• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by mark kennedy, Nov 24, 2018.

  1. GlabrousDory4

    GlabrousDory4 Well-Known Member

    849
    +905
    United States
    Seeker
    Married
    You're right! We are running out of time to fix the problem of our making. Why? Because we have to explain simple science to people who apparently have no training in science (or any real workable knowledge of science) because they think their uninformed "opinion" carries some weight.

    They don't wanna believe in anthropogenic global warming and they aren't going to let anything happen until they understand it. But they don't WANT to understand it and besides science is HARD! Let's just go with our opinions, shall we?

    Whatever makes one FEEL good, even if it flies in the face of established science, well I guess reality with just have to deal with it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  2. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    I don't think this is wrong at all.
     
  3. GlabrousDory4

    GlabrousDory4 Well-Known Member

    849
    +905
    United States
    Seeker
    Married
    But the key was the next phrase I typed: many of them have no desire to understand it. That's what causes the problems. That level of willful ignorance is what is most dangerous.
     
  4. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    Yes, that is the problem. But, at least, I can not do much about it. And I do not complain about it. Some politicians try to ban the use of fossil fuels. Some promotes it. US try to burn less coal, but China still burned a lot. What can you do?
     
  5. DennisTate

    DennisTate Newbie Supporter

    +1,149
    Canada
    Messianic
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Here is my conclusion after researching this since 2005 or so.......

    Climate change is real.... but a Carbon Tax will NOT be effective in addressing the threat of rising ocean levels. I live on a lake classified as tidal water.... so I worry more about this side of the formula than people whose home is in Ottawa or Washington.

    Here is what I believe is a better theory that just happens to fit with Isaiah 35

    This can be done now:
    Cheap Water from the World’s Largest Modern Seawater Desalination Plant



    The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

    2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon: they shall see the glory of Jehovah, the excellency of our God.

    3 Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees.

    4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come [with] vengeance, [with] the recompense of God; he will come and save you.

    5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

    6 Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

    7 And the glowing sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water: in the habitation of jackals, where they lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
     
  6. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Wow, that sounds like old school environmentalism, they used to go off the deep end over deforestation and reclaiming lands parched for water. I worry that the politicization of environmental issues will simply empower governments, raising taxes for programs that will be ultimately ineffective. I don't know that's the case, but it concerns me greatly.

    I'll grant you this, you at least reached a conclusion, wish I could. I'd just like to be better read on the issues and the case for managing the global warming crises seems, well, less then convincing. Not to say, the dangers are not real.

    Appreciate your input.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. VirOptimus

    VirOptimus A nihilist who cares.

    +2,563
    Atheist
    Married
    Denying climatre change is tinfoil hattery, the science is pretty settled.

    The question is what to do about it, thats what the political debate ought to be.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'm not in denial, actually I'm just entertaining views from both sides of the issues. Your right about one thing, of course the question becomes what do we do about it. But I like to keep my tin foil hat handy, you never know when you might need it. I would rather wear that stupid hat then sign off on something that I'm not convinced offers a concrete solution.
     
  9. DennisTate

    DennisTate Newbie Supporter

    +1,149
    Canada
    Messianic
    Married
    CA-Conservatives

    I must admit that I have my biases due to the geography where I live......

    If average ocean levels rose by eight to ten cms (3 or 4 inches) could high tide...

    ... rise by one meter in the Isthmus of Chignecto in Nova Scotia, Canada?

    This question is logical because the geography of Canada's Bay of Fundy produces the world's highest tides. In my part of Nova Scotia in Guysborough County there is very little funnelling of tidal waters......... so high tide is only about one to one point five meters above low tide.

    In the eastern area of the Bay of Fundy high tide levels are up by ten to fifteen meters.


    High tides threaten low-lying Isthmus of Chignecto | Truro News



    [​IMG]
     
  10. DennisTate

    DennisTate Newbie Supporter

    +1,149
    Canada
    Messianic
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
  11. SpiritualBeing

    SpiritualBeing Active Member

    264
    +180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. SpiritualBeing

    SpiritualBeing Active Member

    264
    +180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  13. SpiritualBeing

    SpiritualBeing Active Member

    264
    +180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    +3,288
    Atheist
    Private
    Completely disagree.

    It is ridiculous to expect the general population, a bunch of average Joe's, to completely understand specialised subjects which require all kinds of specialised expertise, before any urgent poltical action can be taken.

    It is massively dangerous.
     
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    +3,288
    Atheist
    Private
    It's not you that needs to be convinced.

    It's the experts that study this stuff.
    You don't know better then them.
     
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I've been reading on the environmental issues since the 80s, I really never gave global warming a thought when I heard about the green house effect, environmentalists had been warning us about this for decades. Then when the ice caps started melting at an accelerated rate I didn't need an expert so spare me the condescending quips. My only intention of starting the thread was to entertain any intelligent argument otherwise and if you say their are none, your part of the problem. The idea that a warmer earth could help open up farmland were it was too cold appealed to me and I wanted to consider it. I don't need an expert for much of this but I don't worship at the altar of utilitarian science either.

    I've always been interested in environmentalism and generally listen carefully when NASA scientists tell me statistically it's real, that have this really good reputation for that sort of thing, I mean these guys are famous for doing the math so spare me. This is just a friendly invitation to an alternative view, nothing more.
     
