Climate Change Dilemma

[DV56]

One or two years of cooler temperatures does not, in and of itself invalidate the notion that the globe is getting warmer. The climate is a complex system and greenhouse gasses are but one factor to take into account. For example 2008 and 2009 were part of an extraordinarily long solar minimum, during which the Sun actually emitted less energy than normal.

Absolutely.

No offense, but again, I see a lot of hash being made of a few minor pieces of data. The overwhelming scientific consensus is pretty firmly in the global warming camp.

Now you’re absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact…they are less than a one third minority. Of course the media does not report the other two thirds. Check out the NGIPCC. Or perhaps www.icecap.us

And yes, compared to natural sources, man made sources are pretty small, but when you add even a small imbalance into a balanced system, over time the system is going to get out of balance.

Ridiculous! Totally unscientific and hogwash. I can’t say anymore on that.

Bill

May I ask what the #1 greenhouse gas is?

 

[WFS5801]

Two thoughts.

1. For whatever reason, CO2 levels, Methane Levels, and NO levels are all significantly higher now than they were 200 years ago. Now maybe most of it is natural processes, or maybe it might be that a small excess over time can add up to a lot.

As the Earth warms (we’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age – unless we’re now heading back into another as some think) CO2 is released from the oceans. Huge amounts of CO2 – much more than men could dream of emitting. When the Earth cools, the CO2 returns to the oceans. A natural cycle. Yearly variations in the amount of CO2 emitted by rotting vegetation and the ocean alone (the variation, not the total) easily swamps man’s yearly contributions. This “small excess” man emits somehow causing global warming is a “just so” story – with absolutely no basis in scientific fact.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

There is no such thing as a steady state.

So,
Is there no unchanging (predictable) Truth,
Which all people agree on?

Are you davidv under a different username?

 

[DV56]

So,
Is there no unchanging (predictable) Truth,
Which all people agree on?

Are you davidv under a different username?

NO I am not. If the truth is the truth, then how does it change? The truth is that NGIPCC is in total disagreement with the IPCC. But the IPCC has NO credibility any longer. Actually, they never had any. Have you checked out the suggested websites?

2+2=4. That is truth. If someone proves otherwise, then it isn’t the truth and never was.

I guess one of my difficulties is understanding how some people outside of the profession can just ignore those in the profession. Less than 1/3 of all scientists believe in AGW. I’ll admit that about 1/3 don’t see proof either way and the other third (like me) see how foolish the AGW proponents are.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

So,

Is there no unchanging (predictable) Truth,
Which all people agree on?

So,
You believe that you are changeable truth?

If the truth is the truth, then how does it change?

So,
The truth can change?

2+2=4. That is truth. If someone proves otherwise, then it isn’t the truth and never was.

So,
We can prove something other than 2+2=4?

The truth is that NGIPCC is in total disagreement with the IPCC.

So,
The truth is disagreement?

So,
Regarding the Climate Change debate,
There should be unending disagreement and conflict?

 

[DV56]

So,
You believe that you are changeable truth?

So,
The truth can change?

So,
We can prove something other than 2+2=4?

So,
The truth is disagreement?

So,
Regarding the Climate Change debate,
There should be unending disagreement and conflict?

I wish I could have followed your post.

No, we cannot change the fact that 2+2=4. That is truth. Indisputable. Can never change. The truth can NEVER change. That is my point. I’m not sure how you thought I was saying the truth can change.

AGW is from from truth. It is highly refutable. Did you check the web sites I posted? Or have you already decided.

For me, I have decided that AGW is a farce. Of course, having been in the science for over 30 years means nothing. Right?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Did you check the web sites I posted? Or have you already decided.

I lack certainty regarding this science,
But I am open to persuasion.

As I stated in the OP,
My priority is it’s morality.

The truth can NEVER change.

And,
You believe that truth can do anything?

So,
You believe that you are changeable truth?

Do you believe that you are changeable truth?

So,
Regarding the Climate Change debate,
There should be unending disagreement and conflict?

