Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn

[RetiredGySgt]

There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.

Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".

They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.

 

[Diuretic]

Don't you love it when you can have such an in depth conversation about serious topics?

I felt like Ricky Hatton

 

[Diuretic]

There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.

Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".

They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.

Science runs on scepticism, not belief. Ergo anyone who is a rabid faithful believer is just a fan and not a scientist and can safely be ignored. Those champions of scepticism, scientists, should be heeded. But I'm sure they would appreciate your advice on global climate change though, it should make them feel a whole lot better

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science runs on scepticism, not belief. Ergo anyone who is a rabid faithful believer is just a fan and not a scientist and can safely be ignored. Those champions of scepticism, scientists, should be heeded. But I'm sure they would appreciate your advice on global climate change though, it should make them feel a whole lot better

I doubt it. If they knew what was causing it, we would know. You can not provide a single verifiable scientific fact on what man made "what ever" is causing a rise in temperature. None exist. There are theories that can not be verified, can not be duplicated and do not historically match what we know from past times.

Further the supposed run away man made global warming is less than 20 years old and there are already indications the supposed rapid rise in temperature has already stopped. Some show evidence that it leveled off in 1998. Overall for 100 years a 1 degree rise in temperature is far from alarming. The supposed man made claim was because according to the fear mongers ( most not even scientists) a 1/3 of a degree rise occurred over about a 15 year period at the end of the 1900's.

Further the dire predictions were and are all based on inaccurate incomplete data and computer models, based on assumptions that are not even reasonable.

We do have scientific data that Mars, Jupiter Pluto and I believe Venus have ALL shown rises in temperature over the same period. Did man cause that too?

 

[Diuretic]

Nah, fact is you don't want to know what's causing it because you've bought into the denialist politics. Your choice.

As for proof, I don't have to prove a thing, I'm not a scientist but I heed those who are and I make sure I vote and put my support in whatever way I can to the politicians who can make a difference.

If it's all bullshit when why is there a huge conference going on in Bali right now?

No matter, your denialists are in the minority. Sure, your denialist in the White House will make sure the US drags its feet on this, just like we did with our Bush Mini-me clone, now gone, thankfully. Hopefully the next president of the US will understand what's happening and will be able to lead America into the debate rather than block it on behalf of vested interests.

No world, no economy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nah, fact is you don't want to know what's causing it because you've bought into the denialist politics. Your choice.

As for proof, I don't have to prove a thing, I'm not a scientist but I heed those who are and I make sure I vote and put my support in whatever way I can to the politicians who can make a difference.

If it's all bullshit when why is there a huge conference going on in Bali right now?

No matter, your denialists are in the minority. Sure, your denialist in the White House will make sure the US drags its feet on this, just like we did with our Bush Mini-me clone, now gone, thankfully. Hopefully the next president of the US will understand what's happening and will be able to lead America into the debate rather than block it on behalf of vested interests.

No world, no economy.

And there we have it.... a TRUE believer. Facts? Unimportant. Verifiable scientific process? Not needed. Realistic and consistant use of historic data? Not required.

I should bookmark this so anytime in the future you make ANY comment about religion I can point out your FAITH.

 

[Diuretic]

And there we have it.... a TRUE believer. Facts? Unimportant. Verifiable scientific process? Not needed. Realistic and consistant use of historic data? Not required.

I should bookmark this so anytime in the future you make ANY comment about religion I can point out your FAITH.

Either you have a serious comprehension problem or you are wilfully blind. Could be both.

I refuse to wear a label you choose to put on me because you find it difficult to read, comprehend and respond, in the same vein, to a post. You can choose to label me a "true believer", I refuse to wear that label. I know exactly how I think, how I look at things, how I critically evaluate things for myself and neither you nor anyone else in this forum or in any other aspect of my life is going to force me to wear a label at their convenience. You consider me a true believer, that handicaps your ability to discuss issues with me. You'll play the label card and I'll decide it's pointless discussing anything further with you. Simple as that, so now you know.

