by punkofnice 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
“Or has the World gone totally stupid?“
In my later years, I often think so... maybe that is a simplistic view but all I can conclude. The modern world I do not understand. I an often at odds with it all and, frankly I am glad that I am nearer to the end of life and have no offspring to worry about.
BB -maybe that is a simplistic view
I'm inclined to think a simplistic view is closer to the truth than conspiracy theories.
Hello punkofnice, I noticed you said "10 renowned scientists say a thing is 'so'. Another 10 renowned scientists say it 'isn't so'. Who do you believe?" I believe that the climate scientists who say human caused climate change is real are correct in saying such. I believe that because of the following.
The information I read regarding the percentage of climate scientists who are convinced that human caused climate change is real is not anything like 50% pro and 50% con. It is 97% (or more) of them being convinced it is real. It is thus not at all a hard decision for me to make as to whether I should believe the view of the nay saying climate scientists instead of the scientists who say it is real. Furthermore, I am persuaded by the evidence and reasoning which I have read and listened to by scientists who are convinced that climate change is real and that is being caused by human activity.
For evidence of the very high percentage of climate scientists who are convinced that human caused climate is for real consider the following at https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ .
"Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world."Consider also that https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change says the following regarding those who are experts about climate change.
"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."Why should either of us disbelieve that the virtually unanimous view of climate scientists, ones who published peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change? It is not anything like deciding between 10 renowned scientists on side of the issue versus 10 renowned scientists on the opposite of the issue. Yet sadly (from my point of view) the article says the following is the case among the general public, despite the now virtually unanimous view of climate scientists.
"In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper."
Perhaps since NASA and Cornell University are located in the USA, and since you are in the UK, you don't trust what they said in the words I quoted above. Very well, consider what ESA (European Space Agency) says at https://climate.esa.int/en/ . There it says "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate is unequivocal (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2013)". Furthermore, at https://climate.esa.int/en/evidence/what-is-climate-and-climate-change/ it says the following.
'Over the last 800,000 years, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have fluctuated in response to glacial and interglacial periods, but have not exceeded 300 ppm. In the last century, however, due to industrialisation and fossil fuel combustion, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased at an unprecedented rate, and now exceed 400 ppm.
The Earth's climate is warming due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes in its Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C, that “Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (above pre-industrial levels) in 2017, increasing at around 0.2°C per decade”. The amounts of snow and ice on the planet have diminished, and sea level rise is accelerating (WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate, 2019).'
See also the chart at the chart (at https://climate.esa.int/en/evidence/what-is-climate-and-climate-change/ ) which pertains to the above quoted two paragraphs.
Furthermore,it is not just NASA and ESA which are convinced that climate change is a problem. Numerous member nations of the United Nations also recognize it. Notice that the above article of ESA also says the following. "To tackle climate change, countries have agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system."
I notice you also said the following. "I was taught Evolution. Is that true? Should they have taught Creation? Islam?" My answer is that Evolution is true. I thought you also believe in evolution since I thought you are now an atheist (or agnostic), but perhaps I was mistaken by having that idea about you.
Both cosmological evolution and biological evolution (including human evolution) happened. Creation (in the since of Creationism) should not be taught in a science class in a secular school, except that it is appropriate that make a brief description of it in a science textbook so that the evolution can be compared to it. I have some secular science textbooks on biology and historical geology which do such. Islam, or any other religion, should not be taught in a science class in a secular school except as part of course in sociology (in which various religions are compared) and as part of a course of social anthropology (in a segment about comparative religion). I have secular college textbooks which do so. Religion can also be taught in passing in history courses as it relates the historical events.
I notice you said the following. "Now. what are your thoughts on Evolution being taught at my school back in the 1970's?" I believe that was a good thing. Evolution was taught in the textbook of a required 1 quarter (one fourth of one school year) biology course in my high school in the US when I took the course in the early 1980s (but at the end of the course I got the impression that by biology teacher believed in creationism). I wish I had been permitted to take that textbook home to study it at home, because if I had I might would believed in evolution back then and thus might not would have got baptized. [I got baptized about 1 year after I took the course - my physics teacher and my chemistry made a joint statement to a science class of mine saying that they determined that evolution is false.]
