Doomsday Clock is 100 seconds to midnight, the symbolic hour of the apocalypse

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
LOL..... "Trump may not have to take us down"...

You mean the lowest unemployment rates and booming economy are "taking you down"?

Actually, just watch the Schiff show, now in the Senate... Those that are representing the Dems.. are what is making the US a laughing stock.. and "taking you down"....

Between Greta and Gore... and Schiff and Pelosi.... Who needs reality shows... Great sit coms....
Red or blue, left or right, the cool-aid is poisoned. Don't be deceived by the 'lesser evil'.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are not fracking within 80 miles of the caldera. Volcanic eruptions are more likely during periods of minimum sunspot activity on the sun.
Have you been to Wyoming? You know, where people's tap water burns at the faucet?

80 miles is nothing in geologic terms
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@expos4ever

Not going to argue for or against climate change; but I am going to add my two cents on something else.

Just because somebody is an expert, does not mean they should be blindly trusted. We live in the age of information, so it's very easy for anyone to learn about anything if they really wanted to.

Second, if I were you, I'd be more skeptical of the fact that climate change is a very powerful political tool. Hypothetically, even if it was untrue, you can bet your pretty little head they're going to milk it for all it's worth.

Third, being a scientist does not make you honest nor does it automatically make you good at what you do. Citation also needed for the scientists that claim climate change is caused by humans.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
@expos4ever

Not going to argue for or against climate change; but I am going to add my two cents on something else.

Just because somebody is an expert, does not mean they should be blindly trusted. We live in the age of information, so it's very easy for anyone to learn about anything if they really wanted to.
Your last statement here is, I suggest, both false and dangerous, at least in the sense I think you mean.

To suggest that one can sit at home on the internet and learn to be a climate expert, while caring for a family and holding down a job, is a naive fantasy. The training in physics, chemistry, statistics, and on and on is simply too much for a general member of the public to pick up online. Not to mention the time that is required to be adequately trained.

The statement is dangerous for reasons we are seeing played out right now. Completely unqualified laymen are translating their ill-informed climate-denial into votes. And those votes result in real actions - like the US withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. When these things start to happen the welfare of humanity is put at risk. All because people refuse to trust the experts.

Now about "blind trust" - this is a deeply misleading turn of phrase. Science works - is it "blind trust" to accept that smoking causes cancer? Or that airplanes fly for the reasons we are told? Or that it is 150,000,000 kilometres from the Sun to the Earth? Or that excessive radiation causes cancer?

No. Science has proven itself to be a reliable means of gaining useful knowledge of the world. In the absence of strong reasons to the contrary, the findings of mainstream science should be trusted.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Second, if I were you, I'd be more skeptical of the fact that climate change is a very powerful political tool. Hypothetically, even if it was untrue, you can bet your pretty little head they're going to milk it for all it's worth.
I agree, this is why, as I have repeated many many times - trust the scientists, not the politicians, or even the media.

Third, being a scientist does not make you honest nor does it automatically make you good at what you do.
I never suggested that scientists, as individuals, are any more honest or less biased than anyone else. It is the scientific system that should be trusted - the requirement for rigour, peer-review, and repeatability.

Citation also needed for the scientists that claim climate change is caused by humans.
Is this a serious request?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,686
8,037
US
✟1,060,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
peer-review

The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.

For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

In 2010 the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC), a scientific body composed of the heads of national science academies around the world, revealed crippling flaws in the IPCC’s peer-review process and other procedural problems – long pointed out by global warming skeptics but ignored by the mainstream media – that seriously undermined the IPCC’s credibility.<1> Two years later, the IPCC itself officially recognized the truth of the critique and promised to reform itself.<2>

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and fail to “consider review comments carefully and document their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed.

The IAC found “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected by politicians from a “club” of scientists and non-scientists who agree with the alarmist perspective.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists – a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers – is plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25). In other words, the Summary for Policymakers and the Synthesis Report are political documents, not scientific reports.

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

Despite its pledge to reform itself, the Fifth Assessment Report reveals that the IPCC is still operating in defiance of the IAC’s recommendations. A widely circulated draft of the Summary for Policymakers prior to the all-night sessions in Stockholm held in late September show that politicians and bureaucrats made extensive changes that removed admissions of uncertainty and attempted to hide key walk-backs of past findings. And once again, the full report is being edited (as this was written in early October 2013) “for consistency with the approved SPM.” This is not how truly scientific reports are produced.

About the IPCC
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Doomsday Clock is what the thread is about.
I am aware of this. You made this statement:

There is a made up device that proports to measure something unmeasurable and some gullible people decide to believe in it as if it actually measured something. I hardly see that as being a valid argument for the rest of us to engage in self deception

I simply asked for more detail - in serious discussion claims need to be supported by evidence, citation of a credible source, etc. If your opinion is that the Doomsday clock is not a good measure of the state of affairs in the world, fair enough. But if you are suggesting that it is a fact, or in the neighbourhood of being a factm that this is the case, it would be good to have some evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It can do it again? Of course it can. The question is not whether it can happen again, but whether it is happening again.

Well, the scientists are measuring tiny little increases and decreases. So yeah, it's happening again.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It does not matter what Al Gore says. The experts- not Al Gore - say we have a problem.

