So based on this and a lack of accurate climate model, we only then have an unproven hypothesis regarding climate change.
We lack a concensus or a theory on the outcome of climate change, but we do not have a lack of evidence or consensus of its occurance and that humans are contributing factors.
There is an accurate climate model. I find the hostility to such notions puzzling. Afterall, these folks also split an atom and put a man on the moon.
Where's the next tornado going to hit? How hot will it be three weeks from now in Seattle? How much rain will Seatle recieve this year? If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% this year what effect will that have on the temperature in Miami four years from now?
Please refer to this accurate climate model. Because I can tell you that my local weather lady on tv sure doesn't have access to it. She's cute, I'd love to point it out for her. Her ratings will surely go up if she 100% accurate.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
We lack a concensus or a theory on the outcome of climate change, but we do not have a lack of evidence or consensus of its occurance and that humans are contributing factors.
Just to give you a hard time...you are saying that the hypothesis is proven just not accurate. How inaccurate does a hypothesis get to be before it is unproven or proved false?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Because.....strangley enough, strongly religious folks happen to be some of the most close-minded folks out there.
I'll agree, of course, with the operative word being "some"....
It's pretty clear to me that some of the other most closed-minded are the dogmatically non-religious folk. Two sides of the coin. When both sides become more balanced, understanding begins to take place.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Just to give you a hard time...you are saying that the hypothesis is proven just not accurate. How inaccurate does a hypothesis get to be before it is unproven or proved false?
The theory is proven (that the climate is changing and that humans have a role in it) what is unproven is what the consequence will look like. Where will be hotter, where will be wetter, will warming be even globally, or will some parts be heated more than others etc...
Sorta like we have proven that carcinogens will give you cancer if exposed to them long enough, but we don't know what cancers will appear and where and when.
The theory is proven (that the climate is changing and that humans have a role in it) what is unproven is what the consequence will look like. Where will be hotter, where will be wetter, will warming be even globally, or will some parts be heated more than others etc...
Sorta like we have proven that carcinogens will give you cancer if exposed to them long enough, but we don't know what cancers will appear and where and when.
I don't doubt the general hypothesis in the least. I do continually question our impact.
Even more puzzling is that carcinogens will only give some cancer.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'll agree, of course, with the operative word being "some"....
It's pretty clear to me that some of the other most closed-minded are the dogmatically non-religious folk. Two sides of the coin. When both sides become more balanced, understanding begins to take place.
Yes, I almost always try to use the word "some".
I can see your point about non-religious folks too.....but you never hear of non-religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there is no god. But you often hear of religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there IS a god.
Where's the next tornado going to hit? How hot will it be three weeks from now in Seattle? How much rain will Seatle recieve this year? If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% this year what effect will that have on the temperature in Miami four years from now?
Please refer to this accurate climate model. Because I can tell you that my local weather lady on tv sure doesn't have access to it. She's cute, I'd love to point it out for her. Her ratings will surely go up if she 100% accurate.
From the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academie des Sciences (France), Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Sciency Academy (India), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
I don't doubt the general hypothesis in the least. I do continually question our impact.
Even more puzzling is that carcinogens will only give some cancer.
For me I see us in more tangible ways destroying our environment and I think much of it is irreverable in the present/future, so when it comes to things like climate change where we can still correct what is done, I want to do what I can. I think the CO2 data is quite telling. We have measured the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and the data we've collected has shown that it is rising at a very fast rate. With what we KNOW about the greenhouse theory, one can only agree that we are significantly exacerbating the greenhouse effect which will inevitably warm the planet. Also more apparent with the visible removal of carbon sinks (forests)
From the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academie des Sciences (France), Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Sciency Academy (India), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Thanks for the link but that was a two page paper. It did not purport to have an accurate climate change model. In fact the first sentence is "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate." That's pretty much an admission right from the get go that there is no accurate model.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
For me I see us in more tangible ways destroying our environment and I think much of it is irreverable in the present/future, so when it comes to things like climate change where we can still correct what is done, I want to do what I can. I think the CO2 data is quite telling. We have measured the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and the data we've collected has shown that it is rising at a very fast rate. With what we KNOW about the greenhouse theory, one can only agree that we are significantly exacerbating the greenhouse effect which will inevitably warm the planet. Also more apparent with the visible removal of carbon sinks (forests)
I'm all for some pretty harsh measures be taken. But based more on prudence and trying to be the first generation in two hundred years that tries to leave the world a better place than hard science. Every bit of science I've seen makes a lot of guesses regarding the future. Some highly educated guesses but guesses never the less.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Well, although I disagree with you, I do respect your ability to reason in an intelligent and respectful manner. Okay so we can agree that there is no accurate climate model predicting the exact accuracy of the consequence of climate change, but why are you so skeptical about the role of humans in it?
