Global warming one big hoax?

[Ionstormsucks]

In Germany everyone is talking about global warming at the moment, which has probably much to do with the fact that we had an extremly mild winter this year. Two months ago or so I read an interview with a climate expert in the German magazine "Der Spiegel," and I was very surprised that this expert was having serious doubts about the global warming phenomenon. From that point on I began to read up of global warming and found that it is a rather controversial topic. A few days ago I stumbled across this video from the BBC:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+swindle&hl=en

Now, the video does of course show just one side of the discussion. Still, I think it's kinda interesting.

What do you think? Is the global warming just a big hoax, and not nearly as dangerous as experts are saying? Or is it indeed something we should pay attention to?

[fatBastard()]

If you want the other side of the debate you should watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".

As far as I'm concerned the question is not whether Global Warming is an issue or not because there are a myriad of evidence that this is indeed the case (glaciers melting all over the world, the polar ice getting thinner and thinner, deserts growing, etc, etc). No, the real debate is whether the Global Warming we're experiencing is caused by man or if it is a natural cyclic phenomena.

Either way mankind has a tendency to turn the blind eye when money is involved. All the way up until well into the 90'ies a so called "study" would pop up and claim that smoking was in no way dangerous to your health every time another study would say that smoking was indeed bad for your health. Of course these counter studies were paid for by the tobacco companies and there was not a single shred of scientific evidence in them. They were all smoke and mirrors (no pun intended).

The same is true today. If we really want to do something about the green house gas emissions and vastly reduce the CO2 emissions and all the other causes for Global Warming, it would mean a drastic change in our daily life. Specifically it would shatter the power the oil companies have today and I can't see them give up that power without a fight, just like the tobacco companies did for decades. This time around, however, I don't think we HAVE decades if we want to do something before it is too late ...

Then again, I can only speak for myself and I'm not exactly known as Mr. Positive Optimist, so I may have donned my :end: sign too early, but I'd rather be positively surprised than fatally disappointed.

[txa1265]

When you look at what impacts what in terms of chemistry, it is really impossible for rational people to believe that the amount of noxious gases we continuously pump into the environment cannot have some impact. Seriously, this is just like all of those companies taking the 'dilute away the impact' theory to the extreme of dumping all kinds of crap into rivers and expecting that it would all be diluted into harmlessness.

My basic thought on this is the bottom-line common sense rule - would a reasonable person think that there is a negative impact of certain activities? That goes for personal health as well as environmental health. Is it reasonable to think that smoking had no impact after it was declared hazardous in the 60's? No, but people who had a vested interest in believing that it was benign chose to believe the bad science that let them keep smoking or marketing to kids. Same is true here - we pump poison into the air and cut down acres of forests and expect no impact? There is very likely a cyclical aspect to nature, but that is a 'dog ate my homework' excuse.

[nameless hero]

I don't know enough on the subject to have a detailed opinion, but I know that over the last 40 years, climate has been getting hotter. Last year when I visited Germany, there was 40 degrees (celcius). I don't need to be an expert to know that THAT is DAMN HOT for any European country connected with the Baltic sea.

[Maylander]

There can't be much doubt anymore that we're, pardon my French, screwing ourselves up the ***. This has been known for quite a few years: You only need basic chemistry lessons to realize the magnitude of the damage our ozone layer is taking from all the pollution the human race is pouring out as we speak.

The ozone layer is capable of repairing itself, but not nearly fast enough to cope with our pollution. We're getting bigger and bigger holes in the layer, and once the layer is thin enough, we'll not only see the dramatic climate changes we've seen so far, but also a huge increase in the number of people affected by skin diseases (cancer and similar).

All in all this is a race against time - if we can stop polluting before the ozone layer has reached a point of no return, we're saved. If not, we're screwed. Even if we are capable of coping with the climate changes, the melting polar regions and so on, we won't be able to cope with the increase in UV rays that is incoming. Certainly, humans can run around with sunblock 2000 on at all times, but the ecosystem can't, and once that is shot.. and we're on top of a food chain that is no more.. we're doomed.

Yes, I know I sound a tad negative about all of this, but I really have no faith in anyone being able to turn this. It's been known for so long, but only recently anyone started to care about the environment. You can't shut down pollution in a heartbeat and expect the planet to restore itself - in general, the planet evolves over centuries and millenniums, not days or weeks.

We need to act right now or tomorrows generation will have drought, lack of food and a ruined ecosystem. We don't want that for our children, do we?

[nameless hero]

I never knew the Ozone could repair itself...Interesting.

[JemyM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SX2PMz-iMQ

[Ionstormsucks]

As far as I'm concerned the question is not whether Global Warming is an issue or not because there are a myriad of evidence that this is indeed the case (glaciers melting all over the world, the polar ice getting thinner and thinner, deserts growing, etc, etc). No, the real debate is whether the Global Warming we're experiencing is caused by man or if it is a natural cyclic phenomena.


Yes, I'm sorry... I should have made myself more clear. That's of course the question we're dealing with.

To be honest, I pretty much agree with what most people here were saying, but for the sake of this discussion I'll play the devil's advocate. I can only recommend to watch the BBC documentary (I know it's rather longish), it is interesting... as I said, it is problematic since you hear only one side of the story, but it's still very informative.
Their strongest argument is probably that we all believe that Co2 is responsible for the atmosphere heating up, but that it is in fact vice versa - the heating of the atmosphere is responsible for the increase of Co2 (they claim that there is an 800 year time lag between the atmosphere warming up and the increase of Co2). There are of course many more arguments, but that was in fact the one that made me think - what if the very basis of the theory of man-made global warming is wrong?

Now, I have to admit that I'm a person who is usually very much for the protection of the environment, and I think that this is probably one of the most valuable outcomes of the whole global warming discussion, that for the first time in maybe 20 years the majority of the western world (including the USA) has become aware of environmental issues.
On the other hand, I see that most politicians focus on golbal warming and are not really interested in a more general discourse about how we should treat our planet. Just to give you an example of what I mean - whenever there is a discussion about global warming going on in Germany, it doesn't take long until the first politician pops up and suggests that we should build more nuclear power plants, after all it's such a "clean" source of energy. They seem to be fairly ignorant to the fact that here one environmental issue is replaced with another one...

One of the topics covered in the BBC documentary that very much impressed me was the one dealing with energy production in Africa. Let's face it - the first world fucks Africa whenever possible. We do it on a daily basis, we're basically living in relative wealth and Africa pays the bill. No matter who is right or wrong in this discussion, can we really expect countries like Africa to use alternative sources of energy production, when it hinders their development?

