Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[hippifried]

On the subject of religion:

Trish,
You're going to hell. I talked to Dad & called you a special case, but He was unmoved. He says He just can't deal with your blasphemy anymore. I even tried to get the bird to intervene, & offered to go through another crucifixion, or something comparable in these modern times. He said once is enough. He wouldn't even let you work it off in Pergatory. No probation. No parole. You're doomed to hellfire through eternity. I'll come visit, butt while you're here, you might as well get totally depraved since there's no way out of your fate anyway. We should do a meat & greet.

[trish]

I'll just think of it as God's molten rock garden. Hope He doesn't mind if I test it for unstable isotopes of potassium and their decay residues. I'd like to get measurement of the age of those rocks. Maybe put a date on creation. I'm wondering if there are any interesting rock formations in Hell, or if everything is all just melted into a flat dull bubbling lake. Hmmm I wonder what the viscosity of liquid hellfire is? Could sulfur metabolizing organisms have evolved there? If the measurements show Hell is older than 13 billion years, will I get sent to another Hell?

[Prospero]

Ben - you are right there should be no such debate. But the fact remans that there are, as this strand so lucidly shows, those who continue to argue that black is white - thus this "debate" (to dignify it )does exist. But as Stavros observed it is also a pointless one here. For reasons either of the simplicity of faith in this context or for rather more cynical ideological purposes there is no intelligent debate going on here - simply the restatement of a certain position against the overwhelming body of evidence and a simple minded bloody mindedness and abusive response from another quarter - informed only by a gut reaction to local economic and social conditions. Roadkill is a good word. Trish and you have both offerered a well established and intelligent flow of well supported argument here. Others offer abuse, the re-iteration of bad science and repetitive rhetoric.

And yes Stavros, of course there are people who have no intellectual response to issues. The "truth" has been revealed to them and cannot be questioned. In the case of islam such questioning can bring the most brutal of responses. Mainstream Christianity has at least left that behind following the reformation. For American fundamentalists, brutality with regard to abortion seems resurgent and scarey. But then all our most ludicrous religious people fled to the America's centuries ago.

[hippifried]

Could sulfur metabolizing organisms have evolved there?

I would imagine you can evolve whatever metabolized orgasms you like. You'll have nothing but time. I didn't pay attention in God school. I was preoccupied with what I was about to go through. Precognition can be a drag sometimes.

As for the technical stuff:
I'm a redeemer, not a creator. You'd have to ask Dad, but He'll know that your prayers are disingenuous. He can be vengeful, & He's already pissed, So you might not want to antagonize him. Lighning bolts ya know...

[martin48]

Thanks for the well considered post, Stavros. There is one point you make I’d like to address.

There is a significant difference between the debate on nuclear energy and the climate debate.

The opponents of nuclear energy do believe in the science. They grant that one can extract energy from the atom and use it to power cities. There the debate is about whether it should be done; and there are disagreements concerning the more complex issue of benefits vs costs vs potential hazards. (My opinion on nuclear energy is that soon we won’t be able to avoid it’s use, and the sooner we get practical minds working on the nuclear waste disposal problem, the better).

The opponents of various climate initiatives deny the science. This to me is unbelievable. The mechanisms are simple, easy to understand. At this late date the evidence is voluminous and there is now a scientific consensus which didn’t exist a thirty years ago. The jury is in. Yet we still have people who deny the science. Surely it would be more rational and eminently more practical to start with the science and focus debate on what, if anything, can and should be done about global heat imbalance. (Personally, yes you guessed it, I subscribe to the well accepted view of my scientific colleagues that anthropogenic global warming is happening and has been since the mid to late nineteenth century. However, I am not a liberal on the issue of what to do about it, if anything. I’m not conservative either. I’m open to suggestions).

As you and others say, it's probably not worth debating with those with deliveried truths. Biological evolution is as solid as any part of biology - there is scientific debate but that is how it should be. As scientists, we assume the minimum (Ockham's razor), we observe the natural world, determine the nature of a phenomenon, i.e. ask a question or identify a problem. Develop one or more hypotheses. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome (you can't point only backwards in time and say "God did that." You must say if x occurs then y will happen). Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. All scientific hypotheses must be capable of being disproved (Karl Popper - empirical falsification). Check how results fit the hypotheses - accept, refine or reject.

Easy really! Evolutionary theory has all these elements - there is little to question unless you totally reject the scientific method and maintain an irrational belief in fables. It's up to you. End of lecture!!!

[Prospero]

Thanks martin. It does seem many people prefer fables and to reside with the comfort zone of the fairytale or the fable. And others like conspiracy theories. Sometimes the two seem to overlap.

[russtafa]

fuck you lot and your bullshit

[hippifried]

fuck you lot and your bullshit

Well, we were all waiting for a well thought out & coherent argument against the climate change theories...

[Ben]

[Ben]