The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[paulgiamatti]

You can't boil life down to questions of how.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Steven Pinker often points out that it's entirely possible to distill our appreciation of aesthetics down to mechanical functions of the brain. Music, for example, has only become appealing to us because certain combinations of notes and chords have been socially accepted throughout our history, and our brains have evolved and adapted accordingly.

Reducing the question of "why" to "how" is the true mark of intellectual honesty, because it doesn't carry along with it the unnecessary baggage of purpose or intent. It remains agnostic, as all good science should.

[Tradesonred]

Snog - The human germ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=27&v=5hhsrGlt_u8

[Glenzig]

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Steven Pinker often points out that it's entirely possible to distill our appreciation of aesthetics down to mechanical functions of the brain. Music, for example, has only become appealing to us because certain combinations of notes and chords have been socially accepted throughout our history, and our brains have evolved and adapted accordingly.

Reducing the question of "why" to "how" is the true mark of intellectual honesty, because it doesn't carry along with it the unnecessary baggage of purpose or intent. It remains agnostic, as all good science should.

Not all questions are within the pervue of science.

[paulgiamatti]

And therein lies our disagreement.

Speaking of Krauss, though, I just stumbled on this video (https://youtu.be/UnuS583BFto) of him talking to The Weekly about some semi-related topics, which I think is a great precursor to a fantastic article by Tim Urban about the impending rise of artificial superintelligence (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html).

[Tradesonred]

Im agnostic in the sense that i keep a small pocket of possibility for things like the universe being one of those snowflake toys some unimaginably complex creature created for the amusement of his offsprings.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/22/article-2118740-12498CCA000005DC-738_468x325.jpg

[Glenzig]

And therein lies our disagreement.

Speaking of Krauss, though, I just stumbled on this video (https://youtu.be/UnuS583BFto) of him talking to The Weekly about some semi-related topics, which I think is a great precursor to a fantastic article by Tim Urban about the impending rise of artificial superintelligence (http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html).

So you feel that every aspect of life is demonstrably explainable by science?

[Pringles]

Im agnostic in the sense that i keep a small pocket of possibility for things like the universe being one of those snowflake toys some unimaginably complex creature created for the amusement of his offsprings.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/22/article-2118740-12498CCA000005DC-738_468x325.jpg



http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P7ojSW5pODk/maxresdefault.jpg

[paulgiamatti]

So you feel that every aspect of life is demonstrably explainable by science?

No, but I suspect that everything about the cosmos, including consciousness, ultimately can be explained by science, because science is simply the process of extracting data from the observable universe.

Whether or not we'll be around as a species long enough for science to explain everything, however, is another conversation.

[Tradesonred]

No, but I suspect that everything about the cosmos, including consciousness, ultimately can be explained by science, because science is simply the process of extracting data from the observable universe.

Whether or not we'll be around as a species long enough for science to explain everything, however, is another conversation.

Thats basically what i beleive in.

What happens when you die? The same thing that was before you were born. Non-existence. Consciousness is the electrical storm permanently firing up in our brains.

[Glenzig]

No, but I suspect that everything about the cosmos, including consciousness, ultimately can be explained by science, because science is simply the process of extracting data from the observable universe.

Whether or not we'll be around as a species long enough for science to explain everything, however, is another conversation.

So you have faith in science.

[Tradesonred]

Thats part of why i view religion with apprehension and fear, its often putting in us the notion that humanity can never fail because were at the center of things. The universe will keep put-put-ing it on long after the human race is gone.

With eco-collapse on the horizon, i dont get pleasant thoughts thinking about what kind of ploy some venture apocalypticalists will come up with. You see what happens when you dont listen to god? YOU SEE? NOW GET TO WORK.

[paulgiamatti]

What happens when you die? The same thing that was before you were born. Non-existence. Consciousness is the electrical storm permanently firing up in our brains.

Yes, except there's nothing permanent about it. We're temporary, which is all the more reason to make every minute and every breath count.

As Sam Harris rather ominously reiterates, there simply isn't any recovery after the death of the brain. When people suffer from brain damage oftentimes entire sections are rendered nonfunctional - they can no longer remember faces, or names, or they lose the ability to speak altogether. The idea that after brain death somehow our consciousness is going rise off of itself and ascend into a magical realm of existence after we die, and we'll be able to recognize our dead grandparents and relatives, can't be reconciled with what we know so far about consciousness.

It's just wishful thinking sold to us by the lie of religion.

[paulgiamatti]

So you have faith in science.

In the same sense that I have faith in my ability to observe and make note of something, yes.

For instance, if Jesus descends from the heavens tomorrow and raptures every believer into an eternity of servitude and worship, I would then have to make a mental note to myself: "Ah, so that whole Christianity thing was true. Hmm."

And the scientific community as a whole would be making the exact same mental note. This is because science simply just observes what happens, and makes note of it. It's not powered by some weird undercurrent of agendas and supernatural claims. So yes, I have faith in our ability as a species to observe and draw inferences and conduct experiments and prove or disprove hypotheses, and so forth.

[stormlord]

Are you people stupid? Look, I'm going to give you a secret. If you tell anyone, they'll think you're crazy. Even if you identify me, they'll think I'm crazy and it won't do any good. Additionally, I have no evidence to support what I'm saying, so even if I wasn't crazy, I can't convince anybody who doesn't want to believe. I dreamed this, so...

So here it's.... You know those UFOs they tell you about? BS, right? Nope. They're aliens, but they didn't travel here using traditional means. They warp space/time and travel between the stars and galaxies routinely. I can't really say more than that because I'm not in the loop. Earth is part lab, part reserve. They're actively changing our genome and even altering our reality on occasion. If they want us extinct, we'll be extinct, but they don't. They want us to rule our destiny--which is why their relationship with us so distant. They're giving us what we need genetically to boost our survival.

If we somehow cause armageddon, will they save us? Meh. Remember, they want us to rule our destiny. They're only giving us some genetic ammunition. They're not giving us guarantees. So my guess is, they'd let us kill ourselves.

