The real inconvenient truth

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:10 pm

Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion. This religion, however, has no god but itself, no moral code other than the one it creates, and no cathedral other than Algore's house (which is a giant energy suck zone). These people who believe this nonsense do so with more blind faith than any normative religion, but with no less fervor than the most extreme. It's nonsense. NONSENSE.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:47 pm

davet010 wrote:
Putting your head in the sand, through wilful ignorance or other reasons, will not, I'm afraid, make it go away.

Exactly.

There was a report recently about how the ice caps are melting at an ever faster rate than we initially thought.

What I don't understand is how and when this became a political issue?
Climate change was going on long before Al Gore decided to champion the issue. But ever since Gore has been discussing it, all the Republicans decided as a group it was untrue and all the Democrats decided it was indeed a pressing concern. Why is caring about the environment a political issue?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:08 pm

JackB1 wrote:Why is caring about the environment a political issue?

Because billions of dollars that can be used for better purposes, such as cancer research, education and more pressing needs, instead will be funneled to Al Gore's pet cause. That diversion could be even more of a reality now that the Democrats hold the White House.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:12 pm

pk500 wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Why is caring about the environment a political issue?
Because billions of dollars that can be used for better purposes, such as cancer research, education and more pressing needs, instead will be funneled to Al Gore's pet cause. That diversion could be even more of a reality now that the Democrats hold the White House.

Take care,
PK

Exactly.

Caring about the environment is one thing. Being a total f***in idiot in the way you go about it is another.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:19 pm

JackB1 wrote:
davet010 wrote:
Putting your head in the sand, through wilful ignorance or other reasons, will not, I'm afraid, make it go away.
Exactly.

There was a report recently about how the ice caps are melting at an ever faster rate than we initially thought.

What I don't understand is how and when this became a political issue?
Climate change was going on long before Al Gore decided to champion the issue. But ever since Gore has been discussing it, all the Republicans decided as a group it was untrue and all the Democrats decided it was indeed a pressing concern. Why is caring about the environment a political issue?

When you can't argue the facts your argue the people that are saying the facts. It's a tactic.

Their will be a massive corporate push towards green energy if they get huge tax subsidies, or it's profitable. Both things that don't exist right now. Now I guess the blame could go to a lack of investment.

But let's face it, no progressive measure were ever going to be looked at in Bush's White House even if it was good business or just good. Hell even if there was cold fusion invented, the forces that be would have stalled that project to protect the old industries.

And what if the science saying there is no global warming wrong. Seeing what nature is capable of, is that a risk we can take? If we are wrong on this, I suspect it won't just lead to snow in Las Vegas.

Right now there is considerable science showing that Atlantic ocean currents are changing due to global warming. They fear how this will affect fishing, and our climate.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:22 pm

Teal wrote:Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion. This religion, however, has no god but itself, no moral code other than the one it creates, and no cathedral other than Algore's house (which is a giant energy suck zone). These people who believe this nonsense do so with more blind faith than any normative religion, but with no less fervor than the most extreme. It's nonsense. NONSENSE.

Teal that is the biggest load of horse radish I've ever read. Religion is religion. Science is science. Yes there is "junk science" but you also have "false religions" (if you believe in that sort of thing). Climate change is very real. It is FACTUAL. The debate is whether or not the problem is man made or not. The reality is that we're producing insane, INSANE amounts of greenhouse gases which are moving into the atmosphere and preventing the usual amount of energy from the sun from leaving the planet. The evidence (if you've actually read it) is highly suggestive that we're a big part of the problem.

I'm curious. Who are your experts? Who do you believe, and why? What is your evidence to contrary?

Those who think this is all a big conspiracy theory or a money making scam are victims themselves of the ultimate scam (IMO) by the corporations and businesses (ahem, clean coal anyone?) that stand to lose the most if we start trying to clean up our act and take responsibility for this problem. American has an entitlement problem. Grow up and take responsibility for a man-made problem and stop sticking your head into the sand.