[Moriendor]

@ Maylander: Aren't you mixing up two different subjects there? As far as I know, there is only a very small correlation between the ozone layer issue and the greenhouse effect. Yes. The greenhouse effect is marginally increased by the lack of the ozone layer in the polar regions because more UV rays reach the surface but since this only happens to a larger degree in the polar regions, it isn't really a major factor. After all it's not the carbon dioxide that destroys the ozone layer. It's the fluor carbon hydro stuff (dunno the English term... FCKW in German) that is responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer. The emission of FCKW has already been heavily reduced 15+ years ago. Positive effects are already apparent since the hole in the ozone layer at least in the Northern hemisphere is receding and the hole in both polar regions has become much smaller over the years. Therefore, I believe that we need to be vigilant but that we can call the ozone hole problem nearly fixed. It doesn't seem to be a big issue anymore.

Now on the topic of global warming being a hoax or not... who really cares? What do we have to lose if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions? Right. Absolutely nothing. We can all only benefit from reducing the emissions. A large variety of diseases of the respiratory system is caused by industrial emissions. Even if global warming is a hoax (which is very questionable) our quality of living will only improve if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions. So why not just do it regardless of whether it will really reduce the greenhouse effect or not? It will be beneficial for us and our environment in the long run so why not just do it? Do we really need the risk and danger of impending doom to get our asses in gear? Obviously yes or these hoax debates wouldn't exist... *sigh*

[Moriendor]

what if the very basis of the theory of man-made global warming is wrong?

How can it be totally wrong? What is happening to the man-made CO2? Is it -contrary to natural CO2- leaving the earth's atmosphere and flying to the moon or what? :biggrin:
OK. Seriously. If we go by that study that you mentioned, it should take 800 years for the effects of man-made global warming to show up, right? Well, why not begin now to do something about it? We do have a responsibility for future generations long beyond our own lives IMHO. We have pumped trillions of metric tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere since the industrial age began. If the 800 year theory is correct then it will bite us ("us" as in mankind) in the arse one day. The sooner we do something about it, the better.

One of the topics covered in the BBC documentary that very much impressed me was the one dealing with energy production in Africa. Let's face it - the first world fucks Africa whenever possible. We do it on a daily basis, we're basically living in relative wealth and Africa pays the bill. No matter who is right or wrong in this discussion, can we really expect countries like Africa to use alternative sources of energy production, when it hinders their development?

I think it makes sense to prevent African, Asian and South American nations who are on the verge of entering the industrial age from repeating the mistakes we made in the 1st world. I agree that we are scewing them over badly enough lots of times but as far as alternative sources of energy production are concerned, it will be for their and our benefit in the long run.

[Cleric]

Comparing the documentary linked to in the first post with Gore's, I'd have to say that the evidence is severely tilted in Gore's favor. The scientists in the first video presented next to no scientific evidence to support their claims, other than the comparison of solar activity vs world temperature over the last 100 years.

Interestingly enough, I notice that the scientists in the first video agree with Gore's technique of measuring temperature and CO2 levels from glacial core samples. If they accept that information as true, then I don't see how they can argue with the core sample evidence Gore presents showing the correlation of temperature and CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. Which, by the way does show that there has been a little cooling tick over the last thousand years.

All in all, the information they present is interesting, but it just can't compare with the 650,000 years worth of evidence from the glacial record presented by Gore.

[Ionstormsucks]

How can it be totally wrong? What is happening to the man-made CO2? Is it -contrary to natural CO2- leaving the earth's atmosphere and flying to the moon or what? :biggrin:
OK. Seriously. If we go by that study that you mentioned, it should take 800 years for the effects of man-made global warming to show up, right? Well, why not begin now to do something about it? We do have a responsibility for future generations long beyond our own lives IMHO. We have pumped trillions of metric tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere since the industrial age began. If the 800 year theory is correct then it will bite us ("us" as in mankind) in the arse one day. The sooner we do something about it, the better.

No, you slightly misunderstood something here... I have to admit I wasn't very clear, but it's not that easy to explain. Ok, the general consensus is that there is a direct connection between an increase in Co2 and the atmosphere becoming warmer. According to the "consensus theory" there is first an increase in Co2 and therefore the atmosphere is heating up. So the Co2 is directly responsible for the rising temperature.
The "contrarian view" is featuring a different theory. They say that Co2 is not causing the temperature increase, but is following the increase. First the temperature goes up and then Co2 follows. So for them Co2 is not responsible for an increase in temperature (they trace the earth's rising temperature back to solar activity). If you look at how Co2 is actually produced (in nature) that makes sense. The ocean is in fact the biggest source of Co2 - if the temperature goes up then the direct consequence is that more Co2 will go from the ocean into the atmosphere.

And this is really where the question of the 3rd world comes in. If Co2 is not responsible for global warming can we we still demand that... let's say Africa... should not use its coal as a reliable source of energy? It is as you're saying, the industrialized countries of the 1st world have nothing to lose if they reduce their emission of Co2 since we have nuclear power to replace it. Africa on the other hand... The problem is that solar energy or better the technology to produce it is expensive, but Africa is poor. And it is inefficient compared to coal-burning power plants. So, while we might have nothing to lose, the 3rd world has.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking in favour of this particular argument, but I thought it would be a good thing to mention it, because it complicates things.

[Ionstormsucks]

Interestingly enough, I notice that the scientists in the first video agree with Gore's technique of measuring temperature and CO2 levels from glacial core samples. If they accept that information as true, then I don't see how they can argue with the core sample evidence Gore presents showing the correlation of temperature and CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. Which, by the way does show that there has been a little cooling tick over the last thousand years.

All in all, the information they present is interesting, but it just can't compare with the 650,000 years worth of evidence from the glacial record presented by Gore.

That's not quite true. They admit that there is a correlation, but they say the conclusions that consensus experts drew were wrong. See what I wrote above.

[Cleric]

I understand what you're saying. But it brings us to a "which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario. Unfortunately, as I stated previously, they only present information of solar activity for the last 100 years.

So you can interpret it one way based on 100 years of data, or interpret it the other way based on 650,000 years of data.

But if we wait for another 100 years of solar data and Gore's right, many of our coastal cities will be under water, millions of people will have died or been driven from their homes and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Considering that we're talking about something this major, I simply don't feel that we can afford to take the risk.

[Squeek]

I'm ready to accept that global warming is really happening and that it's probably an effect of industrialization. I'm just not thrilled with the solutions being advocated.

If I'm understanding it right, the US and its allies are supposed take a big financial hit while other countries all over the world start experimenting with nuclear energy. No thanks.

There are alternative energy sources being developed now, but they all depend on a strong US economy to move ahead and eventually compete with fossil fuel. Hurting ourselves economically will make those solutions less likely to mature or succeed and will make alternatives like nuclear power inevitable.

[roqua]

It doesn't really matter if its a hoax or not. Science, facts, and proof are now propaganda tools. People have made up their mind, closed it, and the subject is not open to debate. Science loses to fiction whenever a political issue is involved.

[Moriendor]

I'm ready to accept that global warming is really happening and that it's probably an effect of industrialization. I'm just not thrilled with the solutions being advocated.