There you have it. YOu can guess the rest, or maybe not.

Some of my guess are below....

As far as when we will make contact or officially recognize life from elsewhere, I can't be too sure. It'll probably be soon. My guess is we'll discover either ancient extant ET life here and/or in our solar system and/or we'll find living ET bacterial populations and/or at least ET viral samples. The details are blurry, but the whole universe will open up, as we realize life on Earth does not exist alone, never has, and did not evolve on its own either.

They watch us, or they watch our planet. They keep a record of all species on our planet. So no matter what happens, evne if s*** htis the fan, if they have a desire they can recreate it. They probably can record anything they want. Just imagine for a moment what technolony an alien civilization has if it was a million or more years older than us? Or maybe older? How far does the rabbit hole go? Anyway, they can record reality and put it on a tape and replay it just like we replay movies.

But keep in mind recording reality and replaying it back doesn't mean they're gods and do do anything. Recording something doesn't mean you udnerstand everyting about it. All you're getting is what reality feeds your recorder.

[paulgiamatti]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuZ8dAsCUAAWWYU.jpg

[stormlord]

I'm going to confesss what I wrote in my post above is BS. I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I was serious. There're people out there who actually would believe me and I don't want that.

BUt are there aliens out there? Maybe. I don't know. It'd be awesome to have a dream and the answers to be revealed, wouldn't it? Only trouble is the answers would be buried inside you and you couldn't prove them in todays world.

As to the OP, I was reading about the sixth massive extinction in 2003. Old news. If you can solve war and murder and all of our other problems you might be able to solve this too. Frankly, I don't see any silver bullet. Species have already perished due to us and will continue to at a increased rate. Whether or not we destroy ourselves is open to debate, but there's no controversy surrounding the major negative impacts we're having on this planet. Still, I remain optimistic and believe, despite the negative consequences which will ensue, we'll still become a space faring species and someday travel to the other stars. Even if I never see that day and die today or tomorrow or soon or whatever, I have faith humanity is far stronger than I.

EDIT: if I could still edit my previous post I'd delete it.

[Humerox]

I'm going to confesss what I wrote in my post above is BS. I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I was serious. There're people out there who actually would believe me and I don't want that.

BUt are there aliens out there? Maybe. I don't know. It'd be awesome to have a dream and the answers to be revealed, wouldn't it? Only trouble is the answers would be buried inside you and you couldn't prove them in todays world.

As to the OP, I was reading about the sixth massive extinction in 2003. Old news.

EDIT: if I could still edit my previous post I'd delete it.

actually it makes for a p cool basis for a book

[paulgiamatti]

actually it makes for a p cool basis for a book

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Contact_Sagan.jpg

[Luminari]

btw, why don't you claim the million dollar prize for psychic/supernatural phenomena? Surely being able to guess birthdays with 90% accuracy would be considered worthy. Or are the kind of superhero who would never use your powers for personal financial gain?

I doubt it would be considered a psychic or supernatural phenomena. I can't guess birthdays with 90% accuracy, just the signs. Which would be equated to being too vague to qualify I'd imagine. I've only guessed the exact birthday of someone once and within a few days a couple of times. However I've guessed signs with very high accuracy, especially Sagittarius since that's what I am and know the most about them. I've only really done this a couple dozen times.

Maybe if I studied astrology a lot more and dedicated my life to it I could probably get to the point where I could prove it's supernatural and win the challenge. However, there's not enough time left to do that and I don't really care about money. Anyways, I recommend looking into it a bit and reading your psychological astrology profile and I think you'll be surprised at how accurate it is. That's how I initially got interested in it in the first place when after seeing how accurate Sagittarius' profile was for me.

[Luminari]

while this has been a fun exercise it's really a bit mundane for me at this point.

Origin of Life (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum)

science isn't there yet. but it's a lot better than mumbo-jumbo about some mystical being...because if everyone accepted that as fact there'd be no new development simply because no one would question the "why".

argue on, bros

Yep real solid science you go by. Another "may have" article. It's as if you're incapable of understanding how science actually works since you think "could be" "maybe" "possibly" are signs of strong science.

Spoilers alert: Science will NEVER be there because it's already been proven to be false/impossible based on ACTUAL scientific facts. We've got cell theory which states ALL cells come from pre-existing cells and we've also got the laws of thermodynamics which state that matter/energy break down over time, not become increasingly complex.

Also, science was invented by religious creationists and the greatest scientists of all time were ALL creationists. Sir Isaac Newton is considered the greatest scientist of all time. Guess what? He's also one of the most devout Christian creationists of all time but that never stopped him from developing science further. You see, to the truly enlightened mind, science is actually the study of God since by better understanding the universe that God created the better we can understand God.

[Bazia]

u guys must have good weed

[Ersuvus]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuZ8dAsCUAAWWYU.jpg


Lollllllll

[Glenzig]

In the same sense that I have faith in my ability to observe and make note of something, yes.

So you only believe what you can see?

[paulgiamatti]

So you only believe what you can see?

From the "Why? (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170947)" thread:

You can't know anything.

Fundamentally and scientifically, this is true. I mean, I highly suspect that this is true, as have many other philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists. No scientific study that answers important questions about the universe is 100% conclusive, but we still go ahead and say that something is a fact or that something is true.

Knowledge is merely opinion.

And the reason we do this is because it would be really frustrating to have to say, "The likelihood of x being true falls within the percentile of 99.9-repeating." Just as it would be really frustrating to have to say, "I highly suspect that Uzbekistan is a real place. I've never been there, and I don't know anyone who's been there, but I think it is very likely that this place exists." We don't say that for a good reason - we just say Uzbekistan is a real place and that this is a fact. It is a part of human knowledge. It has transcended opinion and graduated to truth.

Shakespeare said it first - "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality - it doesn't explain love or spirituality"

First of all, Shakespeare never said this. This is a quote from a character in Tim Minchin's beat poem Storm who references Shakespeare. The original quote from Hamlet is as follows:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Shakespeare was right about philosophy, certainly. As Arthur Eddington said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we *can* imagine."

