming the planet, but in the meantime I've got a personal carbon footprint the size of a small town" just doesn't cut it. Especially when there have been lies, damned lies, and statistics from AGW alarmists for years, with virtually nothing to show for it.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
They can't be all that intelligent if they believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven and whose priests tell them how to live their lives, which they do for rear of their god whose existence cannot be proven will toss them in a hell that nobody can prove exists.
All the anti-Christians in here keep saying stuff about "priests have to interpret the Bible," and "priests tell them how to live their lives." I can't help but think you're all confusing Christianity and Catholicism.
There's nothing in Christianity about listening to what your priest says, or having your priest be a conduit between you and God. In fact, various places in the Bible explicitly state that all Christians are priests, so all are in the position of being "next to God," if you will.
Maybe you should all learn something about global warming...I mean... Christianity before you knock it.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
I definitely appreciate this distinction.
However, you have to accept that until the Reformation, Catholic Christian was the de facto Christian.
The fact that the religion has evolved over time to be something far more egalitarian doesn't speak to its roots.
The point I'm making, is that you're essentially saying Protestantism is Christianity, while Catholicism is Catholic Christianity.
That's fucking absurd.
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
And the denialists are the ones who cherry-pick outliers to prove their case:
Preliminary data reported from the reference glaciers of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in 2018 from Argentina, Austria, China, France, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and United States indicate that 2018 will be the 30th consecutive year of significant negative annual balance (> -200mm); with a mean balance of -1247 mm for the 25 reporting reference glaciers, with only one glacier reporting a positive mass balance (WGMS, 2018).
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
There's tools that can detect them. Do you have a tool to find god? Preferably in a repeatable way that anyone can use (please don't come along with "but I feel him" bullshit, ok?).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, you are supposed to love your neighbor (and only him) as yourself (and not any more). The rest of the world can well go to hell.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Care to point to the relevant verses? The general idea is as far as I can tell "stand by your fellow Jew (or Christian for that matter, after all we usurped that part, too) and to hell with the heathens and the rest of the world".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Subdue is exploit. The problem is that whoever invented the verses could not possibly foresee that we actually HAVE the means to do just that. It was supposed to be a guide book for bronze age desert dwellers. You think they had a concept of trawler fishing?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's tools that can detect them. Do you have a tool to find god? Preferably in a repeatable way that anyone can use
Sure. I have a rock right here that detects god. If I throw it into the air and it turns into a bird, god is real. So far, there's been no detection events. Anyone can replicate this test.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And what is the original Hebrew word that was translated as "subdue" here? What does that Hebrew word imply? Any ideas? Didn't think so.....
The Hebrew word is kabash. It does mean "subdue," but only if the object of the word is hostile. So, this verse is saying "If the world is hostile and might kill you, control it so it won't."
Not bad advice, really.
The other part of this verse that people have problems with is the "rule" over the fish part. Before that gets anybody's knickers in a knot:
The Hebrew word translated to "rule" in your example is radah.
This means a kingly rule, definitely implying royalty. It doesn't expand on what that means in Genesis, but the same word is used in Psalm 72, and translated the same way. This Psalm is about the coronation of King Solomon, and expands on what a king should be like:
He delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.
That also sounds pretty good to me. If you've got a problem with someone acting the way those verses describe, then you're a bit of a psychopath, to be honest.
Ezekiel 34 has a rebuke of the kings Israel has had:
You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them.
A kingly dominion in Biblical terms is not lording power over people or your kingdom. A king accepts tributes and taxes from his subjects, so we can use the earth for sustenance. At the same time, though, the preferred kingly behaviour described in the Bible means we should be protecting the earth, preserving its natural beauty and resources, and try to bring those "lost" places that have been damaged through "force and harshness" back to their former glory.
This last part, we humans definitely have trouble with; we seem to have the "clear cut the rainforest" types and the "ban all energy usage" types, both of whom are loud and have a platform, and the moderates in the middle who want some balance are mostly ignored.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
No, you're wrong. If you were old enough to read the newspaper back in those days (I am), then you'll recall that the GP is telling the truth. That's not to dispute your claim of what was in scholarly papers, it certainly wasn't reported that way.
