Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Energy & Environmental News and Discussions

climate change energy environment renewable energy nuclear energy fossil fuels fusion energy global warming sustainability solar energy

  • Please log in to reply
5621 replies to this topic

#41
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts




Well, I'm not so sure about that... the difference between predicting doom through anthropogenic climate change and predicting doom due to Rapture or the Mayan calendar or tea leaves is that ACG is supported through evidence.


I can give you plenty of evidence for the Mayan Calendar and the Rapture. Although it's not very "scientific." I can also give you evidence of other end of the world scenarios just like what people here are doing with Peak Oil and Global Warming. The only difference here is that the scientists are doing what they are told, and not studying other reasons why this could be happening. If there really was a consensus among the scientists i don't see why they wouldn't let people go off and do their own little experiments.

I don't know why peer reviewed research is seen as the norm now. It wasn't for most of history! Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Issac Newton were all laughed at for some of their insights and alternative thinking ideas.

Posted Image



There is evidence that elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to warmer overall temperatures.


There might be evidence of this, but that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the supposed Mayan notion that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012. You're mixing up fantasy and reality again jjf3. Facts and opinions are completely different things.

If you think there's as much evidence supporting climate change as there is supporting a religion that's been dead for hundreds of years, you're already hopeless.

Do you honestly not trust peer review? Then you're a fucking idiot. Sorry for the ad hominem, but that's true. Every piece of technology you use is based off of peer review. All of it. All of your examples are utterly stupid because they either underwent peer review or they didn't even invent anything or it doesn't apply to them. Because you probably don't get it, I'll spell it out for you:

Steve Jobs - CEO of Apple. Everything Apple does is based off of computer science that was peer reviewed.
Edison - Definitely peer reviewed.
Mendel - Definitely peer reviewed.
da Vince - Didn't actually invent anything. Came up with conceptual models for modern inventions. If his thoughts actually underwent peer review, then they would be shown to be incorrect. None of his machines would've worked.
Newton - Definitely peer reviewed. If you're counting the mathematics, then yeah, also peer reviewed.

How do you think science works? Some just comes up with something and then the whole community accepts it without even trying to verify it? I reiterate, you're a fucking idiot.

And one last thing, I'm going to keep saying this until you get it: Religion has its conclusions WITHOUT any proof to back it up. It is human speculation. Science gathers proof AND THEN AFTERWARD makes the conclusion based on reality.

jjf3, what psychological phenomena prevents you from understanding this last point? It is absolutely crucial that you understand that there is an objective reality and the best way to learn about it is through the scientific method, NOT whatever interests you or what you would like it to be.
  • truthiness likes this

#42
Time_Traveller

Time_Traveller

    Master of Time Travel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,066 posts
  • LocationRepublic of Jordan, 1 January 3025 C.E.

Negative effects of climate change could cost Canada the equivalent of 1% of its GDP by 2050 and 2.5% by 2075, a government-backed report has said.


Posted Image

From http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-15119210

I know that Canada can get Climate Change but the Negative Effects with this and the Economy.

(Move to right Section if not in right one).
I want to go ahead of Father Time with a scythe of my own.

H. G. Wells

#43
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Really? Rain has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Global warming = more heat = more melting of ice = more water evaporating = more rain in the system.

Is it really that difficult to understand?


There might be evidence of this

There is overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence for this. As a simple example, just look at Venus.


that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

Nobody is saying we're all going to die in 20 years. Where did you read that?

#44
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow

Also the fear mongering is laughable at best it's no different than predicting the end of the world using any other theory.

Like invisible pink unicorn theory is no diffrent from well examined and supported with evidence global warming... Yeah. Awesome logic.

Also why do open minded people suddenly shut the door when other individual scientists want to study possible other causes of global warming? (...)

They don't It's just that when they debunk those "possible other causes" those "open minded" ones don't listen.

Local temperatures have very little relevance to overall climate change btw.

Same goes for single year extremes. Every data has some noise so single warmer or colder year means nothing.

(...) Then you're a fucking idiot.
(...) I reiterate, you're a fucking idiot.

Can admin or moderator react? There's no justification for that.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#45
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
jjf3's consistent inability to distinguish between a prediction like religious Mayan eschatology and modern peer reviewed science is infuriating. I continually try to explain to him the fundamental differences between the two, basically fantasy vs. reality or opinion vs. fact, but to no avail. Peer review is not a complement of science, it is a component of it. jjf3 is not a religious fundamentalist so he shouldn't reject methodological naturalism. Yet he does. He twists facts to suit his own worldview and makes up facts of his own. It's ridiculous. This forum is not to be a joke to a casual passerby or someone who's thinking about joining. jjf3 MUST understand that there exists objectivity.

#46
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Your not getting what I am saying do you? These people that I mentioned were LAUGHED at in their faces for thinking about things the way they thought about things. If nobody gave them a change their ideas would have remained ideas. Just like what is happening to the experiments or scientists wanting to escape the norm today. It's all throughout history. Global Warming might as well be a religion, why? It's in a new Godless religion with Carbon as the devil rightfully called Eco-theology. Here are SOME contradictions in this Eco-Theology. Religious: You must believe the facts, the science is settled!!! Scientific: Maybe we were wrong lets just see what you have to say. We are open to other theories. Science is never settled. Religious: When Global Warming destroys the world one day you will be sorry. Scientific: When exactly will the world end due to global warming? How much is being caused by us? Can we do anything to stop it? Religious: You must take the facts literally!!!! Scientific: But the weather was warmer during the times of the dinosaurs and climate had thousands of times more c02. Religious: Dinosaurs aren't in the bible!!! Religious: Worship the IPCC Scientific report: The IPCC used fraudulent information. Religious: We need the Church (government)! Scientific: There are plenty of companies out there that do not need government help to fund their research, projects, or ideas! The tech community is known for its environmental causes. Religious: Global Warming Exists 100%, Scientific: The Sun can be responsible as well Religious: Heretics/Propaganda!!! Religious: The world will have peace and utopia once everyone does what we say. Scientific: How exactly will we achieve this? Tell me if I am sooo stupid and all of my ideas are dumb why are you trying to get a dumb person to believe in your claims? As far as I am aware no science does this, Religion on the other hand has a bunch of idiots worshiping blindly
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#47
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

jjf3's consistent inability to distinguish between a prediction like religious Mayan eschatology and modern peer reviewed science is infuriating. I continually try to explain to him the fundamental differences between the two, basically fantasy vs. reality or opinion vs. fact, but to no avail.

