Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[JIMMY12345]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

Biowarfare would be more likely eg the latest Daniel Craig Bond movie where they invent a poison based on specific DNA profiles to target specific groups.

 

[F1fan]

Things are not always as they seem. Perhaps you are simply unwilling to accept the historical baggage that comes with identifying as a humanist?

I haven't seen you explain how the baggage you're standing there with belongs to humanists. I fall into the category of humanist because my attitudes reflect the definition. None of it considers the Catholic Church. It seems to me you have a problem with Humanism for some reason and want to attach the actual baggage of the Catholic Church onto it for how it is considered today.

Classic projection. Humanism is defined by the forces which brought it into being and those that shaped it's development over time. Cicero and the Roman church were undeniably a part of that, and they identified with Rome, not outsiders, so your position is untenable.

So what? Everything today has evolved from what happened in the past. Look at evolution today, we see creationists try to criticize this theory in 2023 by pointing to things Darwin got wrong in 1865. Who cares, it is irrelevant that Darwin got things wrong because his observations were correct. Science has since corrected his errors and reflects refinement in the time since and is vastly more complete, accurate, and modern.

 

[Ebionite]

I haven't seen you explain how the baggage you're standing there with belongs to humanists.

When you identify as part of a group you associate yourself with the traditions of that group. In the case of humanism those traditions originate with Cicero.

 

[ChristineM]

When you identify as part of a group you associate yourself with the traditions of that group. In the case of humanism those traditions originate with Cicero.

Actually they originated in the Renaissance period.
Although Cicero believed humanity to be important

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Things are not always as they seem.

I know. Mick told me: "Well it just goes to show, things are not what they seem."

Perhaps you are simply unwilling to accept the historical baggage that comes with identifying as a humanist?

It's not my baggage. I'm promoting a modern worldview. Did you want to address that or keep deflecting to Cicero and the Romans?

Humanism is defined by the forces which brought it into being and those that shaped it's development over time.

No, it's not. Humanism is defined by its central tenets. I could enumerate the main ones to you. Knowledge comes from the application of reason to evidence. Moral values are intuitions of the conscience, not found in a book, and an appropriate value for societies is to facilitate human development and opportunity to pursue happiness as we understand it in the milieu of a free, tolerant society. Also, man is capable of nobility and is the only source of answers or of improvement of the human condition, which comes from the application of these principles.

Did you want to address that, or do you prefer tilting at your straw man? Rhetorical question. Your only interest here is in denigrating the word humanism with irrelevancies about Cicero because it is antithetical to your religious beliefs.

Cicero and the Roman church were undeniably a part of that, and they identified with Rome, not outsiders, so your position is untenable.

Everything before "so" is irrelevant to humanists, and everything after is non sequitur, meaning it doesn't deserve a so, therefore, or ergo before it, because it doesn't follow from what preceded it.

When you identify as part of a group you associate yourself with the traditions of that group.

Yes, we do, but I'm identifying with a worldview, not a group, unless you mean those that share it. None of us are thinking about Cicero or subhuman non-Romans. That's you, for the purpose of demeaning a philosophy you don't understand.

Incidentally, I am very proud to be an atheistic humanist and an opponent of theocracy. These are among the things I hope to be remembered for by those who survive me.

 

[Ebionite]

Actually they originated in the Renaissance period.
Although Cicero believed humanity to be important

No, the langauge of humamism originated with Cicero.

appellari ceteros homines, esse solos eos, qui essent politi propriis humanitatis artibus
De re publica I, xvii, 28

For it is no accident that Heidegger begins with Marx (319), though he departs from this starting point almost immediately, for a brief glance at "Christian humanism" and lands with a giant step in the age of the Roman Republic (320). The common ground that Heidegger finds in all these humanisms is "'the concern [Sorge]' [...] that man be drawn back into his essence [ Wesen]; for that is humanism: care and concern that man be human rather than 'inhuman,' which is to say outside his own essence. But what constitutes man's humanity?" Marxian humanism finds it in the identity between natural man and social man, Christian humanism in humanitas as opposed to deitas, Roman humanism in the contrast between homo humanus and homo barbarus (319f.).
Hendrik Birus

 

[ChristineM]

No, the langauge of humamism originated with Cicero.

appellari ceteros homines, esse solos eos, qui essent politi propriis humanitatis artibus
De re publica I, xvii, 28

Humanism as a group did not start until the Renaissance, when Petrarch began to live the lifestyle he discovered in ancient texts (no doubt some by Cicero) and others followed his example.

