All the fundamentalists have to realise is that God made them stewards, and isn't going to bail out their ass if they fail -- and that is the only basis needed to engage positively in the AGW debate. However, fundamentalists have allowed politics to inform their faith.
You have totally mischaracterised the debate. Most scientists aren't shouting about the end of the world -- but/some/ scientists are shouting about doing/something/ to mitigate against future risk. If there is a 10% chance of CAGW, and that can be reduced to 5% by investing 1% of resources now, then that is simply common sense. Heck, we spend 5% on the military budget.
But we cannot even talk about risk and risk-management, because as soon as you bring up the topic, "skeptics" accuse you of predicting the end of the world. This is just bullsh*t. Everyone has to feel the are right on whatever issue, even when they have to make up complete bulls*t.
As for AGW being "chicken-little", it is entirely plausible that there will be no ice-caps in 500 years time. It normally takes 10x that long or more for an ice-age to end. In just the next few decades, we will be hit in the wallet by insurance companies, who are already starting to factor in the costs of increased extreme weather events. The effects/may/ get worse at an exponential rate (say 10% chance), and lead to serious suffering -- even in the USA.
This is simply not true. The economy has faulted because of massive fraud in the banking sector. Thanks to deregulatory policies of Larry Summers, Paul Ruben, and Alan Greenspan, we have no paper-trail to bring changes, since bankers were no longer required to underwrite loans. We had people printing money for themselves, and the greed got so intense, that the entire banking system is in jeopardy.
All of this has nothing to do with investing in renewable technologies -- or including the price of pollution into burning CO2. It can be phased in gently over 20 years.
This is a dead argument. Religion is a manifestation of a group delusion,and can be used for power and control. But it is not the only manifestation of such a group delusion.
Yes, but the disillusionment with the "age of reason" (modernism) is what led to post modernism - The Age of Reason didn't actually lead to any more reason.
Postmodernism was created by social revolutionaries who are attached to anthropocentric secular humanist ideals, and object to the notion that the sciences are the only part of the academy that actually produces new knowledge. Postmodernists pretend not to know anything, but really, they know best, are morally superior, and too full to understand any of the problems of woolly thinking that they push. Given the strong biological basis of personality, it is likely that postmodernists are just a particular deem of humanity, expressing there innate characteristics in a modern age.
For the christian fundamentalists, everyone else is at fault, and they know everything, and if they don't get the final say, then they are being oppressed. The "oppressed" bully is always blaming the victim. Sometimes sarcasm and contempt are the perfect responses.
Of course, we could start a plan to change the way the bible is taught in Sunday school, in order to present all perspectives on the issue. But that would be sheer madness -- right? right?
What the fsck are you talking about? It's not like atheists have powerful and persistent lobby groups trying to re-write the bible as it is taught in sunday school. It's not like atheists have a whole media empire constantly making bullsh8t up about the evil christians. It's not like there are millions of atheists who think that they are in a culture war.
As jesus would have said: "why can't we just get the fsck along?" For a christian fundamentalists, not getting their way is them being oppressed.
If I question the carbon model in global warming theory, people claim it's unscientific, and continue ad hominem attacks.
There is no question in the peer-reviewed literature. Make an argument and publish it. That's what people do regarding BFSS and M-Theory.
Fact is, despite all the "questioning" that goes on regarding AGW, nobody has made a coherent argument that comes close to remotely challenging the scientific argument. There's just stuff like: "what about X" (scientist explains X), "what about Y" (scientist explains Y), and then 15 years later, the "questioners" are still asking the same questions: "what about X", etc.
Water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere in a few weeks. CO2 takes 1000s of years. A tiny increase in CO2 causes a little bit of warming, which in turn causes the average amount of H2O to increase, which cases more warming, etc.
I hope that's not too complex for you; however, I suspect that you will continue to go around telling people that we don't have to worry about CO2, because the amount is so small, and it is insignificant to H2O anyway.
You ask questions about evidence, but we have NO EVIDENCE. We have computer model generated data.
That is simply not true.
For a "skeptic" you appear to be extra-ordinarily certain about climate change -- like you already know that all the scientists are wrong, and you've just got to make the logic fit, because you're 100% sure.
