Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Urwumpe]

This is the same as asking;
Have those of you who disagree with God existence actually read the Bible?

Yes. Which might explain why atheists know the words of the bible far better than most Christians. Of course you should know what you are talking about.

And in some cases, you can explain their skepticism by they not having understood it. And in the majority of all cases, they understood it too good.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Yes. Which might explain why atheists know the words of the bible far better than most Christians.

You are talking about activist atheist, like Dawkins.
I don't need to read the book to know that allmighty does not exist. Or I'd have to spend all my life doing just that. There are so many of it.

 

[Urwumpe]

You are talking about activist atheist, like Dawkins.

Actually, even just typical atheists have a better knowledge about the contents of the Bible as the majority of the active Christians - especially many fundamentalists can be unveiled as bigots very quickly. Just wait until they quote the bible. And then ask them to continue with the next.

I don't need to read the book to know that allmighty does not exist.

I have given up trying to prove negatives.

Or I'd have to spend all my life doing just that. There are so many of it.

TANSTAAFL.

I prefer following Proverbs 25:2.

 

[Moonwalker]

Urwumpe: I don't think that because we can use Orbiter, and because our economy is controllable partly, then we can also control the earths climate, and reduce it to average temperature values. Less then ever does it have anything to do with the soothsaying of the IPCC and climate change panics.

The more unpredictable the world, the more we rely on predictions.

Steve Rivkin

 

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe: I don't think that because we can use Orbiter, and because our economy is controllable partly, then we can also control the earths climate, and reduce it to average temperature values. Less then ever does it have anything to do with the soothsaying of the IPCC and climate change panics.

You think that. But can you also say WHY you think that? Do you have experimental observations?

I can also think a lot, but like always, just thinking is not helpful at all. At one point you also have to test your theories with the reality.

Currently, by the dictionary, you are the only real soothsayer in this thread:
A soothsayer is a person who claims to speak sooth: specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.

The more unpredictable the world, the more we rely on predictions.

What else have you got, other than calendar quotes?

 

[lockingtoggle]

I don't need to read the book to know that allmighty does not exist.

I have given up trying to prove negatives.

There is no attempt to prove any negative in it. Look closer.
Nothing exists till evidence for the contrary.
Atheism is not a reaction to theism (I hope I'm not opening pandora's box). A person is born atheist. So no need for knowledge to be one.

 

[Urwumpe]

Nothing exists till evidence for the contrary.

Yes. That is science. But you can't address theology with science alone.

 

[lockingtoggle]

But you can't address theology with science alone.

I agree.

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree.

You would at least have to arrive at the point: "If this is all nonsense and there is no reason the believe in it: Why do people believe in it?"

This is the most interesting question behind religions.

 

[Moonwalker]

You think that. But can you also say WHY you think that? Do you have experimental observations?

I can also think a lot, but like always, just thinking is not helpful at all. At one point you also have to test your theories with the reality.

Currently, by the dictionary, you are the only real soothsayer in this thread:
A soothsayer is a person who claims to speak sooth: specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.



What else have you got, other than calendar quotes?

It is not me who now needs to do experimental observations using Orbiter and the economy, after comparing it with the ability to predict the future state of the earth. It is not me who is soothsaying the future of the earth and mankind or who relies on such stuff.

I do not have to prove a theory which I do not have. The climate is not bad. Humankind is making more progress than ever before. During industrialisation and global warming, mankind is increasing and industrial nations experience wealth like never before in history. That's not theory, that's fact. Anything else what might happen in the future is sheer speculation and theory, no matter if its about 6°C global "average" warming, or just 1°C, or if it is a cooling trend within the next 15 years which is believed to be just a natural "overlay" until the dangerous warming continues, or whatsoever....

 

[lockingtoggle]

You would at least have to arrive at the point: "If this is all nonsense and there is no reason the believe in it: Why do people believe in it?"

This is the most interesting question behind religions.

I'm affraid this is not the right topic to discuss this. But it's a good question.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is not me who now needs to do experimental observations using Orbiter and the economy, after comparing it with the ability to predict the future state of the earth. It is not me who is soothsaying the future of the earth and mankind or who relies on such stuff.

You are. By saying, the future presented by the IPCC is wrong and nonsense and political conspiracy, you soothsay an alternative future.

Or are you just one of these people, who are against everything, and for nothing?

 

[simonpro]

This is the same as asking;
Have those of you who disagree with God existence actually read the Bible?

Yep.

The point is not reading but understanding it. Than in order to endorse or reject it, we need to be able to make a judgment on its findings. And that would require a profound knowledge of multiple scientific disciplines that no single scientist brain can possess all at once. Only a guru brain can.

Which is exactly the point I'm making. There are so many people out there who somehow decide that this whole global change thing is some kind of scientist created fallacy, yet they do not have the skills or know-how to actually back up their opinions.
In large areas of modern western society there appears to be an inbuilt tendancy to distrust scientists, no matter if their views are reasonable or extreme.
As I've said once before, we trust doctors to judge our best course of treatment, we trust engineers to design strong bridges, we trust pilots to safely convey us to our destination, yet we do not trust scientists to produce a valid theoretical framework for global warming.
I really don't understand it.

So the question rises, how the hell are we supposed to draw conclusions from such a document, else that by judging the way the panel which produced it was set up, its compositions and the way it operates. Some find it right, some find it wrong.

With difficulty. We have to do the best we can, or else defer our opinions to those who actually do know what they're talking about.

To answer your questions, yes I’ve read some parts of it. With some I did agree, some others I did not understood and some others made me laugh. That little tiny part I read took me a week, not a weekend.

