Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

If he's a creationist, he must believe that something came from nothing. That whole "in the beginning, there was void" is hard to get around.

No, Creationists believe something came from a Creator. Darwinists believe that it just happened and that nothing caused it. Darwinists are atheists. Creationists are not.

 

[MG1968]

No, Creationists believe something came from a Creator.

Where did the Creator come up with the something?

I imagine your professor would drive the Darwinists nuts simply because citing an article of faith is nearly impossible to debate.

 

[Sandvol]

The entire planet could freeze over and the GW whakos would still be trying to explain how it's related to humans. The Earth has been cyclically warming and cooling for eons. 50,000 years ago we had an Ice Age. 10,000 years ago we had a mini Ice Age. This is the coldest Spring I've ever seen. Sea levels have not risen an inch. It's driven by scientists who want to keep the myth going so they can make a buck. Nothing else.

And, more to your point UGA DAWG is that we really need to be preparing as a civilization, our entire planet, for the next glacial period. We are in the Holocene interglacial now. Modern man has existed entirely in this Holocene period. The next glacial will wipe out most of our progress and mankind will just be in survival mode for tens of thousands of years.

 

[govols/cc]

Infowars... putting the info in tinfoil

You seem to be an "expert" obsessed with tinfoil

 

[Sandvol]

Where did the Creator come up with the something?

I imagine your professor would drive the Darwinists nuts simply because citing an article of faith is nearly impossible to debate.

He didn't attempt to explain it but proposed a supernatural cause was just as probable as any other explanation. How could he? And, he mostly exposed the religion of Darwinism and dismantled its major tenants.

 

[Sandvol]

From an article in 2012:

Forecasters predict that a new ice age will begin soon,” says this article on russia-ic.com.

“Habibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist from the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences considers that the sharp drop in temperature will start on the Earth in 2014.

“According to the scientist, our planet began to “get cold” in the 1990s. The new ice age will last at least two centuries, with its peak in 2055.

“It is interesting, that the same date was chosen by the supporters of the theory of global warming.

“The expected decrease in temperature may … become the fifth over the past nine centuries, reports Hydrometeorological Center of Russia. Experts call this phenomenon the “little ice age”, it was observed in the XII, XV, XVII, XIX centuries. This cyclicity makes the theory of upcoming cold weather in XXI century look like truth.”

New Ice Age to Begin in 2014 :: Russia-InfoCentre
Thanks to Thomas McHart, Stephanie Relfe for this link



Habibullo Abdussamatov is not just “a scientist.”

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, astrophysicist, is head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I’m inclined to take his forecasts seriously.


I’ve met Dr Abdussamatov, and posted other articles about him here: New Little Ice Age ‘to Begin in 2014′ | Ice Age Now

And here: Russian scientist predicts 100 years of cooling

 

[govols/cc]

He didn't attempt to explain it but proposed a supernatural cause was just as probable as any other explanation. How could he? And, he mostly exposed the religion of Darwinism and dismantled its major tenants.

It's odd people can believe something came from nothing but believe it's absurd to believe in a "creator".

 

[UGADawg4Life]

And, more to your point UGA DAWG is that we really need to be preparing as a civilization, our entire planet, for the next glacial period. We are in the Holocene interglacial now. Modern man has existed entirely in this Holocene period. The next glacial will wipe out most of our progress and mankind will just be in survival mode for tens of thousands of years.

Saw a science program the other day. Scientist was talking about how global warming was affecting the planet. Then, as if he hadn't even brought the subject up, started talking about what effect the next ice age will have. Do these people connect thoughts or just spew ignorance? :crazy: Are Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton in charge of global scientific weather pattern studies?:ermm:

 

[BartW]

No, Creationists believe something came from a Creator. Darwinists believe that it just happened and that nothing caused it. Darwinists are atheists. Creationists are not.

Not sure if serious… is this an intentional straw man or are you really this uninformed on the topic? Evolution has nothing to do with religion or the origins of the universe. Plenty of Christians accept evolution.

I love the crank magnetism going on here. Remember how I told you that people who believe in one conspiracy are more likely to believe in others? Well y’all have now suggested global warming, evolution, DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, ETS, vaccines, and HAARP are all science conspiracies. Thanks for proving me right again. Did I leave any out? Does anyone think the moon landing, AIDS, or chemtrails are conspiracies too? Lead poisoning? Asbestos?

