Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

No you didn't really read it very well. I only posed the deep questions.
As far as I know this planet has never had an element or animal species, make the deterination that the planet's current state of progress and evolution, was at the point of perfection and should be held stagnant at that point. My state of intelligence dictates that I am not capable of knowing if the planet and ice pack depths etc... should stay at recent levels or not. Anyone who knows this anwser for sure isn't on the forum.

This is a semantic argument- premise is "you can't prove this is not true, so therefore we should treat it as true" similar to the "can you prove Santa isn't real".
Common sense makes it a moot point.

Ok, if your house has some heavy smoke- do you call the fire department? Maybe your house was fated to burn on this particular day. To call the fire department may be going against the designer's plan. What would you do?

Places with 3 digit heat in the US may need some new long range planning- re drought, resevoirs, agriculture. Should we ignore it or plan ahead?
Can we mitigate the effect of tornado disasters with more warning time, shelters? Should we try?
Should coastal areas reconsider the flood planning to mitigate lives lost and property damage? Or is the warming climate fated, and we should do nothing?

I see it as common sense to address these issues.

Fate and the grand design are party discussion topics. The rest is common sense.

 

[toppop52]

Your point is good though as religions themselves don't try to disprove their own "theories" or to collect data prospectively to answer questions.

You obviously have little to no understanding of theological science, therefore any attempt on your part to discuss it will make you appear extremely ignorant, I suppose it's appearance, but may just be the facts. What are your qualifications to discuss theological science?

 

[toppop52]

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "

So then, Obama's theory that socialism would be good for us is wrong? Because it's been experimented with and failed miserably numerous times.
The promotion of Islam is another that while having temporary success at times and places, has by and large failed the experiment.
That's a great quote, thanks!

 

[EE_Bota]

Fate and the grand design are party discussion topics. The rest is common sense.

Common sense is ranking all the things that could happen to the country and the world, along with probabilities, outcomes, potential solutions, costs of solutions, etc so that we can decide how to deploy our resources. Now, people just pick things based on whether they think it will give them a political advantage or help them differentiate themselves from their opponents, or energize their base, or distract the people from problems that are larger and more imminent.

 

[chkntrktr]

The examples you give and the general attitude are right in line with my point that deniers are faith based rather than evidence based thinkers. Nothing to do with intelligence. Faith vs. evidence. The deniers faith in dismissing any evidence or theory that disagrees with them as being conspiratorial or big government or academic is indeed relevant to the argument. The deniers have no scientific evidence (or certainly not the preponderance of evidence) to dismiss existing theories that relate man's activities to climate change so they hoot and holler about conspiracies instead. Faith based baby. Faith based.



If you want to provide an evidenced based critique then put one together that shows meaningful inconsistencies with scientific data. Oh I forgot, the conspiracy has already rigged all the data so you cannot do that. How clever those thousands of scientists are to rig the data and hide it from us. They must use a super secret uber secure internet to communicate with each other so the rest of us peons cannot learn of their devious ways. I'm sure they have some black helicopters to assist them too. And these dim witted ill educated climate scientists have been bamboozled into answering polls regarding their personal understanding of the data to suggest something like 90% of them agree with the basic tenants of the man assisted climate change model. At least we have some rational preachers and truck drivers and carpenters (as well as the majority of Republican presidential primary candidates to set the record straight. I knew I should have listened more carefully to Michelle Bachman and the guy with bad memory from Texas. They know what's really happening.

I haven't heard (on radio or tv) or read of one scientist saying with 100% certainty that climate change is caused by mankind. Also I can't recall having heard or read one saying absolutely what will happen in the future with the climate. Even climatologists disagree about causes and efffects. It would seem that believing in climate change takes some faith also. It hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to some people. You cite the number 90%, are the other 10% stupid because they believe otherwise? Or maybe they are scientists because they couldn't pass the CDL test and be truckdrivers.You say it is nothing to do with intelligence, but yet you denigrate truck drivers and carpenters.

I don't mean any disrespect, but going down to that level doesn't make your point. It just sounds condescending and uppity.

 

[toppop52]

Find me a Nobel laureate....

Let's use them as high water marks, a few infamous Peace Prize winners that give one great confidence that Nobel laureates are so much the mark to measure ones self against. You maybe, not me....

Chamberlain, Le Duc Tho, Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama who had yet to do a dam# thing but take office! Yep, those laureates are surely what one should strive to emulate. Of course from you I'd expect no less, and certainly no more!

 

[chkntrktr]

Common sense is ranking all the things that could happen to the country and the world, along with probabilities, outcomes, potential solutions, costs of solutions, etc so that we can decide how to deploy our resources. Now, people just pick things based on whether they think it will give them a political advantage or help them differentiate themselves from their opponents, or energize their base, or distract the people from problems that are larger and more imminent.

Well said.

 

[toppop52]

Ice core samples are more than a 100 years back!

Yes they are and they prove the repeated warming and cooling cycles of the natural earth. Thanks for finally coming around!

 

[Rainbody]

You can tell someone they are getting ripped off. You can show them it's a bad deal. You can point out the lies in the ad. But in the end they will buy it. And only after they've spent their money, will some realize what a mistake it was. Some will tell themselves over and over that it was a good choice.
If these legislative ideas pass(carbon tax) based of manipulated studies, most will realize the mistake as energy jumps and jobs drop. Others will praise what a great move the country has made. Somehow the second group won't be effected by either of the effects of the fabricated cause.

 

[/pine]

Now I got to use that fancy word. Denier. That gives my view credibility now, right?

:thumbsup: I wish I had your eloquence (of conviction)...