-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Why is the article "stupid #$@?"
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How about if you want to be taken seriously, quit using Yahoo News.
What would be "stupid #$@" in my opinion would be to think you capable of a credible evaluation (much less critique) of the referenced article.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The world is going to run out of breathable air by the year 2100.
Dosent that strike you as being a bit melodramatic and over the top?
People don't buy into this kind of. alarmist propaganda. I think it's fairly safe to say we will not be dropping dead by 2100 from a lack of breathable air.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
To be fair, according to the climate models, what he is suggesting is not off base.
This is an interesting read regardless of your views on climate change/global warming.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...orld-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
Last edited:
Why should what you think on the matter be deemed credible?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't think there isn't much to critique in the first place. The article is garbage.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I guess I'm in the minority here. I respect your opinions more than most, but honestly I'm having a very hard time thinking it's really that bad as to go to such lengths to write out that we are that close to what can be best described as an extinction event.
I know that you think that the article is garbage. So, where does that leave us?
On the one hand we have @Nowhere Man - a self-proclaimed Bompu Zen Man - and, on the other, we have a "study led by Sergei Petrovskii, Professor in Applied Mathematics from the University of Leicester's Department of Mathematics" published n a peer-reviewed journal. So, again, why should what you think on the matter be deemed credible?
That you are having a very hard time thinking may be a function of your capacity to competently judge the article rather than the quality of the study.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm certainly not a big fan of the climate change brigade, but one does have to remain objective.
So, based solely on your ignorant, uniformed opinion of what does and does not make sense in climate science, we are to conclude the report of some genuine climate scientists lacks any substance whatsoever. Got it. In other news, invest wisely -- buy ranch land on the moon.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Might be a better idea to start a pot farm in Colorado...
But certainly the fact that he is relatively certain about the quality of his ignorant, uniformed opinion should count for something.
Might be a better idea to start a pot farm in Colorado...
Actually, Paul, the pot growers around here are raking in cash hand over fist. Their biggest obstacle, according to the reports, is the high rates of interest they have to pay on loans because they're all pretty much start ups. But that's something most start ups face.
Let's look at a direct quote from the article:
Could have. Could have. Not "is going to." Plus, they go on to say more research is needed. Is your interpretation of the article melodramatic and over the top? Yes. Is the actual article written in a style that is melodramatic and over the top? No. And I have seen ones that are, but this definitely isn't one of them.
All that aside, I think people should educate themselves about how delicate the atmosphere really is in terms of it being optimal for survival of various biological organisms in their current forms. The entire biosphere only exists because of that paper-thin atmospheric bubble around this big rock and the vacuum of space. It is a precious thing, taken for granted, and poorly understood by the public. It is entirely possible for various factors (including human activities) to alter the atmosphere to reduce oxygen levels below what organisms like humans need to survive.
Edumacate theeself: http://classroom.synonym.com/minimum-oxygen-concentration-human-breathing-15546.html
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Ok so we all are going to drop dead by the year 2100 from a lack of breathable air.
While I'm far from having an academic background, one dosent need to be a rocket scientist to speculate that such an event is highly unlikely. It's a mathematical model put forth by a mathematician.
One would think there would be other scientific evidences available to corroborate the actuality in regards to what's occurring to the model in question. It's feasible mathematically, so OK I get it, but is something like this actually occurring right now by which it can be measured that proves without question that we are actually losing breathable air?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
They prey on the scientifically illiterate. a couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air, cannot warm Earth's oceans by 6C by any known scientific process
Only in computer simulations- according to which the ice caps have already vanished, an ice age has also descended, the world ran out of oil long ago, and alternative energy has weaned itself off subsides!
The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the ' carbon pollution' we have today, and 'pollution based lifeforms' had far bigger problems to worry about then, as we do now
I agree with you that the article is sensationalist, and it is a major failing of the environmental movement and the mass media that they have sold climate change in terms of "fear", rather than of addressing it in terms of positive solutions and policies. This often has come at the expense of scientific literacy in favour of propaganda value. It would certainly be better if people were better informed on what the science is, but often it falls to politicans and journalists to communicate the information rather than the scientists themselves.
Climate Change affects the habiltability of the planet and we are currently going through the "sixth" mass extinction of animal species in earth's history based on geological records. We are changing our planet at an unpredencented rate. This is a problem that will affect not just the climate, but also food and fresh water supplies, so it is a very real threat. Scientists have to explore different scenarioes and it is likely that the study in the article is trying to explore one of the many areas of uncertianity. quoted without context, it is bad journalism. it could be "that bad", but alot of things have to go wrong first and we still have time and options to prevent it.