anotherneil
Active Member
Habibullo Abdussamatov - DSc & professor (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, there is a reason & motivation for this thread.So this is just a spam thread?
Youtube is full of conspiracy theories....I'm doing it this way so everyone can see for themselves that it is not me just making some claim about what scientists are saying (which is easy to dismiss), it's the actual names and credentials of scientists, along with video footage proof that it is indeed them that people can see and hear for themselves, and it is them actually discussing human-caused climate change (which is not easy to dismiss - to put it mildly)..
I'm not posting Youtube videos of "conspiracy theories" or of random & irrelevant content. I'm posting Youtube videos of credentialed scientists who have received their degrees from, or how are professors at, accredited universities in scientifically relevant fields that make them subject matter experts on human-caused climate change.Youtube is full of conspiracy theories..
There are around a billion videos on youtube, so it's not hard to find more or less anything you want.
You need to show why climate-change does not occur due to the ever-increasing consumption
of fossil fuels, and not just post youtube videos.
What I get from your post is that if some make the claim that people are heating the world too much, then they don't need any proof amd that it's everyone else's responsibility to look for evidence to disprove it.Youtube is full of conspiracy theories..
There are around a billion videos on youtube, so it's not hard to find more or less anything you want.
You need to show why climate-change does not occur due to the ever-increasing consumption
of fossil fuels, and not just post youtube videos.
..because you appear to be denying the consequences of human-caused climate-change, as ifWhy would I need to show why climate-change does not occur due to ever-increasing consumption of hydrocarbons?
OK..I hold the position that consumption of hydrocarbons does have an effect on the climate & I've never posted anything to the contrary to this;
We know that mankind is not the only factor involved .. it's all about significance.The only discrepancy between what I have posted and what you seem to be insinuating to be my position, that I notice from this, is that I do not hold the position that climate change did not begin until the consumption of hydrocarbons; in other words, I hold the position that the climate was changing long before humans existed, and that the climate has been changing ever since Earth developed an atmosphere.
Ummm .. not really .. you are merely picking a few videos that you like the look of.This thread is about what scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change.
It's not just about "heating the world" ..What I get from your post is that if some make the claim that people are heating the world too much, then they don't need any proof..
Yes I do. Instead of posting the opinions of various individuals, post evidence. The evidence is the only thing that matters here. Not random individuals' opinions that they share on the internet. Any scientists worth his salt knows that making YouTube videos isn't doing proper science. Rather, carrying out studies and publishing results for peer review in scientific journals where they can openly viewed, criticized, replicated, etc. by their scientific peers is how proper science is done.No, there is a reason & motivation for this thread.
I'm in the process of showing something that I was asked to show on a different thread; the topic of this other thread is political, but I didn't want to "show it" on the same thread, so I created a separate thread.
What I'm doing is in anticipation that if I just show what only a few scientists are actually saying, the result would be responses from naysayers claiming that I'm only showing some insignificant cherry-picked counter-examples that don't amount to anything. In order to overcome this, I don't see how I can get around it other than to provide a large enough sampling of what I was asked to show.
What I'm trying to show includes examples of many scientists who are saying things about human-caused climate change that aren't being presented by the mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, climate activists, etc. I'm doing it this way so everyone can see for themselves that it is not me just making some claim about what scientists are saying (which is easy to dismiss), it's the actual names and credentials of scientists, along with video footage proof that it is indeed them that people can see and hear for themselves, and it is them actually discussing human-caused climate change (which is not easy to dismiss - to put it mildly).
Unfortunately it puts me in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation for those who may possibly be set in their ways and not open at all to the idea that what they were told about there being scientific consensus regarding human-cause climate change, and/or inviting suggestions that this may be a "spam thread."
Do you have a better suggestion on how to tackle this? If so, I would appreciate it if you'd share it with me.
Oh, and before I forget, here's the post on the other thread that I'm referring to: How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional
Interesting thoughts, thanks for coming back to me!It's not just about "heating the world" ..
It's about living in a finite world, where mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share
of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement.
Are you claiming that the world is not finite, and whatever we do will be "fixed" like
waving a magic wand?
They are intertwined .. if global economics was not based on usury, then we would not..So your interest is not primarily "climate change" aka "global warming", but more specifically the interaction of humankind w/ our planet (correct me if I'm overspeaking here)..
Perhaps you don't really think about it....You said "mankind selfishly pollutes, and grab's the lion's share of global resources .. and wastes them for their amusement" and I'm not seeing that so please help me understand where ur coming from..
What has it got to do with current shortages?Could you please give me an example of a natural resource that's being used up to the point of shortages?
...Could you please give me an example of a natural resource that's being used up to the point of shortages?...
Off hand that kind of sounds like you and I can agree that after many thousands of years of enjoying natural resources humanity still has yet to run into any shortages. I also understand that you predict shortages as early as one generation in the future, say two or three decades. I don't, but what I see is that it's hard to prove it either way.What has it got to do with current shortages?
Do you not care what the next generation will have to deal with??
Do you have any problems w/ wealth creation from producing information?...Another thought, are you aware that most new wealth in the U.S. (maybe the world for that matter) is information? Personally I see a lot of room for increasing wealth creation if it's information.
I don't have any problem with "wealth creation" that doesn't involve usurious financialDo you have any problems w/ wealth creation from producing information?
..it depends which nation you "sit in" ..I don't, but what I see is that it's hard to prove it either way..
huh, your concern is not with any wealth creation --be it from using natural resources nor expanding information-- but your conflict is w/ "usurious financial transactions", Sounds like you oppose charging interest for loans and you're ok w/ exploiting natural resources.I don't have any problem with "wealth creation" that doesn't involve usurious financial
transactions, period.