It really bugs me that people just pick and choose what "technologies" and "sciences" they want to believe. Science is NOT religion. It is built on reproducible facts, hypotheses, and expert theories. Religion is a system of beliefs and philosophies. Totally and utterly different. People who try to make comparisons between the two are wrong.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:29 pm

I read today, that NASA is releasing a satallite to detect CO2 pockets in the atmosphere. I'm curious what that will find.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:45 pm

JRod wrote:I read today, that NASA is releasing a satallite to detect CO2 pockets in the atmosphere. I'm curious what that will find.

Probably will just carry over the results from the previous satellite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -heat.html

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:54 pm

Look, fellas, I don't take the strident stance of Teal. I believe in climate change. I believe that nature and man are responsible.

But I also believe there are much more pressing issues for our government and our society to tackle. But because green is now all the rage, this issue is taking a disproportionate amount of attention and money from issues and crises that matter more.

My neighbor down the street, a close friend, is undergoing chemo after a mastectomy. We have soldiers returning from battle with crippling injuries that will affect them and their families for the rest of their lives.

I think issues like those are much, much important than melting ice caps. Our economy also is putting 500,000 workers on waivers every month. That's a bit more pressing to me than carbon credits.

Take care,
PK

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:13 pm

pk500 wrote:Look, fellas, I don't take the strident stance of Teal. I believe in climate change. I believe that nature and man are responsible.

But I also believe there are much more pressing issues for our government and our society to tackle. But because green is now all the rage, this issue is taking a disproportionate amount of attention and money from issues and crises that matter more.

My neighbor down the street, a close friend, is undergoing chemo after a mastectomy. We have soldiers returning from battle with crippling injuries that will affect them and their families for the rest of their lives.

I think issues like those are much, much important than melting ice caps. Our economy also is putting 500,000 workers on waivers every month. That's a bit more pressing to me than carbon credits.

Take care,
PK

You're right PK. There are other serious problems just like climate change in the world. If I had a sick family member or friend I'd want that issue to be number one on everyone's list but we can't pick and choose problems and hope that other ones take a break while we are devising the perfect solution. We have to deal with them all at once. We need to nip this problem in the butt now before it becomes too late. Luckily climate change isn't that difficult to deal with. Turns out the hardest part is convincing people that is truly is a problem.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:21 pm

macsomjrr wrote:

It really bugs me that people just pick and choose what "technologies" and "sciences" they want to believe. Science is NOT religion. It is built on reproducible facts, hypotheses, and expert theories. Religion is a system of beliefs and philosophies. Totally and utterly different. People who try to make comparisons between the two are wrong.

Comparisons between the two are wrong? See now that would not be scientific under your terms. That would be an opinion, which is based on a belief. Which... You see where I am going with this?

Do a little research on Albert Einstein and you will find the he and numerous other scientists make numerous comparisons to the two. While he was not a believer in a "personal god" he had many theories on religion and how they intertwined with science.

Here is a quick link to one site on the subject.

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

Let me slice you off a little quoteage

EINSTEIN:

Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

So um... Is Einstein wrong? With the whole "very close connection" bit.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:29 pm

fsquid wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -heat.html

Thats some scarey s***.

These whores will stop at nothing.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:43 pm

macsomjrr wrote: You're right PK. There are other serious problems just like climate change in the world. If I had a sick family member or friend I'd want that issue to be number one on everyone's list but we can't pick and choose problems and hope that other ones take a break while we are devising the perfect solution. We have to deal with them all at once. We need to nip this problem in the butt now before it becomes too late. Luckily climate change isn't that difficult to deal with. Turns out the hardest part is convincing people that is truly is a problem.

Exactly what I was thinking. Why is it every time an issue comes up, there are always a handful of people that say "well what about famine, poverty, cancer, crime, etc. Those are more important issues we should be concerned about". Does that mean we should rank our issues from 1 to 10 and only tackle #1 until it's fixed and then start on #2? Of course cancer is another seriously neglected issue that kills millions more than terrorism, crime, poverty, etc. But one can argue that there isn't a more important LONG TERM issue than the well being of the planet and our granchildren and their grandchildren. But human nature being what is it, we won't take global warming seriously until it effects our day to day lives in a more serious way. Just like we didn't worry about airport security until AFTER 9/11. We don't have to sacrifice everything and mortgage our country's economy to turn things around, but we have to do something.