Funny how the chicken little's so easily dismiss all the climate scientists that disagree with the claim that the sky is falling and demonize anyone who attempts to point them out.
There are a very tiny few climate scientists who disagree with the consensus position. It is a myth of the denier crowd that there are more then a handful, when compared to literally 1000s. (Cue the Galileo references. No way to convince a denier. But I looked at the actual claims made by the actual scientists on both sides of the issue, and in detail -- by following references and actually checking the sources of information. The deniers don't have a leg to stand on.)
So, since Al Gore doen't have a science background, then there must be no scientists who support AGW.
I get my climate science from qualified climate scientists. Not Al Gore.
Where do you get your climate science from? A classics major and pathological liar (Monkcton)? A weather-man who has done no original research (Anthony Watts)? A statistically challenged petroleum engineer (Steve McIntyre)? The list of top climate deniers is a joke. Oh, but because Al Gore is on the other side, then/all/ of them are jokes too, right?
Water vapor is indeed very strong compared to CO2. However, it cycles out of the atmosphere in just a few weeks. CO2 is up there for 1000s of years. That means, when you add CO2, then you warm only a tiny bit, but that tiny bit increases the average amount of H20 in the air, and you get a lot of warming. Decrease the CO2, and in just a few weeks, the average H20 in the air will decrease, and you will get a lot of cooling.
Although methane is about 37 times more potent a green house gas than carbon dioxide, the concentration in the atmosphere is still so very small that the effect of carbon dioxide predominates.
The main thing with methane is that it cycles out of the atmosphere in only a few years. (~ 5 I believe.) CO2 stays up there for 1000s.
Spreading falsehoods is not the way to invalidate climate change deniers.
I agree. Deniers will look around for the most insignificant thing to prove their argument. One alarmist says one thing over the top, and the entire IPCC is now completely bunk.
Do liberals really "persecute" gun owners? Never hear liberals talking about it -- but there is certainly a lot of articulated paranoia from conservatives on the topic. In "liberal" Canada, there is a/higher/ gun ownership rate. In Australia, it was the conservatives that went of gun ownership (of automatic weapons) in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. The Conservative government levied a "one-off" tax to pay for buying back peoples guns, and then left the tax in place.
If one looked at a whole bunch of models from the 80s, and saw how they did on average, then you'd be looking at the typical assumptions that models made in the 80s, and how well those assumptions panned out. It is reverse cherry-picking and shifting the burden to instantly assume that the study was exceptional compared to the predictions of peers at the time. Basically you are saying that, to convince you, someone has to find all the models done in the 80s, and score them all. (I assume that "skeptics" wouldn't listen to the results of such a study, since they he who doesn't listen doesn't hear.)
The NAS report in 1979 was very clear -- an academic review done two years earlier, and whose predictions have also born out. Considering this is an academic review article of the science at the time, the burden of proof is on "skeptics" to show that the NAS report was actually an aberration. (Plausible, but also somewhat ludicrous, since that would imply that the NAS got the prediction correct, despite gross incompetence in analyzing the literature of the day.) As for the prediction of temperature rise from CO2 -- that was made over a hundred years ago, and nothing has changed except that the error bars have gotten a lot smaller, and alternative hypotheses for current warming have also been ruled out.
I'm sure some "skeptic" somewhere will be able to find some paper from the 80s whose predictions have not been born out, and thereby cast a pall over the entire climate science establishment -- but only because "skeptics" are really believers. Only "skeptics" peddle certainty in this debate -- along with extreme environmentalists.
As a Christian, you should figure at the difference between the law of man, and His law. Hint: homophobia has something to do with/fear/ and/hatred/ of homosexuality. God is love.
Slashdot Mirror
All the fundamentalists have to realise is that God made them stewards, and isn't going to bail out their ass if they fail -- and that is the only basis needed to engage positively in the AGW debate. However, fundamentalists have allowed politics to inform their faith.
You have totally mischaracterised the debate. Most scientists aren't shouting about the end of the world -- but /some/ scientists are shouting about doing /something/ to mitigate against future risk. If there is a 10% chance of CAGW, and that can be reduced to 5% by investing 1% of resources now, then that is simply common sense. Heck, we spend 5% on the military budget.