The human body is a mystery, science just falls in a hole when it tries to explain the nature of the soul. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality. How does science explain psychics, auras, the power of prayer?

Things like love, spirituality, and the idea of a soul become more explainable at the level of the brain every single day. These things are being explained by neuroscience at this very moment while we sit here and play ForumQuest. Science doesn't have every single answer to everything in the universe yet, but this fact alone doesn't have anything to say about how successful it's been in explaining reality to us so far. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science. We owe everything to it, which is why it's our best indicator of truth. We can never know truth, but we can and must chase after it, and science simply provides us with the best compass for doing so. It is our true north, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes it.

[Glenzig]

Is that your round about way of saying that you believe what scientists tell you to believe? Cause if that isn't your point, could you maybe express it a little more concisely?

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Is that your round about way of saying that you believe what scientists tell you to believe? Cause if that isn't your point, could you maybe express it a little more concisely?

It's more often something like, "I trust that the scientific community is a sufficiently critical and competent body when it comes to understanding several complex and non-intuitive features of the natural world."

[paulgiamatti]

Is that your round about way of saying that you believe what scientists tell you to believe?

No, but it is my roundabout way of saying that "So you only believe what you can see?" is an incredibly stupid question.

Science doesn't tell anyone what to believe. Science tells us we should question beliefs and treat them with skepticism because, as Krauss often elucidates, the universe simply doesn't care what we believe. Something is either true, or it isn't, and science is simply the best method that we have for telling us what is true, or what isn't. If you refuse to acknowledge this, then you refuse to acknowledge that you're living in the 21st century.

This message board exists because of science. The fact that our average life expectancy is now inching toward 80 years is because of science. All of our buildings, our cars, our technology, our entertainment, our food - everything we love and take for granted in our lives - is because of science. So if you refuse to acknowledge it, and if you refuse to "have faith" in science - as you stupidly put it - like the rest of us do, then that's your problem and not ours.

[Tradesonred]

Your discussion makes me think of something, that sometimes scientists act like priests.

Say when the female amateur anthropologist Elaine Morgan presented her case for the aquatic ape theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis some of the critique laid against her was that she was an outsider, that if "serious" anthropologists didnt figure this out on their own, how could she? Or the initial resistance upon cave paintings discovery of accepting that they might genuinely be from prehistoric times.

I had the same feeling hearing Frank Drake talk about long distance space travel (he was talking of it in general, not just the ability of the human race to do so), which he says is most likely impossible because of tiny pebbles in space that will make so much energy upon contact with a fast traveling ship that it will create nuclear explosions.

I couldnt beleive that this guy, who is responsible for the birth of the SETI program, wasnt able to conceive that a civilization who knows how electricity works for millions of years, not a century and a half, might have solved this problem a million years ago. Not being able to conceive that at the exponential rate technology is progressing, in 500 years if we didnt eradicate ourselves this might be a trivial space travel problem.

Thats what i was talking about in the OP, scientists in love with their own proficiency, humility about possibilities goes out the window.

Technology is another thing that terrifies me, not in itself but what unconscienable people will do with it. Like the terminator seed patent from Monsanto, which prevents a plant from creating seeds. This is some Dr. Death bullshit right there.

[Glenzig]

No, but it is my roundabout way of saying that "So you only believe what you can see?" is an incredibly stupid question.

Science doesn't tell anyone what to believe. Science tells us we should question beliefs and treat them with skepticism because, as Krauss often elucidates, the universe simply doesn't care what we believe. Something is either true, or it isn't, and science is simply the best method that we have for telling us what is true, or what isn't. If you refuse to acknowledge this, then you refuse to acknowledge that you're living in the 21st century.

This message board exists because of science. The fact that our average life expectancy is now inching toward 80 years is because of science. All of our buildings, our cars, our technology, our entertainment, our food - everything we love and take for granted in our lives - is because of science. So if you refuse to acknowledge it, and if you refuse to "have faith" in science - as you stupidly put it - like the rest of us do, then that's your problem and not ours.

Why would I deny the good science has done? We have access to some very remarkable technology thanks to scientific advancement. Medical science has come a long way in just the past hundred years, and has all but done away with some of the diseases that may have killed a lot of people.
However, science is still done by humans. Therefore it's has had some very disastrous consequences also.

The fact that science is done by humans also opens it up for bias. That bias is plainly seen with frequency if you aren't plugging your ears. Name a scientist that believes in intelligent design and listen to the cries of "he isn't a real scientist".
To flatly insist that there is no bias in science is to hold a very shallow view of human nature, not to mention history.

[Glenzig]

[QUOTE=Tradesonred;1961731]Your discussion makes me think of something, that sometimes scientists act like priests./QUOTE]

True. And some of them would literally like to be viewed as such.

Michael Shermer. From his book The Shamans of Scientism:
"First, cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. Second, we are, at base, a socially hierarchical primate species. We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s
shamans who command our veneration. Third, because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time."

[paulgiamatti]

To flatly insist that there is no bias in science is to hold a very shallow view of human nature, not to mention history.

Biased science is bad science. Unbiased, objective science is good science.

[paulgiamatti]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

[stormlord]

Biased science is bad science. Unbiased, objective science is good science.
Science is the best methodology we have to understand the natural world, but I wouldn't be a fool and throw my faith behind it without always keeping a healthy dose of skepticism. But when does skepticism become unhealthy? I'm sure it can be.

Here's an article about the streetlight effect in science:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/29-why-scientific-studies-often-wrong-streetlight-effect

Like someone else here said, humans are by nature flawed and potentially immoral. It makes sense our natural traits will carry over into the sciences. What science does better than any other methodology is to limit the carry over. But does it perfectly limit our nature from infecting our science? I doubt it.

If I HAD to put faith in any methodology which examines reality to produce value, it'd be in science. So if that what you want from me, you'll get some. But do not expect me to hand over my heart and soul and complete trust to it.

