There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.Human ingenuity has continually found ways to improve our ability to find more fuel or expand the usage of the fuel we have.
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!
There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.Human ingenuity has continually found ways to improve our ability to find more fuel or expand the usage of the fuel we have.
Can't tell if satire....
Oh yes! I hadn't really thought about that...now here's an idea for you to ponder...maybe there is more to human "prospering" than financial wealth. And here's another - how many people actually prosper economically to a significant degree from their own ideas? Capitalism is not the 'mother of invention' - it is rather the 'plunderer of invention' - case in point, Gary Kildall invented CP/M - Bill Gates got Tim Paterson to copy it and call it QDOS which later developed into MS-DOS...who made money out of it - the inventor or the copy-cat? Kildall still made a few bob on other things, but plenty others weren't so lucky - Humphrey Davy, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear...the list goes on. They never made money out of their inventiveness because they lacked the business acumen - other, far less capable humans made fortunes by stealing their innovations. And the really best ideas never get done because only because they would not make a fortune for someone or, more likely these days, some faceless corporate entity. This (capitalism) is the reason why we are still lumbering around the clouds in 747s instead of gliding at the edge of space in Concorde III.Where in the hell do you think innovation comes from? Once you take away someone's ability to prosper from their own ideas, people will stop coming up with ideas.
If Canada's socialist healthcare is so good, why are they crossing the borders to come to our doctors?Please tell me how Socialism would be bad for the United States. This is what I'm not understanding. Also, it works in Canada, which is pretty large, so I'm not really seeing the comparison. What I'm seeing is people who are intelligent, yet can't afford to go to University; I'm seeing people with cavities who cannot afford a dentist. This rarely happens in the UK as we have government support for these lower classes.
Also, the UK is very diverse. You should see London.
Umm no, capitalism has nothing to do with why we still use 747's vs Concorde III's. It's regulation. When it costs nearly half a billion dollars to certify a newly designed airplane that probably only cost 20-30 million to design, innovation tends to fall to the wayside.Oh yes! I hadn't really thought about that...now here's an idea for you to ponder...maybe there is more to human "prospering" than financial wealth. And here's another - how many people actually prosper economically to a significant degree from their own ideas? Capitalism is not the 'mother of invention' - it is rather the 'plunderer of invention' - case in point, Gary Kildall invented CP/M - Bill Gates got Tim Paterson to copy it and call it QDOS which later developed into MS-DOS...who made money out of it - the inventor or the copy-cat? Kildall still made a few bob on other things, but plenty others weren't so lucky - Humphrey Davy, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear...the list goes on. They never made money out of their inventiveness because they lacked the business acumen - other, far less capable humans made fortunes by stealing their innovations. And the really best ideas never get done because only because they would not make a fortune for someone or, more likely these days, some faceless corporate entity. This (capitalism) is the reason why we are still lumbering around the clouds in 747s instead of gliding at the edge of space in Concorde III.
So you advocate an unregulated air transportation system - what a very interesting idea! That might turn out to be the quickest way to get rid of capitalism altogether.Umm no, capitalism has nothing to do with why we still use 747's vs Concorde III's. It's regulation. When it costs nearly half a billion dollars to certify a newly designed airplane that probably only cost 20-30 million to design, innovation tends to fall to the wayside.
I think the shortfalls you see happening a lot of the times and asserting them to Capitalism has closer ties to regulation. Regulation is used to prevent competition. The large and wealthy companies can comply with a lot or regulations easier than a small or startup. THAT is the real problem, which comes from lobbying.
Well I suppose not - its more of an inevitable result of capitalism.As far as people stealing other people's ideas, that is always going to happen. There are deplorable people everywhere. That's not an argument against capitalism.
Everyone? Again I ask, when did this happen?Everyone IS more wealthy from capitalism
What you really mean is how many powerful western economies have ended in absolute poverty and death? They haven't (yet) - but the collateral damage caused by maintaining them is huge and possibly irreparable.I honestly don't understand what you hate about capitalism so much. How many societies have ended in absolute poverty and death from capitalism? How many from socialism? Case closed.
Of course, they hardly make a secret of this, I've never met a believer that could care less about the science of the problem, it's the 'solutions' they are interested in-
global cooling, warming, weirding- the problem can be anything, the solutions are the only thing that never changes: the transfer of wealth and rights from private to public hands. Many people genuinely believe this is for the best and any literally any means are justified by that end.
If Canada's socialist healthcare is so good, why are they crossing the borders to come to our doctors?
So what you're saying is, we're intentionally changing the economic landscape from a resource exploitative one, to a more earth conscious, resource sustainable form of capitalism or socialism. What's the big deal?
