Global Warming

[Psychotheosophy]

I have already heard that
Not responding
To global warming
Is a
Social injustice

What are the social injustices of
Responding?

I have heard…

1. Creating methods of population control.
2. Controlling economic development of poorer countries.

Are these true?
Are there others?

 

[JonNC]

=Psychotheosophy;4638198]I have already heard that
Not responding
To global warming
Is a
Social injustice

How does one respond to solar activity (the cause of global climate change)?

What are the social injustices of
Responding?

I have heard…

1. Creating methods of population control.
2. Controlling economic development of poorer countries.

Are these true?
Are there others?

Kyoto is another social injustice.

Jon

 

[redhen]

How does one respond to solar activity (the cause of global climate change)?

“Rising temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations observed since 1978 are particularly noteworthy because the rates of increase are so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun has been measured precisely by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.”

National Academy of Sciences
dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

“For more than 140 years, the National Academies have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. The 1863 Congressional charter signed by President Lincoln authorized this non-governmental institution to honor top scientists with membership and to serve the nation whenever called upon.”

 

[mpi]

joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skepticshandbook1-4.pdf

Evidence that global warming is real on page 7 of link above. There is no way the many AC exhaust vents near NOAA’s temperature sensors in dozens of locations around the country are affecting temperature readings.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

“For more than 140 years, the National Academies have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. The 1863 Congressional charter signed by President Lincoln authorized this non-governmental institution to honor top scientists with membership and to serve the nation whenever called upon.”

I am sure
The National Academies, NASA, MIT, and other top scientists
Will continue to argue this point,

However,

How do we protect social justice?

 

[mpi]

I am sure
The National Academies, NASA, MIT, and other top scientists
Will continue to argue this point,

However,

How do we protect social justice?

We protect social justice by, for the most part, ignoring the views of top scientists. Scientists are a self-serving bunch who seek to line their pockets with grant money and advance their left-wing agenda. For example, a scientist might A) prove gravity exists. Then he would B) advocate a policy of further study into public policy that would prevent things from falling on people. When a scientist gets into B) he should definitely not be listened too. Even when he gets to A) his comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have heard from one Phd student who said it was pretty common to throw in “tie-ins” to global warming in thesis presentations because it adds something like “gravitas” to the arguments. This is a joke.

 

[ribozyme]

We protect social justice by, for the most part, ignoring the views of top scientists. Scientists are a self-serving bunch who seek to line their pockets with grant money and advance their left-wing agenda. For example, a scientist might A) prove gravity exists. Then he would B) advocate a policy of further study into public policy that would prevent things from falling on people. When a scientist gets into B) he should definitely not be listened too. Even when he gets to A) his comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have heard from one Phd student who said it was pretty common to throw in “tie-ins” to global warming in thesis presentations because it adds something like “gravitas” to the arguments. This is a joke.

What field is that in?

 

[Calliso]

We protect social justice by, for the most part, ignoring the views of top scientists. Scientists are a self-serving bunch who seek to line their pockets with grant money and advance their left-wing agenda. For example, a scientist might A) prove gravity exists. Then he would B) advocate a policy of further study into public policy that would prevent things from falling on people. When a scientist gets into B) he should definitely not be listened too. Even when he gets to A) his comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have heard from one Phd student who said it was pretty common to throw in “tie-ins” to global warming in thesis presentations because it adds something like “gravitas” to the arguments. This is a joke.

I agree everything should be taken with a grain of salt especially if a scientist claims to have proved something. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Not in the way we would think of it at least. However the idea that they are all just in it for the money just makes me laugh. I am pretty sure if it was just a get rich quick scheme for most of them…they could have made some better choices in career.

 

[Calliso]

I have already heard that
Not responding
To global warming
Is a
Social injustice

What are the social injustices of
Responding?

I have heard…

1. Creating methods of population control.
2. Controlling economic development of poorer countries.

Are these true?
Are there others?

I will have to look into those but I am almost certain no mainstream group wants to control slow down the economic development of poorer countries. I will have to look into other things though too later.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I am sure
The National Academies, NASA, MIT, and other top scientists
Will continue to argue this point,

I should be clearer…
I understood NASA and MIT rejected global warming claims.

I agree everything should be taken with a grain of salt especially if a scientist claims to have proved something. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Not in the way we would think of it at least…

This reminds me of the Galileo situation…

Copernicus was the first person to suggest
That the earth was not the center of the universe.

Johannas Kepler provided the scientific certainty.

Should Galileo have been taken with a grain of salt,
Especially if his theory could lead to the extermination of many people,
Or should his hypothesis have been embraced?

 

[rpp]

Firstly, three things have to be proved for this to rise to the concept of “social injustice”.

1. 
   *]Global warming is really happening.
   *]Global warming is a bad thing.
   *]Global warming is caused by human industrial activity and not part of the observed natural climate cycles.
   Prove ALL of these points, I will give this some consideration. None of these, to date, have been proved, merely asserted based on insufficient data using theories and climate models some of which have been shown to be inaccurate and followed up with wild and questionable speculation.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Firstly, three things have to be proved for this to rise to the concept of “social injustice”.

1. 
   *]Global warming is really happening.
   *]Global warming is a bad thing.
   *]Global warming is caused by human industrial activity and not part of the observed natural climate cycles.
   Prove ALL of these points, I will give this some consideration. None of these, to date, have been proved, merely asserted based on insufficient data using theories and climate models some of which have been shown to be inaccurate and followed up with wild and questionable speculation.

