| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2005 09:50:52 PM · #151 |
I agree with you that man is not god and should not look upon him/herself in that light. What I do believe is that mankind should act as stewards of the earth, our one and only home. Should take care of it and keep it healthy, just like you would do with your own home or body. You would go to the doctor if you were sick, wouldn't you? Global warming is not the only environmental issue these days.
Originally posted by jmritz:
What I have a problem with is this new found belief almost a religion that man is God. That we create the world in our image. That WE are the one and only being made from (whatever means you (not you Ron) chouse, be it primordial soup or evolution or whatever). These people use any excuse to gain power and use their intellectual prowess to subjugate the rest of us. They come in the guise of do-gooders and they will save us from ourselves if it kills us. They will save the environment at any cost. They invent illusionary threats that we have to fight. Global warming is a perfect tool to use. Who wants to hurt the world? It is an argument that if you argue against it you must not care about the Earth. You are a traitor to life on Earth.
A famous person once said âIt is all right to lie as long as the result is good.) And I would ask âGood for whom?â |
|
|
|
|
02/27/2005 10:21:52 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Enlightenment leads to the belief of a creator.
|
ROTFLOL |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Haha. I think the ego got in the way of intepretation. Enlightenment simply validates, acknowledges or discovers the existence of the creator. The wisest men acknowledge a creator. |
|
|
|
02/27/2005 11:02:43 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Enlightenment leads to the belief of a creator.
|
ROTFLOL |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Haha. I think the ego got in the way of intepretation. Enlightenment simply validates, acknowledges or discovers the existence of the creator. The wisest men acknowledge a creator. |
Still gonna have to lol on that one :) |
|
|
|
02/28/2005 01:25:16 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Enlightenment leads to the belief of a creator.
|
ROTFLOL |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Haha. I think the ego got in the way of intepretation. Enlightenment simply validates, acknowledges or discovers the existence of the creator. The wisest men acknowledge a creator. |
Still gonna have to lol on that one :) |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I laughed outloud myself. You do have a good sense of humor. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 03:10:50 AM · #155 |
| Enlightenment= One with Creator |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 03:25:24 AM · #156 |
Let's not forget that "enlightenment" is not a fixed concept and that it ought not be narrowly defined; here, for instance, the term "enlightenment" is placed in the context of Western philosophy and civilization:
The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy, and is often thought of as part of a larger period which includes the Age of Reason.
The term also more specifically refers to an intellectual movement, "The Enlightenment", which is described as being the use of rationality to establish an authoritative ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. This movement's leaders viewed themselves as a courageous, elite body of intellectuals who were leading the world toward progress, out of a long period of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which began during a historical period they called the Dark Ages. This movement provided a framework for the American and French Revolutions, as well as the rise of capitalism and the birth of socialism. It is matched by the high baroque era in music, and the neo-classical period in the arts.
Another important movement in 18th century philosophy, closely related to it, was a focus on belief and piety. Often rationalism was used to demonstrate the existence of a supreme being. Piety and belief were an intergral part of the exploration of natural philosophy and ethics as well as political theories of the age. At the same time prominent Enlightenment philosophers, such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau questioned and attacked existing institutions of both Church and State.
The 18th century also saw a continued rise of emprical philosophical ideas, and their application to political economy, government and sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology.
It is preceded by the Age of Reason, if thought of as a short period, and by the Renaissance and Reformation if thought of as a long period. It is followed by Romanticism.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:15:14 PM · #157 |
Antartic ice is actually getting thicker
eta: as so many in the religious debates wish to trot out science and scientific evidence as proof of... perhaps those same persons will acknowledge that manmade global warming is as much against the scientific evidence as...
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 14:19:19. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:19:50 PM · #158 |
"It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.
But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well."
Edited to add link to article. Found article by Googling "ice" in news.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 14:21:40. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:31:05 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by citymars:
"It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.
But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well."
Edited to add link to article. Found article by Googling "ice" in news. |
The replies to your link doubt the author's position.
Why Is Antarctic Sea Ice Growing?
Mon Apr 20 18:51:02 BST 2009 by Simon
The typographical errors assuage my suspicion that the author does not realise that the global temperature has been dropping for the entire 21st century. Neither is Artic ice decreasing, it does rise and fall with the season, according to the Canadian monitors. The extremes might change as circulation patterns, winds, etc alter on their own cycles.
Someday when we have a fully verified theory of climate and weather, tested on the Earth, Mars, and Titan, we can say what controls the weather and thence the climate.
I am not persuaded that humanity caused the end of the last Ice Age. I worry about the mini ice age predicted to start in 2010 to 2012, lasting past 2050, as predicted by scientists in Russia. I also worry that CO2 has now been displaced by aerosols as a driver of global warming. This seems like the flailing arms of a drowning person, clutching at straws to defend a theory that has not been proven and is not verified.