Back to the OP, I have to say since it's never been easier to get at the information in this world, it's easier than ever to bury yourself in the concerns of the world. How much of a danger is it? Can people worry too mcuh about the fate of the world? There're so many problems. One wonders how the world evne survives, given all its problems.

One needs to bury themselves in optimism and hopeful stories sometimes too. And behind all of this needs to be action and planning. People have to back their concerns and their dreams with actions, or it's wasted emotion.

Personally, I think w'ere doing great, being humans y'know. If we become extinct, oh well. We had a good run. It may come across as apathetic, but what can I say? Life is hard. Always been hard. I don't hate or blame people. And it's not like I haven't researched this. Years ago, I researched it enough to want to end my life, or at least forget everything. Even during the best of times when I was in school, it was drilled into us how dreadful things were. I remember I was in a physics course and we were watching some video about population growth, building on coursework which had already damaged our perspective on life. My classmate turned to me and said "I don't htink I'm going to have any children, unless I have to." True story.

[paulgiamatti]

Science is the best methodology we have to understand the natural world, but I wouldn't be a fool and throw my faith behind it without always keeping a healthy dose of skepticism.

And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. By doing so, you would be encouraging better science. Faith in science is simply faith in skepticism, and therefore by extension - and by definition - isn't faith at all.

[paulgiamatti]

And by the way, I'm always going to completely ignore any piece of literature that uses the word "scientism", unless it's for the purpose of ridiculing its use as pseudointellectual jargon, which it is.

[Luminari]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

Only problem with this is the fact that vaccines are being intentionally laced with known poisonous chemicals making them completely unsafe. Also there's the fact that actual evidence shows that all of the diseases that vaccines supposedly cured were already cured before the vaccine was introduced. For instance, the death rate of measles had declined by 90% before the vaccine was introduced but vaccines took the credit. Wakefield isn't the fraud, it's the pharmaceutical companies that are. Wakefield isn't the one with billions of dollars to gain by making fraudulent claims and yet morons like yourself take the side of the people who clearly have an agenda.

Also I find it extremely hilarious that you claim that biased science is bad science and yet you believe in evolution which has no actual scientific evidence supporting it. Anyone who subscribes to evolution has no clue how science actually works. Science REQUIRES observable and experimental evidence and evolution does literally neither of these things. Yet because a lot of scientists believe it, it MUST be true, obviously! Because that's how you think science works, where as long as enough people believe, to hell with the scientific method!

[paulgiamatti]

Oh right, yep, my bad. Vaccines are bad. God did it. How foolish I've been.

Anyone have some tin foil?

[Glenzig]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress.

Depends on who is doing the scrutinizing, and how dearly the ideas behind the science are held. Progress doesn't always have to mean an increase in knowledge or proof. Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

[paulgiamatti]

Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out.

Progress, on the other hand, is simply progress. Progress doesn't care how many people agree with it. If everyone came to a consensus that we should decapitate a small child and roll its head down a pyramid every Sunday as an offering to the gods, that would not be progress.

[paulgiamatti]

I'll just leave this here for now: https://youtu.be/3oH0ReL3Cew

[Luminari]

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out

It is something that needs to be pointed out though since a lot of people think that vaccines are good for us and that evolution is real and that steel skyscrapers can collapse at free fall speed from a couple of small fires.

[paulgiamatti]

It isn't, especially when we have idiots like you running around making it way more apparent than anyone would like it to be.

[Glenzig]

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out.

Progress, on the other hand, is simply progress. Progress doesn't care how many people agree with it. If everyone came to a consensus that we should decapitate a small child and roll its head down a pyramid every Sunday as an offering to the gods, that would not be progress.

Within the last 10-20 years the idea of purposefully decreasing the population of the earth has become viewed as something that will most likely be necessary for human progress and survival. It's amazing that people will now casually talk about how overpopulated the earth is and how Depopulation will be necessary in the near future. The amount of humans that would be brutally murdered in such an event would make your scenario pale in comparisson. Yet, more and more people are convinced that what would basically be a mass genocide is just something that needs to happen. That it would somehow be progressive.

So is it a bad idea, or would it be progress?

[Glenzig]

And by the way, I'm always going to completely ignore any piece of literature that uses the word "scientism", unless it's for the purpose of ridiculing its use as pseudointellectual jargon, which it is.



Wikipedia on Michael shermer:
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2001, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. He is also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.
In February 2002, he characterized the position that "God had no part in the process [of the evolution of mankind]" as the "standard scientific theory".[40] this was criticized by fellow scientist Eugenie Scott in January 2006, who commented that science makes no claim about God one way or the other.[
Then his 2006 book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, marshals point-by-point arguments supporting evolution, sharply criticizing Intelligent Design. This book also argues that science cannot invalidate religion, and that Christians and conservatives can and should accept evolution.
The Mind of The Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics was released in 2007. In it Shermer reports on the findings of multiple behavioral and biochemical studies that address evolutionary explanations for modern behavior.
Shermer made a guest appearance in a 2004 episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, in which he argued that events in the Bible constitute "mythic storytelling," rather than events described literally.


Obviously someone who would want to belittle science.

[paulgiamatti]

You're seriously asking me whether I think mass genocide is bad or progressive?

Human beings are currently a detriment to the planet, but that doesn't mean any measure that decreases our population is a progressive one.

[Humerox]

Moot since the US and Russia/China are poised on the brink. The idea that nuclear war can be "won" rings the bell for us.

Just a matter of time, now.

[paulgiamatti]

Obviously someone who would want to belittle science.

It's just such a silly term. It doesn't bring up any interesting arguments and is far too often coopted and appropriated into conversation for the scoring of points or leveraging oneself where someone simply doesn't have any.

So go ahead and bring up scientism - I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying I'm going to ignore it.

[Glenzig]

It's just such a silly term. It doesn't bring up any interesting arguments and is far too often coopted and appropriated into conversation for the scoring of points or leveraging oneself where someone simply doesn't have any.

So go ahead and bring up scientism - I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying I'm going to ignore it.

I didn't say it. One of your unbiased scientists did.

[paulgiamatti]

I didn't say it. One of your unbiased scientists did.

