In the introduction to Cat's Cradel, Kurt Vonnegut says,"If you can't understand how a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies, then you probably shouldn't read this book".
Let me assure you, Nad, that Doug is one of the "good guys".
If you haven't already listened to it, you'd probably enjoy the last URL below.
If you like weekends, thank a union.
==
Indeed, but then we had moved to discussing retention of skool larned material.
Are you kidding?
Sadly no. The fundamentalist/creationist bible belt of the USA is way beyond anything that that you or I are likely to meet in the flesh. Think of the child of Pauline Hanson and Fred Nile on crystal meth. I am not having a go at religion or Christianity in general but this particular mob are crazy, ignorant and would love to see the world made into a theocracy, with them in charge of course - Christian Taliban.
We are way OT so I think I will stop now.
D
Remember, we didn't just get criminals, we got the religious wackos too.
I always thought you were a hobokenist! It must have been the 250,000 cigarets, 2000 quarts of booze or your three wives that made you say that Billy or your getting confused with Mark Twain with the Bible "being a pack of lies".
I am not saying he is or isn't. He did seem to confirm my suspicions. He seemed to support a belief in a God, questioned global warming as being man made and seemed to think nuclear energy is not that harmful to the environment.
These are common traits among people. Yes they are exceptions to the rules. However, it is also in my nature to categorize people and their beliefs. After a while when i get some basic information, I can almost always surmise the rest of his or her views. We humans weather you like it or not fall into a few categories therefore can be type casted.
No.
Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what people do.
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 not.
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 valley!
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 reference.
All analogies fall apart at some point.
-----
The garden suggests there might be a place where we can meet nature halfway.
-- Michael Pollan
Doug Freyburger wrote: ...
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.
songbird
What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the world?
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 world.
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 worldwide population.
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.
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 temperature..
Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life :)
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.
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 me.
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 activities.
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.
It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might expect considering the fiery origins of the planet.
Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S.
Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective proof.
In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I view which I reject.
Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as "absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this seemingly same definition :)
What is "natural climate change"?
The graph on indicates that the planet was "naturally" getting cooler.
Lipids in algae. Stay tuned.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required