Now, let's get something straight. I choose to accept what scientists agree on at any given time. I understand that that agreement is always tentative, that it's subject to revision when a better explanation (with evidence) comes along. I don't plunge in and blindly "believe" anything. When the reports of cold fusion come out some years ago, breathlessly reported in the popular media, unscientific me thought it was bullshit. It was. The scientific community proved it was wrong and everyone kept looking. That's why I trust science, because, apart from the obvious human flaws in any individual scientist, the scientific community, as an aggregation, tends to overcome those flaws to produce something useful which we can use to further our knowledge.

Any time you wish to put science up against religion and take me on about it, feel free. But understand that my usual reticence about criticising personal belief systems (provided they don't impact on me) will be put aside.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Either you have a serious comprehension problem or you are wilfully blind. Could be both.

I refuse to wear a label you choose to put on me because you find it difficult to read, comprehend and respond, in the same vein, to a post. You can choose to label me a "true believer", I refuse to wear that label. I know exactly how I think, how I look at things, how I critically evaluate things for myself and neither you nor anyone else in this forum or in any other aspect of my life is going to force me to wear a label at their convenience. You consider me a true believer, that handicaps your ability to discuss issues with me. You'll play the label card and I'll decide it's pointless discussing anything further with you. Simple as that, so now you know.

Now, let's get something straight. I choose to accept what scientists agree on at any given time. I understand that that agreement is always tentative, that it's subject to revision when a better explanation (with evidence) comes along. I don't plunge in and blindly "believe" anything. When the reports of cold fusion come out some years ago, breathlessly reported in the popular media, unscientific me thought it was bullshit. It was. The scientific community proved it was wrong and everyone kept looking. That's why I trust science, because, apart from the obvious human flaws in any individual scientist, the scientific community, as an aggregation, tends to overcome those flaws to produce something useful which we can use to further our knowledge.

Any time you wish to put science up against religion and take me on about it, feel free. But understand that my usual reticence about criticising personal belief systems (provided they don't impact on me) will be put aside.

Except for that small annoying little point of fact.... there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming.

 

[Diuretic]

Except for that small annoying little point of fact.... there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming.

Who told you that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who told you that?

LOL, provide some actual evidence, scientific evidence that man has caused any great warming. If you can, you can win the Nobel prize in science.

All they say is " it makes sense that man has effected it". The current supposed causer has been shown in times past to NOT behave in the manner they claim it behaves now. In relation to temperature.

Further the supposed continued rise since 1998 is bogus, it is all "adjusted" temperatures. According to "gasp" scientists.

Hell your consensus agrees that they do NOT know what is causing or caused the rapid heat increase. Science has not been provided to link man to Global Warming. If you can do it, you will be a rich man indeed.

Politics has linked man to Global Warming. BAD politics.

 

[Diuretic]

there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming

No, really, who told you that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, really, who told you that?

Use Google you will discover all by yourself who has stated JUST that.

Better yet.... provide us with the scientific cause of man made global warming. Then provide us with any or all proofs that these theories hold any actual water at all.

Let me help you. One of the supposed causes of man made global warming is our release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet the SCIENTIFIC history of the world clearly shows the supposed correlation does not happen in the past. Nor does it explain why OTHER planets in the solar system are heating up also.

Further the heating of the planet is NOT at all layers of the atmosphere. Suggesting that our stations checking the supposed increase at GROUND level which do not match the non existant heating at higher levels are the problem.

 

[Dr Grump]

One thing about scientists I'll say is this: Every single piece of human progress - whether it be the combustion engine or plastic polymers that conduct electricity (and everything in between) is a result of scientific experiments and conclusions. Whether it be better crop yeilds, getting to the moon, medicines that fight cancer, or the latest camcorder technology. At the heart of these discoveries and expansion of human endevour has been science. No amount of prayer invented electricity. No amount of prayer invented penicillin. No amount of prayer allows aircraft to fly. No amount of prayer encourages and accelerates computer programmes. At the heart of any of these things is science - physics, chemistry and biology. So when the VAST majority of scientists believe and state that humans are having an affect on the planet, and global warming, forgive me if I heed their opinions on the cause and not some idealogues who usually have some political axe to grind and are more often than not believe in a so-called Christian god of which there is NO veriable proof of existance, only faith. It is not lost on me that those who demand scientific proof of global warming, readily believe their whole existance is due to some omnipotent being of which there is absolutely not one iota of evidence ever existed.