As Christopher Hitchens would say, "impartiality has absolutely nothing to do with objectivity." In other words, being unbiased has absolutely nothing to do with being right or being wrong.

[Luminari]

It isn't, especially when we have idiots like you running around making it way more apparent than anyone would like it to be.

The problem is that you're actually the idiot and don't actually understand science and you go around ridiculing those that actually do, thinking that you're smart when in reality you're a giant fucking moron. People like you are literally everything that is wrong with the world. You have shit for brains and are devoid of critical thinking skills. You think Wakefield is a fraud because a bunch of morons told you so and you believe it because you're an even bigger fucking moron than they are. You should honestly do society a favor and kill yourself because as it stands, you're just a complete waste of existence.

[paulgiamatti]

Anyone else notice how all the braindead antivaxxers/conspiracy nutters are almost invariably creationists?

[Luminari]

Anyone else notice how all the braindead antivaxxers/conspiracy nutters are almost invariably creationists?

Notice how all of the greatest scientists of all time were all creationists? Notice how science was fucking invented by creationists you dumb fuck? Notice how you have no fucking clue whatsoever how to actually use your brain?

[paulgiamatti]

That argument holds no water, because those people lived in an era when those who professed unbelief were actively persecuted. Atheism wasn't an option back then. Despite this, a vast majority of the progenitors of the scientific method did express their unbelief in a personal, intervening, omnibenevolent god; they were deists, at worst.

But, to quote Hitchens again, even if they all were devoutly religious people, it still wouldn't make any difference. Religion was our first attempt in many fields of study, and at making sense of reality. But because it was our first, it was also our worst:

“It was the best the species could do at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. We did not know that we lived on a round planet, let alone that the said planet was in orbit in a minor and obscure solar system, which was also on the edge of an unimaginably vast cosmos that was exploding away from its original source of energy. We did not know that micro-organisms were so powerful and lived in our digestive systems in order to enable us to live, as well as mounting lethal attacks on us as parasites. We did not know of our close kinship with other animals. We believed that sprites, imps, demons, and djinns were hovering in the air about us. We imagined that thunder and lightning were portentous. It has taken us a long time to shrug off this heavy coat of ignorance and fear, and every time we do there are self-interested forces who want to compel us to put it back on again.”

[Luminari]

That argument holds no water as Hitchens was a fucking moron that drank himself to death and never contributed anything of any value to the world.

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.” - Nikola Tesla

You listen to retards. I listen to the greatest geniuses the world has ever known. P.S. Tesla lived in the 20th century and contributed more to man kind than any of these dumb fucks you worship like Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, Tyson.

[paulgiamatti]

I think I can actually feel my intelligence quotient diminishing every time I interact with this guy.

[Luminari]

I think I can actually feel my intelligence quotient diminishing every time I interact with this guy.

You would have to have intelligence in the first place for it to diminish but you don't. You're just a dumb fucking waste of life that listens to people that talk out their ass and since you're incapable of actually thinking for yourself, you listen to them because they appeal to your own moronic preconceived notions.

I just proved you dead fucking wrong about your idiotic idea that "That argument holds no water, because those people lived in an era when those who professed unbelief were actively persecuted. Atheism wasn't an option back then." Nikola Tesla didn't live in that era you claim and he's saying the same things I am. What's your fucking excuse now you dumb piece of shit? Seriously, do society a favor and kill your worthless fucking self.

[paulgiamatti]

The mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries were still times of religious persecution. I can assure you; Tesla's belief in the divine was probably the worst thing about him.

[Pokesan]

hi i agree with tesla that makes you wrong bitch

im just like tesla

e: also you seem like a really hateful angry person. maybe work on that before you launch a career yelling at people on video games forums

[Glenzig]

The mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries were still times of religious persecution. I can assure you; Tesla's belief in the divine was probably the worst thing about him.

You know how you always say that the reason we are even able to use these forums is because of science. Tesla is the scientist responsible for nearly all the major discoveries having to do with electricity and electronics. His belief in God didn't hold him back from making huge scientific advancements.

[paulgiamatti]

His belief in God didn't hold him back from making huge scientific advancements.

Nor was it integral to them.

[Glenzig]

Nor was it integral to them.

Well, he said it was. Whether you believe that or not, it does give a very legitimate example of a post modern scientist who both believed in God and made enormous contributions to science.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, he said it was.

It's quite possible to be prodigious and revolutionary in one field of study, while simply being wrong on other trivial, arbitrary matters. Tesla is a perfect example of that.

[Slathar]

Religious people should be labeled as mentally defective.

[paulgiamatti]

Religious people should be labeled as mentally defective.

I don't think so. I mean, I still contend that it's a question of morality and not intelligence. For example, I don't think Luminari is a hopeless idiot who probably can't outwit a fruit fly because he's religious. I think he's that stupid in the first place; he'd still be just as mind-numbingly, earth-shatteringly deficient in mental faculty if he happened to be an atheist and not a believer.

The fact that he's a Judeo-Christian doesn't make him more of an idiot, it just makes him an immoral idiot. So I suppose you could say that that's a mental defect of a kind, but I get the feeling you were referring to intelligence or intellectual capacity, and there I tend to disagree. The question of belief really needs to be approached from a moralistic angle, without arrogance, and without assuming the intellectual highground. Not only because you're never going to change any minds by broaching a conversation with, "You're a complete idiot, I'm so much smarter than you!" but also because it's just simply not a measure of intelligence.

The corollary argument would be that because it's not a gauge for intelligence, it certainly is for morality or immorality. In this way I think you can get an accurate reading of someone's moral fiber; the deist would have to, in some way, be more moral than the theist, the zealot more immoral than the disciple, and so forth. But that's not to say you can never have an immoral atheist, or a moral theist - there are countless examples of both, but if you give religion to the immoral atheist, or remove it from the moral theist, you'd see that fiber either grow or shrivel in exactly the expected ways.