The GGP said In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period..
That is not the truth.
You're correct that there was some reporting to the contrary in the press, but that doesn't make the GGP true.
Since action has been delayed for 40 years, action now has to reduce emissions to where they should be, and also reduce emissions additionally by the amount that has been released since then.
It's much more expensive because of that.
So the truth is that there has been insufficient awareness of how much panic there should be.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
So now we've gone from the fake-but-marginally-believable 97%, to a mind-boggling "all"?
Let me ask you this: What, exactly, do 97% (or "all") of climate scientists agree on?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"He keeps meeting with Putin."
You mean "doing his job by maintaining diplomatic ties with another nation's leader?"
"Not letting us know what was said."
You've been told everything you have the security clearance to know.
"Destroys evidence regularly"
Sorry? I think you mean Hillary Clinton. She's not the president, much as you might like.
Translation: CITATION REQUIRED.
"If he's so innocent, why is he so against there being any evidence to back up his good intentions."
You DO realize you just asked the man to prove a negative right?
This is the kind of blind, willful partisan religious impetus that's at the base of the problem.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"He keeps meeting with Putin."
You mean "doing his job by maintaining diplomatic ties with another nation's leader?"
We don't know whether he's doing his job or committing treason, because we don't get any transcripts or recordings.
"Not letting us know what was said."
You've been told everything you have the security clearance to know.
You might be satisfied with that, since you celebrate ignorance. I am not.
"Destroys evidence regularly"
Sorry? I think you mean Hillary Clinton.
Trump destroys emails too, but more relevantly, he's been spotted destroying his notes on more than one occasion.
"If he's so innocent, why is he so against there being any evidence to back up his good intentions."
You DO realize you just asked the man to prove a negative right?
No, that's not what I did at all. I want some evidence of good faith, of which there has been none.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'll agree that it's absurd, especially looking from the outside.
However, I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity should be based on the teachings of Jesus. Anything not taught by Jesus shouldn't be in Christianity.
Makes sense, right?
Well, the whole "priests as conduit to God" thing is nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. It's explicitly stated that everyone can approach God directly.
So, in this case, it's Catholicism that's got it wrong.
The whole reason for the Reformation was that the Catholic Church was moving further away from basic Jesus' teachings, into this kind of dogmatic crap.
The Reformation wasn't to make Christianity more palatable to modern audiences. It was meant to take Christianity back to its roots, where it should have been the whole time.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I'm *definitely* not defending Catholic dogma.
And I don't disagree with you.
We just can't use the No True Scotsman to claim the largest plurality of Christians are in fact Catholic Christians, while smaller pluralities are the real ones.
That's not No True Scotsman.
No True Scotsman would mean that nobody was the real Christian.
There are Christians that get it right, but the majority get it wrong.
It's humanity. We have an innate, unending tendency to fuck things up.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
Sorry, it's No True Scotsman.
It's called No True Scotsman, because the same logic can be applied both directions, even if you're only applying it one direction.
The fact is, if you take the average person who considers themselves Christian, you get a Catholic.
Mean, median, and mode, in fact.
The fact is, if you take the average person who considers themselves Christian, you get a Catholic.
You're absolutely right.
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
Sorry, it's No True Scotsman.
It's called No True Scotsman, because the same logic can be applied both directions, even if you're only applying it one direction.
I still don't agree with this, though.
A Christian, by definition, is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. That makes non-Biblical Catholic dogma, by definition, not Christian.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, as some people's personalities need the ritualistic stuff to make it work for them. But saying that it's Christianity, just because the majority of Christians align themselves with the Catholic Church, isn't correct.
I'm not generalizing the definition of Christian to mean "anybody who, at least on Easter and Christmas, goes to a church that considers Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the World."
I'm already being specific, in that to be called "Christian," something has to have been taught by Christ.
If Christ didn't say "yes, do this" or "no, don't do this," then it's a personal choice that we are free to make ourselves.