I await the release of a published theory before I trust any of these claims.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:38:05 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The typographical errors assuage my suspicion that the author does not realise that the global temperature has been dropping for the entire 21st century. Neither is Artic ice decreasing ... |
The "typographical errors" do nothing to assuage my concern that your source doesn't know anything about the A-R-C-T-I-C ice, or perhaps anything else ...
Amount of Old Ice in Arctic Hits Record Low in February 2009
Headlines from the press, radio, and television:
* Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Believed
//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=37820&src=eoa-hnews
* Arctic Ice Shows Winter Thinning
//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=37821&src=eoa-hnews
* Ice Bridge Ruptures in Antarctic
//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=37823&src=eoa-hnews
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 15:45:28. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 09:26:54 PM · #161 |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 08:24:50 AM · #162 |
1. Your link purports to counter denial of climate change.
2. It uses arguments and data that any athiest would scoff at if like arguments were used to support the existence of God.
Thus you present a like kind argument for the "proof" of man-made climate change, that you would not accept from those that believe in God. If scientific proof is the only criteria, then why ingore the scientific data of cooling temperatures and more ice? If scientific data is not reliable and can easily be explained away with conjecture and theory, then don't be so quick to dismiss the evidence relating to scripture.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 09:30:28 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by Flash:
you present a like kind argument for the "proof" of man-made climate change, that you would not accept from those that believe in God. If scientific proof is the only criteria, then why ingore the scientific data of cooling temperatures and more ice? If scientific data is not reliable and can easily be explained away with conjecture and theory, then don't be so quick to dismiss the evidence relating to scripture. |
You're not making sense. Each claim made in the rebuttal is supported by actual evidence- exactly the sort of argument required for belief in the supernatural. The idea that a few areas will get cooler and wetter is both expected and consistent with global warming models and data. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 09:44:51 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Each claim made in the rebuttal is supported by actual evidence- |
Here is some scientific evidence.
The IPCC reports, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, were meant to provide definitive up-to-date answers to questions about global warming based on current scientific data. Yet when the reports were issued, a number of scientists who had contributed to them challenged the conclusions.
They charged that Pachauri, who is an economist and industrial engineer and not a climate scientist, had written the final draft of the report in collaboration with other political figures before it was released, adding errors and unsubstantiated conclusions. The critics also charged that he had over-stepped the mandate of the IPCC by advocating policy, something the panel was supposed to avoid.
In January 2005 Chrisopher Landsea, a leading hurricane expert with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration resigned from work on the IPCC report, saying that it was "both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." He said that the panel had deliberately linked recent hurricane severity with global warming when no scientific link had been established.
Here is another scientific position.
Scientists warned that the increase in big eaters means more food production â a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.
Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a ton more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.
It means an extra billion tons of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organization estimates of overweight people.
The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.
Neither help convince me of man-made global warming. Recently I heard that 4% of Global temperature changes are scientifically attributed to man with 96% being of "natural cyclic" origin. Trying to confirm those numbers. If true, then demeaning overweight persons or taxing industry for carbon offset credits is not a scientific supported item as much as an agenda item of a political nature. The kind of political item that non-believers accuse the Church of implementing throughout history and thus evidence of its fallacy. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 09:50:47 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. Your link purports to counter denial of climate change.
|
Actually their link is entitled; "How to deal with climate change deniers." As though those who aren't comfortable with the current climate change theory are something akin to a dog turd, and the article explains how to bag it and dispose of it. Flash you waste your time in any discussion with those who believe in Global Warming. You'd be much better served masturbating. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 10:39:32 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Actually their link is entitled; "How to deal with climate change deniers." |
Yeah, it's probably a sister site to "How to deal with flat earth proponents," "What do you say to someone who claims the moon landing was a hoax?" and the ever-popular. "The Holocaust happened Ahmadinejad, deal with it." This one seems appropriate for Flash. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 10:52:21 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
This one seems appropriate for Flash. |
Is there a point in your mockery? A refutation of the scientific evidence I posted and questioned?
The repliers in your link seem to agree with me. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 11:08:58 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Is there a point in your mockery? A refutation of the scientific evidence I posted and questioned? |
It wasn't mockery. The point of the link was that the idea that global warming is real and influenced by human activity is basically irrefutable given the massive volume of evidence and time spent studying it. The theory is accepted by 97% of climatologists. You can deny it with local anomalies and fellow naysayers all you want, but your arguments are fallacious and do little to dent the overall theory. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 11:49:56 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Is there a point in your mockery? A refutation of the scientific evidence I posted and questioned? |
It wasn't mockery. The point of the link was that the idea that global warming is real and influenced by human activity is basically irrefutable given the massive volume of evidence and time spent studying it. The theory is accepted by 97% of climatologists. You can deny it with local anomalies and fellow naysayers all you want, but your arguments are fallacious and do little to dent the overall theory. |
You use the word "influence" as carrying equal weight with man-made or as the thread is titled Humans causing global warming - solid evidence. The fact that 97% of climatoligists agree that global warming is occurring is different than 97% of climatologists claim that it is man-made or even that humans are causing it.
