U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

Debate about climate change = racism

I don't even..

I don't even see what you are talking about.

Backread.

I did.

Just quote it or something lol.

No.

Scale means something and you can't use human perception to describe celestial bodies or geological scale events. You might as well be worshiping them as deities once you go down that path.

Careful dude they might complain to Aelius when they can't win. He's been known to step in on their behalf.

Careful with that name. In time, you could develop a tumor.

I was going to avoid it as it's just siderail, but that is rather out there.

How is theism getting dragged into a climate change thread over and over? I DON'T SEE THE CONNECTION.

You made some good points about the ocean garbage mass, but this theistic stuff is a real stretch.

EDIT: It's not just you doing this either, but many other posters as well.

It rather easy when you study the behavior of AGW supporters. Their belief relies solely on the data being irrefutable even though it's very easy to disprove. Their dogma doesn't allow them to enter a conversation in which you don't already believe.

How is that not theistic?

They claim science, but don't actually adhere to any scientific method.

Do it then?

They are a strong believer in junk science actually.

Better not tell them that, they would get furious....

By what criteria are you labeling it junk science? Show your work.

All you are doing is making vague comparisons. Not all theist are as bull headed or close minded as you might think and to use that as a basis to compare the 2 groups really doesn't help your case. Really you could have said all that without trying to drag religion bait into this. The 2 are not related.

So far I have only seen 2 cases of hard evidence.
This is getting boring. I was hoping to gain new insight, not argue over weird tangents that don't even have anything to add other than shaming and belittling.

No.

You were the one that brought weird Gia theory concepts into this by comparing a planet to a living organism. That is very illogical as planets are not organisms. You think of them as such because your human and humans naturally perceive the world around them in such ways. Understanding science and physics requires you to step outside of that human limitation and see things for what they really are and not what you wish them to be.

Now if you can't step outside of that, then it is not possible to have a logical conversation with you.

Here is your relevant quotes





All of these statements are attributing human and organic properties to a non-human non-organic object. In doing so you have deified the planet and are treating it as an object of worship rather that what it really is, a huge space rock infested with life.

Now this space rock is very near and dear to my heart, I rather like living on it and would really wish to continue to do so. But my affection for this rock doesn't alter the rock's intrinsic properties. No matter how much we try to think otherwise, we can not will / wish something into existence or alter it's intrinsic properties.

Learn that lesson and you will have taken your first real step to understanding the universe.

I don't even know what the hell "gia" is.
So again. No. I didn't bring that into the discussion.

Understanding that each living thing plays its role in the larger picture is not hard to understand. The harmony of each living thing doing it's part is not much different than a body with its many parts. This is no mysticism. This is simple fact. If some other wacknut said the same thing or something similar, don't add them to me. Thanks.

You made so much sense earlier and made so many good points backed up with proof, but now you're have only making assumptions that aren't backed up by any proof. If you can show me that pollution doesn't matter and that we can just go nuts polluting on like we have been and that it won't actually hurt the climate/planet then I'll digress.

I spelled it wrong, Gaia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

From the greek god of nature, Gaia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29

It's quite literally what you wrote and is a borderline quack theory. It takes hard science and then distorts it to meet a very unscientific definition of life. In essence it's trying to argue that the planet Earth is a life form and it's supporters frequently use emotional arguments like you have done. It's a pseudo-religion at it's core though over time they have modified it sufficiently that it's concepts of inter-dependency within a biosphere are acceptable in life sciences. Physics, Cosmology and Astrophysics disagree with it heavily.

Here is a prime example of an emotional argument


At no point in time did I ever state anything you are argueing against in relation to pollution. In fact I have stated that I view Global Warming theology and environmental pollution as two separate issues. As an environmental conservationist I deeply believe in keeping our environment clean while still advocating for the advancement of the human race. Pollution is inevitable since we learned to make fire, no pollution, by definition, means we are living in stone age or earlier conditions. This is why I am of the belief that if some pollution is inevitable, we should derive maximum benefit from it as a species. Thus your above statement makes no sense.

Now as to why we are saying your using religion. It's because your arguments are based on faith and what you want to believe instead of actual hard reality, that is theology. Frequently those coincide in day to day life, especially in the primitive environment we came from. There is a very human desire to define and prescribe human traits to Earth and everything we observe, which is why every ancient civilization had some form of nature worship, even though they were not in contact with each other. What you posted is nothing but a modernized version of these ancient religions.

I'm beginning to think your science teachers taught you Gaia theory without you knowing about it. That is no different then a religious school teaching that Genesis is to be taken literally and that the earth is 5000 years old.

It's not a theory. It's a comparison of factual observation of interactions and outcomes between varying elements. Or what some people call "science".

Again. Don't link wacknuts to me just because they said something similar. I don't know anything about those people or their weird deities and doctrines. But hey, thanks for the random cool story (it's a little off topic though)

My mistake, that was Chaosx.
I apologize for that.

I was reading several post and got them mixed up later into my editing.