As an example, confessing sins to your priest is a personal choice, because it wasn't specified either way by Jesus.
However, the idea of using your priest as a conduit to God is actually against Biblical teachings.
Hebrews 4:16 tells Christians to come boldly to God, themselves. Going through your priest is not "coming boldly."
If something is specifically against Christ's teachings, can we really say it's Christian, just because it's practiced by the majority of Christians?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It bears repeating- I am definitely not defending Catholic dogma.
However, there are plenty of aspects of the New Covenant that protestants chose to ignore, or interpret creatively to move toward a more egalitarian philosophy.
There is, for example, much to be said biblically speaking for the Priesthood and a lot of its dogma that the protestants have interpreted to mean all people, when it requires some serious stretching of word meaning to arrive at that conclusion.
I'd prefer if people must practice Christianity, that they practice a Protestant interpretation of it, for sure. But I find it astounding that any of the sects think their way is the right way, biblically speaking.
We may have to agree to disagree.
Although I've been doing a bit of digging, and found a document on the Vatican's website, that states that all Christians become a holy and royal priesthood.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...
I haven't read the entire thing, but it's got some interesting bits....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Next paragraph, though:
But with the intention of forming the christians into one body, in which "all members do not have the same function" (Rm 12:4), on the evening of his Resurrection, he sent especially the Apostles, in the same way he was sent by the Father (cf John 20:21); from here originates the doctrine of the "special mandate" of the hierarchy in the Church.
Yes, all members do not have the same function.
But I don't take that to mean that any member is more important, or any closer to God, than any other member.
Some are teachers, some are healers, some pray, some will just sit with someone when they need company.
But when we're told that all can come to God, then "some will talk to God and tell you what He said" doesn't seem like it should be one of those functions that only some members have.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
doesn't seem like it should be one of those functions that only some members have.
Nope. Which is why I like the Protestant interpretation far better.
But it is still just that. An interpretation.
There are more passages in scripture supporting the idea of a specific clergy formed in the structure of Christ and his Apostles, and there are more passages in scripture supporting the idea of an egalitarian priesthood.
I don't take sides on what's right. The book is too damn contradictory for that, which should surprise no one as it's composed of many books written by different people (unless of course you want to argue it's the literal word of God)
For whatever it's worth, I hope one day Protestantism is the dominant form Christianity settles on. In the mean time, I still don't think anyone's argument is better than anyone else's from the point of scripture.
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
I must have missed that price mentioned in the IPCC reports. Do you have a link?
"Climate alarmism" is only tangentially related to global warming science. Al Gore is an alarmist. AOC is an alarmist. These people use climate alarmism to gain money and power.
I didn't say the earth isn't getting warmer. I have no doubt it's gotten warmer in my lifetime. But we're not all going to die in 12 years because of it. See the difference?
Do you have ESP?
Exactly. You DON'T know. So you're inventing conspiracies.
My neighbor doesn't tell me what he's doing. So he MUST be turning the frogs gay for 5th dimensional alien takeover!
Right?
Yep. But you just rocket-jumped right over the line between inquisitiveness and flat-out conspiracy theory. You're now so far over you can't even SEE the line where you're at.
His COMPANIES destroyed e-mail. BUSINESS E-MAIL.
Clinton destroyed GOVERNMENT e-amils. There's a MASSIVE legal difference. AND YOU KNOW IT!
As for the Fox News article. Yes. We'll just trust the word of Swalwell, who is only one of his political opponents. Completely without any sort of corroboration whatsoever.
Hahahahaha!
Oh. You're SERIOUS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
And Omarosa "Look At Me!" who has a history of blowing bullshit about Trump to keep herself in the limelight.
I refer you back to "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Again, you're asking him to prove something you've imagined didn't happen.
That's called "proving a negative".
YOU! Prove to ME, that you aren't making plans to rule the universe!
GO!
Try harder...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Yes, I understand. Understanding the concept of free will and subjective purpose doesn't require a story about a talking snake in a magical garden though.
We'll make great pets