I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.

As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?

Views: 613

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

So, we kill off the biosphere and the ability to reduce CO@...makes sense to me. Would a moderator please paste a cloud on this reply? Wouldn't want to wave TRUTH in the face of our board lice.
Ouch man, board lice? Why do you feel it necessary to insult me? For the sake of humankind, I'm not even saying that ACC (or AGW as prefered) is at all wrong nor am I saying that we shouldn't do everything in our power to save what we can. I'm only saying that we've already lost and will continue to lose entire species to this changing environment in which we live, that we are fully capable of surviving these changes (almost no matter how severe), and that the very best thing we could possibly do, IMHO, is stop everything (all production beyond what is absolutely necessary) and begin cleaning up our mess while continuing to solidify our knowledge of the climate. I believe that this is the best possible thing that could be done to right what we've wronged but is made virtually impossible by our very own mechanations (government, religion, economy).
What of this opinion makes me "board lice?"
I may not have been replying to you David.

What makes you think that it can kill off all the other species but we will survive? (almost no matter how severe)

Yes it is almost impossible due to the machinations of government religion and economy...
What makes you think that it can kill off all the other species but we will survive? (almost no matter how severe)

I confess an enormous faith in our ability to adapt to anything. I don't really have any solid proof beyond us appearing to be pretty hardy overall and having the capacity for amazing intelligence. And I'm sorry I misunderstood your previous comment- I just couldn't tell who you were calling board lice. ;)
Reminds me of the health care debate Duane...everyone knows that our health care in America is the pits but they all argue as to what should be done...whereas Obama is doing SOMETHING while thay argue.

If the plan is full of loopholes and mistakes then, once law, we can close the loopholes and correct the mistakes.

If we don't pass SOMETHING then we will still have NOTHING to work with.

Same goes for GW. Lets START PICKING UP THE TRASH bigtime.
I am beginning to believe that a couple of clever Christian Fundamentalists have invaded this site and are being deliberately sly and disruptive. The "logic" and "reasoning" surrounding some of these GW attack posts smacks of dyed-in-the-wool Jesus freaks.

Whether you believe in GW or future scenarios or scientists or Jesus or not, look around you and start PICKING UP YOUR DAMN TRASH!
John D: Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.
Just John D? Then what should I call you to make me look good?
I think I understand why Ogden and others have begun to assume that there are fundimentalists lurking about. It's because few people seem willing to consider the point of view of the opposition, which is the number one reason people are killed in religious disputes- the other guy CAN'T be right because I already know with complete certainty that I'M right. It is a very human thing and one that is more of a threat to humanity than any change of climate could ever be.
David Miller is now coming in very clear.
...well said...

I hope, you all realize, that today we all suffer the conditions we (or our parents) set thirty years ago ? So, if todays paper told me right, the international debate centered around "reducing a few percent of emission", while industrialization in former 3rd world countries is evolving ? With China and India pushing their industrial production ? With Obama offering incredible 17% reduction, while the States are worldwide far leading with 19 tons per capita, second in overall, only beaten by China (but there´s nearly five times the population). Imo a proper attempt to stop GW should actually start with heavy restrictions for all industrialization, and and other reasons for GW, including your dayly hamburger, your dozen tv-screens and your beloved fuel-consuming road-monster.
We all should act, and as it´s on the consumer primarily to set the terms, it´s up to you (and me), even it this means to give up a part of our everyday´s so called "living standards" here in western civilisations.
It means a complete restructuring of most political systems as well as the end of capitalism and imperialism, not the exchange of "emission certificates", so we can happily further proceed pollution on cost of some under-developed "hunger" regions.

Problem is, as this thread seems to be a perfect mirror of the real world, debating costs nothing, and brings (in the end) no real solution, consuming ressources (energy) instead, but as you can debate, you´re not to act, which would cost...personally !
Klaus, let us hope that the believers in GW are doing something in addition to discussing it. I certainly am.

My income is $1090/mo. and I don't even spend that much...and no, I am not poor, I live like a prince. I just make and do almost everything needed myself.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service