It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof
one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims
certainty. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and
atheism are both a matter of faith.
As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in
Greenland, but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising
sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then?
And then there is living(?) with Global Warming.
Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what
And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one
specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the
opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions
out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all
make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address
deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their
members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. As if all
other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions
make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They
don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the
existance of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region
with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because
you've never been high enough to see its curvature youreself.
Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best
supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I
personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well
that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and
does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided
to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or
It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also
demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.
Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin
A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the
last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of
arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the
deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change?
Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How
much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is
a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in
amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the
human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt
build up in the soil?
The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land
as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading
Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect
a large portion of desertification is
from human activities like overgrazing
cows/sheep/goats and removing covering
forests for crops and firewood. some
areas the moisture in the forrests is
part of the local weather cycle. remove
the forrest, change the weather...
some desertland can be reclaimed by
doing simple things like lining up rocks
on the ground (which stops water from
flowing away quickly). soon these lines
trap seeds and the plants sprout and
that sets up a small windbreak which
further protects tree seedlings and
gives them a chance to grow.
as long as these are not grazed by goats
it can go a long ways towards getting some
growth going even in very harsh climates.
in China they are trying to reforrest
some areas, but i'm not sure how much
success they've had. i don't think they
have enough moisture or organic stuff
planted along with the saplings so they
bake before they can grow. instead they
probably need an approach like the one
above that starts small and works up
to supporting trees one step at a time.
Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia.
The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much
was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change?
Very hard to tell after the fact.
It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub
bushes then building generation to generation.
Change that is not caused by humans. There's been a lot of it in
geological time. Enough to ask if the human contribution in the current
trend is large or small. And that's independent of the real issue that
you point out in the graph - If global warming isn't really a good
The graph also shows that life in general has done very well during the
warmer geological periods. We're all doomed - The history of life
thriving during warm periods proves it! We're all doomed - Humanity
evolved during the recent swings and highs. Our prehistoric ancestors
have already been through several ice ages and warming periods. The
"we" part is specific parts of human culture not humanity in general
and not life in general.
Independent of the size of human contribution to global warming that's
the interesting point - Earth's life thrived under warming conditions.
Ancient humanity thrived under warming conditions. Therefore global
warming *must* be *entirely* human caused and we're all going to die
as a result of it! It's political BS at its finest. It ignores what has
actually happened during prior warm eras.
Even glancing at the graphs tells a different story. Life and humanity
have thrived under warmer conditions across geological time. Except for
folks living in Florida which will eventually be innundated, exactly how
again is life and humanity thriving a disaster? Last time I checked
there are planes, trains and automolbiles capable of evacuating Florida
in a lot less than the several centuries it will take for it to flood.
We'll need to replant the citrus groves elsewhere, completely
The degree of human contribution just doesn't matter in real terms -
Life in general and humanity in specific has thrived on Earth during
eras of warmer climate.
Is it bad just because it's different? Really? I look at those graphs
and I don't buy it. I look at those graphs and I wonder why I support
green energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear. Because fossil fuels
are limited resources, that's why.
What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the
Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything.
Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no
metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken
LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not
Christian, but spiritual none the less.
Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion?
Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former
would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't.
It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all.
The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the
High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming
could be more than just inconvenient.
In this case we have a person who was exposed to toxic religion when
young who has rejected religion based on that. Rather like hating all
fruit because of being forced to eat brussel sprouts as a child.
Buddhism at least. Number three in the list of the big 4 based on
There are also plenty of religions where the individual's belief in
deity is irrelevant even though the written scripture describes deity as
existing. Judaism for exmple. Also Hindu, number four in the list of
the big 4 based on worldwide population.
Among other aspects. Note that science is a spiritual method in that
meaning so the spiritual means more than the religious.
Correct. Reading a map and seeing Greenland and thinking that Greenland
exists is an act of faith. Reading reports of deity written by others
and thinking that deity exists is an act of faith. The difference is in
how to convert that faith into conviction. Anyone can take someone else
to Greenland. No one can take anyone else to an experience of deity.
It's always only real to the individual - Subjective.