I am not sure if the original poster was being sarcastic (I hope he was), but to think there is no more climate change problem because it snowed in Las Vegas is like thinking winter is over the minute you have one sunny day over 70 degrees.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:53 pm

bdoughty wrote: EINSTEIN:
Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead. [/i]

One is based on fact and the real world we live in and the other is based COMPLETELY on belief and hope. I do agree however that some good would come out of them working hand in hand....whether they are related or not. This is a useless debate though, because it all comes down to whether or not you are a religous person. If you are, you believe and you don't need any scientific proof. If you're not, you don't. Einstein had his OWN beliefs about science and religion...but to me, they couldn't be any more different at their cores.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:58 pm

JackB1 wrote:Einstein had his OWN beliefs about science and religion...but to me, they couldn't be any more different at their cores.

Im going to have to side with Einstein on this one.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:59 pm

bdoughty wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:

It really bugs me that people just pick and choose what "technologies" and "sciences" they want to believe. Science is NOT religion. It is built on reproducible facts, hypotheses, and expert theories. Religion is a system of beliefs and philosophies. Totally and utterly different. People who try to make comparisons between the two are wrong.
Comparisons between the two are wrong? See now that would not be scientific under your terms. That would be an opinion, which is based on a belief. Which... You see where I am going with this?

I'm only going to address this first part cause I'm tired and too lazy to think about a response to the commonly referenced Einstein quote. Maybe tomorrow:)

I think of science as a building. A building that took many many years to build. A building that is still very incomplete. Nevertheless you can see this building. You can touch its stones, you can walk within its foundations, and you can see how it was constructed.

I also think of religion as a building. The difference however is that religion is a building that no-one has ever seen. There are only stories about this building. There are many stories that describe where it exists, what it is made of, who made it. You will only experience this building either by believing in its existence (faith) or by experiencing it fully once you die.

Do you see the difference? Why you can't compare the two IMO? A scientist can feel compelled by their God/s to learn more about the world about them by using science but they do not use religion to understand the cure for cancer, or how to grow organs on a petri dish, or how to understand climate change on the planet Earth. Mendel was a monk, a profoundly religiously man but I would argue his religion gave him the motivation to understand the world using science.

You can make comparisons between anything depending on how you frame the question. My point here is that religion should never be used in place of science. That is my opinion. Granted most people here...

...would probably disagree with me.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:00 am

For those who watch South Park. This is our one true enemy.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:29 am

- Is climate change happening? Yes.
- Has climate change been happening since the beginning of time? Yes.
- Can we control the climate if we all live in caves, using nothing but leaves for our food, shelter, and clothing? No.
- Should we waste what we have and make a mess of the planet? No.
- Is Al Gore a complete nutjob? Yes.

That about covers it for me.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:29 am

JackB1 wrote:Exactly what I was thinking. Why is it every time an issue comes up, there are always a handful of people that say "well what about famine, poverty, cancer, crime, etc. Those are more important issues we should be concerned about". Does that mean we should rank our issues from 1 to 10 and only tackle #1 until it's fixed and then start on #2? Of course cancer is another seriously neglected issue that kills millions more than terrorism, crime, poverty, etc. But one can argue that there isn't a more important LONG TERM issue than the well being of the planet and our granchildren and their grandchildren. But human nature being what is it, we won't take global warming seriously until it effects our day to day lives in a more serious way. Just like we didn't worry about airport security until AFTER 9/11. We don't have to sacrifice everything and mortgage our country's economy to turn things around, but we have to do something.

You're completely missing my point. There are always issues championed by celebrities -- and let's face it: Al Gore is now a celebrity, not a politician -- that catch the fancy of the media, which whips it into a frenzy.

I never said climate change wasn't a problem. But it is receiving a disproportionate amount of attention, and even eventually funding, than more pressing issues. It's a matter of priorities, and I think global warning has attained too high of a priority.

It's funny. There is widespread famine and genocide in Africa, yet we never talk about that in here. I find that to be much more of a problem than climate change, but I guess it doesn't have the Al Gore cachet to give an American media blessing.

