|
U-Know! Forum » God demands emissions? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
May 06, 2006, 14:14
|
||
Don't get me wrong. The Cardinal clearly meant it as an insult. I'm just saying it can be interpreted differently.
|
|||
|
67 Shelby Mustang 45 posts |
May 06, 2006, 14:15
|
||
|
fundamentalists strike me as rather transparent in what they say. is what i meant to write..........................too many ciders last night. I'm sure you know where i'm coming from
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
May 06, 2006, 14:39
|
||
|
Thanks Grufters, I knew I'd never get any work done today asking questions like this... Hope you are keeping well sirrah, and thanks for the link.
|
|||
|
67 Shelby Mustang 45 posts |
May 06, 2006, 14:40
|
||
|
yeah' i know what you're saying but, what he said struck me as elitist and all that i can glean from that is ugliness. why slate Paganism, i mean shit, you'd think that after all the Millennia Christianism has been kicking around they'd kind of lay off Paganism, fuck it man, they won that battle hands down, and have stifled peoples personal beliefs ever since. there's a real smugness to what he said, whilst at the same time he came over as though he was clutching at straws. if it kicks off in Iran a few years from now - which i'd be surprised if it didn't - how would the cunt square nuclear armaggedon on our earth again, especially when the odds are that the god fearing Bush will press the first button. the tired old line "the Lord works in mysterious ways " would have to be brought back out of the cupboard and dusted off. what Pagans there are left on this planet ( i'm not one incidentally) wouldn't turn what weapons they might possess upon their fellow man. picking on Paganism is both easy and cheap and the way he said what he said was stated with such austere righteousness that i just think he's a bit of a bell end
|
|||
Lupus 641 posts |
May 08, 2006, 11:06
|
||
|
"In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans........" And his religion is based on the torture, murder & sacrifice of the son of The Big Cheese; his blood is supposed to have "washed away our sins"!! Wake up & smell the altarwine, Archbisquit!!!
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2006, 14:44
|
||
|
As Jim says, the evidence is incontrovertible. I don't know of any credible sceptics at all. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pulled together thousands of climate scientists to reach consensus on what's happening. Over 98% of them agree with the IPCC's assessment that climate change is real, here and human-induced. If anyone denies climate change, they're effectively saying 'Just under 2% of climatologists can't be wrong!'. Five years ago the IPCC regarded it as beyond argument: "The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase." http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/044.htm So many of the folks who've denied it due to vested interests have had to admit it. Only last month, the US government issued a report saying there is 'clear evidence' that climate change is caused by humans, that the atmospheric changes of the last 50 years 'cannot be explained by natural processes alone'. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm In February, the UK government hosted a conference called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, getting scientific experts to address what the key urgent issues are, where the 'tipping points' for crisis will occur, and what we can do to avert them. The fact of climate change wasn't even on the table. Check my blog post from the time for more about it and links http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2006/03/pouring-cold-water-on-our-future.html When - increasingly rarely - you get a believer vs denier debate they're often called 'eminent scientists' or somesuch. The beleivers tend to be climatologists, the deniers rarely so. It's like asking a doctor of medicine and a doctor of nuclear physics to debate surgical techniques. 'The Fossil Fools', George Monbiot's piece about deniers, covers why denial is nonsense in characteristic concise and eloquent fashion. His piece makes this simple suggestion: "If ever you meet one of these people, I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no – at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics." http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/27/the-fossil-fools/ Denial is a perfectly understandable response to appalling news. It's normal. But we have to get over it. We are not doomed, there is a lot we can do to avert the worst effects of climate change. But we have to act decisively, radically and swiftly.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2006, 14:55
|
||
|
And this seems an apt point to plug the new U-Know feature, 'Climate Change: Time For Action', promoting this summer's Camp for Climate Action that aims to catalyse action on the issue http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=73
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
May 09, 2006, 18:46
|
||
|
The belief that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming is about as much of a faith position as belief in god. Or papal infallibility Before you all start ranting about "but scientists say", it is ONLY a theory which cannot be proved or disproved. To do that you would need to perform experiments on a global scale with a control i.e. two planet Earths, one with escalating CO2, one with static CO2. In fact for statistically vaild results you'd need many planets to experiments on. Scientific "fact" is the result of repeatable experiments. I say all this as someone trained in science. If you don't like this, tough. It means you don't understand what science is. What is accepted scientific fact today will be laughed at in 10 or a hundred years (with some exceptions). That is the lesson of the history of science. Until we reach the level of gods, this will continue to be the case. I remember the scientists telling us an ice age was coming in the early seventies. I'm still waiting. Before you get really angry, I'm not arguing that global warming doesn't exist. I am saying that CO2 is not the PROVEN cause. And before you go apoplectic, I am in favour of reducing CO2 emissions for the definite benefit of conserving valuable (in all senses) fossil fuels for future generations. The one real qualm I have is carbon capture. Potentially, this is wasting energy for no benefit. We just don't know for sure. If you think YOU do, then you are deluded.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited May 09, 2006, 20:32
May 09, 2006, 20:23
|
||
|
Dark Magus... if I may put Monbiot's test to you (since you know so much about science and all)... 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? (i.e. can it be shown to contain carbon dioxide experimentally?) 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? (i.e. does the available empirical data demonstrate that sunlight, when converted to heat by atmospheric, land or sea absorption, is less likely to then escape the atmosphere if the atmosphere contains carbon dioxide or other so-called "greenhouse" gases?) 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? (i.e. is there a proportional relationship between the amount of so-called "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere and the amount of heat retained?) 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? (i.e. has the combustion of extracted fossil fuels released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which would not have been released had we not burnt the fuel?) To which of those questions do you believe the answer is "no" or "undetermined"?
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
May 09, 2006, 21:06
|
||
|
You haven't understood my post have you? Or science. The fundamental principle of science are the creation of hypotheses which are tested. You isolate the variable you think is responsible and leave EVERYTHING else the same (or near as damn it) and see the effect (gross simplification of the scientific method). Has this been done with the whole complex system that makes up the Earths climate? No. Can it be done? No. Unless you are a god.... Science can answer some questions on how things work on systems we can control and observe, with something like the earth's climate it is very limited. George Monbiot, for all his good points is not someone I would rely on for any scientific debate. Sadly he falls into the evangelical wing of the environmental movement. I am more agnostic. See, there's that religious allegory again? Getting my point? I'll not bother answering your specifics because they are a red herring as is so much in this debate. My point is, it is untested on a global scale and it is not possible to test (and therefore confirm - the whole point of science): there is no rational arguement against this viewpoint in my opinion. I may be wrong, but acceptance of fallibility is important in science, unlike religion and fundamentalist environmentalism. My whole point is propogators of the CO2 glabal warming theory are convinced of it without overwhelming proof, because there can be no proof. Just like existance of god, santa claus, tooth fairy etc.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
