Science isn't about certainty

[Lynn7]

Science isn't about certainty is the last sentence of this article about global warming. I agree with it. And it is interesting how documentaries can be so convincing and yet edited in a way that supports one point convincingly and then another point of view equally convincingly.

I also agree with the statement about we dont' know how many variables there are.

Article (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Science isn't about certainty is the last sentence of this article about global warming. I agree with it. And it is interesting how documentaries can be so convincing and yet edited in a way that supports one point convincingly and then another point of view equally convincingly.

I also agree with the statement about we dont' know how many variables there are.

Article (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm)


Well, it isn't like they should just give up.

[Vong]

I think anyone who denies global warming is helping the terrorists win...

[Badbird]

Yeah. This one guy has it all figured out.

Whatever.

[Thrizzle]

We can try to do something about it and possibly save hundreds of millions from suffering, or we sit back and do nothing and hope global warming isnt man made. Maybe if we pollute less, get better gas mileage, and use less energy it wont help to stop warming...... but at least we tried (and have cleaner air because of it).

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Science isn't about certainty is the last sentence of this article about global warming. I agree with it. And it is interesting how documentaries can be so convincing and yet edited in a way that supports one point convincingly and then another point of view equally convincingly.

I also agree with the statement about we dont' know how many variables there are.

Article (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm)

Of course science isn't about certainty. That's pretty much the whole point. There are only theories in science, no "facts". Science makes your car move, thought. It provides the electricity in your house. It created the very computer you are using right now.

The article was accurate in it's position that politicians try to distort scientific information to fit whatever political agenda they have. But since I'm taking a guess that this is one of your "global warming isn't really happening" posts, I would like to make a point:

There are COUNTLESS of benefits in trying to reduce pollution, regardless of whether global warming is man made or not. So trying to argue that pollution is somehow good and we shouldn't do our best to stop it, is retarded. There are no good side-effects to pollution, there are only bad ones. So a person and a society who think rationally realize that POLLUTION = BAD. And they try their best to decrease it.

One nasty side-effect is something that affects all of us: It's health risk. And yes, this has been proven again and again. If you doubt it, go and breathe the stuff your car pushes out. Maybe that little test will convince you.

[The Postmaster General]

Well, the biggest thing that gets me about these people is that they imply we should just sit back and whatever happens - whatever, that's the way it is, and we should do nothing about it. They preach survival of the fittest and stuff --- well, predicting an ice age or whatever is something we are able to do, and if we all die from an ice age because we didn't try to do something - anything... That wouldn't be survival.

The way these people talk - Oh, this happened before, it doesn't mean anything --- I mean, to me it is like not getting a vaccine because "People have always died from disease."

[Brando @$$ Fat]

When the home I grew up in is entirely underwater and I have to move somewhere far away I'm going to kick this guy's ass as well as all of the fucking lawmakers who have denied the existence of global warming. Any scientist who debates its existence is a shitty scientist who loves sucking elephant cock

[electriclite]

Portland Oregon is considered one of the greenest cities in the country. It employs the latest technology in reducing pollutants, recycling energy, utilizing local farms in order to produce higher quality foods and reducing the use of fossil fuels to transport the food as well as the cost of the food.

All these implements have helped save the city MILLIONS of dollars in energy.

If there is ANYTHING the American people respond to, its keeping their money.


So whether global warming is a certainty or not, it is a fact that implementing methods to prevent it is beneficial to regular people's wallets.

[Badbird]

I have come to the conclusion that those people who are the biggest crittics of science know the least about it.

[Kevin Lockard]

What gets me about people who talk about global warming are the ones who say "I'll be dead by the time it happens, therefore, not my problem."

These people are pretty worthy of a smack upside the head.