Then I applaud you for even attempting to read it, you've done better than most, I sure as hell haven't read the whole thing.

 

[Moonwalker]

You are. By saying, the future presented by the IPCC is wrong and nonsense and political conspiracy, you soothsay an alternative future.

The future state of the earth is not predictable, which is no alternate future. The future presented by the IPCC also is no political conspiracy in my point of view. The IPCC and its assignment is obvious. There are no secrets.

There are so many people out there who somehow decide that this whole global change thing is some kind of scientist created fallacy,

I'd even say the majority of epople decides so, because they do simply not experience a catastrophic climate change.

yet they do not have the skills or know-how to actually back up their opinions.

Nobody has the know how to predict the future state of the earth. Beside numbers, diagrams and professor Weisenheimer, there is nothing left which shows that the current climate change is the most dramatic one within the billion years old history of earth, and that the future is going to become catastrophic.

In large areas of modern western society there appears to be an inbuilt tendancy to distrust scientists, no matter if their views are reasonable or extreme.

As I've said once before, we trust doctors to judge our best course of treatment, we trust engineers to design strong bridges, we trust pilots to safely convey us to our destination, yet we do not trust scientists to produce a valid theoretical framework for global warming.
I really don't understand it.

Some scientists and politicians became megalomania. They are rather arrogant and seem to feel like god, like the center of everything, now finally able to tell the whole humankind with huge self-imposed certainty: you all are going to feel warmer in future, you are facing a catastrophic climate change the earth has never seen before, you are responsible for that. Scientists and especially the media behave like prophets. Many people luckily do not like to take prophets seriously anymore in the 21th century. But some do, and try to obtrude their believes upon others. Some practise environmentalism like a new kind of communism. It won't ever work anyway.

 

[Urwumpe]

The future state of the earth is not predictable, which is no alternate future. The future presented by the IPCC also is no political conspiracy in my point of view. The IPCC and its assignment is obvious. There are no secrets.

Yes, you can see who is behind it and which rules you have to follow for having your scientific work including inside the IPCC reports. A transparent organization - even more transparent than the AIAA.

But of course now, after argument against science did not work, you seem to attempt attacking the IPCC and it's procedures, instead of the science behind AGW. There are no secrets, you are just right.

 

[Moonwalker]

No secrets, but also no facts, beside what's on "paper" and comming out of some people mouths.

 

[Robert van der Veeke]

Its the "You should not ask questions" mentality advocated by climate-alarmist that i find suspicious, good science is about being skeptic, asking the questions in the first place.

And yes i am very skeptic about the whole alarmist-claims that we are nearing the climate tipping point, act now or it will be to late, the point is i have been hearing that for the last 35 years.

Global Cooling, Club of Rome, Peak Oil, Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Acid Rain, Nuclear Power, the Population Bomb. These are problems but somehow they are not so much of problem as some people claim.

One of those people is a certain mr. Holdren who is now a science advisor to President Obama, yet he still thinks and claims that Global Warming will kill an additional 1 billion people worldwide by 2020.

And he testified this before the American Congress:

Vitter: In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?

Holdren: Well, again, I wouldn’t have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn’t call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is ...

Vitter (interrupting): Do you think it could happen?

Holdren: I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that…

Vitter (interrupting): So you would stick to that statement?

Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?

Holdren: It could happen, and ...
Vitter (interrupting): One billion by 2020?

Holdren: It could.

 

[Moonwalker]

Its the "You should not ask questions" mentality advocated by climate-alarmist that i find suspicious, good science is about being skeptic, asking the questions in the first place.

And yes i am very skeptic about the whole alarmist-claims that we are nearing the climate tipping point, act now or it will be to late, the point is i have been hearing that for the last 35 years.

Global Cooling, Club of Rome, Peak Oil, Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Acid Rain, Nuclear Power, the Population Bomb. These are problems but somehow they are not so much of problem as some people claim.

One of those people is a certain mr. Holdren who is now a science advisor to President Obama, yet he still thinks and claims that Global Warming will kill an additional 1 billion people worldwide by 2020.

And he testified this before the American Congress:

Vitter: In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?

Holdren: Well, again, I wouldn’t have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn’t call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is ...

Vitter (interrupting): Do you think it could happen?

Holdren: I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that…

Vitter (interrupting): So you would stick to that statement?

Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?

Holdren: It could happen, and ...
Vitter (interrupting): One billion by 2020?

Holdren: It could.

Since Holdren predicted the dramatic deaths in the mid 1980's, humakind has increased by about 1,5 billion humans until today, and it continues regardless of global warming.

 

[Robert van der Veeke]

Just for good order this hearing was on the 9th of february this year.

 

[Andy44]

Its the "You should not ask questions" mentality advocated by climate-alarmist that i find suspicious, good science is about being skeptic, asking the questions in the first place.

And yes i am very skeptic about the whole alarmist-claims that we are nearing the climate tipping point, act now or it will be to late, the point is i have been hearing that for the last 35 years.

Global Cooling, Club of Rome, Peak Oil, Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Acid Rain, Nuclear Power, the Population Bomb. These are problems but somehow they are not so much of problem as some people claim.

Agree. It's not the science itself that I disagree with; it's the alarmist politics that comes along with it that makes me skeptical. The fact that this issue has been latched onto by socialists who couldn't get what they wanted in the 1970s and earlier, and now suddenly see their opportunity to impose all sorts of restrictions on our freedom by drumming up fear and uncertainty about the future. And the fact that if you are a scientist looking for funding, being a GW believer is a good place to start. And for those of us old enough to remember the Imminent New Ice Age scare of the 1970s, all of this sounds like a bad movie remake with new twist.