simple question

[_ozemc]

As with any sort of claim, you have to be able to discern facts from hyperbole, and look at the biases and prejudices of those making claims.

In terms of global warming, most of the hysteria and "doom and gloom" scenarios come from those who feel that global warming is man-made and that we can stop it. And, as an aside, most of that argument is then extrapolated to assume more governmental control over our lives.

From what I've read, those on the other side of the debate do not argue that warming of the planet is not accorung, just that what man does probably has minimal impact, compared to events like a volcano eruptions.

Science is most definitely not settled on this issue.

A few of the articles:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... sensus.pdf

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.information/

[_Tarski]

From what I've read, those on the other side of the debate do not argue that warming of the planet is not accorung, just that what man does probably has minimal impact, compared to events like a volcano eruptions.

Well, those opinions are coming from outide maiunsteam science and a ppear to be politically motivated.

The right to pollute and savage the earth seems to be part of some folks vision of capitalism and our supposed god given right to dominate the earth.


From what I can tell, the internet is full of global warming skeptics for the same reason it is full of evolution skeptics.
The balance in the news and on the internet does not reflect the actual balance of expert scientific opinion. Almost all of the skeptic sites are put up by people not really in the field.

Science is most definitely not settled on this issue.

Science is never completely settled though it becomes so for all practical purposes.
In this case, the certainties are about as I indicated.

However, to see exaclty how far it is to being settled, really try this experiment:

Find me some names of publishing, top academics at our best universites that are experts in the very field of earth science of global climatology that disagree (or agree) with the following:

1. Global Warming is a well established fact.
2. Evidence is strong (about 80% sure) that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.
3. The evidence is strong enough that policy changes are in order

Tally up those that do agree and don't agree and compare.
(A collegue at Berkeley (an astronomer) did something informal like this)


Also, please read the page on how to talk to climate skeptics
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Also, note that several prominant former skeptics (that most of us respect) have changed their minds on review of the recent evidence:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000

[_KimberlyAnn]

It is a curious outcome that the supposedly "moral" believer so breezily rationales away human rights atrocities, while the supposedly "immoral" non-believer finds such atrocities morally abhorrent. It is further curious that they seem to be completely incapable of grasping this irony.

You are correct, Guy, and it blows me away that my husband considers me the immoral one for not embracing the vengeful, misogynistic God of the Old Testament. Sometimes I wonder what kind of person he is that he can rationalize away the atrocities in the Old Testament, and not only rationalize them, embrace them! Think they're moral and right and good! It's disheartening to say the least. Often it's plain scary. Anyone who thinks the way God allowed women to be treated in the Old Testament is fine and dandy has a screw loose. It's just the same with people who rationalize away the mistreatment of women by the scumbag Joseph Smith. I cannot understand it.

As I've said repeatedly, critical self-reflection is not a hallmark of the believer.

I agree with this, and oddly, it's the same thing of which my husband and believing Mormons on this board accuse me. According to believers, nonbelievers are the ones incapable of self-reflection. My husband, Coggins, Ray A - all have stated that I'm incapable of deep or rational thought. I know I'm not the brightest bulb around, but how can anyone who believes the wacky things about Mormonism and the Old Testament accuse anyone else of being incapable of rational thought?

My wife is still active Mormon. She "accepts" my non-belief in that she has no choice and has found a way to accomodate it.

That's nice. I'd settle for acceptance and accommodation if I could get it.

I am proud that my oldest child-18 year old son--is a confirmed non-believer who thinks Mormonism is "total b***s***." He is on his way to Arizona State to start college this week.

That's fantastic! He's not going to waste two years of his life on a mission trying to convert people to a fraudulent religion. I bet that's a relief to you! Also, I remember a post you wrote about the mission funds. What did your wife decide to do with "her" money, lol!?

I am worried about my 16-year old daughter, she has the personality of her mother and the same need for belief. But I am working on her.

My 13-year old daughter and 10-year old son are still works in progress. Needless to say that I am doing what I can to counteract the indoctrination they get from church.

One encouraging sign is that despite the fact we live in the heart of Mormonism in Sandy, none of my children's' social circles are Mormon-based. We are raising them pretty liberal (in terms of social and political beliefs) and encouraging critical thinking, so there is hope that they too will find the pure air of intellectual freedom.

Good luck with your kids, Guy. It sounds like they're bright and will see through the fog of Mormonism just like their father did.

KA

[_Who Knows]

Thought I'd throw in the recent Newsweek article The Truth About Denial.

If people want to believe there is no issue - they can find ways to do so. I find it strikingly similar to LDS apologetics (or apologetics of any religion, for that matter).

[_Who Knows]

the Embryonic Stem Cell boondogal (see:Science and Technology Magazine.

Wow, I don't know what to say. The fact that you put any stock whatsoever in that garbage (not to mention outdated) of an article, is surprising - even for you.