If I'm understanding it right, the US and its allies are supposed take a big financial hit while other countries all over the world start experimenting with nuclear energy. No thanks.

There are alternative energy sources being developed now, but they all depend on a strong US economy to move ahead and eventually compete with fossil fuel. Hurting ourselves economically will make those solutions less likely to mature or succeed and will make alternatives like nuclear power inevitable.

Well, I think that your country could save a couple billions here and there if it would bury its global domination fantasies or whatever you want to call it and if it would focus more on life preserving issues instead of the destruction of lives ;) . Anyway, if only a fraction of the money spent on the military and missile defense systems would be invested in the research of alternative energies, we'd probably make some real progress in that area really fast.

Also, the argument of "cost" of alternative energies in general is a very short-sighted one if you neglect to factor in the cost (of possibly human lives and definitely cash) of the consequences of global warming.
The costs of the relocation of coastal cities, the damages caused by mega hurricanes and floods or droughts and other environmental catastrophes will exceed the investments in alternative energy sources by a factor beyond our imagination.

The economy doesn't even have to suffer. No one is suggesting to turn off power plants over night. What everyone is talking about is a long term plan (over several decades, not just a few years) to slowly phase out the sources of high CO2 emission and to replace them with alternative, renewable energy sources. This process is going to affect the economies of all Western nations much less than the consequences that are expected from further global temperature increases.

[Squeek]

Well, I think that your country could save a couple billions here and there if it would bury its global domination fantasies or whatever you want to call it and if it would focus more on life preserving issues instead of the destruction of lives ;) .I suppose you Germans know a thing or two about global domination fantasies. OK. I'll concede the point ;) .

Seriously though, I do see what you mean. I'm all for the goverment spending money intelligently. All my life people have been asking for that. When is that ever going to start happening, anyway?

[magerette]

In my opinion, this is an issue of guilt and ego, not science and fact. Human beings like to feel they have power and control, and one of the few things they have little control over is nature and the cosmos.

I agree there are too many little human bugs crawling around on the face of the earth leaving a trail of pollution and waste. We know it's wrong, we feel guilty about it, we demonize ourselves and make laws about it. Whether this is something that will resonate through the ages by destroying an entire planet is another thing.

I have no idea who's right or wrong, but I am willing to listen to those on both sides who might. (I have a good friend with a Masters in Environmental Science and he literally shudders with disgust every time the GW phrase is mentioned.)

Anyway, here's a rather long article playing Devil's advocate by a scientist--not by an Activist, Politician, or "Environmentalist"--(my Bold):

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information....

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

[Corwin]

What is most intriguing for me in this article, is that I could say exactly the same sort of thing about the THEORY of evolution as he is saying about climate change or global warming. There is NO proof for that either, but if you challenge it, you're told 'intelligent design' (for example) is not science, while evolution has to be!! It's not good logic either!!!! :)

A most interesting read, thank you!!

[Hindukönig]

There ARE proofs for evolution, like fossils and their order in the layers of earth. Only creationists and their friends, the "intelligent designers", say there is no proof, just because they don't understand them.

[Corwin]

The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!

[Hindukönig]

Um, you should read some stuff about evolution. The fossils are the _reason_ we have this theory now.
BTW, in science evolution is treated as a fact. The _theory_ of evolution on the other side describes the mechanics how the evolution works - for example Darwin's theory is: the fittest survives.

[Ionstormsucks]

The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!

Biologists all over the world agree that evolution is pretty much unquestionable - there is more than enough proof that evolution takes place. It is not a theory. What is a theory, or better theories, is how evolution works - the exact mechanisms of evolution are not known to us in every tiny detail. That is a farily big difference.

It's kinda sad that groups like the creationists are still doubting it. The "creationist probability" that you're bringing forward as an argument is deeply flawed. It is based on the believe that an evolutionary process consists of a long sequence of events that leads to a particular outcome. But that is wrong - an evolutionary process has a multitude of results... not one particular.
To simply it a bit: Imagine someone would give you a dice and tell you to roll it 100 times and write down the numbers that you rolled. After you did that a creationist would look at the sequence of numbers and tell you that the chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is so small that it is minuscule.
Fact is however that you were never aiming at rolling this particular sequence of numbers - therefore the creationist argument is deeply flawed and in no way scientific. The chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is as high as that of any other possible sequence of numbers to occur. It's the same with evolution.

[Maylander]

On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.

At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.

[Ionstormsucks]

At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.

Well, the problem is that most politicians give a damn about pollution. Pollution has nothing do to with global warming (in their eyes). After all were talking about Co2 here which is an absolutely natural product. Therefore the political discussion is very much focussing on the Co2 reduction. As I mentioned before I consider this to be a problem since the easiest way to reduce Co2 is nuclear power. I mean what are we gonna tell out children? "Guys, the good news is that we saved you from global warming - the bad news is all the nuclear waste that you'll have to get rid of?" Believe me, it will take us a looooooong time until alternative energy sources will produce enough energy to replace our traditional energy sources.


On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.


You have to be careful with "basic instincts," because that is an aspect that belongs to the field of sociology as much as it belongs to biology. Sociobiologists would argue that the fact that human beings are still influenced by their basic instincts backs up the model of evolution.
The approach that evolution means progress in terms of morality is a very philosophical one. But evolution in a scientific sense mean to adapt and serves survivability.

[Corwin]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

[Ionstormsucks]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

Cool, I'm in for it...

[fatBastard()]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.
And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words. As Moriendor already said:
Now on the topic of global warming being a hoax or not... who really cares? What do we have to lose if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions?
Even if it turns out that Global Warming isn't caused by humans after all (or isn't even a problem at all), then I'm pretty certain that just going outside and taking a deep breath without starting to cough and choke on the smog cloud that most major cities are covered by nowadays, would justify the investments.

Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true ... but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself.

[roqua]

I would like to point out that no matter what our actions are, the earth is in no danger. We might endanger ourselves, but not the earth. It was here long before us, and will be here long after us. Even after a nuclear war, we might put a couple dents in her, but nothing she couldn't handle. Life will persist, and the face of the world will change, but nothing she would find significant in the long run. Hell, she might even be happy we killed each other off. Looking at it that way, it is our civic duty to engage in nuclear war.

[Maylander]

That's true. The planet itself will be restored in time, whether it takes ten thousand years or a million. It heals slowly, but surely. In this regard, I like the saying:

"To say that humans are insignificant, is to give ourselves credit".

I think I heard it in Heroes of Might & Magic 4.

[Hindukönig]

Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

Yeah, start one. I need a good laugh.

Creationists. Hah.

[Squeek]

Creationists. Hah.
I get a good laugh out of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Java Man.

[magerette]

And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words.

On the contrary, words are what has sparked this whole debate. And words are one of the most malleable media available. They can be twisted and manipulated to prove almost any point. I think it is wise to distrust them.


Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true ... but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself

Thanks for taking the time to read the article fB. I agree Dr. Ball is emphasizing his credentials a bit defensively, but I also think he does so in order for his opinion not to be dismissed as irrelevant, which of course, it is anyway. :) I agree that other than saying he feels all the data so far can be explained by normal climate variation, that he does not introduce any proofs.

If you would like a little more detailed argument, this one from the former editor of the New Scientist magazine, Nigel Calder(once again, my Bold):

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year...

..Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.





As I said earlier, I don't feel that I have the knowledge or expertise in the field to determine which side is right or wrong. Pollution is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. I think most people realize the need, but are hazy on just how to go about it. Unfortunately opportunists with their own agenda, like Mr. Gore, are only too willing to make use of their guilt. If you think that governments and U.N. committees and politicians are supporting the theory of global warming because they altruistically want to help the planet, I would suggest you try to find any other example of their altruism. It's about power, control, votes, and MONEY, IMnotsoHO. :)

[Cm]

Somehow between movies, news reports, and school, my 9yr old Grandson came to me the other night upset and unable to sleep because he was worried about global warming and was the ocean flooding half the world.

I couldn't find the right words at first to comfort him. I couldn't look at him and say it will never happen. I did ease his mind and he got to sleep. But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.

[Squeek]

But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.Great point, Cm. Kids certainly aren't stupid, are they? From their point of view, it must make sense to be scared.

I would offer your grandson candor, perspective, comfort and hope for the future. Earthquakes, tornados, lightning...there's a lot that can go wrong, and children have to come to terms with all of that stuff eventually. Global warming is something else to add to that list.

What are the chances that all these calamities will really happen? Enough for concern, I would say. Beyond that, the picture just isn't clear, not yet. In the meantime a volcano could explode somewhere and pollute the planet a lot worse in just a matter of hours. Or a meteor could strike. Those are real possibilities.

Your grandson needs to find a way to understand all of that and not lose sleep over it. Maybe you could start by explaining why you don't. You can assure him that science doesn't completely agree with Al Gore (They didn't agree with him when he claimed to have invented the Internet, either).

He's right about some things, though. Somebody somewhere should develop new ways to utilize solar, geothermal and wind power or harness the power of the ocean (its movement and temperature variations). All it would take to solve global warming would be a discovery of a newer, significantly-better kind of battery power.

When I was a kid, they assurred us that we'd all be zipping around in jet packs by now! What's up with these scientists? Someone should give them a swift kick in the pants. I want my jet pack!

[magerette]

I completely agree, Squeek. It's sad that children who are so vulnerable to the fears and uncertainties of the adult world, should be frightened at the prospect of growing up in the world they live in.

When CM and I were kids, as I'm sure she remembers, we lived through countless Air Raid Drills, learned about fallout shelters, radiation, and how to hide under our desks if they "dropped the bomb". I don't think the fears instilled then can ever truly disappear. But it made Fallout very believable ;)

It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.

[Ionstormsucks]

It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.

While I am of course sorry to hear that a child is scared by the consequences of global warming that climate experts predict, I also think that fear has become a necessary requirement for change. People are fucking stupid. If you tell them, "Guys, the consequences of climate change might not be as bad as predicted, and anyway we're not quite sure if reducing our emission of Co2 will change anything, but it makes sense that we stop polluting our planet," then they will think, "It can't be that bad," and then they'll go out and buy the biggest car possible. But if you fear them by telling them of floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. then they'll listen - it's sad, but true.

The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not. If the consensus is wrong it just means that we won't be able to do anything against global warming, it does not mean that our atmosphere won't heat up. Somehow I think it might be a good idea to take into account this possibility...

[magerette]

ISS wrote:
The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not.

I would be the last to disagree with any argument advancing the incredible stupidity of humanity--that is a given :)

Pollution is without argument man-made. My problem about global warming(other than Gore) is that I wonder why the people who are behind it are...so...behind it.Could it be because it gives them importance and power?

I would be fine with the whole thing if I believed that it would indeed address the largest source of pollutants--Big Bucks Industry--and force compliance with basic, commonsense anti-pollution regulations.

These types of regulations can indeed work--you have only to travel to Mexico City to see the difference in air quality between a regulated environment in the U.S. and an environmental free-for-all.

And no logical person could say it makes sense to depend on a non-renewable power source that is controlled by a hostile regime.

Where my conditioned distrust of government and politicians kicks in is how the GW proponents plan to do their regulation. Third world countries, individual consumers--yes, they need to address the issue on many levels. But I wonder how effective all this feel-good save the world environmentalism will be when dealing with the main polluters of our planet. The big companies will cry,moan,bribe and lie as they always have done, saying that the regs will drive up prices(which they will, because there will be no question of absorbing the costs rather than passing them on to the consumers.)

In the end, my fear is that my entire life will be legislated and taxed into a politically correct "Green" state, and the real criminals will get a slap on the wrist.

Color me paranoid, but this is pretty much how things seem to work in the real world.

[Squeek]

The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is.
Back in school there was a science teacher who tried his best to explain scientific theories, even the ones he didn't completely understand. Looking back, I'd say he was probably a pretty good guy. But he epitomized what can go wrong with science.

Some of the theories we studied back then eventually turned out to be flawed or altogether wrong. They seemed right to most people at the time, and he would defend them. Whenever he felt backed into a corner, trying to answer difficult questions about them, he would look the asker right in the eye and assure him that, "greater minds understand."

Some people treat facts the way others treat religious beliefs. They get self-righteous about it. Normally, that guy would never be so rude as to question anyone's intelligence. But he made exceptions whenever he felt someone really deserved it.

That teacher rejected reasonable -- and sometimes correct -- points of view in order to defend what he thought were valuable scientific truths. Forrest Gump's Mama sometimes said, "Stupid is as stupid does." I imagine greater minds probably understand that too.

[mytgroo]

I am appalled at the idea that big industry and big government will solve anything, you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions. There are more than enough solutions that are available, however, it is more of a game going on -- can I grab a piece of the solution, before we implement it, conservative (in the sense of old and powerful not necessarily political affiliations) institutions in big government and big business want the pieces of the pie the solution before they implement it. New things create change. Standard Biodiesel, or General Nanobattery, are probably not going to be run by the same people as Standard Oil, or General Electric.

[dteowner]

you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions.Begging your pardon, but it would seem to me that the experts in the field are, strangely enough, in the field. You ask for chaos when you give decision making to people that don't know which end of a hammer is which. Better yet, those same rubes then expect some poor bastard (aka engineer) to implement their ridiculous solutions for free.

While I'm speaking universal truths, I think it's applicable to energy companies just fine.