That, boys, is the inconvenient truth.

Take care,
PK

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:50 am

pk500 wrote:
It's funny. There is widespread famine and genocide in Africa, yet we never talk about that in here. I find that to be much more of a problem than climate change, but I guess it doesn't have the Al Gore cachet to give an American media blessing.

Actually Jackdog tried to

http://www.digitalsportspage.com/module ... 310#262310

buuuuuut it was about how George Bush did more for Africa than any other US President. Since it gave GW credit for something and many here consider him the devil incarnate, the discussion never got rolling.

Post by **Jared** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:20 am

References to "hippies" in the thread: 4

Links to studies either for/against "climate change" in the thread: 0

It's weird that climate change has become such an opinion thing, where it's just a bunch of hippie hypocrites that are trying to push a liberal agenda, etc. etc. As if this was some general opinion thing, and not based on lots and lots of study. There are lots of scientific articles on this, some basic review articles, others getting into the details of the debate, that provide the evidence for this theory. Look in Scientific American, Nature, Science, National Geographic, etc...there's a lot of information on the topic.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:45 am

Jared wrote:References to "hippies" in the thread: 4

Links to studies either for/against "climate change" in the thread: 0

It's weird that climate change has become such an opinion thing, where it's just a bunch of hippie hypocrites that are trying to push a liberal agenda, etc. etc. As if this was some general opinion thing, and not based on lots and lots of study. There are lots of scientific articles on this, some basic review articles, others getting into the details of the debate, that provide the evidence for this theory. Look in Scientific American, Nature, Science, National Geographic, etc...there's a lot of information on the topic.

References to "Bible Belt" via image in this thread: 1

Actual need for "Bible Belt" images in thread: 0

Religion goes far beyond the Bible Belt. I am sure Utah is saddened that it was not listed, as I am sure there are plenty of fine Mormon folks that would disagree with him too. It served no purpose in this thread other than to point a finger at the silly south and it's desperate clinging to religion and guns. We all generalize, it happens from time to time. I apologize to any hippies that were offended by my comments.

P.S. You can blame Al Gore for the perception that you refer to. His hypocrisy tends to hold no bounds but we have been down that road before.

P.S.S. I even provided a link to the Penn & Teller Bullshit shows that debunk many of these studies and also agree with some. Heck former Greenpeace founder and ex head poohba, Patrick Moore, is given a ton of time discussing how many of these enviromental hysteria's, climate change and carbon credits are overblown.

So I guess that would be

Links to studies either for/against "climate change" in the thread: 1.5

I would like .5 credits for linking to Gore buying a large houseboat, adding to his hypocrisy.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:18 am

XXXIV wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Einstein had his OWN beliefs about science and religion...but to me, they couldn't be any more different at their cores.
Im going to have to side with Einstein on this one.

Can't believe you would choose Albert over me, 34

But, when Einstein spoke of "religion" being in harmony with science, his definition of "religion" was very differently than how most define it.

He made these statements:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"....religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind".

Pretty smart dude, that Einstein!

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:07 am

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/20 ... 05953.aspx

It's complete and utter hogwash. No truth to it whatsoever. People who reason things out with no preconceived notions, rather than running around screaming 'THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!' see right through this bullshit. This meteorologist has it right-the whole damned idea is outright arrogant.

Tell me, if all this global warming baloney was any kind of legit, why the abrupt change from 'GLOBAL WARMING' to 'CLIMATE CHANGE'? I'll tell you why:

"Damn, man, this global warming s*** ain't working, dude. Look at all this damned snow, man. And the polar ice caps actually GREW a couple of months ago-how're we going to keep the lemmings under control??!??"

"No problem. We'll just start saying 'climate change' instead. The lemmings'll never know the difference. And so long as we keep pushing out the Hollywood lemmings, no one'll care, cause, hey...some movie star I like alot is saying it."

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:24 am

8 months ago people were clamoring that the polar ice cap would melt away to nothing during the summer.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/artic ... ear-summer

That never happened. In fact, there is 10% more ice than last year. Of course you don't hear much about this new finding, or anyone admitting they were were wrong.