Intelligently.
-
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
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
My op illustrates my initial reaction and feelings towards what I consider to be an overly alarmist and reactive article. The articles own comment section itself speaks volumes as well as the slew of responses I received so far in this thread alone.
I have to admit. I'm taken aback. This wasn't what I expected by way of the intense personal commentary directed at me rather than addressing the articles content and manner of wording.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..well .. predictions like these can be misleading. One has to understand that these models/calculations have many assumptions eg. "if we go on as we are"
..whatever that means.. who knows what might happen in the world during the next century?
.. so that's the message "if we carry on as we are" ..
Personally, I think that other catostrophic events are more likely to happen first .. including major conflict between nations
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I know you have already been shown lists and databases of scientists and entire organizations that support climate change on this forum at least a few times. And if you think there is no consensus with science, or the scientific method, you really need to take some 100-level science courses, because "peer-review" is a very major and fundamental part of science. And we can look at these divides and find the same political divisions, such as with conservatives who are the ones who promote the idea that people aren't born homosexual (which science does not agree with) and that they can "pray the gay away" (something science does not agree with), and we find the same division when it comes to biology, where conservatives are known for vehemently denying evolution while promoting the idea of YEC or ID (two concepts that do not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis). Science isn't political, but when it reaches a conclusion that someone doesn't like, then people are known for making it political.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sounds reasonable.
Do you think this article is intelligently written as it's presented ?
Even more so, is what the article describes actually occurring right now which can be scientifically pointed out as being the case?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's Yahoo News: the articles are very often of a cheap and poor quality, and the comments section is a cesspool of humanity. Even reading the sources cited in that article, I didn't get the impression that article's author got.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
lol. some really harsh put-downs in this thread. you appear to have stirred a hornets nest. yikes!
It happens time to time. Wasn't the first. Won't be the last. Guess a nerve was hit.
It's been insightful rest assured. :0)
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's why science the method is so much more reliable than science the academic, political, ideological opinion, and so often diametrically opposed.
CO2 molecules don't have an opinion- they are not conservative or liberal, they are what makes Earth green, literally.
2 extra in 10000 air simply cannot drive climate change.
There are many wonders of science that can be verified with the scientific method, photosynthesis is one, climate change, astrology, ghosts are not
What scientific understanding do you have that suggests otherwise?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Can't say I disagree with your assessment completely Shadow Wolf.
Yahoo news is more of a compilation actually taken from various sources, some happen to be credible, and others as you imply, destined for a contending spot on George Noory or Cracked.
More progress.
Yes.
Have you read the article? It states ...
What I won't do is ridicule the study because you - who neither demonstrates nor professes even the most minimal grasp of the science involved - think it "stupid #$@".
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The scientific understanding that comes along with having taken a bunch of courses about science, from having read a bunch of books by scientists, and keeping up with the subject. The facts are that science has proven the Earth is warming, it has proven CO2 levels are increasing (and it's basic Earth Science that CO2 causes a "greenhouse effect"), it's basic and non-scientific observations that show polar caps are melting and sea levels are rising, and what the scientific idea called global warming predicted, such as more erratic weather along with colder winters and hotter summers, is what we are seeing.
Scientists are academics, and they are very well educated, especially in their area of expertise. Science also is, by default, an ideology. However, when it typically becomes political is when the findings are not what the one paying the bill wants, or when the findings make someone uncomfortable. But this is most frequently seen in conservatives when it comes to homosexuality, evolution, and global warming, three separate issues that conservatives are known for being staunchly opposed to what science says.
Quinty speaketh the truth right here.
Fair enough, though I personally find it odd that you characterize this article in this fashion. There just isn't much in the way of alarmist and reactive rhetoric in it. I've definitely read articles and comments about climate change that fit your description, but this really is not one of them. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being overly alarmist and reactive and 1 being an objective and dry appraisal, this tiny article strikes me as... at most a 3? The language you've been using here is more alarmist than what's in the article... something I find a tad ironic. Basically, there are much, much better examples to be had out there of the point it seems you wanted to make. This may be why some of us interpreted it as climate change denialism.
Well... again... how an OP is framed makes a dramatic difference in how a thread progresses, yes? Apologies, but the OP basically reads like a temper tantrum or rant rather than a prompt for us to make a thoughtful commentary on the article's content and manner of wording. Try a different approach in the future, maybe?
That, and as folks have rightly pointed out, it's kind of ridiculous to be blaming "climate change folks" for $#@% journalism. Seems to me the issue here is hardly about climate change at all, but the plethora of $#@% journalism that is accessible and available nowadays. This is a problem across all topical spectrums. There is $#@% journalism that makes it hard to take Republicans seriously, Democrats seriously, various corporations seriously, blah, blah, blah. It's particularly bad in science reporting, which tends to go like this:
(I'm starting to loose count of how many times I've used this as an educational diagram)
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I wouldn't expect any less of your directness Jay.
With that, I'll leave things just as they are typed.
dust1n
Zindīq
Actually, given the nature of the article, it's actually quite shocking to me the news article isn't more alarmist.
What it does fail to mention though, is that warming the ocean is significantly harder than warming land. So, the human race will more or less be over way before the temperatures of the oceans get that hot.
What it does fail to mention though, is that warming the ocean is significantly harder than warming land. So, the human race will more or less be over way before the temperatures of the oceans get that hot.
Gawd, you not only are far from being an actual qualified climate scientist, but you don't even know the importance of consensus to science. Science, Threewood, absolutely rests on the reliable intersubjective verification of facts, which is a fancy way of saying "consensus".
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Even within the IPCC, and many other political agencies- the debate is about the cause of the 'hiatus' since the 90's a word which implies it will one day resume of course! Remember that vast ice sheets covered much of the globe only a few thousand years ago- and retreated without a single SUV or capitalist or conservative. The Earth's climate is highly dynamic, and there are very interesting scientific reasons for this as opposed to computer simulated anthropomorphic Hollywood disaster movies.
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA
and again, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, IPCC measures 'no significant acceleration in sea level rise'
if this ever stops or reverses, we might have real problems to worry about!
well when I was at school the prediction was global cooling, the cause was the same- 'us', and the solutions were the same, a transfer of wealth and power from individuals to politicians.
In actuality, the main effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect if it ever showed up would be LESS erratic weather. Scientifically this is not even controversial.
Consider Venus: thick 98% CO2 atmos, runaway greenhouse effect- temps of several hundred degrees... and hardly a breath of wind at the surface.
Because the greenhouse effect insulates and evens out global temps- less contrast in air mass temps= less violent weather. That doesn't require a computer sim! Just look out your window in the springtime when hot and cold air masses collide with greatest contrast
like IPCC 'expert' Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice?
You sound like an intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you you are not smart enough to scrutinize the science yourself, you are.
Last edited:
Heard on the news today that Russia was planning some kind of colony on the moon. So ,,might not be a bad idea.
OK, I'm a little concerned at what point I'm considered "old".
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Well, I'm rapidly approaching 60 and deal with a lot of octogenarians.... so....OK, I'm a little concerned at what point I'm considered "old".
That said, in the immortal words of Red Green, "Just because you are old doesn't mean you can't be immature."