Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2008 21:04:23 GMT -4
Oh, Jason Jason Jason. When I say I believe human-caused climate change is real because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it is real, I can and do look at what they are studying and what their studies show. As I said, data is evidence. It is not just because there are lots of people saying a particular thing -- they are saying a particular thing that I can then look into and see why they are saying a particular thing. Oh, I've seen lots of stuff about how the Earth is getting warmer, so maybe it is (then again, the world is getting warmer and colder all the time, so maybe an observed trend doesn't really mean anything at all). But where's the stuff that proves human activity is causing it? Let's go look it up and see what convinced these people I'm sorry, until I see this phantom evidence it I won't believe it exists. There are facts that show God is real, but they are open to interpretation. Much as data on temperature, winds, etc. is open to various interpretation. And I've agreed with you that having the original Ten Commandments wouldn't prove God's existence, making bringing it up again completely irrelevent. Many of these people believe in God because of evidence. You can look at evidence for God and judge it for yourself as well. Some of it, and possibly the most convincing bits to another person, you may not be able to judge yourself, but you can obtain the same evidence by doing the same things the person did to get them in the first place. I think the point of this thread is that they are both based on faith. Actually yes you can verify Biblical claims. Example: the Bible tells you that loving your neighbor is moral and right. If you go and give service to your neighbors, and see that it is in fact right and moral, then you have verified a Biblical claim. Example 2: the Bible tells you that coveting another man's wife is immoral and wrong. You get into an affair and ruin your marriage. Congratulations, you have verified a Bibilical claim. It doesn't work that way. You didn't provide me with any evidence that God doesn't exist, so I am under no obligation to go look up reasons not to believe climate scientists. Following your model, you must provide me with a reason to believe them.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 19, 2008 9:10:44 GMT -4
All you are doing is refusing to engage either argument in any meaningful way. If you have nothing, you should just say that. I've given you my rationale for my argument about evidence for the existence of God -- several times. Your continued claim that I have to prove there is no evidence for the existence of God shows just how unwilling you are to engage that topic -- as proving in that way that there is no evidence is as unsuitable a method for a discussion of unicorns as it is for a discussion of God. My rationale, which I have asserted several times, is that all supposed evidence for God relies on an appeal to faith and is therefore not evidence. If you don't want to engage the topic, you should just say that -- rather than continuing to try to steer the conversation down a blind alley.
On the topic of global warming, you have offered nothing substantial to the conversation. You've offered only unsubstantiated opinion in an attempt to throw doubt on the motives and character of those who study climate change. You have not offered anything other than opinion, however. Again, if you have nothing substantial to bring to the conversation, you should just say that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 19, 2008 11:13:12 GMT -4
All you are doing is refusing to engage either argument in any meaningful way. I told you, I'm following your model. And I'm arguing that climate scientists have uncovered possible evidence of global warming, but have relied entirely on faith for the human causation of it, and therefore all the reports of polar bears dying and lakes shrinking are not evidence that humans are causing it. The idea that humans are destroying ourselves through our reliance on fossil fuels is therefore a new faith, not science. Again, I'm following your model. If you don't consider this a substantial conversation then you know how I've felt in all our discussions on whether God exists. The more you condemn my position on human-caused global warming, the more you are condemning your own position on the non-existence of God.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 19, 2008 14:13:41 GMT -4
You keep claiming you are following my model and I keep correcting you, but then you claim it again and force me to correct you again. As it is abundantly apparent that you can't or won't be corrected, I will not do it again here.
I have offered an example of why faith is a requirement in trying to prove the existence of God. See my Moses example. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your claim that science that shows humans to be responsible for global warming is based on faith. Zip, zilch, zero.
I have engaged. You have not. All you are doing is refusing to debate. If you refuse, then just say that you refuse. Don't endlessly claim that I am refusing when I am clearly not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 19, 2008 14:38:52 GMT -4
To correct me you would have to be correct yourself in the first place. Dismissing one possible piece of evidence - the original ten commandments - as being inadequate doesn't summarily dismiss all evidence for the existence of God.
I have provided just as much, if not more, evidence of reasons not to believe in human-caused global warming as you have as reasons not to believe in God. Which is to say, not much at all. As I am following your model, the idea is that there isn't any reason to believe in it. I don't have to disprove it (in fact, again, it's impossible to prove a negative) instead I challenge you to provide me with a reason to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 19, 2008 18:30:56 GMT -4
I've never thought having a discussion with you was a waste of time before, but we are getting close on this one. You know quite well that a debate in the mode of "prove there is no evidence for the existence of x" will be as useless for discussing fairies on the moon as it will be for discussing God on Earth. If you feel the need to continue to try to drive this conversation off a cliff, you'll have to take the trip alone. This thread is about global warming and climate change. You assert that we should not believe what the overwhelming majority of climate researchers tell us. Fine. What you have not done is to provide anything to support that claim. I'm not asking you to prove that there is no evidence for human-caused global warming. I'm asking you to back up your claim that I should not trust climate scientists. Can you do that? Mitt Romney: "I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it." sierraclub.typepad.com/cleanenergywatch/2007/12/cbs-evening-new.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 19, 2008 18:53:08 GMT -4
I'm not asserting that global-warming isn't occurring or could not be human caused, I'm asserting that it hasn't been proven to be human-caused. Essentially I'm asking for a reason to believe, and I don't find the number of people who do believe it to be a reason to be convinced. The situation is exactly parallel to your argument about there being no evidence for the existence of God. Until you see the evidence you see no reason to change your opinion, and my position is the same. The two ways you can win the argument are to either: 1) Provide evidence (not testimony) that shows that global warming is caused by human activity. 2) Admit that your own stance of disbelieving the existence of God because of a perceived lack of evidence is not valid, and is therefore not a valid strategy for my current argument either. That's what I'll accept - one or the other.
