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

dqhall said:

I saw global warming is real and tried to reduce fuel consumption. It is not as if I can break anything I want and God will always fix it for me.

Click to expand...

Good for you... In my life... The price of fuel and the amount of driving that I must do... I've already been trying to reduce fuel for about 30 to 40 years.... Don't know what they think people like me are going to do.... Start riding a bike 500 km per week? Sheesh.

expos4ever said:

Not the point. The experts have an evidence-based case that we are responsible. Obviously the climate might have changed without man’s intervention. But the experts have evidence that this change is not natural. To think they have made this obvious error that you think they have made is stupefyingly silly.

This is really all about the utterly moronic belief that we know better than the experts.

Look: the scientists could be wrong , I have never stated otherwise. But for people to lie about what the current understanding is, or believe they know better than the experts, is utterly preposterous.

Click to expand...

Well, you are lucky... cause.. like me, you get to pick which expert you get to listen to...

People who think that 100% of all accredited scientists agree with man made climate change and any one who disagrees is uneducated.... Sorry .. not true..

But, like I said.. you have all the right to think that way.

expos4ever said:

What Al Gore does personally has nothing to do with the question in this thread. And you surely know that bringing this up only lowers the caliber of the debate.


I do not think it is likely the world will come to an end soon.

And I stand by my post - anyone who believes that global warming is not human-caused because Al Gore believes otherwise needs to have their head examined (or go back to school).

Click to expand...

I believe that anyone that thinks global warming IS human caused... for any reason.... is too trusting in media and the hive mind.

grasping the after wind said:

The Doomsday Clock is what the thread is about.

Click to expand...

If that clock is affected by "man made climate change", it's no longer of any use, realistically.

expos4ever said:

Your last statement here is, I suggest, both false and dangerous, at least in the sense I think you mean.

Click to expand...

'..at least in the sense I think you mean'

If you don't know what sense I mean it in, the smart idea would be to ask first. Which will become relevant in a moment...

expos4ever said:

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.

Click to expand...

I never once claimed one could become a climate expert by sitting at home on the internet. Is it impossible to be a self-taught scientist? Probably not. Will most people actually put in the proper effort to do so? No. The majority of information you'd find in a specialized educational space can likely be found elsewhere; the only thing it lacks is someone explaining it and keeping people 'on track'.

expos4ever said:

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.

Click to expand...

Such as yourself? I haven't seen any credentials, so I assume you aren't a climate scientist and cannot make any educated comments on anything regarding the field because you aren't part of it, apparently.

As I said before, just because someone is an 'expert' doesn't mean that they are trustworthy or even good at what they do. Unless you try to learn something in the field to better your understanding and identify people who don't know what they're talking about, you're always going to be trusting them almost entirely based on 'I trust that they're right about their assessment'.

expos4ever said:

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?

Click to expand...

There is a very big difference between being able to recreate or observe something many times over to understand it, and having one big thing that you can't recreate and observe properly that you're trying to understand on a scientific basis. I also never said that science was about blind trust--I said that trusting the SCIENTISTS conducting the experiment is 'blind trust', because we have to hope they're doing their job correctly.

expos4ever said:

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.

Click to expand...

I mean...science never made any claims to absolute truths, and science is only as good so long as nothing later down the line contradicts it. Then the previous 'knowledge' has to be changed/updated.

expos4ever said:

I agree, this is why, as I have repeated many many times - trust the scientists, not the politicians, or even the media.

Click to expand...

I was insinuating that it's not impossible in any way for a scientist to be bribed into lying. Christian scientists lie all the time, don't they? Because they have an agenda to push; it doesn't matter if it's religion or any other agenda. Not saying all scientists are being paid off, but that it's always something that should be kept in the back of our minds as a possibility when something like this crops up.

expos4ever said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's not 'scientific system', it's called the scientific method. The formal definition is;

"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Peer-reviewing is for quality control, it's not part of the scientific method. It's basically getting the 'OK' confirmation from other scientists that review your work to make sure it is accurate before it becomes a widely-accepted fact. And even then, none of that changes the fact that the scientific method can still be abused.

expos4ever said:

Is this a serious request?

Click to expand...

Did I stutter? I already said I'm not arguing for or against climate change; I'm making the case that if you're going to tell me something of this magnitude is factually true, you're going to need to give me credible sources to look at and proper reasoning other than 'The [nameless] scientists say so'.

Simply stating that a bunch of scientists agree with your position does not make it true--in fact, that's just as bad as the anti-evolution groups.

I do not claim to know anything about climate change specifically, but I am skeptical about the subject because of the contradictory statements I've heard from both sides of the coin and the heavy political value of the topic.