With your many many posts exemplifying your skilled abilities at word parsing, I expect more from you. Yet I am not surprised at your twists and turns. If man has an influence as you state is irrefutable, then what is your definition of "influence"? Is it the same as my influence over US policy or the same as my influence over my household policy? Very different - yet the same word. Man-made global warming implies that man is the catalyst. Science does not support that - any more than an athiests refutation of scripture. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 11:59:21 AM · #170 |
I was watching something on the Discovery channel about previous extinctions and such and there was a period, before humans and after dinosaurs, where the average temp of the planet rose 38 (thrity eight) degrees in a 50 year period. They have no idea why.
There was another rise of 9 degrees over 100 years that occured, if I recall man was around then.
So is this current issue caused by man or not? Since much larger fluctuations happened have happened without our help I think it might be a bit premature to think we're responsible, or if we are that it matters all that much. Temp changes of dramatic degrees have occurred in the past and will occur again whether we're here or not - so it's a matter of adapt or die.
Currently frogs, bats and honey bees are all dying off in vast numbers and that IMO should be addressed first. If it's a CO2 thing then we need to fix it - on the frogs and bats it's a fungus/mold issue. Bees they don't know yet last I heard.
So no bats or frogs and no freezing temps means insects will go wild (excluding bees apparently). That's going to bother me a whole lot more than a couple of degrees of temp rise.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:13:41 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If man has an influence as you state is irrefutable, then what is your definition of "influence"? |
The opposite of "no influence," and in terms of the question, "A significant contributing factor." Sort of like smoking is a significant contributing factor in lung cancer. Do you really need an exact number when there's an obvious correlation? Here's a direct link to the poll (PDF). Knock yourself out. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:16:10 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"What do you say to someone who claims the moon landing was a hoax?" |
The mood landing was a hoax???
News to me. But.... you know.... I certain can't prove man landed on the moon. I just don't have the critical evidence that it happened. But I have spoken with one guy who used to work with their radar tracking program and he indicated he tracked an object all the way to the moon and back during each of the flights. And also indicated it was difficult to get a precise fix right after a urine dump. Sounds like a bit of information that would be hard to fake. LOL |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 02:20:13 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I was watching something on the Discovery channel about previous extinctions and such and there was a period, before humans and after dinosaurs, where the average temp of the planet rose 38 (thrity eight) degrees in a 50 year period. They have no idea why.
There was another rise of 9 degrees over 100 years that occured, if I recall man was around then.
So is this current issue caused by man or not? Since much larger fluctuations happened have happened without our help I think it might be a bit premature to think we're responsible, or if we are that it matters all that much. Temp changes of dramatic degrees have occurred in the past and will occur again whether we're here or not - so it's a matter of adapt or die.
Currently frogs, bats and honey bees are all dying off in vast numbers and that IMO should be addressed first. If it's a CO2 thing then we need to fix it - on the frogs and bats it's a fungus/mold issue. Bees they don't know yet last I heard.
So no bats or frogs and no freezing temps means insects will go wild (excluding bees apparently). That's going to bother me a whole lot more than a couple of degrees of temp rise. |
In the face of this posted irrefutable fact, scalvert and FireBird prefer to make light of this evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Regardless - the link found in the reply section to scalvert's posted link raises a couple of questions on its own.
eta: link to link
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 14:27:35. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 02:37:19 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[97% |
If you do not read the replies to your links I would encourage you to do so. The reply's again agree with me. As does this one: As a petroleum geologist I object to the light dismissal of our opinions as if we are uniquely susceptible to biasing our scientific judgments in favor of who funds our work. If we are more skeptical of anthropogenic global warming claims it is because we are major practitioners of sequence stratigraphy and acutely aware of natural climate cyclicity recorded in the rocks. Couple that with an intimate familiarity with simulation models (used for reservoir simulations, and relatively simple at that in comparison to climate models) and all their limitations and pitfalls, and I think we have a better than average appreciation of what is evidentiary and what is uncertain prediction in climate sciences. As "tommy" put it, it's not that we don't accept global warming -- global warming and global cooling is our bread and butter -- or even human impacts -- urban island effects on meteorological stations are obvious -- it's just that we maintain a healthy skepticism of the significance of human contributions in the face of solar periodicity, Milakovitch cycles, and volcanoes.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 14:38:19. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 02:51:07 PM · #175 |
A few posted opinions do not change the poll results. I'm sure the 3% of dissenting climatologists thought they were pretty well qualified, too. Consider also that a scientist working in the petroleum field is like a doctor working for a cigarette company... they exist, but they will tend to come from the pool of disbelievers since most people would rather work for the betterment of society than exacerbate a global health issue.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 14:53:47. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 10:35:11 PM EDT.