Well, although I disagree with you, I do respect your ability to reason in an intelligent and respectful manner. Okay so we can agree that there is no accurate climate model predicting the exact accuracy of the consequence of climate change, but why are you so skeptical about the role of humans in it?
I know humans have a role, it's the extent of our impact I question. But I am for taking a very strong course of action to reduce our carbon and environmental footprints. Kind of contradictory but I can live with it. I want my science to have facts, but want to plan my life a little based on the worst possible outcome perspective.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
When you lost a tooth as a child, did you feel the spirit of the tooth fairy tranform a painful childhood loss into special moments of rejuvenation, imagination and gleeful expectation?
Have you ever experienced the spirit of Santa Clause--the spirit of giving and sharing over the holiday season? I don't mean the evils of the holidays, but instead the purity of giving in love and sharing in love?
Have you experienced the spirit of God, perhaps in Love? Have you experienced such spirit in your highest ideals as they moved through you? Have you experienced such spirit in those situations where one feels a moment of cosmic consciousness? Of connection to a fellow human being?
Maybe you weren't lied to as much as you were loved and supported through your life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
when will people finally figure out that there is no god?
perhaps it'll all occur in one great big cosmic blur....when all of humanity no longer feels the need to insult the beliefs of others, but merely to enjoy their own, and refrain from mocking others. perhaps.
all depends on what you believe when you use the word 'god'...too. a friend on the board here has the most beautiful sig, don't know if if it is taken from somewhere or a completely original thought, but either way, i love it. it is: i believe in god, except i spell it nature.
abyway, i have NO issue with anyone's personally held beliefs, be it belief in god, gods, or nothing...as long as they do not try to force their agenda on me. funny, that's pretty much my views on most things.
You can never prove a negative unless you prove a positive.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I'm saying that there is no way I can prove GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Atheism, it's like an infinite orgasm for the brain.
What if you can prove God doesn't exist?
If there is only 1 true God,
and there are 10,000 Gods - then doesn't that make every one false?
That's logical.
Humans have 10,000 or more versions of God. Ask any Christian - almost every persons conception/definition/obligation/humanization of God is different. And there can't be 10,000 or more different versions of the "One true object."
Why?
Because we invented every last one. EVERY LAST ONE. So they all truly exist, as objects - as concepts. And they're all so far off from the nearest human conception of "truth," because every "1 true God," as they are - they are intolerant of every other "1 true God," absolutely and unequivocally. There can't be one if there are many. There can't be 10,000 fish if there is only 1.
... nibble a little, will you:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
If we say God doesn't exist - then what can he/she/it do to prove it does exist? Nothing, nothing so far. So... maybe God has yet to evolve. But I doubt his/hers/its followers would have any of that.
Saying, "Try atheism." Like saying, "Try air." It's nice, isn't it? Well.... with no God to tell you otherwise - you're left to figure that one out either on your own or with the comforts of your human colleagues, it's up to you. This question is for you - are you currently able to give atheism a try? If not, too bad, it seems you're being oppresed. How are you ever going to learn if you're not allowed to accept other beliefs than the ones some drusty ancient doctrine has leaked out to you?
WEll you see the earth is indeed flat. It depends on how much of it you get to see of it in person that changes that. Not because some book or person says so. I know E=MC sq. That doesn't automatically qualify me for any of the knowledge leading to that conclusion. So yes. The world is very, very flat for some people.
How about leeches could cure a cold. Science has told us lots that has been complete and utter nonsense. It will continue to do so. It is getting more accurate at some things though.
So you're chastising science for changing with the times and technologies while religion has remained stagnant for thousand's of years?
Comments
We lack a concensus or a theory on the outcome of climate change, but we do not have a lack of evidence or consensus of its occurance and that humans are contributing factors.
Please refer to this accurate climate model. Because I can tell you that my local weather lady on tv sure doesn't have access to it. She's cute, I'd love to point it out for her. Her ratings will surely go up if she 100% accurate.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Because.....strangley enough, strongly religious folks happen to be some of the most close-minded folks out there.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'll agree, of course, with the operative word being "some"....