I plan to discuss some of your other comments after Thursday, since I will have much more free time from Friday through Sunday (since I don't work on those days). Right now it is well past my bed time and I need to get some sleep before i go to work tomorrow.
Oi Dissy. Thanks for your reply. We shall agree to half disagree if you catch my drift.
I believe that the climate scientists who say
Ooooh. that's surely a bit of 'confirmation bias' innit? I don't trust them. you can if you want. They can spew out what ever word salad they like. After 50 years of the WBT$ telling me 'truth(tm)' I think it's really mega naïve to believe what some geezer in a lab coat on the green payroll says.
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
So says someone. Doesn't mean it's true. Even if they agree why can't their echo chamber be wrong? One name Al Gore, some Yanky bigwig. His predictions were about as accurate as WBT$'s Armageddon(tm).
It just sounds like the same old spin to me.
Having said that, people could do better for the environment. But how are you going to tell China or India that? If we could have a border around the UK that went into the sky so that the pollution from other countries didn't penetrate us, that'd be grand.
As for Evolution at school, why would I make a joke about it? Is Evolution true? I'm inclined to think so. Do I care? No. Because it won't make any difference to my daily life. At my age the road is fast running out so in the end it won't matter. I don't believe there is anything after. Just the curtain going down for good. I'm tired of this life TBH. I'm tired of people in authority. I'm bored of all the pointlessness of the tribalism in politics and life.
Right now it is well past my bed time and I need to get some sleep before i go to work tomorrow.
I'm writing this at work before I begin. I can't go on the links because of work's firewall.
Sleep well Dissy, don't work too hard, mate. (As we say here in the UK).
Yeah. Good idea, mate, about you making a new thread discussing it. If that's what you meant.
Correction: Where I said "... my physics teacher and my chemistry made..." I meant to say "... my physics teacher and my chemistry teacher made ...".
I trust the consensus, which is that the planet is warming and that human activity is playing a part. I don't think that there is a consensus on many of the details that are used by activists to push for stricter legislation. I have noticed that the same nations that trusted science implicitly when it came to COVID have ignored "the science" outright when it comes to climate change.
So I believe that it is happening and that human activity is part of the cause. I don't believe that we have X number of years to stall or reverse the trend in order to avoid an unstoppable feedback loop that will be catastrophic to mankind. When China and India (and however many more nations are currently paying it little heed) lead the way in CO2 mitigation, then I'll believe those latter claims.
Dissy - my physics teacher and my chemistry made
I missed that. That's rather amusing. A tad Frankensteinian
There may be no stopping whatever is happening… I would say we are heading for some Altered Carbon or Blade Runner world.
That being said, I can give you a real world, current example of the differences between having a belief system that’s greater than yourself and having none.
Read, or if you prefer, listen to Tolkien’s LOTR. Then try to watch the dumpster fire that is the Rings Of Prime, err.. Power..
Tolkien was a religious man, and he created a rich fantasy world with very deep moral and philosophical issues that has sold almost as many copies as the Bible..
Rings Of Prime…. Two twats arguing about who has seen more and a story that makes Fraggle Rock look like Citizen Kane.
DD
Hello punkofnice. In an earlier post when I asked if you disbelieve what you were taught in our school courses (especially science courses) it was for multiple reasons. The following are the reasons.
(1) I was wondering if like me you accepted as true everything (or virtually everything) you were taught in those courses.
(2)
When I took the courses I saw no reason to doubt or disbelieve anything
which was taught in them, with one exception. The one exception is that
sadly because of the WT's influence I had high uncertainty about
whether the high school biology textbook was correct in saying that
biological evolution is true. (I wish that exception had not existed in
my mind.) I believed everything the physics books, the chemistry books,
the history books, the electronics books, the health and physical
fitness books, the personal finance (or economics) book, the world
history book [except about human evolution in prehistory, due to the
WT's influence], the USA history books, and the other textbooks said. I
did not know of any information which contradicted what they said (other
than regarding evolution).
(3) What I was taught in the
various textbooks was what was considered established facts and I was in
school to learn facts and well supported theories and to become
educated. I wanted to grow in knowledge and learn truths and I thought a
great way to do such was by studying books, including textbooks. I also
wanted to get very good grades in school.