/may/ get worse at an exponential rate (say 10% chance), and lead to serious suffering -- even in the USA.
But we cannot even talk about risk and risk-management, because as soon as you bring up the topic, "skeptics" accuse you of predicting the end of the world. This is just bullsh*t. Everyone has to feel the are right on whatever issue, even when they have to make up complete bulls*t.
As for AGW being "chicken-little", it is entirely plausible that there will be no ice-caps in 500 years time. It normally takes 10x that long or more for an ice-age to end. In just the next few decades, we will be hit in the wallet by insurance companies, who are already starting to factor in the costs of increased extreme weather events. The effects
This is simply not true. The economy has faulted because of massive fraud in the banking sector. Thanks to deregulatory policies of Larry Summers, Paul Ruben, and Alan Greenspan, we have no paper-trail to bring changes, since bankers were no longer required to underwrite loans. We had people printing money for themselves, and the greed got so intense, that the entire banking system is in jeopardy.
All of this has nothing to do with investing in renewable technologies -- or including the price of pollution into burning CO2. It can be phased in gently over 20 years.
This is a dead argument. Religion is a manifestation of a group delusion,and can be used for power and control. But it is not the only manifestation of such a group delusion.
Well, perhaps we should come into your church and tell you how to teach the bible. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I mean seriously, why would God create a brilliant analytical brain, only to shun its use?
So we can prove just how much faith and goodness we have.
there was a massive anti-science swing in the 1960s. Turn off your nostalgia filter and you'll find that there was no golden age.
And now those people populate the humanities departments of universities across the western world, and they still preach the same bull.
Yes, but the disillusionment with the "age of reason" (modernism) is what led to post modernism - The Age of Reason didn't actually lead to any more reason.
Postmodernism was created by social revolutionaries who are attached to anthropocentric secular humanist ideals, and object to the notion that the sciences are the only part of the academy that actually produces new knowledge. Postmodernists pretend not to know anything, but really, they know best, are morally superior, and too full to understand any of the problems of woolly thinking that they push. Given the strong biological basis of personality, it is likely that postmodernists are just a particular deem of humanity, expressing there innate characteristics in a modern age.
Unfortunately, in this day and age when the US Constitution is completely disregarded, religion is once again a tool in the toolbox of politics.
You got it wrong. Jesus gave us the constitution, and therefore it is sacred. And christian.
For the christian fundamentalists, everyone else is at fault, and they know everything, and if they don't get the final say, then they are being oppressed. The "oppressed" bully is always blaming the victim. Sometimes sarcasm and contempt are the perfect responses.
Of course, we could start a plan to change the way the bible is taught in Sunday school, in order to present all perspectives on the issue. But that would be sheer madness -- right? right?
atheism is a lot louder about it's beliefs
What the fsck are you talking about? It's not like atheists have powerful and persistent lobby groups trying to re-write the bible as it is taught in sunday school. It's not like atheists have a whole media empire constantly making bullsh8t up about the evil christians. It's not like there are millions of atheists who think that they are in a culture war.
As jesus would have said: "why can't we just get the fsck along?" For a christian fundamentalists, not getting their way is them being oppressed.
If I question the carbon model in global warming theory, people claim it's unscientific, and continue ad hominem attacks.
There is no question in the peer-reviewed literature. Make an argument and publish it. That's what people do regarding BFSS and M-Theory.
Fact is, despite all the "questioning" that goes on regarding AGW, nobody has made a coherent argument that comes close to remotely challenging the scientific argument. There's just stuff like: "what about X" (scientist explains X), "what about Y" (scientist explains Y), and then 15 years later, the "questioners" are still asking the same questions: "what about X", etc.
CFCs deplete the ozone layer, AND, they are powerful greenhouse gases.
Water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere in a few weeks. CO2 takes 1000s of years. A tiny increase in CO2 causes a little bit of warming, which in turn causes the average amount of H2O to increase, which cases more warming, etc.
I hope that's not too complex for you; however, I suspect that you will continue to go around telling people that we don't have to worry about CO2, because the amount is so small, and it is insignificant to H2O anyway.