[Lynn7]

Everyone agrees that we should not dump sewage into waterways and that we should reduce air pollution and find ways to conserve. But the global warming people want everyone to beleive that the end of the world is near unless we take drastic actions. It's all a matter of degree. Everyone is probably willing to give up a little something but none but the people on the fringe will obey harsh restrictions. And as I've said before, most of the people in that fringe aren't even willing to give up their comforts either when push comes to shove (e.g. Gore, Kennedy etc).

But of course it feels good to rally together and talk about the problem and how grand it will be if everyone could only come together in unison to save the earth. I just know from life's experience that it's not going to happen. If global warming is real we are all going down!

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But the global warming people want everyone to beleive that the end of the world is near unless we take drastic actions.

If global warming is real we are all going down!

The difference between secularists and Christians is that secularists actually want to prevent the end of the world.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20828_1.html

[EVILxxx]

Secularism is not the antonym of Christianity. You can be both.

[Thrizzle]

I was worried that the term would start a semantic debate, so i looked at the definition beforehand it included the definitions: secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship and Religious skepticism or indifference.

[EVILxxx]

Right so disregarding religion in debates dealing with politics and social issues is secularism. If you want your religion to be absolutely personal you would probably also be a secularist.

Secularism, in one sense, asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.

Secularism, in another sense, refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on what it considers to be evidence and fact rather than religious influence. Where religious based doctrines directly refer to absolute truth or divine law, secular law is based upon reasonableness which was developed during the age of enlightenment. Secularists believe that all activities falling outside of the private sphere should be secular, i.e. not religious.

[Vong]

The most important aspect of secularism is the seperation between church and state. The countries population is free to believe whatever it wants and the laws, codes and values of the country do not reflect in any way to a particular faith.

It's not semantics...

[Thrizzle]

You can be a secularist and be Christian and also want the rapture to occur, but that's not what i meant by it. I was referring to people who are indifferent to those religious beliefs and so that influence on policy would be out of the question. It's my belief that ultimately ones religion will affect policy; its influence is inevitable.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The difference between secularists and Christians is that secularists actually want to prevent the end of the world.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20828_1.html

Are you insinuating that Christians do not want to care for the world because it is going to end anyway? All the Christians I know are responsible people who do not deliberately waste resources or contaminate the earth.

We don't want to prevent Jesus from returning- why would we? We love him. That has nothing to do with whether we care about the Earth or not. And when Jesus returns it will be because the world has reached the point of horrible depravity and his coming will be a good thing.

The Bible said in the last days people will be haters and mockers- lovers of themselves- love will grow cold. Its not like he is returning to ruin a great wonderful state of peaceful existence. .He will be returning to save those who want to be saved from a fate worse than death.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Are you insinuating that Christians do not want to care for the world because it is going to end anyway? All the Christians I know are responsible people who do not deliberately waste resources or contaminate the earth.

We don't want to prevent Jesus from returning- why would we? We love him. That has nothing to do with whether we care about the Earth or not. And when Jesus returns it will be because the world has reached the point of horrible depravity and his coming will be a good thing.

The Bible said in the last days people will be haters and mockers- lovers of themselves- love will grow cold. Its not like he is returning to ruin a great wonderful state of peaceful existence. .He will be returning to save those who want to be saved from a fate worse than death.

Christians do care for the world - they want to help those who seek help, and they want to convert as many people to christianity as they can. But if Jesus were to return during times of horrible depravity and that meant salvation, you're natural inclination would be to let that scenario happen rather than fight it. A Christian who believes in the rapture or afterlife has no incentive to stop global warming or global war, those are signs that the end is near and Jesus is coming.

By trying to prevent global warming and war, you're keeping the peace and preventing Jesus's return and as you said above, you dont want that to happen.

