Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Are you sure Boston is the one who needs to worry on the judgement day?

I may be stretching the meaning of a few of these texts a bit, but that is a very popular Christian pastime, so I'm in (good?) company.

 

I really DO try to avoid religion here. Politics is impossible to avoid in AGW discussion and religion difficult to avoid.
Suffice it to say, the GREAT FLOOD wasn't due to man's messing around (except sinning). The finger of GOD certainly orchestrated that event. And when HE says, HE'LL destroy the world in HIS good time, I have faith HE won't permit us humans to pre-emptive strike! He say's nobody will see it coming and no one will predict the day. Ergo, predictions of doom give me solace! LOL ! Man's predictions of doom mean NOT YET!

 

I'm not too fond of Scalia or Thomas, though Scalia is at least sometimes entertaining.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html

 

Jefferson was an excellent writer and had great penmanship.
Poor president though, and his personal life not admirable or enviable.
"You slaves get to the fields and work!"
"Yes sir, daddy!"


Oh, He also started the first liberal political party. YUCK!

 

If you strike 2 and 3 the rest are pretty much moot.

 

ah the Judea-christianic mythology again, I'd not sue the bastad, no point, he/she/it clearly has absolutely no influence over "the faithful". One quick look at the legal state of the catholic church in just about every country will clearly dispel any rumors of the priesthood representing much more than a group of crazed **********. No real god would tolerate that for a second, ah where's the fire and brimstone when you need it eh

:idea: religion is pretty humorous though, when you realize that denial as defined in psychology is a state of mind in which the afflicted replaces reality with a fiction in order to avoid a painful truth or situation.

so how surprising is it to find that someone who's in denial over climate shift is conversely a believer in religious dogma. When the two conditions are virtually identical.

why am I reminded of that awesome little ditty

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the sinners are much more fun

so come on Virginia
don't make me wait
yah catholic girls start much to late
cause sooner of later
will come down to fate
I might as well be the one
only the dumb die young ;-)

or something like that.
great song, came out right about the time I dated these two catholic girls who were roomies, talk about fun. We played it over and over, and then they went to church every sunday. Nuts but really what a great time those two were ;-) kinda made me want to try a nun and see if they're as crazed in bed as rumor has it ;-) we get a couple come into the church ( night club ) every once in a while, one of thems pretty good looking to, oh well, god willing ahahhhahhahhahaahhaahhhaahahahahaahahahah

 

Those facts may be true, but they are ad hominem comments.

You are avoiding commenting on the important point, which is that a constitution developed over 200 years ago will likely not be well-tailored for today's society. Although we can amend ours, it is an unnecessarily difficult process.

 

I didn't suggest striking them. As I recall the options you offered included modifying?

I don't agree CO2 is the DRIVER of climate, but may contribute. Degree is unknown.
I DO disagree it's controllable. It's NOT!
You might REDUCE emmissions a tiny bit, but no one yet controls the world's people by edict, nor do I want to ever SEE such a day!

We can avoid philosophy or conflict about presumed causes and concentrate on contingency plans, or, get mad and hostile over futile arguments.

Why futile? Because never did 'might of arms', fighting, nor "Argument" ever make something 'right', or true. Consensus never has either!

So. Do you want co-operation on FEASIBLE projects, or conflicts over what's "ideal", which differs person to person?

be back later

 

Hello thread readers,

In my opinion this is the clearest post Yobarnacle has made explaining the REAL reason behind his opposition to AGW. All the dancing, weaving and bobbing are in service to his real agenda, which is keeping personal faith with his belief system. A library full of scientific data, if contrary to his preexisting religious beliefs, will always be discounted by him. For him faith will always trump human-derived "facts".

Well, I shouldn't say always. A few people do make major philosophical changes in their lives. I'm one of them. But it certainly doesn't happen frequently.

 

Are you saying CO2 emissions are not controllable in principle (wouldn't make any difference even if we totally turned off oil production tomorrow), or in practice (can't ever get folks to significantly reduce use of oil no matter how hard you try)?

I'm more hopeful than you. People love to make and obey rules. We couldn't have such high-functioning civilizations if that weren't the case. And in the excitement of a perceived or actual emergency, people go to extraordinary efforts to work for the common good. Like after a flood, or during a war. But those are generally short-lived periods of cooperation.

It is harder to get folks to work for the common good over long periods of time when that effort results in short-term loss. Individually, many folks can make good long-term decisions. But large groups of people tend to act much more like short-sighted juveniles.

Consensus does not guarantee being correct, but it does help promote peaceful coexistence. Argument, or discussion, is essential for sharing ideas and perspectives, and to transfer essential knowledge.

Yes, we need to implement the feasible projects, and keep exploring and developing the unfeasible ones too, in case one of them becomes feasible.

However, there will always be more "feasible" projects than money, so serious effort needs to be made at determining the root cause(s) of the problem so that our limited resources can be most effectively deployed. What's the point in building a 2-foot seawall around NYC if the ocean is going to rise 3 feet -- or not all?

And that's why we need scientists, which is why it is so discouraging to see so much opposition to the scientific process. Sure, scientists are human, and yes, scientists make mistakes - both individually and as a group. But IMO they are our last best hope in figuring out how this world works. I believe it is in our best interest to support them and not always be throwing bogus arguments at them all the time.

 

I haven't been bashing scientists. Just those that think they should RULE!

By feasible projects I meant, for which current technology exists or has hopes of SOON existing.
I meant, affordable, both out of pocket expense, and subsequent consequences to society.
I meant, those projects you can reasonably HOPE enough people on ALL sides of the question, will endorse and agree to fund.
I meant projects that promised significant benefits.

Agree?

Oh, as far as my religion goes, I'm not asking YOU to convert.
But, recalling your dismay that I wouldn't accept as gospel, CO2 is the predominant driver of climate ect, ect.
It suggests you expected ME to convert, to YOUR ideology!

As for NY City, maybe it will become the Venice of America. If you build in a low lying area, whose responsibility is it to rescue you when it floods?
If you choose to live in a desert, whose responsibility is it to feed you in a drought?
People need to be responsible and self reliant. When they have done ALL they can, then call for assistance.
If New Yorkers believe a flood from increased sea level is iminent, and carry on business as usual untill it floods? Sorry for them.

 

Yobbo, anybody who doesn't laugh you out of this forum is as deluded as you.

 

We don't have an obligation, or a mindset, or a philosophy of the greater good in the USA. That's collectivist thinking. Most of us, including liberals, are individualists. That's our culture.
Communism, fascism, socialism, kings and emperors and dictators, are collectivists.
Don't you remember nuclear detent? "Better Dead than Red!"
The USA would rather have blown up the world than let the socialists win.
Things haven't changed much. Still lots of die hard patriots about!
Don't try turning the USA into a socialist country. Won't suceed. And, won't get your AGW mitigation projects endorsed.

As far as I'm concerned, the world can stew in it's own juices before I'll agree to the death of freedom! I'm not alone.

 

Don't speak for me as a USA citizen with your mumbo jumbo bumper sticker logic.

 

Ray
Maybe I'm not winning friends and influencing people. Neither are YOU!

You might as well give up trying to provoke me.
And it's lucky for you, you CAN'T provoke me.
You wouldn't like it.