AGW Theory - Discussion

@Xilk

Fine. I only have one more question for you.

What will it take for you to agree that AGW is happening? What needs to be happen, or be said, and by who? And avoid vague statements like 'absolute proof', if you don't mind. We only have one Earth, we can't perform a double blind study on it.

I'll even go first, on the flip side. On the issue of climate, I believe we should trust the climatologist. All it'll take for me, personally, to turn against AGW, is if scientist and experts in the field begin to turn against it.

The fossil record is inconsequential to the theory of evolution as a whole. It's nice to have them but it's no longer a critical element.

There are people that believe fully that there is no God, and you could consider that a faith. But secular viewpoints are outside of the concept of religion. They are simply viewpoints independent of dogma and without the need for faith-based explanations. I call it a-religious, lots of people call it secular or atheist, but don't mistake lack of religion as a religion.

As soon as it became a conviction, it stopped being a doubt, and became a belief.

It is most certainly a religion. If you cannot accept this simple fact, then its pointless to continue discussing with you.

Artificial selection on its own proves that inherited traits change over time based on environment. Evolution is 100% real and only questioned because it doesn't require a beginning to exist.

It has nothing to do with doubt or convictions, it's merely a lack of a belief.

It lacks all the fundamentals of a religion.|

I agree it's most likely pointless to discuss this further because it's your belief to the contrary (despite evidence) and nothing will change that. I was merely correcting you for the sake of others.

edit: also don't get it confused with being gnostic/agnostic as that's merely a description of knowledge, not belief.


^

It still amuses me when people call AGW a religion, it's like making another assertion that's now banned (thanks Rooks).

But then when the quite plausible reality of people actually believing that sinks in it's rather depressing.

Can we talk about this:



and have a discussion on replacing the top two with the third?

It'll come in time. I've read that renewable sources of energy have gone down in price 100 fold over the last 40 years, and it'll continue to go down, so I'm not too concerned.

I know Tesla and a few other companies are developing a battery that can get charged during the day from solar and be used at night, which more or less solves the whole 'solar doesn't work at night' issue. It's still pretty expensive right now so we'll have to wait awhile for it to go mainstream.

And I'm all for nuclear energy, as long as we don't do something dumb like build it on a fault line. I also read that they were built ages ago and not originally intended to last as long as they have today, so I wouldn't be too hurt if they threw some tax dollars at looking into that issue.

They approved two new reactors not too long ago (Thanks, Obama).

Yeah basically most of our ***has to be retrofitted and upgraded which is more costly, and not as safe. As for Fukushima-Daiichi: they didn't really have much of a choice, they needed the power it put out, and if I remember correctly those reactors were scheduled to be decommissioned that very month to be upgraded.

Maybe have a deploy-able emergency cooling team in case cooling systems and their backups fail at the same time again, eh.

As for the batteries: we're making a lot of breakthroughs on that front, but it will still take time, not to mention the materials used for the batteries.

Tesla signed a contract with a lithium mine in Mexico not too long ago, along with their giga factory which is scheduled to be open and functional in about 2 years, that should drive down the cost substantially.

The idea of having solar panels charge up a super high capacity battery that can be used throughout the night is highly intriguing to me. You can take this idea even further. Instead of being hooked up to a central grid where you pay the electric company, you can hook up to a local grid among your neighbors. The only issue is the current cost and efficiency rate, which will both improve in the future.

Of course, I'm not suggesting we dismantle the traditional electric company. I'm saying, maybe 50 years from now, they'll eventually be delegated to backup energy, rather than primary energy.

I am more concerned with the environmental impact of the batteries than their cost.

I've long since drawn the same conclusion though, with at least panels on most buildings to at least offset the reliance on the grid. It would probably require more management at substations though for backfed power, etc (as currently it's much easier to regulate even though it's no easy task as it is).

I've also been curious for many years about the prospects of harnessing electric storm energy, but without decent storage it's moot.

Really, evolution exists cause people are trying to deny gods?

*facepalm*

You know there are also many scientists who believe in a creator but they don't go denying evolution, they just think a deity created the formulas and the basic stuff to go with it.

Evolution is easily observed in bacteria.

There is plenty of secular dogma.

Your statement that atheism is not a religion is dogma.

Religion is a system of beliefs. Particularly ones which guide one's life choices. Atheism does exactly this.

Think about it. Its like saying gray is a lack of color and not a color itself. Its like saying zero is not a number. Gray is still part of the same spectrum. So is atheism among religions.

What is the point of the argument "Atheism is not a religion" anyway?

It is a political argument. It is to say, that the laws about religion don't apply to Atheism. Its ironic because Atheists have long enjoyed the protection allowed by freedom of religion. Atheists were targets protected by these laws. Now Atheists strive to redefine Atheism to claim it is not a religion, and thereby create a dichotomy. Atheism enjoys the protection of a religion, but not the restrictions.

Here's another popular secular dogma: "All religions are the same"

It appears you also misunderstand the definition of faith. Many mistakenly believe it is blind and based of ignorance and dogma. Faith is an appeal to trust. In religious groups its mostly applied to a trust in God which overcomes human limits in understanding.

However, faith is the will to act according to belief. All people have faith in one thing or another. Maybe you have faith in Science. Maybe you have faith that the sun will still rise tomorrow.

All human choices are made by faith in some belief, whether it is mundane or divine. Faith is a fundamental principle of belief and action. You cannot know all things but You must act upon trust of the knowledge of others. This is faith.

Ironically, Nietche's "Will-to-Power" more resembles faith than anything else. He just wanted a term to re-brand it and take God out of the picture... which is not an uncommon methodology anymore...