 

[F1fan]

When you identify as part of a group you associate yourself with the traditions of that group.

No I don’t. I don’t recognize any of the history to what my attitudes are for myself. It is YOU trying to hang the past onto me aggressively. What your motive is might be rooted in your own problems. Notice you've taken no accountability or explained why it’s important.

In the case of humanism those traditions originate with Cicero.

So what? What does that have to do with attitudes I developed on my own and happen to fit into the category of humanism? This is where your thinking fails. You don’t explain hiw that history is relevant to me. I’ve already informed you that I formed my attitudes independently of the history of humanism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Things are not always as they seem. Perhaps you are simply unwilling to accept the historical baggage that comes with identifying as a humanist?


Classic projection. Humanism is defined by the forces which brought it into being and those that shaped it's development over time. Cicero and the Roman church were undeniably a part of that, and they identified with Rome, not outsiders, so your position is untenable.

Then by your standards you are guilty of the excesses of the various witch trials and the Crusades.

 

[Ebionite]

Humanism as a group did not start until the Renaissance, when Petrarch began to live the lifestyle he discovered in ancient texts (no doubt some by Cicero) and others followed his example.

It's an artificial distinction. Cicero's hubris wasn't as isolated phenomena, it goes back to the roots of empire at the tower of Babel. The protection model of empire is reflected in Cicero's sayings:

"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need." ~ Cicero

The Rennaisance started in Italy, and it never discarded the religious aspect of being separated from the divine that was described by Heidegger.

 

[sayak83]

No, Tooley and Posnert didn't write that. What I quoted from them was only about the Maldives.

Here are some quotes from the PDF which relate to mean seal level. Where do you think Morner is lying?

"And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure."

"Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge."

It was not sudden. So far eight different satellite series has measured the sea level with ever increasing accuracy and decreasing uncertainty. The first satellite has a regular calibration error in its height measuring instrument which was detected when the second and subsequent satellites were sent to space. What I find curious is this crank believes that the next seven satellite measurements are wrong, the tide measurements are wrong and only the first uncorrected satellite measurement whose calibration error mistake was actually found and corrected for was actually correct? Because...????
Anyways. Here is the exhaustive analysis of all the dataset with complete estimate of all uncertainties in the satellite altimetry data. Our scientists have gotten progressively better as our instruments have improved and as our satelite technology has improved by leaps and bounds since the early 1990s. And yes the sea level is rising and the rise in accelerating.
But sure. Believe the old uncorrected data if it fits your biases.
Uncertainty in satellite estimates of global mean sea-level changes, trend and acceleration
Over 1993–2017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.35±0.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.12±0.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is in agreement (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variance–covariance matrix is freely available online: Error variance-covariance matrix of global mean sea level estimated from satellite altimetry (TOPEX, Jason 1, Jason 2, Jason 3) (Ablain et al., 2018).

 

[ChristineM]

It's an artificial distinction. Cicero's hubris wasn't as isolated phenomena, it goes back to the roots of empire at the tower of Babel. The protection model of empire is reflected in Cicero's sayings:

"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need." ~ Cicero

The Rennaisance started in Italy, and it never discarded the religious aspect of being separated from the divine that was described by Heidegger.

Although some scholars have identified ruins of various structures as the tower of Babel there is no actual evidence that it ever existed. So claiming humanism dates back to a mythical building seems rather odd to me

Yes Cicero could be a bit weird at times. He, for one had much more than a garden and library, in fact he had several gardens and several libraries.

Wow, did the Renaissance really start in Italy, i would never have known (sarcasm)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cicero's hubris wasn't as isolated phenomena, it goes back to the roots of empire at the tower of Babel.

More irrelevancies? You failed to give a reason why modern humanists should care what Cicero taught. It's only of historic value to those interested in that history. And adding biblical mythology as if it were history undermines your other historical claims that might be correct. I don't have any interest in fact-checking them, so I estimate their likelihood by considering your track record in areas where I do know the history, and you just stumbled there. There was no such tower:

The protection model of empire is reflected in Cicero's sayings: "If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need." ~ Cicero

I don't see Cicero's protection model in that quote and can't even speculate what you might have meant there - you know, trying to find some meaning for those words that makes those before the comma relate to those after, that make the sentence make sense.