[Vong]

Lynn, if you truly believe that god created the earth, and the earth is beautiful, wouldn't it make sense for everyone, including Christians who for some reason ignore science's logic, to stop polluting the world and be concerned over global warming? Because all of that beauty and god's creation will be destroyed...and by giving humanity "dominion" over the earth I'm sure he didn't want us to fuck it all up, don't you think?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Christians do care for the world - they want to help those who seek help, and they want to convert as many people to christianity as they can. But if Jesus were to return during times of horrible depravity and that meant salvation, you're natural inclination would be to let that scenario happen rather than fight it. A Christian who believes in the rapture or afterlife has no incentive to stop global warming or global war, those are signs that the end is near and Jesus is coming.

By trying to prevent global warming and war, you're keeping the peace and preventing Jesus's return and as you said above, you dont want that to happen.

We donm't get points for converting people you know, lol!

We have incentive to take care of the world cause we don't know when Jesus is coming back so if the world goes to rot and he doesn't return for a while then we would live in rot until that happened. We are not preventing Jesus' return if we prevent global warming. Global warming is not mentioned in the bible. There is going to be some abomination in Jeruselem though. And there will be some cataclysmic events that sound like they have to do with the earth but not global warming stuff.

Does this sound like global warming?

12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"



Nah- the Christians are not going to work against global warming so Jesus can return. Jesus will return whenever he wants to and we have no control over that. The forces of life on this planet are so much bigger than global warming. It has to do with man destroying himself through murder and war. Environmentalism is a distraction from what is really going on around us.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, if you truly believe that god created the earth, and the earth is beautiful, wouldn't it make sense for everyone, including Christians who for some reason ignore science's logic, to stop polluting the world and be concerned over global warming? Because all of that beauty and god's creation will be destroyed...and by giving humanity "dominion" over the earth I'm sure he didn't want us to fuck it all up, don't you think?

Of course! That is what I said in my earlier post. We like things nice too. But global warming is not something everyone believes in. It is something that is getting pushed at us though and it will be interesting to watch the scientests over the years deal with this. As I've said before, if it is really true there is no turning back from it.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It has to do with man destroying himself through murder and war. Environmentalism is a distraction from what is really going on around us.

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people living below the himelayas who depend on glacial water to survive. Glaciers melt, they have no more water.

And if it has to do with man destroying himself through murder and war, why are you so hawkish?

[Lynn7]

That would be horrible if those people lost their water. I just don't see how we can change the Earth from warming if that is what it is doing.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Of course! That is what I said in my earlier post. We like things nice too. But global warming is not something everyone believes in. It is something that is getting pushed at us though and it will be interesting to watch the scientests over the years deal with this. As I've said before, if it is really true there is no turning back from it.

Maybe you should take this a little more seriously. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/14/bush.greenhouse.gases.ap/index.html)

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That would be horrible if those people lost their water. I just don't see how we can change the Earth from warming if that is what it is doing.

But we can, and the glaciers melting above India is just the beginning. It will get worse unless we do something.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
But we can, and the glaciers melting above India is just the beginning. It will get worse unless we do something.

I don't think there is any way to convince Lynn of global warming....the only way she'll listen is if the news comes from a burning bush...

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Vong
I don't think there is any way to convince Lynn of global warming....the only way she'll listen is if the news comes from a burning bush...

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/f/f2/Bush_Burning.jpg/180px-Bush_Burning.jpg

:confused:

[jeo4]

Oh look...another move by the Bush administration to curb greenhouse gases! I guess it is serious after all, huh? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/31/bush.climate.ap/index.html)

[Vong]

I think all the publicity Schwarzenegger is putting out in his battle against emissions is making the rest of the Republicans look bad. No doubt Bush wants to steal some of that thunder...

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
And if it has to do with man destroying himself through murder and war, why are you so hawkish?

That's what's so funny: Lynn insists that no matter how badly the war turns out, we simply have to stay there until the end of time if need be, because Bush's brainchild finally being shown in the history books as a failure, including insuring thousand more of our and there people die along with untold trillions of dollars being wasted, because a victory for a group of people who kill a few hundred people a year "would embolden teh terorists and trigger the inevitable collapse of society."