1. 
   So,
   The acceptance of global warming
   Is a social injustice in itself?

 

[JonNC]

“Rising temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations observed since 1978 are particularly noteworthy because the rates of increase are so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun has been measured precisely by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.”

National Academy of Sciences
dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

“For more than 140 years, the National Academies have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. The 1863 Congressional charter signed by President Lincoln authorized this non-governmental institution to honor top scientists with membership and to serve the nation whenever called upon.”

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

If 6 billion tons out of every 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters the atmosphere is human activity, and CO2 accounts for 4/100th of one percent of all gases, and CO2 is trivial in its greenhouse abilities compared to water vapor…
Jon

 

[Calliso]

I should be clearer…
I understood NASA and MIT rejected global warming claims.

This reminds me of the Galileo situation…

Copernicus was the first person to suggest
That the earth was not the center of the universe.

Johannas Kepler provided the scientific certainty.

Should Galileo have been taken with a grain of salt,
Especially if his theory could lead to the extermination of many people,
Or should his hypothesis have been embraced?

Hmm you do make a good point. I realized when I got to work that I hadn;t really explained the no proof in science thing correctly. I think it would be more accurate using the gravity guy thing again to say this. Now the fact that gravity exists is a fact more or less I mean it doesn;t take a scientist to figure out things fall when you drop them. But the exact mechanics of how it works is where it gets interesting.

As for the Galileo situation yes I think he should have been taken with a grain of salt. But a scientific grain of salt. Then his views embraced. Course obviously that ended up well in the long run I think. And I have to wonder had Galileo been dismissed and lets say it took a few hundred years more for someone to prove it again what sort of advancements might we have missed out on?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Firstly, three things have to be proved for this to rise to the concept of “social injustice”.

1. 
   *]Global warming is really happening.
   *]Global warming is a bad thing.
   *]Global warming is caused by human industrial activity and not part of the observed natural climate cycles.
   Prove ALL of these points, I will give this some consideration. None of these, to date, have been proved, merely asserted based on insufficient data using theories and climate models some of which have been shown to be inaccurate and followed up with wild and questionable speculation.

1. 
   In the unlikely event that someone manages to prove all 3 points on your list, I would also want unbiased evidence of the following:
   • that human efforts will contribute significantly to reducing global warming.
   • that the potential for actual problems caused by global warming are actually worse than the potential for actual problems caused by the proposed “solutions” to global warming.

 

[Oscarthecat]

So,
The acceptance of global warming
Is a social injustice in itself?

I think that placing a moral value on the choice to accept or reject an unproven scientific theory is being used to warrant social injustice.

Once “acceptance of global warming as fact” becomes a moral imperative, then it logically follows that those who do not accept global warming as fact will be regarded as having inferior moral values.

Scarier than this, however, is that our society tends to equate morality with legality, and we enforce our moral code with a legal code for the purpose of shaping society to fit our design.

Therefore, once global warming is redefined as a moral issue rather than a scientific issue, those who refuse to accept global warming as fact will be redefined as criminals.

And if anyone thinks I’m overreacting, this is already happening through government initiatives like cap and trade which assign a taxable monetary value to a company’s suspected impact on global warming. We are effectively assigning a legally enforceable tax code to a scientific theory many people think is false.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

As for the Galileo situation yes I think he should have been taken with a grain of salt. But a scientific grain of salt…

So,
Science seeks the truth,
But
The Catholic Church doesn’t?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I think that placing a moral value on the choice to accept or reject an unproven scientific theory is being used to warrant social injustice.

Once “acceptance of global warming as fact” becomes a moral imperative, then it logically follows that those who do not accept global warming as fact will be regarded as having inferior moral values.

Scarier than this, however, is that our society tends to equate morality with legality, and we enforce our moral code with a legal code for the purpose of shaping society to fit our design.

Therefore, once global warming is redefined as a moral issue rather than a scientific issue, those who refuse to accept global warming as fact will be redefined as criminals.

And if anyone thinks I’m overreacting, this is already happening through government initiatives like cap and trade which assign a taxable monetary value to a company’s suspected impact on global warming. We are effectively assigning a legally enforceable tax code to a scientific theory many people think is false.

So,
Is not responding
To the global warming hypothesis
A moral imperative?

 

[Oscarthecat]

So,
Is not responding
To the global warming hypothesis
A moral imperative?

No, you’re trying to make a moral issue out of whether one does or does not respond.

I’m saying that whether one accepts or rejects global warming is morally neutral.

The moral problem, in my opinion, comes into play at the point that you attempt to assign a moral value to any opinion regarding an unproven theory.

That is, I think it is morally questionable, at best, to make any moral declaration whatsoever on the acceptance or rejection of any global warming theory.

 

[Mark77]

Galileo’s hypothesis was not rejected. It was a hypothesis, not scientific fact, and was unproven by Galileo at the time.

No hypothesis should be rejected until dis proven, but none should be accepted as fact until proven.

I would rather err on the side of safety, but as stated, most of the “solutions” to global warming are insignificant or actually cause more harm to the environment.

Seems to me that social justice would be better served by using the billions of $ spent on “global warming” research and spending the vast majority of it to help feed and care for the needy among us.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark