Cool thanks. I just didn't want to leave any lingering doubt in your mind about it.
Oh yeah, def a good talk. I was in no way suggesting that everyone should start calling BS about climate change, I was only explaining how some people like myself might still be hesitant to accept many of the changes in policy being proposed.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Last edited by Bashar Teg on Aug 15th, 2017 at 10:37 PM
nope. raised catholic, artheist now. you wont catch me desecrating any holy relics, though. because...
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
i suppose, but i feel that its more like i'm hedging my bets instead of taking a reckless gamble on one option because its popular/easier/cheaper.
also if there was 1/1000th of empirical evidence of god's existence as there is for climate change, i'm pretty sure i'd have a way different attitude.
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Yes but as an atheist am I correct in assume you're a big proponent of the scientific method? Well if a group of scientist are repeadly proven wrong in their predictions of a particular outcome, how much credit do you think their currently predicted outcomes that use the same logic and types of evidence should be given?
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 15th, 2017 at 10:51 PM
"proven wrong" is too non-specific. example: if they called for a .03% rise in GMT and it turned out to be .025%, technically that calculation was proven wrong while the actual data validates the whole concept.
so i need specifics before i answer anything in that ballpark.
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Well in the 70s they proposed global cooling could start as early in the late 80s... that didn't happen. In the 80s when they realized they were wrong the changed the term to global warming and suggest that the world would become so much hotter by 2000 that new deserts would start to form... that didn't happen. Since then they've been saying the ice caps would continue to gradually shrink until they disappeared but in 2013 NASA satelite images revealed that the southern ice cap was bigger than had EVER been recorded. In fact in 2009 Al Gore went on record as saying that withing 7 years the norther ice cap would be completely gone... and it's not.
thats kinda like mocking the weatherman because we got 2 inches of snow instead of 12, and then concluding that it's never gonna snow again. NASA has the data, and there has been a long-rising trend in global mean temperature. even if you didn't want to bother looking it up, you can just check the hundreds of news articles about arctic melting.
so we know it's happening but we're not all 100% agreed that we caused it. again i say: why take a chance? if you find a particular piece of legislation to be grossly presumptuous and unsustainable, that's a whole other matter.
also, the term 'global warming' had to be changed to "climate change" because people wouldn't cease with the "snow flurry in texas = global warming debunked" trope.
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
I do in fact mock the weatherman when he's wrong and currently have no faith in any of them either. I never make definitive plans based on their predictions. The great thing about science is that once you truly understand the science you can predict outcomes with 100% accuracy because science is constant, unchanging, and easily predictable once every variable is accounted for. If it's not all those it's not really science, it's just some educated guesses. And there have been so many scientific "facts" proven to be mistakes based on false assumptions and/or outright lies/hoaxes I have no faith left unless the science meets those 3 prerequisites. So until they crack the environmental code so to speak, I'm not voluntarily supporting anything that'll cause me to fork over any extra money or devote any time to it. Sorry but things like pot killing braincells, recycling plastic having any real environmental impact, and other such nonsense have used up every f*ck I had to give unless/until there's concrete evidence.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:15 AM
I feel like people don't grasp the concept that science progresses over time, or that Al Gore isn't a scientist, or that recent climate models have been correct year on year.
The actual effects are certainly the hardest thing to pin point in advance, but that's never been a particularly compelling argument to me. I've heard some people say maybe things will be better with global warming... frankly that's not the sort of thing I'd gamble on, given the choice.
And there is more than one reason for us to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies... so I really am pretty disappointed at our general failure to tackle this problem to the extent that I believe we can.
Where I think there is a reasonable debate is what approach do we take to making this transition. I generally have little faith in the conservationist methods of basically penalizing companies for carbon emissions. This forces a trade off between economy and environment, which is often necessary, but in a sort of catastrophic scenario like this I don't see that approach realistically reversing the general trend of climate change before irreparable damage is done.
Thus, I think the only solution is an investment in the kind of technology that will eventually produce a real viable alternative to the current oil and gas based infrastructure. I think about things like the Atom bomb... or going to the moon... it seems like when we face an existential threat in the form of a foreign boogeyman, we have the capacity to pour a bunch of money into the necessary science and render a result in a relatively timely manner. I don't feel this is being done with climate change/renewable energy. And I can't think of a more worthy candidate for such a campaign. But unfortunately abstract ecological threats don't seem to resonate and put the fire under people's asses as well as scary looking Nazi's/Commies marching in formation.
Climate conditions will continue to change over time - humans in the picture or not.
The best we can do is to learn to adapt. However, if somebody thinks that we can stop global warming or this phenomenon is under our control - he has bought into leftist propaganda.
This story is just like that of ozone hole - a phenomenon that [is] completely natural but two scientists claimed otherwise and got Pulitzer price for it.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Aug 16th, 2017 at 01:35 PM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 15th, 2017 10:33 PM