[JemyM]

What is most intriguing for me in this article, is that I could say exactly the same sort of thing about the THEORY of evolution as he is saying about climate change or global warming. There is NO proof for that either, but if you challenge it, you're told 'intelligent design' (for example) is not science, while evolution has to be!! It's not good logic either!!!! :)

The theory of evolution is not a yes/no question, it's a workfield that several scientific fields have used as basis for the past 150 years.
And yes, Intelligent Design is not science but an obscured attack on crucial sciences including modern medicine and crimefighting.

Archaeology have found that the alternative "Genesis" is in fact stolen from earlier Canaan myth such as the Ugarit myth of Elohim, the babylonian Gilgamesh epos, as well as several local tales in mesopotamia and sumeria. Given that the Exodus is impossible for several reasons and there are still no evidence to support the existence of the patriarchs (but plenty of evidence against them) I say that there really are no case to take the "alternative" seriously in the academic world as well as in the rest of the world where knowledge is power.

[mytgroo]

Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future-- suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines -- they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts...

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.html

[Corwin]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

[txa1265]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

While the science of evolution might be disputable in the context of pro-con biblical references, the fact that evolution as basic genetic science exists is as clearly true as things like quantum mechanics and crystal lattice structures and the like - things that have been able to be seen in laboratory settings for many years that were simply theory before.

So I guess I am saying that you can argue logically about whether the entire basis of our planet is based on evolution, but calling the science of evolution based on genetics a theory is like calling calculus a theory.

[Squeek]

The problem I see with the Theory of Evolution is the fossil record. The idea was that we'd all start digging, find a bunch of fossils, and those would substantiate the theory, right?

But for some reason a lot of the fossils we were expecting to find are missing. Where's all the good in-between stuff? Where's the all the fish with the half-legs, the pigs with the half-wings, etc., stuff that would clearly indicate the process of animals evolving? Some have been found here and there, but shouldn't we have found a lot more by now?

Maybe it's me, but I get a little nervous whenever anybody starts insisting that their claims are facts. I remember when they started putting people in jail based on DNA evidence. Back then it was supposed to have been incredibly accurrate. So if DNA evidence said someone was guilty, you had to be pretty stupid not to believe they were guilty.

But today a lot of those people are being released from prison as a result of better science. The original DNA facts were depicted as virtually certain. The new ones are being depicted that same way again now.

I suppose judges are accepting the new facts, and that's not surprising. We're all supposed to accept new facts if we don't want to be considered stupid. On the other hand, it turns out that the folks who doubted the old new facts weren't so stupid after all. When it comes to science, sometimes you just have to get lucky with new facts, apparently.

[dteowner]

Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future-- suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines -- they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts...

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.htmlOh, this will be fun. I'll try and work my way thru each question.
#1- Mass transit generally fails in the US due to it being unreliable and inconvenient. Routes and stations are generally determined by pencil neck politicians who have no interest in the needs of the consumer.
#2- You have huge SUVs because people buy them. Lots of them.
#3- You don't hear about buying/upgrading existing technology because it's not cost effective to do so. For example, gas prices could be significantly reduced by the addition of a new refinery (existing US refineries are running 104% rated capacity IIRC), but environmental laws have made it prohibitively expensive to construct a new one. Protecting the environment is good. The cost? $3.00 a gallon. Nothing is free, folks.
#4, 5, and 6- Alternative sourcing is also a nice idea, but again it comes down to dollars and cents. Do you spend a billion dollars developing and constructing new sources when you have viable and functional sources already online? At some point, the cost analysis says yes, but apparently we ain't there yet. And let us not forget that someone is going to pay for that billion dollars up front. Did I hear you sign up to double your electric bill for the next few years to fund a new, green nuclear power plant, which by the way, we'll be building just down the street from your house since you're so supportive of the idea? At some point, enough people will be willing to agree to that deal that it will happen. Until then, it will seem like some evil corporation is putting a lid on a magical fix to all our energy problems.

Not aiming at you personally, but it all comes down to this: "Open your wallet or shut your mouth". I sympathize with the whole green movement, but somehow they always seem to forget their checkbook.

[JemyM]

Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology.

There's currently not a single evidence for old testament prior to about 800-600bc. The Bible is very detailed in it's history, events, places etc, and it would have been a piece of cake to favor the bible, but when compared to the actual world it does not start to fit in until after it is believed to be written (around 650bc).

The bible is very important to many people. Not only because they want an afterlife, but also because the idea of a "promised land" which is very important politically. Because of this, for 200 years scientists have spent time down in the desert, examining every page of the bible for things that can be proven. 200 years later, there's zip.
The earliest version of the old testament were written around 650bc and only when you look on the events by the knowledge that it was written 650bc things start to make sense. Most of the villages, places etc that are mentioned within the bible corresponds to that year, not 1-2000 years sooner like in the biblical timeline. This is also true to the supposed scientific level, tools they used, how cities work etc, all corresponds to around 650bc not sooner.

There's plenty of evidence to make the events in the old testament unproven, unlikely and impossible. There are several cathegories of such evidence. The first is the evidence of lack of evidence. The old testament is very detailed in it's supposed history making it very easy to prove. The evidence which you could basicly just go over there and get did not exist. Examples are the drowned army of egyptians. There would be truckload of remains, there are none. Another is remains of 600,000 people in the desert for 40 years. There are none. Egyptians who were actually a huge civilization at the time of Exodus, kept great documentation of everything that was going on. They left no records of a such escape, which they would if supposed 2 million slaves left (which would be a huge blow to the egyptian economy). Some great cities described in the bible left no trace and never existed.

The second evidence is the inconsistency of the timeline of mentioned events and places. For example, the conquest of Aj became a village first several hundred years after the bible claim it was a great city that was conquered. What was previously believed to be Jericho turned out to be remains that was several thousand years older than when it was supposed to be conquered. In fact, at the time it was supposed to be conquered, the place had been abandoned for a long time. Actually the majority of the supposed cities that was conquered was not inhabitated in the time of their supposed conquest. They were in 650bc ofcourse.
The well in Beer Sheva that were supposed to solve an argument with the philistines are according to the bible built 1000 years before the philistines are known to have entered Canaan. Gerar have the same problem, the city is much yonger than when it appears in the bible. Even the great kingdoms described in the bible were just villages at the time they were supposed to be large and great. The ruins that we actually have down there of stuff which is actually mentioned in the bible, were built much later.

Then there are the evidence that makes parts of the bible impossible. The desert that Moses and friends were supposed to walk through was at the time occupied by egyptian forces making a such walk impossible. We have extensive records from them. The area were littered by garrisons and lookout points and they sent letters in which they recorded everyone passing through their area. Even a small group of people would have been mentioned. There are none.
Even worse, throughout the entire time of Exodus, Canaan was an egyptian province that have left a wealth of historical evidence. In fact, in the search for old testament evidence, archaologists have dug up plenty of egyptian ruins. They were the master of the country. Moses had no reason to escape to Canaan to escape the egyptians, because Canaan was egyptian!

