Climate Change Alarm "Dialed Down"

by metatron 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  Here's the simple way to decide if something is real or not - just ask yourself: do religious republicans believe in it?

  If they answer is "Yes, they believe" then it's likely false or just plain stupid (Jesus, WoMDs, Angels, 6000 year old earth, humans riding dinosaurs, Mitt Romney, more guns = less shootings, no-conception from rape etc...)

  If instead they claim it's false or fake then it's likely already past proven or just common sense (Climate change, the scientific method, evolution, facts in general, civility, Obama is president, choice for women etc...)

  "This has been a public information service announcement on behalf of the campaign against insanity"
• 

  besty

  #hahahasimontoofunny
• 

  cantleave

  Simon
• 

  Simon

  It's funny because it's true.
• 

  ballistic

  I didn't think there were any climate change denyers anymore like there were when I would get flamed on here 10 years ago. Just look out the window if you can't see it! lol
• 

  besty

  religious denial of climate change:

  http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

  WHAT WE DENY

  1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
  2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
  3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
  4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
• 

  cantleave

  Another reason why I hate religion!
• 

  metatron

  (Sigh) Yes, Republicans can be discouraging, generally. However, guys such as Rand Paul and Amash give me hope at least as far as war and imperialism go.

  I think we need to be careful whenever some authority proclaims that 'science is settled' on some point -especially where politics, money and egos are involved. Scientists can be just as vicious as Witnesses in 'disfellowshipping' people who dare to think otherwise:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris

  How the heck did it take until 2005 (a merited Nobel Prize) to figure out that ulcers were mostly caused by bacteria? The winners had some anger to overcome about how they got treated

  Did "97%" of climate/environmental scientists agree that 40,000 elephants in the Zimbabwe area needed to be killed to save land from becoming desert? Did it work? (nope)

  Have some critics of 'cold fusion' refused to even read test results because "they know it's wrong"?

  The lack of civility today is not always limited to Republicans. Al Gore and friends could stand to tone it down, as well.

  Respectfully,

  metatron
• 

  steve2

  I am a self-acknowledged non-expert on this whole topic, tending towards simply accepting that the obvious climate change is due to human-generated activity.

  The "aspect" of the debate or "exchange" of ideas that interests me is the "expert" versus "non-expert" positions. Some centuries ago, there was a parallel of sorts in the arena of religious beliefs in which the Roman Catholic Church was the arbiter of truth and anyone who denied that "fact" was in danger of being vilified if not crucified. The Church dessminated facts and who were the unChurched or mere mortals to question it - these untutored ignormamuses. I imagine it would have been far, far easier to simply be resigned to the Church's monopoly on truth - especially if you wanted to live and not be exposed as a heretic.

  I'm not suggesting that the exact same "expert" play is at work among scientists in the current debate - and I also acknowledge some deniers have made some foolhardy claims - but it is interesting how this debate plays out. As said, I'm more and more inclined to accept that climate change is largely due to human activity - yet the drubbing the non-experts get has shades of what heretics of earlier centuries endured (and okay, some heretics were probably not "fine" examples and probably deserved the drubbing).

  "Experts" are often so closely involved in what they do that they often miss parts of the picture that others can see.
• 

  bohm

  steve: the catholic church was denying facts based on dogma. i dont see any evidence on that happening in the wider scientific community.