The doomsday clock is a hypothetical devise measuring hypothetical data giving a hypothetical number or value...
The climate fanatics, who think that man is creating a higher temperature, even though NONE of the predicted events have taken place as they were predicted in the early 2000's....

These scaremongers who ignore real historical events...have hijacked this already realistically useless device.. to perpetuate their propaganda and further promote their agenda.. How dare them..

This further removes any credibility that the doomsday clock even could muster.

JacksBratt said:

I believe that anyone that thinks global warming IS human caused... for any reason.... is too trusting in media and the hive mind.

Click to expand...

Misleading. While the media has indeed misled the public, we know directly from the appropriately qualified experts - the climate scientists - that global warming is caused by humans.

Deniers have nowhere to go on this issue. So we see all manner of distractions, Dinning Kruger phenomena, and outright lying.

expos4ever said:

Misleading. While the media has indeed misled the public, we know directly from the appropriately qualified experts - the climate scientists - that global warming is caused by humans.

Click to expand...

Actually, this should read "we know directly from the appropriately qualified experts of that view"

expos4ever said:

Deniers have nowhere to go on this issue. So we see all manner of distractions, Dinning Kruger phenomena, and outright lying.

Click to expand...

The lie is this part "man made".. The only thing "man made" is the data that supports it..

What people who call people like me "deniers" as an insult, a dig, to cause a defensive position.. to deflect and deter people from telling the truth... What these scaremongers fail to realize is that there are appropriately qualified experts who are stating that it is not man made there is no catastrophe and no cause for alarm.

You can shout "denier" all you like.. it still doesn't change the truth.

expos4ever said:

I politely suggesting you are overstepping your own expertise - you, like me, are probably not adequately qualified to render an informed opinion on this matter - it could turn out there are indeed some measurable things that are predictive, at least to some degree, of "doomsday". The fact that you cannot think of any is not that significant (same goes for me).

Click to expand...

I suggest the people that foisted the Doomsday Clock on us are extreme in overstepping their expertise. How many a have a PHD in prophesy?

JacksBratt said:

If that clock is affected by "man made climate change", it's no longer of any use, realistically.

Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence that it was ever of any use or ever had any validity.

grasping the after wind said:

I suggest the people that foisted the Doomsday Clock on us are extreme in overstepping their expertise. How many a have a PHD in prophesy?

Click to expand...

Not the point and you know it.

expos4ever said:

Not the point and you know it.

Click to expand...

You ever going to get around to showing me some citations to your claims, or are you ghosting my reply in favor of picking at low-hanging fruit because you don't have anything to say?

We're closer to doomsday in the 80's. Both sides looking for a reason to launch. MAD-mutual assured destruction was mad. I've lived through running out of gasoline in the 70's, the coming 2nd ice age, numerous people claiming the world will end on certain dates, to many to remember. MMGW is no different then all the rest. Just a way for power hungry people to control the masses in ways they couldn't if their wasn't a "mass hysteria".

expos4ever said:

Misleading. While the media has indeed misled the public, we know directly from the appropriately qualified experts - the climate scientists - that global warming is caused by humans.

Deniers have nowhere to go on this issue. So we see all manner of distractions, Dinning Kruger phenomena, and outright lying.

Click to expand...

i agree that denying climate change is dangerous, but this is a very multifaceted problem and people are not seeing the elephant in the room.

1. while artificial increasing of temperature is dangerous, humanity can still cope with it. what goes undermentioned is the pollution of the waters by plastics, who damages both animals and us. even if animals do not swallow it, their endocrine systems can be tampered with due to plastics, which lowers their health and reproductive rate. plastics are one of the many reasons why testosterone levels in western men are plummeting.

2. related to 1, what also goes undermentioned is the effect of birth control in the hormonal levels of men. women urinate that into the water supply, but the hormones in it do not disappear into thin air. they make it into the bodies of animals and eventually men, tampering with our hormonal systems. to talk about this is public discourse is "sexist" and thus taboo, because the implication thereof is to tell people (and especially women) not to be promiscuous.

3. ultimately, the problem lies in industrialized society and increased urbanism/cosmopolitanism. this creates a materialistic, consumerist view of the world, decreases faith in God, health, our connection to nature. our foods increase in calories due to selective breeding, but since arable land is being abused, it is less nutritious than ever (in micronutrients). one thing that can be done about this is to stop eating meat. it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lbs of cow meat, not to mention the horrible practices regarding how that meat is produced and in what conditions animals live. also, what little food we can grow ourselves, we should take the opportunity to do so.

yes, i promote both vegetarianism and closed legs. i am the nightmare of both the right wing and the left wing (joking).