Then there are the evidence of Israels real history that speaks a whole different story. The migration from the north (Abraham etc) is widely discarded as well as the Exodus. The people of the area are known to be of a local stock, not from elsewhere. All summoned historical evidence we have today points to a very different story regarding the history of Israel than what you find in the old testament. The earliest Israelites up north were not immigrants, they were nomads who started to build settlements and started to build up an economy through making olive oil. The small settlements eventually grew into a kingdom. Then there are the Jews down south who live up in the high mountains, an area that was very poor. All remains shows that they were polyteistic, worshipping many mountain gods. One very interesting part regarding the southern settlements was that there were no pigbones anywhere. They did have pigs in the highland so there was no reason for this. Juda did not grow into a significant state until around 800bc and with that they became literate. The archaeological and historical evidence start to match the bible around 650bc. This was also the era in which the pagan god Jehova grew into the "one" god.

The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example.

All four canaan civilizations, far older than Juda, have their own mythology that involves the flood (Ugarit, Babylonia, Sumeria and Mesopotamia). This is not surprising since the area around Canaan often floods. Compare this with the the northern tale about Ragnarok that begins with three years of winter. Pagan myths were always about weather.

Talking about which. The Ugarit flood god was called JV. Ring a bell? What if I spell it in hebrew, JHVH? Pure english... Jehova.
The Ugarit flood god was the son of Elohim, and the son of the snake godess who in pure english was called Eve. She was the keeper of the tree of life. Ugarits reason for the flood was that JV fought the evil Ugarit god of Baal.

There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis

Both geology, biology and archaeology disproved genesis ages ago. In several of our key sciences like chemistry and astronomy it's impossible to use genesis as a base hypothesis anymore.

Instead Genesis have been mapped out to be traditional myth.
Two key discoveries, the discovery of the Gilgamesh Epos 1872 and the stone tablets in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) 1928, have given historians a good insight in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis. Other tales like the babylonian genesis Enma Elish, and the book that covers almost the entire first part of the old testament; the canaan epos "Atrahasis", have helped to complete the picture. The book of Genesis was simply taken from pagan myths around the area. The earliest known version of the tale that inspired Adam and Eve is the sumerian legend of Adapa that is over 5000 years old.

Two fun sidenotes: 1. The egyptian book of the dead that contains the egyptian version of the ten commandments are dated to several thousand years older than the earliest known old testament.
2. Some evidence, including some passages from the old testament itself, suggests that the Juda version of Jehova was a volcano. It's quite hillarious that christians chant protectionspells by summoning an ancient Israelan pagan volcanogod/floodgod.

while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it.

What archaeological evidence would be able to prove Genesis? Genesis is a creation myth that attempts to explain a few things such as the first family and the creation of earth. It's incompatible with geology, archaeology, history, medicine and some other scientific disciplines. The very first bit, the seven days, was inspired by Enuma Elish, a babylonian tale (pagan myth) that is at least 1000 year older than Genesis.

Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution?

Back in the first years the science of evolution tracked fossils, species and flies. 150 years later evolution have grown into tracking DNA code which is currently used to track families, criminals, parents. We also use evolution to track genes, gentic mutations, flaws, some neurological damages and other stuff.
A child of two parents with brown eyes have brown eyes. A child with two parents with blue eyes have blue eyes. A child with two parents with different eyecolor might end up somewhere inbetween or either color. Same with hair and looks. The human species and our differences like nords having problems with sun, asians cant handle alcohol, africans are resistant to heat etc, it's all genetic and evolution. Evolution is vital to modern medicine, both to eridicate side effects of drugs, to find new cures, to fight harmful bacteria and viruses.

The basics of evolution is what you read in school because when you get into an university there are plenty of sciences in which evolution is the core of that science. Imagine working within electronics without believing in electricity, that's what evolution is to modern science.

Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

I actually think you have locked your mind and see the whole thing backwards. Evolution is not a door that needs to be unlocked. Instead it have proven to be the only key that fits the lock. Now 150 years later it opens many doors that previously been locked to us, doors that opened up to discoveries that we take for granted in our everyday lives such as medicine or why not genetic breeding to get new food etc. Evolution were never something that needed to be proven since it's a tool that simply always worked and still does.

[Bartacus]

But if we wait for another 100 years of solar data and Gore's right, many of our coastal cities will be under water, millions of people will have died or been driven from their homes and it will be too late to do anything about it..

Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.

What is true is that it's a good thing that people care about the environment now. Although the global warming thing is not caused by men alone and I don't give us even a big impact on it, we do have an impact.

About the evolution thing: Not so long ago it has been discovered that 'c' (speed of light) is not the constant we always presumed it was. The speed of light would have been higher at the Big Bang and has got smaller since then. With this aspect in mind, our theory of the correct date of the big bang might be much closer to our existence then we presumed so far. Btw, don't forget that it was the catholic church that pushed the idea of the Big Bang.

Evolution doesn't work so simple as one thinks now. Otherwise the marriage of a smart man with a smart woman would lead to the birth of a smart child. Survival of the fittest is an oversimplification which is today not widely accepted anymore. There are many more roads in evolution, the the theories we knew of till some decades ago.

[Moriendor]

Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.

Errr... Antarctica is a continent, Bart :) . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.

[Pladio]

Sorry, I'll state my opinion tomorrow, but I have to give this link for the debate of Evolution versus Creationism. Anyone who needs more information or wants to talk or read about it... Only 250 pages worth... I stopped reading and speaking after page 150 or so I think as I got busy, but here it is.
Evolution versus Creationism debate thread on Taleworlds forums. (http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,16182.0.html)

[mytgroo]

I do open my wallet regularly, I invest in alternative energy. There are a lot of things which look both good and viable. The way things are going we will be importing our solar cells from Germany, Japan, and China, our wind turbines from the Dutch, our ethanol from Brazil, and our hydrogen technology from Canada and it will happen a lot sooner than you might think. A new peak oil estimate is out which says 4 years from now is the oil decline. This may be why there is such a crazy rush into alternative energy, global warming is the tip of a much deeper iceberg.

It has nothing to do with being evil, it has everything to do with being shortsighted and feeling a need to have what you want now... no matter what the consequences. The price of oil is becoming a lot more than just dollars, the western worlds enemies hold a large portion of the supply...

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

[bjon045]

I think Global warming is closely related to overpopulation/pollution, some of the same products will lead to both of these occurring. While we might be able to adapt to a hotter planet would we really want to if the whole place is covered in refuse and you have to live in a tiny cubicle. That is the way the world is going if something isn't done to stop it.

It would be nice if we could make a fresh start on a new planet with our current technology available but that is looking less and less likely it is likely we would have to settle for a crappy planet that isn't half as good as earth. (Think an Arid planet in Master of Orion vs a Gaia planet, which would you want to live on?)

[zakhal]

You hear pie in the sky nonsense-- hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along.

I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.

[JemyM]

I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.

The structure and philosophy behind religion and science is completely different.