But when the real apocalypse is starting to form? "Too late, let's just give up. But make sure to keep the war going until our collective lights are snuffed out. It's important to win, for some reasons."

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by jeo4
Oh look...another move by the Bush administration to curb greenhouse gases! I guess it is serious after all, huh? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/31/bush.climate.ap/index.html)

This is right after he talked about sanctions against Darfur and tripling funding to find a cure for AIDS. I don't think Bush was visited by three ghosts overnight, I think he's starting to realize that he's gambled his entire legacy over Iraq. I say at this point Congress should just smile and nod over such proposals. I mean, I know Bush has been a very lousy president, but something good has to come out of his eight years in office that's long term. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
That's what's so funny: Lynn insists that no matter how badly the war turns out, we simply have to stay there until the end of time if need be, because Bush's brainchild finally being shown in the history books as a failure, including insuring thousand more of our and there people die along with untold trillions of dollars being wasted, because a victory for a group of people who kill a few hundred people a year "would embolden teh terorists and trigger the inevitable collapse of society."

But when the real apocalypse is starting to form? "Too late, let's just give up. But make sure to keep the war going until our collective lights are snuffed out. It's important to win, for some reasons."


Again, Hussein agreed to sanctions. He began to disobey them, threw out the inspectors. make a mockery of us etc for years! Then after 9-11 he had to be dealt with- follow the sanctions or we will remove you as we would have done 10 years earlier if you hadn't agreed to the sanctions. He chose to say no so out he had to go!

Then what? We remove him and leave and let the country crumble? That would've been real nice of us. If Pres. Bush had done that he would have been responsible for millions of innocent deaths and the country could've been taken over by anyone. Dems can criticize Bush all they want cause they know that anything that happens he would get blamed for. They don't really care about the Iraqi people at all since they know the people will be taken over by horrible radical elements or Iran or Syria as soon as we leave.

If Hussein had been left in despite the fact he disobeyed sanctions and mocked us, we could never demand anything of anyone again. But because of what Bush did, now countries who mock sanctions will always have to wonder what we will do. That is power.

[Vong]

Everytime I see someone complain at Saddam, I think of this picture...

http://static.flickr.com/25/58930236_2f86bff17c.jpg

[Thrizzle]

If we imposed those Iraq sanctions on any other country in the world, they would be less compliant. The fact that Saddamm complied as much as he did was incredible and a testiment to his desire to avoid war. He was a bad guy but that doesnt justify ruining the life of every Iraqi.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If Hussein had been left in despite the fact he disobeyed sanctions and mocked us, we could never demand anything of anyone again.

And that's worse than the end of all human (and potentially animal and plant) life on earth?

Seriously Lynn, the world might likely end and your okay with it, but a republican christian wants a war and you unfaillingly support trying to achieve his retarded quest to bring liberty to a people by occupying them, no matter how many millions of lives and trillions of dollars are lost, till the end of time itself if need be.

I mean, how could having left him there or a pullout now (which would only equal probably a million or so dead) be worse than MOTHERFUCKING ARMAGEDDON!?!

Also, I love how you slander 'dem dems' for being callous towards Iraqis, despite the fact that, by your own reasons and justifications (which you feel is directly in line with the republican party), republicans okay the deaths of thousands of people simply so they could look badass (which failed miserably; nobody feared you, they simply hated your ass more).

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

I can't wait until this doesn't happen.

[Lynn7]

Most things the bible predicted have happened already so it seems to be pretty certain this will too. Hey we can all end up dying scary deaths even without scary Bible prophecies coming true. It happens every day, right? Just look around at the world's genocides and the torture camps etc. At least with God we have hope beyond the horrors of this world. We look forward to a place where everything works right- no fears of global warming and no terrorism, no crime and no sickness. No starvation, or health care deprivation. It's everything atheists hope that will happen in this world but will never get.....