It's pretty clear to me that some of the other most closed-minded are the dogmatically non-religious folk. Two sides of the coin. When both sides become more balanced, understanding begins to take place.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The theory is proven (that the climate is changing and that humans have a role in it) what is unproven is what the consequence will look like. Where will be hotter, where will be wetter, will warming be even globally, or will some parts be heated more than others etc...
Sorta like we have proven that carcinogens will give you cancer if exposed to them long enough, but we don't know what cancers will appear and where and when.
Even more puzzling is that carcinogens will only give some cancer.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes, I almost always try to use the word "some".
I can see your point about non-religious folks too.....but you never hear of non-religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there is no god. But you often hear of religious missionaries trying to convince the world that there IS a god.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
From the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academie des Sciences (France), Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Sciency Academy (India), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Some get hit by a bus first.
For me I see us in more tangible ways destroying our environment and I think much of it is irreverable in the present/future, so when it comes to things like climate change where we can still correct what is done, I want to do what I can. I think the CO2 data is quite telling. We have measured the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and the data we've collected has shown that it is rising at a very fast rate. With what we KNOW about the greenhouse theory, one can only agree that we are significantly exacerbating the greenhouse effect which will inevitably warm the planet. Also more apparent with the visible removal of carbon sinks (forests)
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No wonder some people turn to religion...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
At least you're not bitter.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Wouldn't you be, if you were lied to?
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
Lied to by who...God?
The person himself or the notion of?
When you lost a tooth as a child, did you feel the spirit of the tooth fairy tranform a painful childhood loss into special moments of rejuvenation, imagination and gleeful expectation?
Have you ever experienced the spirit of Santa Clause--the spirit of giving and sharing over the holiday season? I don't mean the evils of the holidays, but instead the purity of giving in love and sharing in love?
Have you experienced the spirit of God, perhaps in Love? Have you experienced such spirit in your highest ideals as they moved through you? Have you experienced such spirit in those situations where one feels a moment of cosmic consciousness? Of connection to a fellow human being?
Maybe you weren't lied to as much as you were loved and supported through your life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
perhaps it'll all occur in one great big cosmic blur....when all of humanity no longer feels the need to insult the beliefs of others, but merely to enjoy their own, and refrain from mocking others. perhaps.
all depends on what you believe when you use the word 'god'...too. a friend on the board here has the most beautiful sig, don't know if if it is taken from somewhere or a completely original thought, but either way, i love it. it is: i believe in god, except i spell it nature.
abyway, i have NO issue with anyone's personally held beliefs, be it belief in god, gods, or nothing...as long as they do not try to force their agenda on me. funny, that's pretty much my views on most things.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You can never prove a negative unless you prove a positive.
Ok. Then go ahead. Prove the positive.
I'm saying that there is no way I can prove GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
~Ron Burgundy
But seriously - for the last time...
10,000 Gods don't mean nothin' and I don't trust 'em.
Want to know where Jesus came from?
He came from Saturn.
Saturn.
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/07/origins-of-religion.html
...
Atheism, it's like an infinite orgasm for the brain.
What if you can prove God doesn't exist?
If there is only 1 true God,
and there are 10,000 Gods - then doesn't that make every one false?
That's logical.
Humans have 10,000 or more versions of God. Ask any Christian - almost every persons conception/definition/obligation/humanization of God is different. And there can't be 10,000 or more different versions of the "One true object."
Why?
Because we invented every last one. EVERY LAST ONE. So they all truly exist, as objects - as concepts. And they're all so far off from the nearest human conception of "truth," because every "1 true God," as they are - they are intolerant of every other "1 true God," absolutely and unequivocally. There can't be one if there are many. There can't be 10,000 fish if there is only 1.
... nibble a little, will you:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
If we say God doesn't exist - then what can he/she/it do to prove it does exist? Nothing, nothing so far. So... maybe God has yet to evolve. But I doubt his/hers/its followers would have any of that.
Saying, "Try atheism." Like saying, "Try air." It's nice, isn't it? Well.... with no God to tell you otherwise - you're left to figure that one out either on your own or with the comforts of your human colleagues, it's up to you. This question is for you - are you currently able to give atheism a try? If not, too bad, it seems you're being oppresed. How are you ever going to learn if you're not allowed to accept other beliefs than the ones some drusty ancient doctrine has leaked out to you?
This is an interesting tidbit related to the written word:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
So you're chastising science for changing with the times and technologies while religion has remained stagnant for thousand's of years?
I still go with science everytime