 

[tigerbob]

Use Google you will discover all by yourself who has stated JUST that.

Better yet.... provide us with the scientific cause of man made global warming. Then provide us with any or all proofs that these theories hold any actual water at all.

Let me help you. One of the supposed causes of man made global warming is our release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet the SCIENTIFIC history of the world clearly shows the supposed correlation does not happen in the past. Nor does it explain why OTHER planets in the solar system are heating up also.

Further the heating of the planet is NOT at all layers of the atmosphere. Suggesting that our stations checking the supposed increase at GROUND level which do not match the non existant heating at higher levels are the problem.

Uh-oh. The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance. And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well. Shucks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One thing about scientists I'll say is this: Every single piece of human progress - whether it be the combustion engine or plastic polymers that conduct electricity (and everything in between) is a result of scientific experiments and conclusions. Whether it be better crop yeilds, getting to the moon, medicines that fight cancer, or the latest camcorder technology. At the heart of these discoveries and expansion of human endevour has been science. No amount of prayer invented electricity. No amount of prayer invented penicillin. No amount of prayer allows aircraft to fly. No amount of prayer encourages and accelerates computer programmes. At the heart of any of these things is science - physics, chemistry and biology. So when the VAST majority of scientists believe and state that humans are having an affect on the planet, and global warming, forgive me if I heed their opinions on the cause and not some idealogues who usually have some political axe to grind and are more often than not believe in a so-called Christian god of which there is NO veriable proof of existance, only faith. It is not lost on me that those who demand scientific proof of global warming, readily believe their whole existance is due to some omnipotent being of which there is absolutely not one iota of evidence ever existed.

Sure thing, another true believer. You will believe a white smock if it is worn by a scientist. What is funny is a "majority" of scientists have NOT made any such claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Uh-oh. The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance. And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well. Shucks.

Perhaps YOU can answer the questions? Provide some scientific methodology to support the claims made, not by a majority of scientists but a majority of looney Tunes.

Millions and millions are waiting for actual scientific evidence that man has caused any heating of the globe on a permanent bases that effects the entire world and not local heat sinks like cities.

 

[Annie]

Uh-oh. The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance. And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well. Shucks.

The temps have warmed up, the gist of the argument from my pov, is there certainly isn't a consensus on the cause of it. It may be man made, it's possible. Equally, perhaps indeed more likely is cyclical. I posted this earlier:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=629680#post629680

This was written by someone with much better credentials:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Then there's this very jargon loaded discussion of models:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

 

[Dr Grump]

Sure thing, another true believer. You will believe a white smock if it is worn by a scientist. What is funny is a "majority" of scientists have NOT made any such claim.

Great comeback..NOT! Try and add some meat to your answer and dismiss mine point by point. You not being able to, speaks volumes and decreases your argument substantially..

 

[jodylee]

non belief is non belief. it has no lineage even though you can try to construct one. there is no voice of atheisum no guide book, the only one thing atheists share is not beliving in god thats it. you can't group atheists into a religoius group. they are not. they are individuals who have made there own mind up, and in my view, should not go around shouting about there beliefs. or become as bad as the religions they have an aversion to.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree to a point. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are atypical. I think, most - in my experience - are content to live and let live. I can only speak for myself on this but I will bite back when I am told I adhere to "the religion of atheism" mainly because that idea is as dumb as a rock and I have to have a spray.

On the other hand I find religion a very interesting concept, but I do tend to treat it as an artifact, a human construct and that can annoy some religious people who think I'm having a shot at their religion when I'm not.