[_Canucklehead]

Since my off-hand comment about "global warming nonsense" has engender such a strong reaction, perhaps it may be prudent and respectful for me to expound upon what I said, and give cause for thinking the way I do. However, I am just about to leave for a golf tournament, so the earliest that I will be able to post on the subject is late this evening. For your's and Tarski's benefit (and anyone else who may be interested), I will open a separate thread for discussion when I get a chance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I really do think that the global warming discussion deserves its own thread ... Even though it is off-topic for the forum, I'm highly interested in what people have to say about it.

I also think that it, in many ways, relates to the greater issues surrounding Mormonism - i.e. scientific vs. faith-based world views, apologetics, the rational evaluation of evidence, etc. It seems that many of the global warming sceptics are also prone to having a religioius outlook on like.

Personally, since re-evaluating Mormonism (and coming to the conclusion that it is a fraud), I have been open to re-examining many of my other assumptions in life, including my previous scepticism of global warming (which, I will admit, was not based on any evidence at all, merely an unwillingness to accept that our Western - i.e. god-given - lifestyle could be harming the planet).

[_huckelberry]

Some folks claim that skepticim about Noah reflects only a disbelief in Gods power. After all if one believes in God does not a person believe God is able. I am perfectly willing to allow God is able in this subject. I believe God can create matter,such as water and could return in to nonbeing. No problem in negotiating the process of the flood. However events that actually happen have resulting effects that continue in the world we live in. There are records of events in the shape and make up of the earth. because believers in the flood realize this fact there is a popularity in the idea of attributing large sedimentary formations on the earth and the fossils contained therein to the flood. I think the mismatch between actual rock formations and this idea is large enough to discard the idea as disproven. Period.

I have not seen any creationist material which actually addresses geology in context of these problems so little discussion is feasable. There is an alternative flood view, that the flood did not involve flowing water leaving any record in the surface of the world we find. That idea has the pleasant advantage of fiting the geological evidence, a complete lack of any trace of a Noah flood. Well unless the repeating floods in Eastern Washington during the ice age count.

I have wondered if any supporters of the flood idea have considered whether or even this stealthy flood would not leave discernable traces. Has any skeptic specified what should be found. (I realize that abrupt disruption of human and animal distribution and history would be expected and is not found.)

[_Bond...James Bond]

I really do think that the global warming discussion deserves its own thread ... Even though it is off-topic for the forum, I'm highly interested in what people have to say about it.

Moderator Note: Down in the Off Topic Section there have been quite a few global warming arguments.....so feel free to go down there and argue global warming till your red in the face guys-Bond

[_Canucklehead]

I really do think that the global warming discussion deserves its own thread ... Even though it is off-topic for the forum, I'm highly interested in what people have to say about it.

Moderator Note: Down in the Off Topic Section there have been quite a few global warming arguments.....so feel free to go down there and argue global warming till your red in the face guys-Bond

Cool. Thanks, I haven't ventured much into the netherworld of this board yet so I didn't know that existed.

[_Sethbag]

Some folks claim that skepticim about Noah reflects only a disbelief in Gods power. After all if one believes in God does not a person believe God is able. I am perfectly willing to allow God is able in this subject. I believe God can create matter,such as water and could return in to nonbeing. No problem in negotiating the process of the flood. However events that actually happen have resulting effects that continue in the world we live in. There are records of events in the shape and make up of the earth. because believers in the flood realize this fact there is a popularity in the idea of attributing large sedimentary formations on the earth and the fossils contained therein to the flood. I think the mismatch between actual rock formations and this idea is large enough to discard the idea as disproven. Period.

I have not seen any creationist material which actually addresses geology in context of these problems so little discussion is feasable. There is an alternative flood view, that the flood did not involve flowing water leaving any record in the surface of the world we find. That idea has the pleasant advantage of fiting the geological evidence, a complete lack of any trace of a Noah flood. Well unless the repeating floods in Eastern Washington during the ice age count.

I have wondered if any supporters of the flood idea have considered whether or even this stealthy flood would not leave discernable traces. Has any skeptic specified what should be found. (I realize that abrupt disruption of human and animal distribution and history would be expected and is not found.)

This entire post is basically a restatement of the proposition that God is a big jackass, for making a global, catastrophic flood happen and wiping everyone but Noah and his family out, but then going around cleaning up all the evidence so that it looks like the Flood never really happened, and actually planting fake evidence to make it look like the earth actually had a different history (ie: a history without the flood).

Now the question is, why would someone believe that God the Jackass who would do such a thing? If God exists, and God created us, and God intended for us to develop rational, critical thinking, the scientific method, etc., then why would he intentionally dick us all over by presenting us with evidence that is reasonably construed to contradict the Flood, but then requiring "faith" to believe in the Flood despite this evidence? Or is the answer, as someone here jokingly suggested, that rational, critical thinking are actually tools of Satan to lead us astray?