Our education system is founded on whats verifiable. As an aspiring student you are forced to go through old results and try them for yourself to verify their validity to see that it's likely true. You do this to learn that you should never trust something which is not verified multiple times.
There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same. All the large universities in the western world are founded on the same discoveries. When a new discovery is made, highly educated people from all over the world will look into the claim and verify if it holds solid or not. As a scientist you do not make a claim unless you have tried it enough times to eliminate every possible angle of it. You will then be torched and torn inside out by highly intelligent and supremely educated people from all around the globe.
If your claim is proven false by someone else, if you have been sloppy or if you have made a lie, you risk your entire career, therefore you never make a claim you havnt tested and that you cannot back up with more evidence than is required.

In religion you are expected to have faith. You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.

[zakhal]

There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same.

What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.


In religion you are expected to have faith.

Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.

If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.

Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.

[Ubereil]

I believe some pepole believe in science like some other pepole believe in religion. If you say something, and has a "scientist" vertify it, you can make "normal" pepole believe anything (potatoes cause cancer! CO2 cause global warming!). "Normal" pepole doesn't have enought energy to keep up on universitylevel, so they don't know which theories are true, and which are false. Yet they believe in science.

So that claiming that zakhal is all wrong just because science on the top level is pretty accurate (most of the time) isn't looking at the whole picture. Because science isn't only practised on universitylevel.

Übereil

[magerette]

I agree with Zakhal and Uberiel. Both science and religion are man's attempts to deal with the unknown and answer the questions of existence. The end result for the uninformed or uninvolved is exactly the same--they have answers which to a large extent they accept without truly understanding. I.E., is there any significant difference in how "the man in the street" sees the transmutation of blood to wine, or how he sees sub-atomic theory? Could he explain either one to himself or anyone else? No, they are both accepted without personal proof, on hearsay and faith.

Science is the modern god, and the answers it provides are at least founded on a rational process. I personally prefer those answers, but those who live a faith based life might find the emotional and spiritual explanations of religion more satisfying. I think human beings have a desparate need for control ("Knowledge is power")to place themselves in the universe and give life significance.

Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

[txa1265]

I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.
And I also think that using either one blindly to make decisions for you or to justify decisions you've made is a mistake. Religion and science both encourage skepticism - I know that might sound shocking based on so many of the 'religious right' who advocate blind faith, but think of the many parables that encourage soul-searching and discovery of self.

As a scientist myself I cringe at the way science is misused ... part of my job is as a statistician, which is one of the most abused areas of science. But true scientists are looking to discover the truth, whether it is theirs or others. Sure we all start with our own idea (null hypothesis) but then apply rigorous testing to disprove it - if we are good scientists. Anyone doing testing to prove something true is misguided at best, for that can never be conclusively done. All we can do is gather evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. prove ourselves wrong).

[JemyM]

What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.

We use the words "true" and "false" but in science it's more common to use words like "likely" and "unlikely" because it's considered unscientific to claim that you know for sure. We can never be sure. We can however determine that something is highly likely since we can predict the outcome of scientific experiments.

The greater we are to predict the outcome the sharper our tools are and we may grow to trust them, but we often go back to try again. Some of the more established experiments we give our students to try for themselves, thus something we pretty much know is true (highly likely) is continued to be tested over and over and over again. Sometimes someone find something new and then we reevaluate since our tools are sharpened.

No other field have this continued testing, experimenting, reevaluation process going on forever. For a scientist, that's his job, and usually we enjoy the fruits of their jobs and sometimes we do not care since it does not effect us that much. Take a battery for example. A simple battery is the product of science. It's highly predictable that a battery will work, so we use batteries, we trust in batteries. Still building your own battery is part of physics class just to verify that batteries work.

Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.
If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

I personally use the "likely"/"unlikely" philosophy in my everyday life. When I say that I consider something to be highly likely you might say that I have faith. But I do not see faith as a good word. I just prefer to say that I have examined the evidence and I consider it to be likely.

Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.

The ethics within science have changed since then and is completely different for us today. Racial biology was already back then considered pseudoscience and it's use within politics was not scientific. Racial biology have changed. Not only because our ethics have changed, but because careful study have discovered that earlier claims was unfounded. Racial biology today have use within medicine as well as crimefighting (tracking race within DNA helps to reduce the suspects) and all ethnic groups and genders are welcome as scientists today.

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so. In the current theologies around the globe people are executed and imprisoned on the grounds of religion.

[magerette]

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so.

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach. :)

[JemyM]

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach. :)

Yes and no. Using the new testament as it is gives you a perfect excuse to forgive an axe murderer. It also gives you a perfect excuse to kill your own child for being disobedient or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so. The bible in itself is frozen in time. It's not updated when morals change or new discoveries are made. It also do not ask you to disprove it's content. Science is. It's not considered unethic or disrespectful to question scientific claims, instead you are asked to and much about the job as a scientist is to do exactly that.

Imagine if the job of an Imam was to rewrite the Quaran every day according to new ideas, new morals and new discoveries.

[dteowner]

I think this is the point where Corwin pops in to remind us that organized religion is not necessarily indicative of divine purpose, or something like that.

*pulling pin on the grenade*
For, as we all know, organized religion really boils down to a secular governance system that uses/abuses spirituality to appease and control the masses.
*slamming door*

[magerette]

As I said in my earlier post, it's all about control and people needing to find the answers. Of course that's a wonderful tool/excuse for power freaks and mass-murderers. Whether that is the true intent of religion or science is debatable, but the human element certainly can make it that way :)

I'm an agnostic pagan, personally. (which basically means I ain't believin any of it, but if I was going to worship something, it would be nature.)

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic;) ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.:S

[JemyM]

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic;) ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.:S

Well, im proud I live under a prime minister who used his one hour with president Bush to discuss what to do with the environment. :D

Sweden have a long scientific tradition and I feel that science and politics go hand in hand on many topics as a politic advisor, but it's the government that are the ones who use it for good or bad. Science is not a politic tool in itself.

[bjon045]

In MOO you just had to build a "Atmospheric Renewer". That would certainly be handy.

[fatBastard()]

Sweden have a long scientific tradition ...
And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes :shakefist:
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before ;)

[Squeek]

...or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so.Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

[JemyM]

Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

Yes, humans are not perfect, but science is currently the sharpest tool we have to do our best.

[JemyM]

And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes :shakefist:
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before ;)

You can have em. They do not speak our language anyway. :biggrin:

[dteowner]

Where's Corwin? I was curious how he was going to jump on my grenade.

On a side note, we seem to have 3 worthwhile topics going in the same thread: global warming, evolution, and general theology. Perhaps a little cut-n-paste by a friendly neighborhood moderator would be helpful?

[Bartacus]

Errr... Antarctica is a continent, Bart :) . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting. Global warming does not mean what it actually says: not the whole world gets warmer, but large areas -> A shift, a ballance that gets out of ballance is a more precise point of view


Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

WW1 and WW2 had much more to do with science then religion. Don't forget that the camps in WW2 provided a boost in the medical science, no matter how cruel it is to hear this.