There are metrics which disprove the existance of specific gods, none
that prove the existance of them. That part of religion is always
subjective. There are necessary and sufficient aspects to religion.
Belief in deity is sufficient without being necessary.
Buddhism is an entire faith which does not require any address to deity.
There are Buddhist sects that do address deity but it is always
optional. There are also religions that are theistic in their writings
that do not require it of their members. Once you're past Christianity
and Islam, numbers one and two in world population, few of the remaining
religions make such a requirement even in theory.
Only if the world population does not migrate to reflect the changing
location of arable land. Static humanity has never been true and can
not be expected to be true now. As the arable land shifts away from the
equator so does the human population. Such migrations across history
have triggered sigificant social change.
Could. Agreed. Human hunting has already triggered a mass extinction.
We do need the environmentalist movement. We do need to continue solar
cells on their exponential growth until they replace much of the fossil
fuel use. We do need to build soil as a part of our farming methods.
We do need to plant more trees and slow/stop the net cutting of trees.
The refutation of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is
seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. Hence,
Buddhism is often aptly described as a
"spiritual philosophy" [Which would be my view, not a religion.-Billy]
whose sole aim is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,
called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies
endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the
origin of the world are worthless. Some theists beginning Buddhist
meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with
Buddhism, but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose
a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of
If you like weekends (40 hr/5 day weeks), thank a union.
Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in
If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?
When has global warming happened in the past?
The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.
That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.
I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I
will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the
Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus
Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube
without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.
For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm
periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There
is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher
winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the
orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of
seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have
more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.
Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates
suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the
science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections
remain tentative not certain. To someone 20 the projections have not
changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific
revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to
In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In
the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic
engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus
among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big
difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts
that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere
being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the
soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.
Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a
concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual
atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.
A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.
If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is
century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million
years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia
or a good measure of past temperature recordings.
I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming
is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your
belief is on a God, not science.
If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth
will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global
warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2
and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans
and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing
population that will consume more and more resources.
I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a
global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by
normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time.
Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity".
Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human
If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really
really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions.
Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I
do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
It is clear you have not read any of my posts.
Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.
Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long
disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather
cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way
I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
I will use smaller sentences.
1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.
2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.
3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.
4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?
1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.
2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.
3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.
4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.
5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.
1) Global warming is real.
2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.
3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.
4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?
1) Fossil fuel is limited.
2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear.
3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.
4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.
5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.
6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.
7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees.
8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.
9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.
I agree, but not in environmentalism. Follow the money.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)
"A well-researched and readable case against free-trade orthodoxy."
"A lively addition to the protectionist side of the debate...well written
and far more serious than most anti-globalization gibberish."
-- New York Sun
"Bookstore shelves are loaded with offerings by economists and
commentators seeking to explain, in accessible prose, why
free-trade-style globalization is desirable and even indispensable for
countries the world over. Now comes the best riposte from the critics
that I have seen. Readers who are leery of open-market orthodoxy will
rejoice at the cogency of Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang has the
credentials -- he's on the economics faculty at Cambridge University --
and the storytelling skill to make a well-informed, engaging case
against the dogma propagated by globalization's cheerleaders. Believers
in free trade will find that the book forces them to recalibrate and
maybe even backpedal a bit....Chang's book deserves a wide readership for
illuminating the need for humility about the virtues of private markets
and free trade, especially in the developing world."
--Paul Blustein, Washington Post
"Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations,
this penetrating study could be entitled "economics in the real world."
Chang reveals the yawning gap between standard doctrines concerning
economic development and what really has taken place from the origins of
the industrial revolution until today. His incisive analysis shows how,
and why, prescriptions based on reigning doctrines have caused severe
harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and defenseless, and are
likely to continue to do so. He goes on to provide sensible and
constructive proposals, solidly based on economic theory and historical
evidence, as to how the global economy could be redesigned to proceed on
a far more humane and civilized course. And his warnings of what might
happen if corrective action is not taken are grim and apt."
- Noam Chomsky
"A smart, lively, and provocative book that offers us compelling new
ways of looking at globalization."
--Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics
(Available at better libraries near you.)
Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?
From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state :)
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.