Peer review is not a complement of science, it is a component of it. jjf3 is not a religious fundamentalist so he shouldn't reject methodological naturalism. Yet he does. He twists facts to suit his own worldview and makes up facts of his own. It's ridiculous. This forum is not to be a joke to a casual passerby or someone who's thinking about joining. jjf3 MUST understand that there exists objectivity.


I just don't understand why you ppl try to make us non-believers believe in something we don't want to believe in. I never said I hate the environment, let's cause massive oil spills, throw garbage everywhere, and destroy all the trees. You really are twisting what I am trying to say too much. What is the worst possible thing that could happen if I don't believe in global warming? If it turns out to destroy the world I will be wrong? I just can't believe how many people don't see the fear-mongering as I've outlined perfectly clear in my previous post.

If you haven't figured it out now, I question pretty much everything that the mainstream media says and even some scientific norms/theories. My Global Warming denying which I admit is very strong, should be of no surprise. I wonder when questioning things turned into being called an idiot.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#48
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
BTW for those that will take my Eco-theology post way too seriously. Learn how to take a joke!!!! It's a comparison of religion and global warming in a funny/unique way. But if you bash it then you'll be no different than the tea party flat-earthers who believe that the world is 6000 years old (I don't think anybody believes that). "Oh How Dare I talk about global warming in such a way."
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#49
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

I wonder when questioning things turned into being called an idiot.

When you outright deny things that are regarded as "settled facts" by the National Academy of Sciences (along with literally every other national science institution in the world), then don't be surprised if people become enraged by your ignorance.

Settled facts:-

Gravity
Evolution
The Earth isn't flat
Global warming
etc. ...

Scientists might question a few minor points, but the basic fundamentals are settled.
  • Craven and raxo2222 like this

#50
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow

I just don't understand why you ppl try to make us non-believers believe in something we don't want to believe in.

You still mix beliefs and religion with evidence and science.
Global warming is about facts and evidence you just joyfully ignore.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#51
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Why should I believe it sooo much? How will we achieve utopia by fighting climate change? How will we convert everyone into electric cars??? And why do YOU throw out all of my articles/facts about global warming. Yes that one last post wasn't factual but all of my others and ROH's was/is.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#52
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
And again you use word believe. What is your malfunction?
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#53
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Can I still Choose to believe a scientific theory? Or is that not allowed anymore?
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#54
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
Am I using swahili here? You don't believe in science! That's the whole point. You can believe in unicorns, not in gravity.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#55
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,966 posts
  • LocationLondon

Why should I believe it sooo much?

Because:
(a) there is mountains of peer-reviewed scientific evidence,
(b) inaction and refusal to acknowledge the problem will lead to an environmental catastrophe.

How will we achieve utopia by fighting climate change?

Massive deployment of solar and other renewables, which will also create millions of new jobs, and cheaper energy. Carbon capture and sequestration, e.g. with artificial trees. New technologies to improve energy efficiency and sustainability, saving billions of dollars. New farming techniques to improve crop yields and make them more drought resistant, etc.

It's a win-win. Why on earth would you be against this? It's completely irrational. You don't even need to involve the government to achieve it. For example, solar will reach grid parity within a few years.

How will we convert everyone into electric cars???

The market will take care of it.

Can I still Choose to believe a scientific theory? Or is that not allowed anymore?

You can choose not to. I believe that's called a "self-delusion".

Also, you should know that scientific "theories" are also "facts". See for example - http://en.wikipedia....theory_and_fact

#56
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
All of the solutions are just ideas and/or impracticable at this point in time. Besides for solar, and I like solar. They are great intentions but how will they be implemented? New Technologies, New Farming techniques, New artificial trees I still don't see how this will lead to peace on Earth and no wars drug abuse rapes murders greed etc.... Artificial trees? What's wrong with the trees we can easily plant? Oh that's right we can control C02 with those and make profit off them. How do you not see the fear mongering and the profit making?
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#57
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow

I still don't see how this will lead to peace on Earth and no wars drug abuse rapes murders greed etc....

On previous page you spewed bullshit about everyone dying in 20 years. wjfox asked you where did you read that. You didn't answer. Now you're spewing another bullshit. Will you stop?


How do you not see the fear mongering and the profit making?

How do you not see diffrence between facts and beliefs?
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#58
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Ok I was exaggerating on the other post wow nobody does that do they? Pro-Earthers are always spewing stuff about making the world a better place with less pollution, less cars less garbage. Which is all fine, but the Global Warming theory states that if we don't act now the world will be destroyed. When we change our ways everything will be perfect and beautiful.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#59
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
No. Global warming indicates that if we don't act soon, changes will be irreversible (on scale of millenia) and possibly lethal to many humans and larger lifeforms. World recovered from planetary disasters many times.
  • wjfox and GNR Rvolution like this
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#60
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Well, I guess I was wrong about having an open debate here on the global warming section.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, energy, environment, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels, fusion energy, global warming, sustainability, solar energy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users