You ask questions about evidence, but we have NO EVIDENCE. We have computer model generated data.
That is simply not true.
For a "skeptic" you appear to be extra-ordinarily certain about climate change -- like you already know that all the scientists are wrong, and you've just got to make the logic fit, because you're 100% sure.
it only takes one person with a cogent argument to disprove something. Science is not an exercise in consensus.
This is true. BUT. You still have to make the argument. Nobody has.
Funny how the chicken little's so easily dismiss all the climate scientists that disagree with the claim that the sky is falling and demonize anyone who attempts to point them out.
There are a very tiny few climate scientists who disagree with the consensus position. It is a myth of the denier crowd that there are more then a handful, when compared to literally 1000s. (Cue the Galileo references. No way to convince a denier. But I looked at the actual claims made by the actual scientists on both sides of the issue, and in detail -- by following references and actually checking the sources of information. The deniers don't have a leg to stand on.)
So, since Al Gore doen't have a science background, then there must be no scientists who support AGW.
/all/ of them are jokes too, right?
I get my climate science from qualified climate scientists. Not Al Gore.
Where do you get your climate science from? A classics major and pathological liar (Monkcton)? A weather-man who has done no original research (Anthony Watts)? A statistically challenged petroleum engineer (Steve McIntyre)? The list of top climate deniers is a joke. Oh, but because Al Gore is on the other side, then
Idiot.
Water vapor is indeed very strong compared to CO2. However, it cycles out of the atmosphere in just a few weeks. CO2 is up there for 1000s of years. That means, when you add CO2, then you warm only a tiny bit, but that tiny bit increases the average amount of H20 in the air, and you get a lot of warming. Decrease the CO2, and in just a few weeks, the average H20 in the air will decrease, and you will get a lot of cooling.
Get it?
Although methane is about 37 times more potent a green house gas than carbon dioxide, the concentration in the atmosphere is still so very small that the effect of carbon dioxide predominates.
The main thing with methane is that it cycles out of the atmosphere in only a few years. (~ 5 I believe.) CO2 stays up there for 1000s.
Spreading falsehoods is not the way to invalidate climate change deniers.
I agree. Deniers will look around for the most insignificant thing to prove their argument. One alarmist says one thing over the top, and the entire IPCC is now completely bunk.
Yes, a totally reasonable act.
Sometime reason is unreasonable.
liberals lead the charge to persecute gun owners
Do liberals really "persecute" gun owners? Never hear liberals talking about it -- but there is certainly a lot of articulated paranoia from conservatives on the topic. In "liberal" Canada, there is a /higher/ gun ownership rate. In Australia, it was the conservatives that went of gun ownership (of automatic weapons) in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. The Conservative government levied a "one-off" tax to pay for buying back peoples guns, and then left the tax in place.
If one looked at a whole bunch of models from the 80s, and saw how they did on average, then you'd be looking at the typical assumptions that models made in the 80s, and how well those assumptions panned out. It is reverse cherry-picking and shifting the burden to instantly assume that the study was exceptional compared to the predictions of peers at the time. Basically you are saying that, to convince you, someone has to find all the models done in the 80s, and score them all. (I assume that "skeptics" wouldn't listen to the results of such a study, since they he who doesn't listen doesn't hear.)
The NAS report in 1979 was very clear -- an academic review done two years earlier, and whose predictions have also born out. Considering this is an academic review article of the science at the time, the burden of proof is on "skeptics" to show that the NAS report was actually an aberration. (Plausible, but also somewhat ludicrous, since that would imply that the NAS got the prediction correct, despite gross incompetence in analyzing the literature of the day.) As for the prediction of temperature rise from CO2 -- that was made over a hundred years ago, and nothing has changed except that the error bars have gotten a lot smaller, and alternative hypotheses for current warming have also been ruled out.
I'm sure some "skeptic" somewhere will be able to find some paper from the 80s whose predictions have not been born out, and thereby cast a pall over the entire climate science establishment -- but only because "skeptics" are really believers. Only "skeptics" peddle certainty in this debate -- along with extreme environmentalists.
As a Christian, you should figure at the difference between the law of man, and His law. Hint: homophobia has something to do with /fear/ and /hatred/ of homosexuality. God is love.