Scientist may have lied

[cindylou]

theism....


Environmentalism is the 21st century religion...

I meant new atheists

but

yes...environmentalism is the 21st centry religion..agreed

 

[javaguru]

I meant new atheists

but

yes...environmentalism is the 21st centry religion..agreed

Actually, Christians are shifting to environmentalism as their new religion...Rick Warren is a very influential Christian leader pushing the new religion.

 

[javaguru]

I meant new atheists

but

yes...environmentalism is the 21st centry religion..agreed

What is a "new atheist?"

 

[cindylou]

you

 

[javaguru]

you

Definition please....how is old non belief different than new non belief other than I could be killed for my view?

Sam Harris..is he new or old?

 

[cindylou]

Definition please....how is old non belief different than new non belief other than I could be killed for my view?

Sam Harris..is he new or old?

He is new

and you should be embarrassed to quote him

 

[cindylou]

LOL my bad sorry for the thread derail...lmfao...

proceed

 

[mrplunkey]

You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.

I'm 100% convinced that 7 billion humans, billions of cars and trillions of tons of shit from industrial plants have some effect. But the scientist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

And the economist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

...Or we could just go chain ourselves to a tree, tell the developing world to stay in the dark ages, play the bongos and chase hippy chicks who smoke a lot of dope.

 

[samoth]

I'm 100% convinced that 7 billion humans, billions of cars and trillions of tons of shit from industrial plants have some effect. But the scientist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

And the economist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

...Or we could just go chain ourselves to a tree, tell the developing world to stay in the dark ages, play the bongos and chase hippy chicks who smoke a lot of dope.

I don't think there are any econdoods inside me.

The scientist in me says sees that those two questions were already addressed ITT: they don't have an answer and are left for the PhDs to extrapolate.

A big part of science is not knowing. I think that's a big hurdle for most people to cross -- they simply have to know that something is or is not in a certain well-defined way, and the universe just doesn't work that way.

 

[javaguru]

I don't think there are any econdoods inside me.

The scientist in me says sees that those two questions were already addressed ITT: they don't have an answer and are left for the PhDs to extrapolate.

A big part of science is not knowing. I think that's a big hurdle for most people to cross -- they simply have to know that something is or is not in a certain well-defined way, and the universe just doesn't work that way.

Great youtube ...I concur.