[Rararboker]

Every time I read one of your post, giamatti, I feel like you should pay me money. You seem like someone who received a decent education but are unable to actually think for yourself so you just spout whatever nonsense is popular as of right now. It actually makes me a little sad and fearful that George Carlin wasn't just a comedian because he made a lot of predictions that are coming true.

[paulgiamatti]

You seem like someone who received a decent education but are unable to actually think for yourself so you just spout whatever nonsense is popular as of right now.

Wrong on both accounts, but this is high praise and welcome reaffirmation coming from someone who has any level of appreciation for Carlin's unfunny, worthless senile tirades which only people with the most impoverished sense of humor could possibly call comedy. He's one of the few people I'm happy to know is very dead, and very much returned to the dirt.

[Glenzig]

I don't think so. I mean, I still contend that it's a question of morality and not intelligence. For example, I don't think Luminari is a hopeless idiot who probably can't outwit a fruit fly because he's religious. I think he's that stupid in the first place; he'd still be just as mind-numbingly, earth-shatteringly deficient in mental faculty if he happened to be an atheist and not a believer.

The fact that he's a Judeo-Christian doesn't make him more of an idiot, it just makes him an immoral idiot. So I suppose you could say that that's a mental defect of a kind, but I get the feeling you were referring to intelligence or intellectual capacity, and there I tend to disagree. The question of belief really needs to be approached from a moralistic angle, without arrogance, and without assuming the intellectual highground. Not only because you're never going to change any minds by broaching a conversation with, "You're a complete idiot, I'm so much smarter than you!" but also because it's just simply not a measure of intelligence.

The corollary argument would be that because it's not a gauge for intelligence, it certainly is for morality or immorality. In this way I think you can get an accurate reading of someone's moral fiber; the deist would have to, in some way, be more moral than the theist, the zealot more immoral than the disciple, and so forth. But that's not to say you can never have an immoral atheist, or a moral theist - there are countless examples of both, but if you give religion to the immoral atheist, or remove it from the moral theist, you'd see that fiber either grow or shrivel in exactly the expected ways.

Straight out of the Harris handbook. I think it's funny that people who insist that the uinverse has no purpose base the bulk of their argument on morality like Harris does.

[paulgiamatti]

And I think it's funny when people who no longer have anything of substance to say immediately put forth these baseless accusations that I'm being unoriginal. But since you seem so sure of yourself, I'd like to challenge you to find anything by Harris that even remotely resembles what I've written here.

By the way, the universe being devoid of purpose isn't something I insist upon, but highly suspect. Nor is it something I try to rationalize with morality. The fact that all religion is fueled by a strong undercurrent of solipsism and immoral, irrational thought is simply an unhappy feature of them, not a reason for which they're less likely to be correct about the nature of the cosmos. I'm only putting forth the moral argument here to make the point that being a believer neither exempts you from immorality, nor makes you unintelligent.

[Tradesonred]

2 articles to try to get this thread back on track a bit

Canada is burning and America is choking on its smoke

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-07/canada-burning-and-america-choking-her-smoke

Measuring the sixth mass extinction

https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/measuring-sixth-mass-extinction

[Tradesonred]

One last bump

For those who actually read the links i provided, this is a really interesting talk by an astro-biologist, on geo-engineering and the anthropocene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDrLaebUa4&index=7&list=PLw6IJozmaWbRPdNZmJATTiKGAazl83B4P

[Slathar]

Who cares about this? Not me. I will be dead and gone before I have to reap any consequences.

[Tradesonred]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg

[Tradesonred]

Inb4 you werent pretending

[Swish]

lol

[Skydash]

http://meatyourfuture.com/2015/07/livestock-and-the-sixth-mass-extinction/

We will see the effects before you guys die.

[Tradesonred]

http://meatyourfuture.com/2015/07/livestock-and-the-sixth-mass-extinction/

We will see the effects before you guys die.

8 mins well spent, thanks for that

[Rararboker]

Nope, going to continue eating a majority meat. You guys can enjoy grains.

[Orruar]

There was a time when crazy people would just stand on the street corner with a billboard hanging from their body that reads "The end is nigh" while ringing a bell. The internet has made the crazy much more lazy.

[Tradesonred]

Theres a consensus on the climate crisis, im just getting around to this 6th exctinction stuff. But its clear were gonna hit an ecological wall soon. Thats the most terrifying thing i read in a while, that for things to go really bad, all we need to do is just keep doing what weve been doing. Its fucking 55 in El Salvador when it get really hot (131 F). Imagine adding 5 degrees C on top of that. These places will be unlivable pretty much and people are gonna try to go north were its still liveable. Guess what will happen then? Western world opening their arms to massive, historical proportion immigration from the south amirite.

[Swish]

These places will be unlivable pretty much and people are gonna try to go north were its still liveable. Guess what will happen then? Western world opening their arms to massive, historical proportion immigration from the south amirite.

What else is new. Half of Africa hates Africa and wants to get on the next boat to Europe.

[Slathar]

Theres a consensus on the climate crisis, im just getting around to this 6th exctinction stuff. But its clear were gonna hit an ecological wall soon. Thats the most terrifying thing i read in a while, that for things to go really bad, all we need to do is just keep doing what weve been doing. Its fucking 55 in El Salvador when it get really hot (131 F). Imagine adding 5 degrees C on top of that. These places will be unlivable pretty much and people are gonna try to go north were its still liveable. Guess what will happen then? Western world opening their arms to massive, historical proportion immigration from the south amirite.

hi there. you seem to be insane. please dont hurt anyone irl. Ok?

[Slathar]

Who cares about this? Not me. I will be dead and gone before I have to reap any consequences.

And this.

[SamwiseRed]

the earth is an idiot.

[vageta31]

People that are skeptical of climate science have every reason to be. The science behind it is so full of holes that you'd frankly be an idiot if you didn't at least question it(not to mention the political motives behind it). Global warming/climate change is all based around a computer model that has already been proven wrong on many occasions and doesn't match up to their predictions. Legitimate scientists would adjust their model to conform to the new data to make the model more accurate. Climate scientists insist their model is correct and the data is somehow wrong(even though they've been using that data for their entire model from the start). "Well this data is correct because it matches our theories, but that data taken from the same source isn't because it contradicts us. Therefore that data is wrong." That isn't science.

