Why would anyone want there to be global warming? That's just silly. No one wants there to be global warming. Reality doesn't conform to what people want.
What Global Warming?
by metatron 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
SixofNine
And as far as "wants" go, if you'll notice, the original post in this thread is an example of people "wanting" reality to conform to their wishes so much that they were willing to misquote, lie, and obfuscate about a scientist findings. If I had not posted this man's rebuttal, how many people reading this would have thought anything but "oh, I guess this is one for the 'no global warming' column", when in fact the scientist whose data was misappropriated vigorously disagrees.
And this is the pattern you see over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
-
james_woods
Sometimes it does, 6/9 - sometimes it actually does. For example -
I wanted a new house - worked hard and got one. The founding fathers wanted a new free country, with a world-changing constitution - worked hard and made that happen. We will leave my car collection out of this for now.
I know it is a hard question - but again I ask this - "why would you suppose that many people seem to desperately want this global warming phenomenon to be a proven reality?" "Are they perhaps buying into the agenda in sort of the same way that the JWs buy into an immediate Armegeddon?" "The same way that UFO conspiracy buffs want there to be saucers landing in the white house rose garden?"
It is pretty obvious why the Watchtower Society wants their people to believe in the "Big A"...so could we perhaps extend that mentality to the sorts of politicos like Al Gore and Ralph Nader? For sure Al is making a career for himself out of this..and I am still harboring a deep grudge with Ralphy over that trash piece he did on the Corvair.
-
godadist
31,000 scientists have a different idea.
-
Big Tex
Yes - but Tex - what about the fact that the winter now feels colder than when I was a kid? Also for some reason, my feet hurt when I get arthritis...
Really? Not to me. But then I'm always hot. I need to move to Alaska before it becomes like Texas.
-
metatron
I appreciate your posting of this rebuttal because too many discussions about global warming ignore the latest stats. I can comprehend his discomfort with being quoted. It needs to be discussed in both directions.
I have long felt that we should build an international monument to EMPHASIZE the global warming issue! Why?
Because if the gloomy predictions are true, we will need to be reminded to listen to the broad mass of scientists, when they issue such warnings.
But if they are wrong, then all theoretical science needs to be reexamined down to its foundations. We need to look at physics, astronomy, Darwinian evolution, and a host of other matters - critically.
Note: I am not advocating a wholesale abandonment of current theory, such as Darwinism - but merely the thought that we need more complete answers without the ugly sort of shunning and accusation that has inhibited honest inquiry.
metatron
-
SixofNine
"why would you suppose that many people seem to desperately want this global warming phenomenon to be a proven reality?"
It is a proven reality, and before that, it was a sound theory. Your characterization of people "desperately want(ing)" it, is just your frustration with people who use data and sound theory over feelings. People used to be very sure the earth was flat too. Some idiots still believe that CFC's can't destroy ozone.
Tell me this, James Woods, since you seem so convinced that so long as you get to spit on Al Gore (which really seems to be your entire argument, Al Gore, baaaad. You could have Frankenstein do the opening, closing, and keynote address at a global warming deniers convention) you are on solid scientific ground, is there any possible level of human-added CO2 and/or methane and other atmospheric gasses that you, James Wood, would believe could be harmful to human life and welfare? If so, what is that level and how did you arrive at it, and if not, can you give me at least some clue as to why not?
-
james_woods
Well, SixofNine - you mentioned the flat earth first. And that was "proven science" to a lot of people back in the dark ages.
Let us also remember that as great a scientist as Lord Kelvin was totally wrong about the mechanism of the Sun's heat (he thought it came from gravitational collapse) until he was proven wrong by Ernest Rutherford, this in 1904. Let us also remember that established science (starting with the International Geophysical Year in 1958) - believed that earth was in a cooling cycle. This was at the same time that the great war against CFCs and the Ozone issue was at it's peak. Funny how quickly "science" can change with the times.
"Proven" things are not always so easily proven - and given the fact that there is not very much we can do to change the carbon cycle on earth anyway (without total disruption of society), I would tend to be careful about making far-reaching extremist conclusions, and foisting radical societal change on humanity on the basis of them.
There is one obvious alternative which I do support, and would like to see funded with all the enthusiasm of the Kyoto accord and all the Gore carbon credits -
Nuclear Fusion. It might actually be achievable within the next 50 years, if we really got serious about doing the research.
-
SixofNine
"As of last year, there is no global warming. That might change or it could come back , but there is no global warming as of last year."
Sorry, but nothing you posted indicates that, as the scientist you quoted made clear. I'm sure I'm projecting, but I could almost hear the frustration in his words of rebuttal.
-
SixofNine
"And that was "proven science" to a lot of people back in the dark ages."
Explain that please.