Sir, I salute yer ability to provide us with stimulating and provocative reading material. You rarely fail to catch my attention. Now, having said that, can I ask if you intend to make any defense of the flammable material you posted above?
I have gotten the impression before that you know nothing at all about any of the science involved in modelling and predicting climate but instead rely completely on conspiratorial web sources that have not the least credibility. I myself know almost nothing about atmospheric science, meteorology, oceanography, weather systems or climate modelling so I'm willing to stand corrected if you are capable of correcting me.
I kinda hope you are right and we can celebrate the fact we aren't buggering the climate with a massive intercontinental fossil fuel bonfire party. I fear that isn't on the cards though.
Evidence - where the is your evidence. Your argument is the equivalent of suggesting that evolution is a hoax because of Piltdown Man (and yes I am very well aware that there are people stupid enough to present that argument - on this issue you are equivalent to them). I gave you several pages of evidence to look at - you have so far presented an out of context quote from a single employee of one agency who clearly doesn't even know when the industrial revolution was.
Nobody would take it seriously at all - if it wasn't so serious - but the real problem right now is that there are - believe it or not - a hell of a lot of people who believe (on the basis of some of the silliest right-wing media anti-reasoning ever in the history of humankind) that your argument is correct. You don't get science from IBD for God's sake - its not even a 'newpaper' - its a media vehicle for right wing diatribe.
You get science from making actual measurements and interpreting them according to tried and tested models
The only thing I take issue with here- comparing global warming to religion is a little unfair... to religion. Climastrologers would have to at least acknowledge their own faith to rise to this level. As is it's more of a superstition, a very ancient one at that
Right on. I HATE blind faith. That's why I trust Jesus. My opinions on climate change vary, Jesus's power does not.
1950s Council of Rome was a bunch of billionaires and trillionaires (Primarily banking zionist Rothschild clones/puppets) who wanted to totally control the world by getting rid of all national boundaries, and setting up their economic control as the only viable solution. They had two concepts they thought might unite the planet - space alien invasion, and total ecological crisis - either of which would mandate everyone working for a common goal.
Well, the morons went and broke the planet - by which i mean - ALL the problems of planetary significance are caused by the metaphorical "fat rich guy" in a corporate boardroom, making decisions to squeeze another nickel out of you and i - so they can pocket it.
There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.
Sorry Guy - one or two extra molecules...? I'm afraid I am probably not a skilled enough teacher to reduce the science of climatology to your obviously pre-school level of understanding
- but I'll give it a shot anyway because it is important. Let me try an analogy to start with - how many of the trillions of cells in the human body need to "go rogue' to trigger a cancer that can kill you? Right just one. OK - so making the number of bad bits small and the number of good bits huge doesn't help the argument. So lets forget that line of reasoning and focus on the actual science.
You know - I presume - that the 'greenhouse effect' is a real phenomenon. If not you can do an experiment yourself. Close all the windows in your car on a sunny day and sit inside. After a short time it will hotter inside than it is outside. This is because the heat energy (infrared radiation) is trapped inside - it can get through the glass but as it interacts with the stuff in the car (causing molecules to vibrate) on the way in it loses energy (lower frequency, higher wavelength) and when it is re-emitted it can't get back through the glass and remains trapped causing the atmosphere inside the car to heat up.
Well, the same thing happens with CO2 and other gases (like methane) in the earth's atmosphere acting like the glass of the windows. A proportion of the radiation from the sun arriving at the earth's surface is re-emitted but at lower energy, lower frequency, higher wavelength and cannot escape back into space because the CO2 (and other) molecules trap it just like the glass in the car window. This is not a bad thing because it is for this reason (in part) that the earth is not a frozen ice world.
But...if the levels of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases becomes much higher than the levels that are normally present, then, it should be obvious, more energy is trapped within the atmosphere and it gets hotter.
This is the phenomenon of 'global warming' and we are - without any question whatsoever - in a period during which this is happening.
We have been actually measuring the average global temperature for 137 years
and whether you are looking at the land, the ocean, or the overall average or at the global, northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere the coolest years were all between 1907 and 1911 and the hottest have all been since 2012. It has been getting gradually hotter for the last century. We have also been measuring the actual CO2 levels directly for more than 50 years and they follow the same trend as the temperature.