It would be stupid for someone to argue thus:

1. Al Gore believes climate change is human-caused.

2. Al Gore is not a climate expert and has all sorts of motivations to twist truth.

3. Therefore, climate change is not, or likely not, human-caused and a big problem.

Points 1 and 2 are correct. Anyone who thinks point 3 follows from 1 and 2 needs to go back to high school.

Or college. Where did Al Gore get his information from? "Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia

Perhaps Harvard University professors don't qualify as "experts" anymore.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
I did a little research. While not a climate scientist - and that is big red flag - he is a credentialled scientist. There are some suspicious things about the man - it appears he argued against the health impact of smoking while funded by the tobacco industry.

Again, though, you guys are adopting an odd tactic. No one is denying that a small fraction of scientists - even including some climate scientists - are dissenters. But the reality is that the overwhelming majority believe the problem is real.

So this begs the question: what motivates you to cherry-pick the dissenters when there is a clear consensus?
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am aware of this. You made this statement:

There is a made up device that proports to measure something unmeasurable and some gullible people decide to believe in it as if it actually measured something. I hardly see that as being a valid argument for the rest of us to engage in self deception

I simply asked for more detail - in serious discussion claims need to be supported by evidence, citation of a credible source, etc. If your opinion is that the Doomsday clock is not a good measure of the state of affairs in the world, fair enough. But if you are suggesting that it is a fact, or in the neighbourhood of being a factm that this is the case, it would be good to have some evidence.

I first would like to see some evidence that it ( the Doomsday Clock) has any relevance to the state of reality. I am not making a claim about how close or far away we are to some Doomsday, I am simply saying I reject the claim being made that there is a measure of that closeness and that the Doomsday Clock is in any way a reflection of that measurement. I do not see how it can be anything but a device made up to support subjective fear mongering as to date I have seen not one shred of evidence that the Doomsday Clock is in any way related to anything objective and factual that would support its measurements. Until some evidence is made available to the contrary, I must assume it is a propagandistic device based upon extremely subjective criterion that measures nothing but a specific group's subjective feelings of insecurity which that group wants to export to the rest of us.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Don't be so alarmed about your car. The amount of carbon that my regenerative agriculture practices pulls from the atmosphere, should have you covered. However I flatly refuse to travel by air. If you feel that you must travel by air; perhaps you can persuade Al Gore to share his private jets with you, you know, carpool so to speak. I understand that you might feel that the world might come to an end so soon; and that your time here is so valuable; that it is imperative that you get to your destination at jet speed; but perhaps you can grant the rest of us dumb dumbs a little more time, by taking steps to minimize the pollution that you're thrusting at us with jet action.

Even if you don't travel by air, the plane that would have carried you where you ended up going in your car will still take off and land whether you are on it or not.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, the scientists are measuring tiny little increases and decreases. So yeah, it's happening again.
Misleading - you are making a vague statement that evades the problem you have: there is consensus among the experts that we are contributing to the problem in such a manner as to pose serious risks. The fact that there may be a "natural" contribution is besides the point.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Or college. Where did Al Gore get his information from? "Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia

Perhaps Harvard University professors don't qualify as "experts" anymore.

Never did. Going to, or being employed by Harvard as a professor does not qualify one as an expert. Actually working in a field and being facile at one's work does. Even then, being an expert does not vaccinate one against being incorrect about something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I first would like to see some evidence that it ( the Doomsday Clock) has any relevance to the state of reality. I am not making a claim about how close or far away we are to some Doomsday, I am simply saying I reject the claim being made that there is a measure of that closeness and that the Doomsday Clock is in any way a reflection of that measurement. I do not see how it can be anything but a device made up to support subjective fear mongering as to date I have seen not one shred of evidence that the Doomsday Clock is in any way related to anything factual that would support its measurements.
I have no opinion on the Doomsday clock. To say that you have seen no evidence that the Doomsday clock is a reliable guide is fine - I agree with you. But you originally wrote this:

There is a made up device that proports to measure something unmeasurable and some gullible people decide to believe in it as if it actually measured something. I hardly see that as being a valid argument for the rest of us to engage in self deception

That is a much stronger claim. In particular, how do you know that our nearness to doomsday is unmeasurable. Is this just an opinion. If so, fair enough.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Have you ever heard of argumentum ad populum?
I have now, and you are misleading the readers of this thread:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][13] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[14][15] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[13][3][8] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[11] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[11][16]

The scientific consensus on this matter is not an "opinion, taste, or value" - the claim that we have created a problem is robustly supported with hard evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Misleading - you are making a vague statement that evades the problem you have: there is consensus among the experts that we are contributing to the problem in such a manner as to pose serious risks. The fact that there may be a "natural" contribution is besides the point.

IOW, whatever the experts say is truth. Right?
What do scientists and experts say about God? Do they claim He even exists?
What do experts tell us about how to find happiness?
What do they tell us will be our fate after we die?
Do you believe them just because they're considered to be the experts on the subjects?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,686
8,037
US
✟1,060,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Even if you don't travel by air, the plane that would have carried you where you ended up going in your car will still take off and land whether you are on it or not.
It won't however be fueled to compensate for my weight. In the end, that airline will not send jets to a destination to where no one will travel by air.

Similarly, when an armored car crashes, and dumps bags of money all over the highway; one cannot justify theft, under the assumption that someone else would have taken the money anyway.
 
Upvote 0