I’m especially entertained by the (well-known) self-contradictory nature of conspiratorial thinking. For example:
• In one breath you say sea level has been rising for thousands of years, then in the next you agree with a post saying sea levels haven’t risen at all
• You say no respectable scientist would cite Michael Mann, then you reference paper after paper that cites Michael Mann
• You claim temperature drives modern CO2 levels (instead of human emissions), yet when temperature “pauses” while CO2 doesn’t you think it supports your argument
• You say global warming is a scheme to redistribute wealth to the poor, then you say it will starve the poor.
• You don’t believe in Milankovitch cycles, yet you believe the prediction based on Milankovitch cycles that we will soon enter another ice age
• You think we can easily handle the global warming of the coming decades, but you’re freaking out about entering an ice age millennia from now

I could go on and on. Basically, you’ll endorse any view--no matter how ridiculous or self-contradictory--as long as it opposes the “official” narrative. It’s the "vindication of kooks" corollary to the law of crank magnetism. It’s also classic confirmation bias. It’s what makes you shamelessly copypaste BS from “skeptic” websites like the doctored GISP2 and Moberg 2005 figures. Fascinating…

See also: fractal wrongness

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed to climate disruption? I mean isn't that the newest term that only the credible scientists have come up with Bart?

 

[BartW]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed to climate disruption? I mean isn't that the newest term that only the credible scientists have come up with Bart?

The title should be changed to "official conspiracy theory thread" since there's a bunch floating around

 

[Obsessed]

"The U.S. Air Force gave official notice to Congress Wednesday (May 14, 2014) that it intends to dismantle the $300 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program this summer."

Air Force prepares to dismantle HAARP ahead of summer shutdown | State News | ADN.com

Murkowski Committee Q&A on HAARP Future - YouTube


Besides they have a mobile unit now.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Had a weekend with lows in the 60's and highs in the low 80's, zero humidity. Climate Disruption is nice in May!

 

[Sandvol]

Not sure if serious… is this an intentional straw man or are you really this uninformed on the topic? Evolution has nothing to do with religion or the origins of the universe. Plenty of Christians accept evolution.

I love the crank magnetism going on here. Remember how I told you that people who believe in one conspiracy are more likely to believe in others? Well y’all have now suggested global warming, evolution, DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, ETS, vaccines, and HAARP are all science conspiracies. Thanks for proving me right again. Did I leave any out? Does anyone think the moon landing, AIDS, or chemtrails are conspiracies too? Lead poisoning? Asbestos?

I’m especially entertained by the (well-known) self-contradictory nature of conspiratorial thinking. For example:
• In one breath you say sea level has been rising for thousands of years, then in the next you agree with a post saying sea levels haven’t risen at all
• You say no respectable scientist would cite Michael Mann, then you reference paper after paper that cites Michael Mann
• You claim temperature drives modern CO2 levels (instead of human emissions), yet when temperature “pauses” while CO2 doesn’t you think it supports your argument
• You say global warming is a scheme to redistribute wealth to the poor, then you say it will starve the poor.
• You don’t believe in Milankovitch cycles, yet you believe the prediction based on Milankovitch cycles that we will soon enter another ice age
• You think we can easily handle the global warming of the coming decades, but you’re freaking out about entering an ice age millennia from now

I could go on and on. Basically, you’ll endorse any view--no matter how ridiculous or self-contradictory--as long as it opposes the “official” narrative. It’s the "vindication of kooks" corollary to the law of crank magnetism. It’s also classic confirmation bias. It’s what makes you shamelessly copypaste BS from “skeptic” websites like the doctored GISP2 and Moberg 2005 figures. Fascinating…

See also: fractal wrongness

You need to think before you just start blathering. Who said anything about Christians? I didn't say anything about believing in evolution. But, if you're a strict Darwinist then you are an atheist. Creationists are not atheists.

 

[FLVOL_79]

The title should be changed to "official conspiracy theory thread" since there's a bunch floating around

Like climate disrupting clouds?

 

[BartW]

You need to think before you just start blathering. Who said anything about Christians? I didn't say anything about believing in evolution. But, if you're a strict Darwinist then you are an atheist. Creationists are not atheists.

I didn't think you could be even less knowledgeable on this topic than global warming but you continue to amaze. Creationism is de facto evolution denialism. Evolution does not entail abiogenesis or atheism. Charles Darwin himself was a very religious man.

 

[BartW]

Like climate disrupting clouds?

Blame HAARP

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I wouldn’t be so sure… the new Pope has done some pretty controversial stuff already. And he’s a Jesuit (who have a rich history of science) and has a master’s degree in chemistry. He also took on the name of Francis of Assissi, the patron saint of animals and the environment. Furthermore he’s following Benedict aka “the Green Pope”, who also spoke specifically about climate change.


Are you Catholic VNSF? Sandvol’s catholic-bashing seemed to rub you the wrong way. The church’s anti-science reputation, mostly due to the well-known Galileo story, is unfair IMO. They have been big supporters of and participators in science throughout history. Catholics even embrace evolution. Kudos.