We can also take ice cores and measure the amount of CO2 trapped in them. By correlating this with measured data we can estimate the atmospheric CO2 going back hundreds of thousands of years. By also examining pollen etc. we can find out what kinds of plants were growing and from that we can deduce information about the climate - whether it was a relatively hot or relatively cold climate (I am assuming that you know that there is a reason we don't currently grow bananas in Alaska so I don't need to go into this any deeper). I also assume that you know that the earth has gone through numerous cycles when the temperature has fluctuated between glacial (ice age) periods and interglacials (warmer climates). Well it turns out that the CO2 measurements we got from the ice core samples I just mentioned follow a trend that exactly matches these fluctuations - i.e. the more CO2 the hotter the atmosphere - and we know for certain (from archaeology) that these fluctuations are also mirrored by significantly rising and falling sea levels.
All of this is a natural cycle. All of this is going to happen with or without human activity or industry. This is called climate variability and we know it happens.
But...in all of the measurements that have been done on ice cores dating back to 600,000 years ago, we have never measured a level of CO2 higher than around 280 parts per million from any core dating to before about 200 years ago. The current level is about 400 parts per million. This is fully 40% higher than at the highest point of any interglacial period in the last 600,000 years. To suggest that this extra '1 or 2 molecules per 10,000' will not make any difference is equivalent to saying that making your car windows 40% thicker would have no effect on the atmosphere inside the car. Its almost like double-glazing your home and expecting it not be any warmer after you have done so.
The only question left is to determine what the cause of this extra CO2 is. And this is your homework. Get graphs of world population, global industrial productivity, agricultural productivity, oil production...any other measure of human activity you can plot on a global scale since, say, 1800 and put them side by side with a plot of atmospheric CO2, atmospheric methane and/or average global temperature and tell me what you notice. Correct, they're all pretty much the same shape. They have followed the same upward trend. They are, as we say in the trade, correlated. There IS - no question - a correlation between the unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, increasing global temperature and human agricultural and industrial production.
You can critique this with data that shows otherwise - if you can find any - but please don't post any more silly remarks that simply display your profound ignorance of the subject or attempt to replace data with poorly written and baseless right-wing invective.
Other than the article in the OP? Can you direct me to them?I posted references.
Not at all. All of the most damning evidence I've seen presented by the denialist side has been misunderstanding, misrepresentation or lies.ThePainefulTruth said:How easily you ignore all the climategates.
Nah, I'm saying that if you're right and climate change isn't a problem that warrants a party. It would be nice to know we weren't making dangerous changes to the climate.ThePainefulTruth said:Sounds like you're talking more about pollution than global warming.
Not at all. All of the most damning evidence I've seen presented by the denialist side has been misunderstanding, misrepresentation or lies.
What would you say is the most pressing finding to come out of the hacked emails episodes?
It isn't more earth conscious. The left would be on the right if they saw a path to power in it. And whether you care to believe it or not, the right is out for responsible exploitation of our resources, and if they aren't responsible, THEN it's the government's job to take them to the woodshed. But global warming, if it's happening at all, much less human caused, is easy to manipulate with changing variables, government complicity, with the backing of the useful idiots in the media. And the crisis is always in the future....further and further in the future it conveniently turns out. I guess you could call it a convenient lie.
Exploitation is exploitation, "responsible" or not. The crisis has never been "conveniently" further in the future, and in fact the timetable has been moving closer and closer to current times. I see no harm in utilizing all green resources, I mean, why not be sustainable? We only have one Earth after all.
Exploitation is exploitation, "responsible" or not. The crisis has never been "conveniently" further in the future, and in fact the timetable has been moving closer and closer to current times. I see no harm in utilizing all green resources, I mean, why not be sustainable? We only have one Earth after all.
I've yet to see a denialist explanation for their denialism that doesn't amount to a massive, long-running, global conspiracy.
A conspiracy among the world's climatologists to..........enrich themselves? I guess that explains the climatologists I've met who show up for meetings driving Ferraris and such, and then go back to their multi-million dollar mansions.
As opposed to the fossil fuel executives who are all barely scraping by.
So you advocate an unregulated air transportation system - what a very interesting idea! That might turn out to be the quickest way to get rid of capitalism altogether.
How in the hell can you claim it's a result of capitalism? Proof please. People have been stealing from one another since the beginning of time. Don't be an idiot. I think you have such a hate for capitalism (reasons being I have no idea) that you are seeing things for what they aren't.Well I suppose not - its more of an inevitable result of capitalism.
Everyone? Again I ask, when did this happen?
What you really mean is how many powerful western economies have ended in absolute poverty and death? They haven't (yet) - but the collateral damage caused by maintaining them is huge and possibly irreparable.
Nobody said they won't, but it's equally irrational to put a date on when that will happen because mankind has continually been able to find more and find ways to be more efficient.There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.