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.


Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

[Corwin]

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Dte, I actually agree with the main thrust of your point; some secular religions do just that. As I've said before, don't confuse what Jesus really taught with what many so called churches teach today; heresy is rampant in the so called 'Christian' church!! That's why several years ago, I left a large denomination (AoG) and went independant, I couldn't take the hypocracy and deceptions that were taking place, not to mention the heresies being spewed out of some pulpits, but that's a different debate!! :)

[Moriendor]

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting.

Could you post a link to the source that says so, please? I only found something from 2005 (probably paid for by Bush & co :biggrin: ) that would confirm what you are saying.
However, countering these older studies, here's an article (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070515_antarctic_melt.html) that talks about a California-sized area of ice melting in Antarctica in 2005. The article says that the temperatures are still rather constant but that there are clear signs that periods of melting are taking place when the temperatures rise during the Southern hemisphere's summer.
Another article (http://www.livescience.com/environment/060302_antarctic_ice.html) (also newer than the 2005 stuff) states that the Antarctica is losing 36 cubic miles of ice every year (for comparison -as stated in the article- the city of L.A. consumes ~1 cubic mile of fresh water per year).

Here's a quote from the second article that I linked to that might confirm that your data/knowledge is out of date:However, computer models run in 2001 predicted Antarctica would gain ice during the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study, based on satellite measurements between 2002 and 2005, shows the opposite.

[JemyM]

It's interesting how a thread about global warming often turns into a discussion about religion. I believe it's because religion see science as a threat and are therefore quick to attack new discoveries. The support for the theory of global warming as well as quantum theory, big bang and evolution, is much greater within countries where religion is rare than where religion is common.

Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

Moderate christians ignore their own religion and thus waste their chance of an afterlife. Most new christians are given the bible and most are told it's the truth If it was not there would be no need for the bible itself anymore. Understanding christianity as a concept and the theory of a savior requires you to also believe in certain things and follow certain laws. Also you will hear people say to you that you should be like Jesus, that Jesus is good and by following his words you are good. Well, to know what he did you just have to read the bible?

As I grew up I realised that religion was the most important thing in life since it was the only key there was to the greatest part of my life: the afterlife. But I wanted to get closer to the actual stories and I could not be convinced the bible was it. Unlike many fellow christians I started to fear that the authors of the bible might have been the false prophets warned about! So I started to look up the background and the history of the bible.
I have studied many books. Ancient civilization, archaeological digs, comparative religions, other religions, biblical theology, the history of christianity and Europe and the bible itself.

At the end of my study I had reached certain conclusions. The bible is too inconsistent to be literal events and by examining the history as well as the stories within the bible the only rational explanation for it all is that they are fiction, not based on actual characters or events, except a few pages in the end of the old testament. Given the light of modern archaeology the Old Testament is little more than a political tool founded on local pagan religions in southern Israel. We know that the Israelites and the Jews did not migrate from the north or the west but were part of the local stock. We know the tales the first part is based on, that the middle is not possible and we also know the actual events the last bits are based on.
We also know that apocalyptic cults speaking about messiah was very common in the era of which the new testament was born, in fact we have the historical data on many of them in which the story about Jesus is no different from the rest. We know that many distinct cults gathered 325ac in northwestern Turkey under the emperor Constantine of Rome where it became what we know as Christianity. This meeting decided the outlook of the Bible, scrapped 61 books and banned a few of the cults. We have a few of thoose books, which reveals to us more about the political design of the new testament and the tales within.

Given the historical light of the Old Testament Jehova as an ordinary pagan god worshipped among many gods by an ordinary nomad people in the mountains of southern Israel, or the historical light of new testament as just one of many apocalyptic cults, do the Bible in itself hold any moral value or the key to good behavior?

No.

By modern standards the god of the old testament is a vicious tyrant at best. A raving lunatic that have every negative trait known to man. The god character is more of a guideline about how to NOT behave in a modern society than it is the opposite.
Then we have the Jesus character. If you examine the "good" behavior of this man, it's driving out demons from sick people who have been infected by sin. This tells you that sickness and weakness are their own fault. 2000 years later we have a very good grasp on where diseases come from and we know demons or sin have nothing to do with it. So rip all of that crap from the new testament and look at what you have left. Jesus is selective, intolerant, inconsistent, threatening, speaking and acting against his own teachings and often short-tempered and angry. Look at the acts Jesus consider is appropiate and whats not and you find a character who are very different from the modern values of good ethics and good behavior. Chanting "God is great" and "Jesus loves you" over and over and over again have made many believe that is the case, but many turned away from it after picking up the bible and actually compared it with what is today widely accepted as good morals and ethic behavior.

Here's an example of the difference between the ten commandments and modern ethics:
Do not worship any other gods = Learn about other cultures and do not fear strangers.
Do not make any idols = Do not copy someone else, instead believe in who you are.
Do not misuse the name of God = Do not provoke, respect others feelings.
Keep sabbath holy = Respect peoples right to rest and privacy.
Honour your father & mother = Respect your family and they will respect you.
Do not murder = Do not harm other people.
Do not steal = Respect other peoples right to their possessions.
Do not lie = Only tell others what you know is true.
Do not covet = Do not be greedy, instead share what you do not need.

And unlike the bible:
Respect women, respect children, respect animals, respect strangers, respect freedom, respect other peoples choices unless they challenge yours, pay taxes and try to keep your intake of fat and sugar to healthy levels.

That's an example of what good is.

[Ammon777]

Due to this thread, I did some looking into it. (Especially the videos on YouTube.)

All I can say is: holy crap, thats probably the best news for humanity evar!

[JemyM]

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Many people have been tortured, mutilated and killed over that part alone.
Many tyrants have said the same words about thoose who questioned their power "You who have questioned me are ungreatful for not accepting me as your glorious leader". Modern ethics tells us that not believing everything you say is not the same as being ungreatful to you and a politician who openly condemn people who not yet trust his intentions will never be elected again.

All in all Matt 11:20-24 sounds very unforgiving and intolerant to me, and it's not the only time Jesus is both unforgiving and intolerant.
If you are the literal son of god, why would you go against your own teachings to threaten and curse three cities for not believing in your miracles?
A) Your manipulation have failed and now you try intimidation instead
B) You are only a human and you are frustrated.
C) The people who made you up were not bright enough to spot the inconsistency and flawed ethics of this behavior. After all, not many are.

Remember Matt 11:20-24 when you go to Matt 7:1 "Judge not and you shall not be judged". In my bible there are four pages between Jesus teaching others not to judge and then judging three whole cities rather angrily. Jump forth to Matt 23:13 and see Jesus uncontrolled anger, unforgiveness and judgement in full force. Then jump to Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them..." words that are quite inconsistent with