Unending competition and conflict
Seem to drive the free market,
So,
Regarding the area of the free market,
Should there be unending disagreement and conflict?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I lack certainty regarding this science,
But I am open to persuasion.

As I stated in the OP,
My priority is it’s morality.

And,
You believe that truth can do anything?

Do you believe that you are changeable truth?

Unending competition and conflict
Seem to drive the free market,
So,
Regarding the area of the free market,
Should there be unending disagreement and conflict?

Pardon me for butting in with only a partial half thought to toss around for now.

There may not be any firm answers to what you seek. All I could come up with was knowledge/culpability/ability/

Actions taken that can be, and in so doing making sure one is carefully evaluating if a slight or moderate amount of change in lifestlyle could be gradually adopted and taken the way some view Lent, a way to get closer to God by giving up or doing.

Perhaps this is my overly sleep deprived state talking. I’ve been having trouble sleeping so please be kind in your reply.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Pardon me for butting in with only a partial half thought to toss around for now.

I’m sorry you aren’t sleeping, but,
SJ, I always appreciate you “butting in.”

Regarding the Climate Change debate,

There should be unending disagreement and conflict?

Perhaps this is my overly sleep deprived state talking. I’ve been having trouble sleeping so please be kind in your reply.

I’ll try to follow the Principle of Love (which is kind),
Which is the guiding principle over any disagreement,
Respecting the innate value and dignity of every human being.

There may not be any firm answers to what you seek. All I could come up with was knowledge/culpability/ability/

Let me know if I’m following you.

It is self-evident to all people,
Whether Truth can error or not,
Regardless of people’s ability or knowledge base.

Whether a fetus is a human being or not,
Can’t be proven or disproven,
Because the answer is self-evident,

Knowing (fallible certainty) can be deduced from,
Knowing (infallible certainty) what is self-evident .

Actions taken that can be, and in so doing making sure one is carefully evaluating if a slight or moderate amount of change in lifestlyle could be gradually adopted and taken the way some view Lent, a way to get closer to God by giving up or doing.

I’m sorry, but I’m missing your point.

P.S.
Who is Giordano Bruno?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

It is self-evident to all people,
Whether Truth can error or not,
Regardless of people’s ability or knowledge base.

And,

That which is self-evident,
Is equal in the variety of people,
And naturally leads all people to Unity.

However, deduced views from that which is self-evident,
Are hierarchical, some are less certain than others,
(Some are less reasonable).

Self-evidence is not perception,
Perception can be flawed.

For example,

In Fatima Portugal,
There was the “Miracle of the Sun,”
Spectacular events perceived by thousands.
However, communists perceived that it was “mass hypnosis.”

(Communists believe that mass hypnosis is possible?)

 

[Psychotheosophy]

In Fatima Portugal,
There was the “Miracle of the Sun,”
Spectacular events perceived by thousands.
However, communists perceived that it was “mass hypnosis.”

The most certain conclusion,
Is the one premised,
By that which is self-evident,
Not by perception of the senses.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The most certain conclusion,
Is the one premised,
By that which is self-evident,
Not by perception of the senses.

I think this has changed course off the climate change question, but if you mean that Fatima is a true miracle from God and it is impossible to deny then I disagree.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

The most certain conclusion,

Is the one premised,
By that which is self-evident,
Not by perception of the senses.

And,

In the most certain conclusions,

Our reasons,
And perceptions,
Are not only premised,
By that which is self-evident,
But are guided by that which is self-evident.

If you mean that Fatima is a true miracle from God and it is impossible to deny then I disagree.

I agree with you.

That which is self-evident,
Is equal in the variety of people,
And naturally leads all people to Unity.

It is
Self-evident,
That we can reject,
That which is self-evident,
Embracing our own perceptions,
(Which is the cause of disunity),
This can guide us to reconciliation
With that which is self-evident.
(Since all people naturally desire Unity, and
It is self-evident whether Unity and disunity are one.)

I think this has changed course off the climate change question.

I would say that,
The morality of how we respond to climate change,
Rests on what we deem as self-evident,
And how its guides our perceptions,
And reasons.