I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that humans may have "some" affect on the climate, you'd be hard pressed however to find any actual data that could explain the extent. Proposing draconian policies to stop human's affect on the climate, when we can't even quantify it, is ludicrous. The earth's climate has been drastically changing over the last 4.5 billion years, meaning long before humans were here, and also meaning while humans have been here. How much of what we are seeing in the climate right now is due to natural changes and how much is directly because of us? We don't know. Period. Climate science is still in it's infancy, at least "real" science and not pseudo-science and hockey stick charts meant to scare the easily persuaded.

What should make people the most skeptical is who is pushing this entire scenario. Goverments want to centralize more and more power. With pesky things like the bill of rights and the constitution(in America at least) they can't completely take over our lives. However, if they can convince the populace that the world is coming to an end if we "DON'T ACT NOW" then they can conveniently control every facet of our lives due to saving the planet. From the cars we drive, to the housing we can live in, to the food we eat, water we drink, amount of children, etc.. all the while why they fly private jets, feast on extravagant meals and tell us what we can't do. The hypocrisy is mind numbing. Al Gore flies on private jets and burns more electricity in his mansion in a single month than the average American does in an entire year yet has the gall to lecture us about riding bicycles to work instead of driving. I truly question the type of individual that can fall behind this sort of drivel.

This isn't about conspiracies, it's reality. There is no "consensus", at least not with intellectually honest scientists. There is a reason the "deniers" aren't invited to climate conventions and their requests for debate are never answered. It's easier to ignore and pretend than it is to argue against actual facts.


Also, just a thought for discussion. What if the climate was actually on a cooling trend, but aggregate global warming was keeping it from happening? Then strict regulations are put in place, AGW comes to a screeching halt and the world continues to cool eventually culminating into another mini(of full on) ice age? Which do you think we'd survive better in?

[Tradesonred]

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Noam Chomsky on climate science deniers:

Noam Chomsky - How Climate Change Became a Liberal Hoax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdi_pjrX4w

[Uthgaard]

Mass extinctions happen on a cyclical basis. As does climate change. Are we influencing it? Yep. Is it inevitable anyway? Yep. You learn about all of the factors and history in basic ecology & geology.

[vageta31]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming."

Hence my quote from above, written before your response;

"I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that humans may have "some" affect on the climate, you'd be hard pressed however to find any actual data that could explain the extent."




http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062512-616091-gaia-creator-says-global-warming-alarmism-gone-too-far.htm

James Lovelock admitted on MSNBC in April that he had overstated the case for man-made global warming and conceded that "we don't know what the climate is doing."

The 92-year-old Lovelock said: "We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."

Lovelock explained that "the world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time" for the warming to occur. Yet the temperature "has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising" as carbon dioxide was rising.

[Tradesonred]

Mass extinctions happen on a cyclical basis. As does climate change. Are we influencing it? Yep. Is it inevitable anyway? Yep. You learn about all of the factors and history in basic ecology & geology.

Right but to make an analogy

"Oh forest fires occur naturally, so who cares if i throw my cigarettes butts all over the place when i go camping?"

[vageta31]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

[Tradesonred]

Yeah some business papers telling us that this energy transition thing would hurt their bottom line, breaking news at 11

[Slathar]

Yeah some business papers telling us that this energy transition thing would hurt their bottom line, breaking news at 11

this guy is seriously going to assault someone for driving a car as he pedals his way to the soviet commissary to buy clean water

mental illness personified

*drives to Wal-Mart in hummer*

[vageta31]

Yeah some business papers telling us that this energy transition thing would hurt their bottom line, breaking news at 11

Articles like that exist all over the web, that was the first one I happened to choose. If you're simply going to ignore the actual factual content then you are part of the problem. The 97% claim was clearly meant to shock, and the way the number was reached was bogus. You can bet most people never looked beyond the 97% consensus number and just parroted it back to their friends without actually looking deeper.

I first got interested in climate change after watching "An Inconvenient Truth" with my girlfriend, it was her homework assignment years ago. Honestly I hadn't payed much attention to any of the science beforehand and after watching that movie it had me a bit alarmed. However I never take anything at face value without digging a bit deeper, and eventually realized that most of it was propoganda. The more I researched and dug, the more of a skeptic I became.

All I'm saying is that every person should explore both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusion and not "pick a side" and dismiss everything else.

[Tradesonred]

mental illness personified


Lack of modding on P99 forums personified

[Orruar]

Its fucking 55 in El Salvador when it get really hot (131 F).

Given that El Salvador is right next to a giant body of water, I'm calling bullshit on this claim. Let's see what 2 minutes of Googling turns up...

Oh look, you're full of shit once again.

In April and May temperatures may reach 32 °C (89.6 °F). The highest reading ever recorded was 38.5 °C (101.3 °F), the lowest was 8.2 °C (46.8 °F). The highest dew point was 27 °C (81 °F) and the lowest −10 °C (14 °F).

55 is not even close to the actual highest temp ever recorded (38.5). Are you a habitual idiot or is this something you're working towards?

In case anyone is concerned that all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will soon turn the earth into an uninhabitable hellscape of 200+ degree days, keep in mind that as things warm up, more clouds form, reflecting sunlight and cooling things off. It's why Miami has never had a day over 100 degrees in recorded history (and only one day at 100).

[Tradesonred]

Theres no side to pick, im not going try to research the side of people who claim that the earth is flat, either

[Tradesonred]

Given that El Salvador is right next to a giant body of water, I'm calling bullshit on this claim. Let's see what 2 minutes of Googling turns up...


Well ill give you that this 55 numbers was taken from friends of my mom who live there, not something i verified thoughroughly. Most likely they were talking with humidex on top of it and now that ive checked it, probably a good story they were trying to weave that they exagerrated.

What they were saying though, is that they cant really deal with even a little more of heat because it gets so hot already you need to stay in the shade during parts of the day.