  17. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    +3,288
    Atheist
    Private
    I was talking in general.

    If the actual experts tell you that the world needs to take action fast, then you better listen.
    They've been saying it for decades, indeed.

    And for decades, oil lobbyists have been paying people to sow confusion and politicians to not do anything about. And plenty of people have been had by the propaganda.

    And yes, when the "counter point" amounts to "but hey, if it gets warmer here, then we might be able to produce wine in Belgium just like in Italy! that's great isn't it?" then you are missing the big picture so much that it is not even funny.

    Yes, you might be able to get your vineyard. Meanwhile, plenty of species go extinct and millions upon millions die of famine, dislocation, etc etc.

    And that's not even taking into account the longer term effects of this domino game we are playing with climate.

    The question is not "will we do something?"
    The question is not even "what will we do about it tomorrow?"

    The only real question here is "what will we do about it TODAY?"

    Any other question, is immoral and unethical.
    These facts have been known since the bloody 60s for crying out loud.

    There's even leaked memo's from Exxon board meetings from over 40 years ago, wherein they literally acknowledge the problem.

    Everybody that matters, has known about this for decades.
    They did nothing. They lie, lie lie and gullible people believe believe believe.

    And they do it by downplaying expertise in favor of your average Joe's opinion, who only cares about his own paycheck and luxury.
     
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I don't know if the measured proposed would reverse global warming but I felt sick when Trump rejected the Paris Accords. I'm not an activist, some of them I respect and others seem extreme but I simply want to give due consideration to an alternative view of all of this. I was given some advice once, and it served me well over the years. If you want to be able to defend a position you should be able to make the strongest possible argument against it.

    I spent years inviting the views of Darwinians on their philosophy of natural history, some of which I found very compelling, others not so much, I ended up as sure as ever of creation. I never regretted for a minute inviting the opposing view then and I don't expect anything that will convince me now. I know those views are out there and would like to hear them, it's really as simple as that. So far I've gotten a few rather interesting and intelligent views, a couple offline as a matter of fact. I may not be convinced but then again it gives me something to consider.

    I would just like to hear intelligent and well sourced arguments against global warming if there are any to be had. I've encountered a few and that is more then enough reason to be willing to hear them out.
     
  19. GlabrousDory4

    GlabrousDory4 Well-Known Member

    849
    +905
    United States
    Seeker
    Married
    There are sources for this sort of thing. Hopefully someone has pointed you to Skepticalscience.com. Granted they come at it from the point of view of listing the bad science and countering it with good science so it's not a denialist website. It gives the denialist argument and then counters it with what the actual SCIENCE says.

    Those of us who have spent our lives in the physical sciences are rather familiar with the usual reasons to "doubt" anthropogenic global climate change and it's a relatively simple matter to debunk almost all of them almost immediately.

    That's how those of us with advanced degrees in the physical sciences know that likely anthropogenic global climate change is a real thing:

    1. The science makes good sense even if you are not a full-on climatologist
    2. The actual science (if you take the time to read it) supports the reality of the proposition
    3. The usual denialist positions are easily and quickly debunked

    Before I got my PhD in geochem I spent a year working at a major East Coast oceanic research facility measuring atmospheric gases that exchanged with ocean water. I didn't work in the global climate change area but I was "adjacent" to them and met some of these folks you read about. They are doing solid science using truly solid methods. There's no shenanigans and if you think about it; you would be hard pressed to find a "denialist" in these facilities. All you need do is look at the denialist literature and you'll see that most of it is done by non-professionals and the quickest way to debunk them is to see how shoddy their data interpretation and methods are...assuming they have methods.
     
  20. GlabrousDory4

    GlabrousDory4 Well-Known Member

    849
    +905
    United States
    Seeker
    Married
    One other thing and I don't mean this to be a "slam" or insult in any way. Trust me, there's a lot of this science that I struggle with and I've got a PhD in an associated area) but it is very hard for the layperson to make a reasoned judgement on the validity of the science. Be careful of people offering you simple denialist positions. I am glad you look at both sides, but just remember, the denialists have the easier position: they don't have to understand the science, they don't have to do it well, they just have to raise "questions". The REAL science is complex. It CAN be understood at simpler levels but the nuance and detail required to assess the validity of a given claim may be well beyond what most people have at their disposal.

    For instance: the debate around Michael Mann's hockey stick. The denialists try to attack it mathematically and Mann responds by noting their failure to do the math correctly. But this isn't just simple math, this is principal component analysis and there are varying levels of steps you can do. The debate sometimes comes down to "who did the 'proper' number of steps"? Looks like Mann did and he supports that with references. The denialists counter with what appears to be a sort of ad-hoc version of the procedure using a different number steps which is not necessarily considered appropriate. In reality there's almost no way that regular Joe Sixpack is going to have the ability to tell who is right and who is wrong.

    The presence of a "consensus" is NOT the way scientists determine if an hypothesis is good or bad, but a GOOD HYPOTHESIS WILL GENERATE A CONSENSUS.

    If you find yourself in Vegas DO NOT BET AGAINST THE HOUSE. You will lose 999 times out of 1000.

    Look at the consensus and see that the real scientists feel the data is compelling. That's going to be a safer bet overall.
     
Loading...