How do you feel about the church’s position that we need to be good stewards of the earth? Do you agree, or do you prefer the dominionist interpretation of the bible?

Yes I am catholic and yes I am very familiar with Jesuits. "Good stewards of earth" is referring to how we should take care of what we have, ie "dont get drunk and crash your Oil tanker into a reef". God gave us natural resources for us to use. Yes that means God is okay with us fracking a gas well so everyone can stay warm in the winter.

Yes I know who Francis Assisi is, I have even been his burial site. Assisi founded the Franciscan monks who are know for living in poverty and giving everything up to follow God. Pope Francis chose the name, because we live in a materialistic, throw away society and he is trying to change that. You may think he is trying to promote socialistic ideas, I think he is trying to highlight our wasteful, throw away society. You may think he is trying to push recycling and forced redistribution. I know he is talking about abolishing Abortion, which you "GW pushers" hate because more people on this planet means we are using more natural resources.

 

[Weezy]

Thought this was informative. About nuclear power and economics and where it is trending.

Nuclear plants in the US keep closing

Most climate scientists suggest we have to reduce our CO2 output by half, right? That's probably impossible. And we are most likely going to increase CO2 output.

So when I suggest we wait to see how the models play out for another decade or so, I'm also sort of shrugging my shoulders. Because if the models and predictions are right, we are screwed anyways. Any action that would move us downward would decimate the economy. And probably do nothing without equal action from other economies.

 

[Sandvol]

I didn't think you could be even less knowledgeable on this topic than global warming but you continue to amaze. Creationism is de facto evolution denialism. Evolution does not entail abiogenesis or atheism. Charles Darwin himself was a very religious man.

You are just full of yourself. Here is a quote from Wikipedia which you love so much.....

"He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[170][171] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind"

From that statement would you describe him as a deeply religious man?

And, this from Richard Dawkins....

"It is mainly its power to simulate the illusion of design that makes Darwin's big idea seem threatening to a certain kind of mind. The same power constitutes the most formidable barrier to understanding it. People are naturally incredulous that anything so simple could explain so much. To a naive observer of the wondrous complexity of life, it just must have been intelligently designed.

But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin's: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin's pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!

Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton's brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton's achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin's eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile.
".....

Maybe you need to explain to him and a plethora of other Darwinists that abiogenesis is not part of Darwinism.

 

[Sandvol]

Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process currently accepted by Darwinists:

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

 

[Weezy]

1. Nothing
2. ????
3. Something
4. Profit

 

[FLVOL_79]

1. Nothing
2. ????
3. Something
4. Profit

1. Instill Fear
2. ?
3. Profit!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts[/youtube]

 

[BartW]

You are just full of yourself.

You just make it so easy

If you'd read the rest of the wiki, heck even just the same section, you'd see Darwin was a devout Christian. He agonized over his theory for decades (until he was forced to publish or get scooped) precisely because he had trouble reconciling it with his religious beliefs. Darwin did veer towards agnosticism later in life following the death of his daughter. Anywho, the theory of evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin states that

1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive (Malthus)
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable

Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. No mention of abiogenesis or atheism anywhere.

It's apparent you don't have sufficient background to attempt to participate in this discussion. I recommend Evolution by Edward J. Larson.

 

[BartW]

Thought this was informative. About nuclear power and economics and where it is trending.

Nuclear plants in the US keep closing

Most climate scientists suggest we have to reduce our CO2 output by half, right? That's probably impossible. And we are most likely going to increase CO2 output.

So when I suggest we wait to see how the models play out for another decade or so, I'm also sort of shrugging my shoulders. Because if the models and predictions are right, we are screwed anyways. Any action that would move us downward would decimate the economy. And probably do nothing without equal action from other economies.

Interesting read. We’ll need nuclear to at least help bridge the gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. The stigma associated with the word ‘nuclear’ is ridiculous.

To your questions, the goal was to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 (UNFCC) and reduce them by 5% by 2012 (Kyoto) with the ultimate aim of keeping atmospheric CO2 concentration below 450 ppm. Of course we’re nowhere close to stabilizing or even slowing emissions; they continue to accelerate. But that’s no reason to throw your arms up and say “F it, we’re boned.” There’s still plenty we can do to mitigate the damage and avoid the worst case scenarios. The longer we wait the more it'll cost us.

As for your “decimate the economy” comment, I’d take a look at the carbon tax link in your article. Cap-and-trade (a Republican idea) has proven effective in the past. Many countries already have some form of carbon pricing. The economic gloom and doom narrative is just good old fashioned scaremongering