To understand why the Gaia theory is pure quackery you have to understand how life forms and evolves. The Earth doesn't sit there and think to itself "Hey I want to make life, let me start self organizing proteins and amino acids". That would be prescribing human traits to a non-human object. Instead the Earth just rotates around in space and cosmic radiation, meteor impacts and other events just happen. Through each of these events there is a probability that the right chemical conditions will form that cause amino acids and proteins to start forming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Have this happen often enough and eventually you get single celled organisms with very basic RNA.

The bad news is that this process takes a very long time, about a billion and a half years, and had many starts and do-overs. The good news is that since this is such a basic form of life, it's fairly resilient to many of the conditions that would wipe out more complex forms.

That is the source of all life. As it developed other "things" happened and that life adapted to those conditions, not by some great will of a planetary deity, but because the life that didn't adapt ceased to exist. Now multiply that process a few million times over again with a few mass extinctions forcing life to adapt rapidly, and you get to complex life forms that breath and have digestive tracks.
None of this is by the will of "Earth", there is no entity, singular or hive, that is driving this process. It's a natural one, as natural as gravity, radiative energy or nuclear interactions.

In in effect, absolutely none of our current world is a result of "balance" or some focused effort. It's purely coincidental. The current biosphere only exists because previous events made it exist, that could change tomorrow, next year, next century, or a million years from now. And when that change comes, and its a mathematical certainty it will, life will again adapt and a new biosphere will have been created. Not because the will of some unseen "Earth Deity" decided, but because the life that didn't change and adapt would of been killed off.

Or to use your language, the Planet Murders all those who don't evolve.

If you speak like a wacknut you are therefor a wacknut. You are currently speaking as a wacknut and espousing wacknut beliefs. Most of what you've said has more in common with paganism then science.

Gaia Theory is not science, it was the attempt at revisiting old religious beliefs in a way that sounds scientific. Scientology also does this.

Instead of saying "Earth is Goddess we need to worship" it says "All the life on a planet is a single entity we need to respect, honor and have faith in". They simply removed the word "worship" but keep the same actions associated with it. This way it becomes palatable to left leaning liberals since while also being appealing to the human desire to believe in something greater then us. Instead of some old white sky god willing to smite those who don't follow his laws we have an earth mother gestalt god who will similarly smite those not following her laws, so we better be careful not to piss her off.

What in the living ***? Endoq is referring very loosely to the basic concept of ecology (that organisms are inextricably linked to their environment) and Saevel is going on about Gaia theory. I guess anything to distract from the fact that the denial logic is completely untenable.

I can't fathom what it takes to deny the simple fact that action = reaction. Changing the planet is changing the climate, the climate it's self is proof and if you need more proof look at the ecology around you. The natural process that some of you are claiming to be the culprit is a slow process. The one we are experiencing now is happening rapidly and it's due to the rapidly changing planet at our own hands. I can literally see the car exhaust in the air with my own eyes and I don't even need to be near a city to see this. No volcano on Earth is spewing anything near to the amount of chemicals we are putting into the air. Also you have to consider the kind of gas being put out there. Volcanic gas is not the same as burning oil. I was attempting to show the links here but whatever/gia/religion/racism/OK

Even Pleebo can't stop me from loving this thread right now. Good times.

Look at this document proving everything.

Let's school someone about something completely unrelated to look informed.

Imma teach you all how to bake a cake typical of my region, that'll prove climate change.

Um... OK... so... where is this cake you promised?

Speaking of schooling someone-- the science of it comes down to linking 3 major points:
1) Human activity causing more than normal amounts of carbon dioxide and other notable gases to enter the atmosphere
2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 levels causing irregular atmospheric conditions (warming), altering weather patterns (climate change)
3) The resulting damage from the changes to climates and the atmosphere

So here's some links to Nature (a world-renowned, heavily vetted scientific journal), though unfortunately all I can pull up are abstracts. Full peer-reviewed scholarly articles regularly require a fee to access, though I doubt any of you would read through an entire article. I can dig up more, and from other sources if this doesn't satisfy anyone.

• Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years

• Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide

• CO2 emissions from forest loss

• Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model

• A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems

• Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change

• Extinction risk from climate change

• Ecological responses to recent climate change

• Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise

Now, for those of you denying climate change, global warming, and whether our species has any responsibility in that-- I think there are 3 main issues that need addressing:

1) Media representation of the science is regularly embellished, misconstrued, or otherwise not credible. If the data isn't coming from a peer-reviewed scholarly source, you might want to look elsewhere. Perfect example: That whole "the bees are dying!" thing, even though they're definitely not.

2) For whatever reason, you are doubting the credibility of the science itself when it's presented objectively after being critically examined. I can only assume that either you don't know where to find this data (completely understandable; try Google Scholar), you don't understand said data (also understandable), or that you just plain refuse to acknowledge it (making you the stubborn idiot running on faith). Being skeptical of projections is sensible, but you sound pretty dumb when you're arguing points already established by basically the entire scientific community without even reading/understanding said points.

3) The supposed scheme to profit from greener technologies. You'd be naive to think that there aren't people on both sides of this that don't stand to gain or lose something financially. This is probably the place where there's the most discussion to be had due to the complex layers of economics that are tied into the politics and the sciences (environmental and engineering). I think this also ties in to whether or not you believe that our industriousness as a species is getting out of hand. This is a bit much for a mere bullet point though, so I'd rather read your responses because I wouldn't know where to begin.