"A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person's argument, even if it's not the one they presented."

The Rennaisance started in Italy, and it never discarded the religious aspect of being separated from the divine

The Renaissance is over. We've moved from theistic humanism through deism and now atheistic humanism since following the two great waves of Renaissance and post-Renaissance scientists, the first firing the ruler god leading to the invention of the deist god once the clockwork universe was shown to run day-to-day without intelligent oversight, and then firing the builder god after the Big Bang and evolution theories were established obviating the need for a god to construct the universe.

What jobs (gaps in scientific knowledge) remain for this god today? Not much. The creationists cling to abiogenesis arguments. Others to fine tuning arguments or source of the singularity arguments, because really, what's left for a god to do? But we have naturalistic hypotheses for all of those, and so have no need to turn to unfalsifiable religious one.

Have you spent any time thinking about why the Renaissance and Enlightenment are called those things, and what the Middle Ages divides from that which immediately preceded and followed them? What was reborn? What was newly illuminating? Answer: humanism, which has its roots in the rationalism of Thales and the ancient Greeks, which took a long nap in the West during the Middle Ages but was reborn (re-"naisc"-ed) when the lights came back on illuminating the path forward out of The Age of Faith into The Age of Reason.

 

[Ebionite]

It was not sudden. So far eight different satellite series has measured the sea level with ever increasing accuracy and decreasing uncertainty.

Morner was talking about what happened in 2003, not more recent measurements.

 

[sayak83]

Morner was talking about what happened in 2003, not more recent measurements.

I did not notice the date of the interview. Has he changed his mind now?

 

[Ebionite]

Although some scholars have identified ruins of various structures as the tower of Babel there is no actual evidence that it ever existed. So claiming humanism dates back to a mythical building seems rather odd to me

Sure. The connection to Babylon is supported by the canonical texts of the Roman church.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern interpreters that the referent of ‘Babylon’ is actually Rome (Achtemeier 1996: 354; W. Barclay 1976: 278; Best 1971: 178; Clowney 1988: 224; Cranfield 1958: 123; J. H. Elliott 2000: 883–86; Goppelt 1993: 374–75; Grudem 1988: 201; Kelly 1969: 218; Kistemaker 1987: 209; Michaels 1988: 311; Perkins 1995: 81; Reicke 1964: 134; Selwyn 1958: 243).

Karen H. Jobes in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1 Peter)

 

[ChristineM]

Sure. The connection to Babylon is supported by the canonical texts of the Roman church.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern interpreters that the referent of ‘Babylon’ is actually Rome (Achtemeier 1996: 354; W. Barclay 1976: 278; Best 1971: 178; Clowney 1988: 224; Cranfield 1958: 123; J. H. Elliott 2000: 883–86; Goppelt 1993: 374–75; Grudem 1988: 201; Kelly 1969: 218; Kistemaker 1987: 209; Michaels 1988: 311; Perkins 1995: 81; Reicke 1964: 134; Selwyn 1958: 243).

Karen H. Jobes in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1 Peter)

No there isn't virtually unanimous agreement and a short list of people who massage your confirmation bias is not really relevant

Some modern scholars have associated the Tower of Babel with known structures, notably Etemenanki, a ziggurat dedicated to the Mesopotamian god Marduk in Babylon. While the archaeological record is incompatible with this identification, many scholars believe that the biblical story was inspired by Etemenanki.
Tower of Babel - Wikipedia.

 

[Ebionite]

I did not notice the date of the interview.

The date of the interview isn't relevant. Morner was talking about how in 2003 the dodgy tidal data point used by the IPCC agreed with the new published upward trend in mean seal levels. The inference was that a fudge factor was applied to the data to give results that were in line with the cherry picked data point in order to support IPCC climate dogma.

 

[Ebionite]

No there isn't virtually unanimous agreement

You're confusing the interpretation of 1 Peter with the historical Babylon.

 

[ChristineM]

You're confusing the interpretation of 1 Peter with the historical Babylon.

Nope. I am countering your claims