Climate change and religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fccexpert

Your use of faith based and emotionally charged words such as "deny" is proof possitive that you are operating from a religious rather than scientific framework. I do not deny anything, but I am skeptical of the current hypothesis that human activity is the source of the recent global warming trend. If sufficient evidence is presented to change my mind, then I will have no problems doing so.

---

I have listed a series of damages done to our environment by human beings, each of which I have heard denied by various people at various times. You say you deny nothing, therefore, do you agree that humans have caused serious damage to the Earth's ecosystem?

Although your statement that my use of the word "deny" is "faith based", "emotionally charged" and "religious" is very funny, your argument is foolish. I asked an honest, appropriate question. You can choose to answer it or not but hurling nonsensical insults is unecessarily caustic.

The only damage around here is in the eco-freaks brains. :)

:mace:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

No, a true scientist takes on faith the discoveries which have come before or are currently going on around them.

---

I submit that it cannot be faith if it has solid evidence.

Oh, it's all faith X, but that is just my opinion of course. Evidence, and whether it is solid or not, is a relative thing in my mind. I've never come across perfect data, and data is my science. Well, perfect data exists in theory, but not really in practice, which is why statistical inference is about attempting to quantify probabilities and "error".

For example, whenever a scientist claims a result is statistically significant, there is a small but usually non-negligible probability that the reality is in fact the opposite. Commonly that probability is set at 1 in 20, but it is arbitrary. And that is assuming all the assumptions required to use such a statistical test are satisfied. And that the data were collected correctly, and that the data is measuring what is intended to be measured etc.

James.

Well its hot as Hades in Grenada year round. Her in Yonkers, NY its cold in the winter. Thats what I know about climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I have a hard time believing those who deny the likelihood or even the ability of humans causing great harm to our environment. I am more inclined to believe the denial of man caused global warming is simply the easiest way to avoid one's personal responsibility to act in a more ecologically sound manner. Is there also the denial that we have killed lakes and rivers? Killed? The last time I looked, lakes and rivers were mostly water, which was not alive. This is a perfect example of emotional hyperbole. Have we we polluted some lakes and rivers to the point that they no longer support living organism, then yes that has happened. Can you provide me with an example of someone denying this? Do some refuse to admit belief in the tremendous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by chemical pesticides and fertilizers along the Mississippi River? I am unaware of this dead zone, can you provide me with some scientific proof of its existence (this is skepticism, not denial). Do you deny the continuous destruction and burning of rain forests? Yes, rain forests are being cleared and burned so that people can raise crops, who is denying this? Do you deny the local population the right to feed themselves? Do you deny the over fishing of our vast oceans? Again, one does not overfish oceans. But no I do not deny the populations of some commercial species are at risk due to over harvesting. I am skeptical, however, that the entire range of all commercial species has been over harvested. Again, can you provide proof. Do you deny the overpopulation of the Earth? By what measure have you determined that the Earth is overpopulated? Can you offer scientific proof of this, not just emotional opinion? I am very skeptical of this claim. This list can go on and on however, I am hoping you catch my drift. Yes, I clearly catch your drift. You are very passionate about your beliefs, but do not seem to have any rational basis for them other than this is what I believe, or this is what my guru told me. My point is that if we as humans can cause such massive damage to our planet, why is it so difficult to believe in the possibility of "global warming"? I do believe in global warming, I just don't believe that human activities have contributed to it in any significant (and I am using this term in its scientific sense) to it. Can you offer any scientific proof to the contrary?

---

See my comments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I have listed a series of damages done to our environment by human beings, each of which I have heard denied by various people at various times. You say you deny nothing, therefore, do you agree that humans have caused serious damage to the Earth's ecosystem?

Although your statement that my use of the word "deny" is "faith based", "emotionally charged" and "religious" is very funny, your argument is foolish. I asked an honest, appropriate question. You can choose to answer it or not but hurling nonsensical insults is unecessarily caustic.

---

I think it's undeniable that the areas of the earth suffer from pollution and poison at the hands of many. However, my huge problem with finger pointing at the individual and really placing blame on the individual is backwards. I don't have a coal fired power plant in my yard. I don't manufacture and release that DuPont chemical that doesn't degrade and has pervaded the entire planet to the poles. I don't make things as a communist government and continue to pollute the air and ground in irresponsible ways. I don't own a cruise line and dump large volumes of waste from my ships directly into the ocean. I don't make inefficient cars that pollute, I don't refine petroleum and then in either instance, pay untold millions to lobbyists to suppress change which would allow for cleaner burning or zero emission vehicles..................I could of course go on and on ad nauseum but I think you all get my point.

Yes, I use energy and I buy products. I'm the end user. For corporations and those who own them to tell me that I'm the problem, I'm the environmental sinner, I'm the cause of all that is wrong with the earth while they largely continue their unhealthy, irresponsible and harmful means of manufacture unregulated and unrestricted is seriously unconscionable, unscrupulous and an insult beyond insults. Then, to propose that I pay carbon taxes for reasons including my very existence while the countries the corporations produce these goods in remain exempt from cleaning up their polluting processes is the cherry on top of insult to injury.

"We make stuff in ways that are bad for the earth, but YOU buy that stuff so YOU'RE the problem. YOU should be penalized/taxed."

It's a con, it's a dupe, it's a bad deal.

Don't get me wrong, I agree if not reducing waste, then changing the waste from consumables to environmentally friendly matter would be a good thing. Zero emission vehicles; sign me up. Renewable energy, wind, solar, geo-thermal. I'm all for it. But, the problem doesn't START with product users, it STARTS with the big polluters who should clean up their act, period.

Chris L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Zero emission vehicles; sign me up.

---

ZENN Motor Company

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

ZENN Motor Company

---

I like it. I have to wait until they make one that will fit three child car seats in the back though.

Chris L

I did a little basic research on the Gulf of Mexico dead zone mentioned in an earlier post by icedog, and what I found was quite illustrative of how his religious fervor can affect perception and reporting of facts.

The dead zone exists, but the use of the adjective tremendous overstates its extent. It is large, about 6000 square miles, but it still only a small fraction of the area of the Gulf of Mexico, and more importantly, only a small fraction of its coastal waters.

It is undoubtedly partially due to human activity, specifically agricultural run off from the Mississipi River watershed. But the statement that it is due to chemical pesticides and fertilizers is inaccurate on several counts:

1) I can find no indication that pesticides play any role in the formation of the dead zone. It is attributed entirely to hypoxic conditions resulting from the presence of excessive nutrients in the Mississippi river.

2) The term chemical fertilizers is somewhat missleading, all fertilizers, in fact every substance found in the universe is a chemical. In the case of the dead spot, nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizers (what he probably ment by the term chemical) are a part of the cause but so is animal waste (i.e. manure, aka organic fertilizer).

Finally, there is ample scientific evidence indicating that dead zones occurred before the introduction of modern agricultural practices in the U.S., and the apperance of these dead zones is related to periods of high river flow.

Conclusions:

1) The formation of a dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi river is a natural phenomenon related to increased levels of nutrients carried into the Gulf by high flows in the Mississippi.
2) Human activity, specifically the use of modern agriculture practices in the U.S. midwest has increased the incidence of high nutrient run off and thus the frequency and extent of the dead zone.
3) The dead zone, even in its current human augmented extent, only affects a small portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

Compare these rational scientific statements to icedogs emotional, even religious statement and you can see the difference between science and religion.