[Thrizzle]

What has the bible predicted that has come true? You know, a lot of Mayan prophecies have come true, and they predicted the end of the world would come in 2012.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Vong
Everytime I see someone complain at Saddam, I think of this picture...

http://static.flickr.com/25/58930236_2f86bff17c.jpg

Every time see this picture...





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG/260px-Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG

I think of this picture.

[Vong]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Every time see this picture...





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG/260px-Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG

I think of this picture.

That's the Iranian hostage crisis....what does that have to do with Saddam?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Vong
That's the Iranian hostage crisis....what does that have to do with Saddam?

The decision to side with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war had much to do with our animosity towards Iran and our sorted history with them. We wanted to punish Iran so we allied with Saddam. Not to say we were necessarily right on all accounts but we wanted some payback.

[Vong]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The decision to side with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war had much to do with our animosity towards Iran and our sorted history with them. We wanted to punish Iran so we allied with Saddam. Not to say we were necessarily right on all accounts but we wanted some payback.

The US technically didn't side with Iraq. They publicly supported Iraq, but secretly supported Iran with arms. Helping both sides to create an equally grounded war and an unstable Persian Gulf.

The blame for all of this can be placed on U.S. foreign policy but, of course, you won't accept that. :rolleyes:

[EVILxxx]

The blame for all of what? The Iran/Iraq war? Surely you jest. I could have sworn the root causes were a result of border disputes (Khuzestan) and who would become the head honcho in the Middle East. The United States is not the bogey man even though you seem to think it is.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The blame for all of what? The Iran/Iraq war? Surely you jest. I could have sworn the majority was a result of border disputes and who would become the head honcho in the Middle East. The United States is not the bogey man even though you seem to think it is.



Yeah, the only thing I'd blame the U.S. for in that whole dispute was our arming of Iraq. I don't think it was as much of a conspiracy as Vong thinks it was. Besides, we were too busy supporting genocide in South America to get too involved in that dispute.

[Vong]

Now that I think about it, it isn't just the U.S.'s fault for creating the Iran we know today. It was also Britains.

In 1950's, Iranian PM Mossadeq attempted to persuade the British government to permit a 50/50 share on the oil profits. At that time, Britain had a huge stake in Middle Eastern oil and barely anything was given to Iran. An increase of share in oil profits was needed to save the economic turmoil Iran was facing. When Britain rejected the request, Mossadeq nationalized the oil. In response, Britain placed an embargo against Iran limiting all shippments of equipment, supplies and food to the struggling country. Mossadeq kept his country going by issuing government bonds. Britain attempted to create a coup against Mossadeq, but it failed. So, they went to the US for help and in return for it, Britain would share of the oil profits. In 1953, a successful coup was made and Mossadeq was taken out of power. In his place, the monarchy was put in power. A brutal regime supported by both the British and the US.

This regime went on for 26 years. Up until the Iranian revolution. Not much before the revolution, we see a militant religious group, lead by Khomeini, push for Islamic rule and an end to Western (and more specifically US) influence. Reza Shah was a close ally with the US, and had help from over 60,000 foreign technicians and military advisers. This relationship helped grow the religious fundmantalism within the country.

At the same time, Iran and Iraq were having issues with land and water disputes. The river basin of Shatt al-Arab had been a contested river between Iraq (and former Ottoman empire) and Iran (former Persian) for hundreds of years. Iran did not want to pay Iraq taxes for using the waterway, since Iraq held the majority of the river as well as the deepest part of it. Iran wanted to use Thalweg to solve their problem, but Iraq rejected it. In 1975 though, Iraq and Saddam Hussein was forced to sign an accord with Iran getting a share in the waterway. This angered Saddam.

When the revolution took place, Saddam took advantage of the situation to get back what was taken from him and invaded Iran. Thus starting the Iran-Iraq war.

Little history lesson for you. ;)

[littleupstart]

Add all of this together, and we should all come to the logical conclusion that if everyone quits using so much oil and other fossil fuels, then it would not only curb global warming, but terrorism as well! Seems pretty simple, huh?