(4) Today the widespread consensus (that is agreement) of climate scientists that human caused climate change is now taking place is now scientifically an established fact. That established fact is now taught in physical geology textbooks. For example see https://opentextbc.ca/geology/part/chapter-19-climate-change/ which part of chapter in a college geology textbook. It says the following.
"A significant part of this chapter is about the natural processes of climate change and how they work. It’s critically important to be aware of those natural climate change processes if we want to understand anthropogenic climate change. First, this awareness helps us to understand why our activities are causing the present-day climate to change, and second, it allows us to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic processes in the climate record of the past 250 years." [The boldface in that quote is mine.]
See also https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/19-1-what-makes-the-climate-change/ which says the following.
"There are two parts to climate change, the first one is known as climate forcing, which is when conditions change to give the climate a little nudge in one direction or the other. The second part of climate change, and the one that typically does most of the work, is what we call a feedback. When a climate forcing changes the climate a little, a whole series of environmental changes take place, many of which either exaggerate the initial change (positive feedbacks), or suppress the change (negative feedbacks).
An example of a climate-forcing mechanism is the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere that results from our use of fossil fuels. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and leads to climate warming. Warming changes vegetation patterns; contributes to the melting of snow, ice, and permafrost; causes sea level to rise; reduces the solubility of CO2 in sea water; and has a number of other minor effects. Most of these changes contribute to more warming. Melting of permafrost, for example, is a strong positive feedback because frozen soil contains trapped organic matter that is converted to CO2 and methane (CH4) when the soil thaws. Both these gases accumulate in the atmosphere and add to the warming effect. On the other hand, if warming causes more vegetation growth, that vegetation should absorb CO2, thus reducing the warming effect, which would be a negative feedback. Under our current conditions — a planet that still has lots of glacial ice and permafrost — most of the feedbacks that result from a warming climate are positive feedbacks and so the climate changes that we cause get naturally amplified by natural processes." [The boldface in the last sentence of the quote is mine.]For another college geology textbook source see https://opengeology.org/textbook/15-global-climate-change/ and note what it says in chapter 15 under the section called "15.4 Anthropogenic Causes of Climate Change". It says in part the following.
"As shown in the previous section, prehistoric climate changes occur slowly over many millions of years. The climate changes observed today are rapid and largely human caused. ...
By the end of the 1900s and into the early 2000s, scientists solidified the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change when evidence from thousands of ground-based studies and continuous land and ocean satellite measurements mounted, revealing the expected temperature increase. The Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is that humans are causing most of the current climate changes by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. ...
The overwhelming majority of climate studies indicate that human activity is causing rapid changes to the climate, which will cause severe environmental damage. There is strong scientific consensus on the issue. Studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming is caused from human activities. There is no alternative explanation for the observed link between human-produced greenhouse gas emissions and changing modern climate. Most leading scientific organizations endorse this position, including the U.S. National Academy of Science, which was established in 1863 by an act of Congress under President Lincoln. Congress charged the National Academy of Science “with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” Therefore, the National Academy of Science is the leading authority when it comes to policy advice related to scientific issues.
One way we know that the increased greenhouse gas emissions are from human activities is with isotopic fingerprints. For example, fossil fuels, representing plants that lived millions of years ago, have a stable carbon-13 to carbon-12 (13C/12C) ratio that is different from today’s atmospheric stable-carbon ratio (radioactive 14C is unstable). Isotopic carbon signatures have been used to identify anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere since the 1980s. Isotopic records from the Antarctic Ice Sheet show stable isotopic signatures from ~1000 AD to ~1800 AD and a steady isotopic signature gradually changing since 1800, followed by a more rapid change after 1950 as burning of fossil fuels dilutes the CO2 in the atmosphere. These changes show the atmosphere as having a carbon isotopic signature increasingly more similar to that of fossil fuels.
... Unfortunately, despite scientific consensus, efforts to mitigate climate change require political action. Despite growing climate change concern, mitigation efforts, legislation, and international agreements have reduced emissions in some places, yet the less developed world’s continual economic growth has increased global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the years 2000 to 2010 saw the largest increases since 1970."