And Mitt Romney is a politician and businessman, not a climate scientist. Considering that I've already advanced the idea that politicians must make obeisance towards the alter of global warming in order to advance their careers it makes his opinion particularly irrelevant to the current discussion.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 19, 2008 20:36:17 GMT -4
As God is a phenomenon that supposedly exists outside the boundaries of science as we understand it -- and as global warming is a phenomenon that can be and is studied using science as we know it, there is no reason to think that the form of a debate concerning the existence of God will take the same or even a similar form to the debate about the existence and causes of global warming. Your continued insistence that one is somehow tied to the other is tiresome.
If you truly wanted to have a discussion, you would offer something as a counter to my claims. You want to know why I believe that humans are causing global warming? I've responded by telling you that the vast majority of scientists studying the issue believe it to be true. You made a counter claim that these scientists are not to be trusted, but you did not back up your claim with any proof.
If you are trying to convince me or anyone of your claims, you will have to back them up. If you continue to try to tie this discussion to a completely different discussion about the existence of God, then you are just admitting that you have nothing. Stop deflecting with half-baked claims about a different issue. Tackle this issue. Back up your statement. At least try to make an attempt to convince me you are correct.
All you have done so far is to refuse to take to the field. Either do so or admit that you have no case.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 19, 2008 20:46:53 GMT -4
Who believes humans are causing global warming?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change G8+5 Joint science academies Network of African Science Academies U.S. National Research Council American Meteorological Society Royal Meteorological Society World Meteorological Organization American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Astronomical Society American Physical Society Federal Climate Change Science Program National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Center for Atmospheric Research American Association for the Advancement of Science Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London Geological Society of America American Chemical Society Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society European Geosciences Union International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Council for Science
So what I'm asking, Jason, is why I should believe you and not the scientists above?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2008 11:10:31 GMT -4
As God is a phenomenon that supposedly exists outside the boundaries of science as we understand it -- and as global warming is a phenomenon that can be and is studied using science as we know it, there is no reason to think that the form of a debate concerning the existence of God will take the same or even a similar form to the debate about the existence and causes of global warming. Your continued insistence that one is somehow tied to the other is tiresome. On the contrary, human-caused global warming is the new secular religion of a great many people. It fills some of the same functions for these people - making them feel good about how they at least are saving the planet while looking down on the sinners who refuse to be convinced of their wicked ways. All sorts of disasters are claimed as signs of the times - warnings to repent before the end is near - and further prophecies of dire times ahead are made. Mass is held at Earth Days and green concerts, and the religion has spiritual leaders like Al Gore who preach to the faithful that they must change while living opulent lifestyles themselves, selling indulgences to those who cannot quite curb their taste for fossil fuels. This religion calls for sacrifices. The widow's mite must be spent and lifestyles given up in order to save the world. And there are calls to suppress the heretics who dare question whether this is all really such a good idea. As such it makes perfect sense to compare the new religion to the old. No, you're the one trying to convince me, not the other way around. You say there are good reasons to believe in human-caused global warming and I say I sure haven't seen any yet. When you can produce some good reasons to believe in it maybe I'll say you're right.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2008 11:11:51 GMT -4
Who believes humans are causing global warming? (followed by a long list) Yes it's certainly a popular theory. I want evidence, not testimony. The number of groups or people who believe in an idea has no bearing on whether that idea is correct. As you've said before, people believe in a lot of wierd things.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 20, 2008 12:12:36 GMT -4
I want evidence, not testimony. G'day Jason A couple of years ago I went to a Skeptics Conference at which a couple of the speakers were climate scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is Australia's premier government science organisation. One of them explained the computer model they developed to compare actual recorded temperatures with possible causes of global warming. He showed three cases - how their model suggested global temperatures were affected if (a) humans were the only cause, (b) nature was the only cause, and (c) human and natural causes were working together. The graph with the best fit was (c). The shape of the graph suggested that human actions were responsible for about half the temperature increase which has occurred in the last few decades. Would you consider this satisfactory evidence? And if not, what would you consider constitutes satisfactory evidence?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2008 12:22:02 GMT -4
Do they have any of the materials from the conference available on the web? I would like to see them, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 20, 2008 14:46:26 GMT -4
Jason
You have provided no support for your anti-human caused global warming claims.
You ignore that the scientific community believes humans are causing global warming. You wave every report of a kook using global warming as an excuse, as if that has any effect on the underlying science.
You attack Al Gore for his non-belief in your claims.
.
Climate change could very well be the end of us. People who claim climate change isn't happening and/or isn't caused by humans are putting us all in danger by making it nearly impossible to do anything about it and by doing so are denying our rights to possibly even exist in the future.
By your own definition, non-belief in human caused global warming is a religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2008 15:26:38 GMT -4
You have provided no support for your anti-human caused global warming claims. You have provided no support for anthropogenic global warming, other than to say "look at all the people who believe it." You ignore those in the scientific community who believe that consensus has not yet been reached and that the evidence is not clear. You wave every report of climate change as if this proved that humanity caused it. "Look at the poor polar bears! Don't you feel guilty?" You attack me for my non-belief in your claims. (EDIT: Actually I'm not attacking Al Gore for his "non-belief". I attack him because of his hypocrisy, his politics, and his personality, or lack thereof.) The measures people who believe in anthropogenic climate change propose are a danger to our way of life and our economic prosperity. They are actively lobbying our government to put brakes on our economy and place damaging restrictions on our businesses, and many of them admit that even the most ruinous measures by their models will still not be enough, signaling that should they achieve their ends they will simply push for even more draconian measures. They are a danger to us all. Well belief in it certainly is. Considering I have yet to see any evidence that humankind is actually doomed I chose to take the more optimistic view.
|
|