[vageta31]

Theres no side to pick, im not going try to research the side of people who claim that the earth is flat, either

So you're basically admitting that you aren't going to bother searching for the actual truth, but will just stick with what you've decided is truth regardless if it is or not.

Also your "world is flat" analogy is ironic. It was the skeptics that suggested the world was in fact not flat while the "consensus" held firmly that it was. We all know who won that argument.

[Rararboker]

Lol exagerrated.

[Uthgaard]

Right but to make an analogy

"Oh forest fires occur naturally, so who cares if i throw my cigarettes butts all over the place when i go camping?"

Forest fires are actually pretty beneficial, and are occasionally done intentionally. Sometimes a reset is a good thing.

[wts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVd-zAXACrU

[Tradesonred]

Forest fires are actually pretty beneficial, and are occasionally done intentionally. Sometimes a reset is a good thing.

Would you say a sixth mass extinction caused by humans is a good thing?

[Orruar]

Well ill give you that this 55 numbers was taken from friends of my mom who live there, not something i verified thoughroughly. Most likely they were talking with humidex on top of it and now that ive checked it, probably a good story they were trying to weave that they exagerrated.

What they were saying though, is that they cant really deal with even a little more of heat because it gets so hot already you need to stay in the shade during parts of the day.

So far in this thread, you've shown that you are willing to believe any sensationalist claim whether it comes from a misinterpretation of a scientific study, or a mistaken friend of your mom. Gullible doesn't even begin to describe this pattern of thought. Don't even try and use the word 'science' in the same sentence with anything you believe. You clearly live your life so far from the skeptical and truth-seeking nature of science that it's an insult to everyone who has worked so hard to produce our current understanding of nature using logic, reason, and observation.

[Slathar]

Well ill give you that this 55 numbers was taken from friends of my mom who live there, not something i verified thoughroughly. Most likely they were talking with humidex on top of it and now that ive checked it, probably a good story they were trying to weave that they exagerrated.

What they were saying though, is that they cant really deal with even a little more of heat because it gets so hot already you need to stay in the shade during parts of the day.

"my moms friends said if it hotter there will be a mass extinction and the worlds flat"

[Tradesonred]

So far in this thread, you've shown that you are willing to believe any sensationalist claim whether it comes from a misinterpretation of a scientific study, or a mistaken friend of your mom. Gullible doesn't even begin to describe this pattern of thought. Don't even try and use the word 'science' in the same sentence with anything you believe. You clearly live your life so far from the skeptical and truth-seeking nature of science that it's an insult to everyone who has worked so hard to produce our current understanding of nature using logic, reason, and observation.

Yeah, i used a bad example... so that discredits the 97% consensus of climate scientists?

[Slathar]

Yeah, i used a bad example... so that discredits the 97% consensus of climate scientists?

no but it discredits you because you're a fear-mongering lunatic trying to spread fear because if more people feel the way you do then maybe you're not the crazy one like everyone has always said.

[Orruar]

no but it discredits you because you're a fear-mongering lunatic trying to spread fear because if more people feel the way you do then maybe you're not the crazy one like everyone has always said.

Pretty much this. I'm not saying the earth isn't warming or that it's not partially man's doing. But I'm not going to flip out and believe that the earth will be an uninhabitable ball of molten rock, when all evidence points to the contrary. And I'm not interested in getting into a debate on that point with someone who uses their mom's friend as a primary source for knowledge.

[Tradesonred]

lol you guys are more interested in "winning" against me more than the issues, slathar especially. Slathar would rather spread the notion that the climate isnt affected by CO2 than missing a chance to get back at me. The point of the El Salvador example was that its already hot as fuck down there and they cant really deal with a 2-5 degree increase in temperature.

[vageta31]

lol you guys are more interested in "winning" against me more than the issues, slathar especially. Slathar would rather spread the notion that the climate isnt affected by CO2 than missing a chance to get back at me. The point of the El Salvador example was that its already hot as fuck down there and they cant really deal with a 2-5 degree increase in temperature.

Whether or not they can deal with it has no bearing on the discussion. The climate is cyclical and has been for billions of years. Whether humans are on the planet or not, the geographical location of El Salvador will warm and cool without humans in the equation.

You also obviously didn't read some of the links above. The earth hasn't been on a warming trend since 1997, yet our C02 levels have skyrocketed in that time period. Meaning C02 itself doesn't influence the climate as much as was once believed. Ie; Activist scientists are desperately trying to come up with "reasons". Fact is, we don't understand yet. The climate is extremely complex and factors outside of our planet also play a role. It is foolish, and downright irresponsible to attempt to make any drastic changes to our way of life until we actually understand our place in the equation. We may end up doing more harm than good.

Also I don't think Ulth was saying a mass extinction of man, by man is good. I beleive he was saying from a statistical standpoint that another mass extinction is immenent.

[Orruar]

lol you guys are more interested in "winning" against me more than the issues, slathar especially. Slathar would rather spread the notion that the climate isnt affected by CO2 than missing a chance to get back at me. The point of the El Salvador example was that its already hot as fuck down there and they cant really deal with a 2-5 degree increase in temperature.

I care about as much about "winning" against you as I do winning a tennis match against Stephan Hawking. I was simply pointing out that nobody is going to want to have this discussion that you're so desperate to have when you repeatedly show that you believe in mistaken information based on very dubious sources. So either start adding a little research to your process of forming an opinion, or stop complaining when people don't want to discuss topics with a child.

[vageta31]

Winter is coming...

And the plot thickens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Unlike global warming alarmist pseudo-science, the maunder minimum is real science and has been observed and studied for hundreds of years and was the likely cause of the mini ice age that happened in the 1600's. Still, the prediction has been based on a model which can always be wrong. Regardless, this model is apparently far more accurate up to this point than anything the global warming alarmists have been able to fabricate so if I had to place a bet on which to trust, I'll go with this one. There is actual data to support the theory.

Quick everyone, buy an SUV with a V8, leave your lights on, double your meat intake and light your fireplace even in the summer. We need to prepare for the end!!!!!!!!!