The point is, one side is trying to pull atheism into being labelled a religion so they deploy their favorite strategy and involve both sides-same thing.

You're suggesting the idea that believing in magic powers is on the same level as not believing in magic powers.

It's silly.

Please try to keep context consistent. I did not deny evolution. I said its suspect because it was born and is fed by bias. Where does the human motivation to prove the Theory of evolution come from? This is a very important factor. It influences all the rest.

Also, there is a difference between the "Theory of Evolution" (which I reference as suspect and biased) which argues that life spontaneously came into existence due to the confluence of principles rather than a divine instigator and the principle of evolution.

The principles of evolution and adaptation which basically means living organisms change and grow in response to their environment.

Please don't take things out of context.

No, no it does not. It's merely a label (an odd one at that, but we do love our labels).

When it comes to religion, faith is blind.


We've covered these in extensive detail years ago, I'd say look up those threads but they're probably long in the nuked bin.

I'm not labeling atheism a religion. It IS a religion. It has been understood to be a religion for at least hundreds of years.
Wake up.

Are you even thinking about what a religion is? and does atheism fit or not? Are you even considering the meat of the question? or is dogma more important?

Our culture did not forget and deny this until the recent events of perhaps the last decade.

You are also falsely putting words in my mouth and trying to demean my defense of religion (which atheism will be protected by also) by calling it "magical".

I would hope everyone on this forum would understand the truth of this quote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Do you not understand the philosophical and religious implication of this statement?

and we're done.

Back on topic (again): What oil products/byproducts are necessary after energy is taken out of the equation?

Lubricants? Tar? Synthetic rubber? anything else?

I don't know about you but I've been woken up.

In all likelihood, we just have a different idea on what a religion is.

It's not that religion is so advanced that it's perceived as magical. It's that it really is magical. For instance, Mother Teresa is said to perform a miracle because she cured a tumor off a woman (even though the husband said she never had a tumor to begin with).

If you want to take a philosophical approach to religion, then fine, but at least acknowledge that religion is what it is because of its claim over magical powers. Without magical powers, it won't be a religion anymore, it'll just be a philosophy.

What will it take for you to read and understand my post?
I made no argument that AGW is not happening.

I said the politics are certainly a scam.

All the details about religious bias and grant money, were only to say that it is suspect and not trustworthy for making a sound decision.

Whether AGW is happening or not, It is not as big a deal as the politics are making it out to be. It is not something to make life decisions and government policy decision based upon.

The Earth is perfectly capable of sustaining human life throughout much more extreme conditions than where we are or where we are foresee-ably going.

Humans can adapt to any coming climate changes relatively easily. We can also preserve other species.

the fossil record is of central importance to the Theory of Evolution as a whole.
It is one of the best sources of data to do hard science regarding evolution.

You want to dismiss it because it does not agree with your desired conclusions.

I don't think you have as strong a grasp on the theory of evolution as you think you do.

Earlier, you confused the theory of evolution with abiogenesis.

And now you're claiming this.

Human beings, and the history of human beings, isn't some strong pillar of the theory of evolution that you're making it out to be.

I don't know how to talk with a conspiracy theorist, so I think our discussion ends there.

This 'half foot in/half foot out' approach seems popular with scientific skeptics.

I've asked repeatedly for someone to provide a few examples of predictions made 20 years ago that correctly predicted the current state of climate TODAY.

I've yet to have that request fulfilled.

Not really. Atmospheric changes are our biggest enemy cause they are beyond our control and very difficult to defend against.

There is no bias, only scientific evidence.

Actually no. Evolution is not utilitarian. It's based on randomness and then natural selection runs its course.

Who on earth is reporting this stuff?

What I'm more worried about is that last sentence tbh.

We all know that there will be people who will now make it a goal to get rid of P&R section because they don't like it.

I have already shared a working definition for religion. A system of beliefs which guides a person's life choices. You did not disagree with this definition.

The difference between philosophy and religion is small. It revolves mostly around the focus on God and worship. I have taken a philosophical approach throughout this entire discussion.

You are in line with the secular dogma that "all religions are the same". They are most undoubtedly not. Your statement about a "religion wouldn't be a religion without magical powers is incomprehensible. It lumps all religions as one when they are not. Its saying that all philosophies are the same. This is absurd.


I see I need to explain the philosophical importance of that quote about advanced technology and how it applies to religion and miracles.

Lets make this a sci-fi scenario for illustrations sake:

Lets say Mother Teresa is just Tracy the relief worker from planet Harmony where they have very high tech. She's on a humanitarian service mission where she comes to An indigenous population on a planet with low technology which has been disconnected from the rest of intergalactic civilization for a few generations. She's finds a patient with cancer and calls up to the orbiting ship on her SAT phone for a bit of support. The medical team uses some a beam to bombard the tumor with alpha particles from a highly precise piece of equipment. The local people don't understand very well where Tracy is from and may or may not listen to her explanations to varying degrees. To them, its a miracle when the cancerous growth is eliminated.

How is this distinguishable from magic to the local people? Your statement imply 'miracles' are specious and lies. Magic tricks.

This scenario is not so implausible from a scientific perspective. Yet the same scenario when discussed as prayer and a miracle healing by God is treated by you as dubious. Why? because the methods are not explained? because you are one of the villagers and not one of the gods?

You could go into a doctor office and they could sell you a bunch of lies about an illness and a cure and you would never know the difference if you were not well educated in medicine. The same is true for car repair or computer repair or anything you are not expert it. Its magic, because you don't understand the principles.

The same is true for "magic" in religion as you describe it. it is magic because you don't understand the principles. There is a simple cure for ignorance.