Michaelangelica Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 "I know I am right beyond any shadow of a doubt, and so should others too." This is part of the reason why I think science has a better approach than religion to create human knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge through a process of observation, reasoning, questioning, testing, and reproducibility makes such knowledge approach (but not necessarily meet or be) reality as it is, even if reality will always be to some degree unknowable. Not all zealots are the same, but I know that I get an undeniably creepy feeling when I meet one. Too many have had the hungry eyes, the wolfish grin, and the lies that lie sweetly upon the tongue.MMMmmm (thinks)I think you can have scientific zealotry too. Medicos took a while to get used to vaccination, germs etc. It took them years to give up the Four-Humours-Theory of Life and stop blood letting and take up blood transfusion. Sometimes an entrenched scientific opinion or world view is hard to shift. I know what you mean by "The Look". In Zelot Christians it is a bit beatific, supercilious, and "I know I'm going to heaven and you are not" Another problem Islamists have with the west is Hollywood or the lifestyle depicted therein. The west must look pretty debauched seen though those eyes. Things like acceptance of homosexuality and the dress of women is also a problem. A local Inram just described Australian Girls as "uncovered cat's meat" I think he is sorry he said that, but he has some support in his community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 MMMmmm (thinks)I think you can have scientific zealotry too. Medicos took a while to get used to vaccination, germs etc. It took them years to give up the Four-Humours-Theory of Life and stop blood letting and take up blood transfusion. Sometimes an entrenched scientific opinion or world view is hard to shift.....This is true of course. Zealotry is not limited to religion.However, Science (big S) does not have a central throne of authority or something like an Inquisition to "enforce" the orthodox position. Poincare (I think) was instrumental in theorizing the underlying equations of Relativity, but when Einstein pushed these ideas to their natural limit, Poincare balked. He refused to allow Einstein's ideas to be taught at the University in Paris, France. This set back several hundred students for a decade or more. But it did NOT set back Science. And then Poincare died and French Science rapidly caught up. Within another decade, Poincare's negative influence had vanished and he is remembered today for his positive accomplishments. Somebody double check me. Was it Poincare or Plank? In general, when a scientific paradigm shifts (like the Germ Theory) it takes about one generation for it to firmly take root. The older scientists who cannot make the jump simply die off and leave the stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 ...Extremists of any religion are Feral. Something must have happened to create ...Extremists. Do we know what?May I point you to the book of Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun, no not one thing." On the surface, this appears to be a complaint. But it isn't. It expresses a profound belief that this is the way it should be in a god-governed universe. Every generation must face the same tests, the same enemies, the same tempations, the same obstacles, the same fears and joys. It's only fair, right? This belief survived as long as change took a loooong time. But in today's world, EVERYTHING changes within one lifetime. And this is unacceptable to the true believer. The world MUST be set aright, the way god made it, the way god wants it. So that today's people will not have to deal with anything more complicated or more troublesome than did their ancestors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 "There is nothing new under the sun, no not one thing." The world MUST be set aright, the way god made it, the way god wants it. How does She want it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 How does She want it?Well, DUH!!!!Isn't it obvious that She wants it back the way She described it in Her inspired scriptures?She wants a world with no technology or medicine, where poverty and disease reigns supreme, and where survival requires constant back-breaking work with no time for recreation, reading or scientific exploration. She wants societies dominated by spears, swords (and the occassional ballista). pgrmdave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 Well, DUH!!!!Isn't it obvious that She wants it back the way She described it in Her inspired scriptures?She wants a world with no technology or medicine, where poverty and disease reigns supreme, and where survival requires constant back-breaking work with no time for recreation, reading or scientific exploration. She wants societies dominated by spears, swords (and the occassional ballista).What a *****! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justforfun Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 "This is true of course. Zealotry is not limited to religion.However, Science (big S) does not have a central throne of authority or something like an Inquisition to "enforce" the orthodox position." Science has research budgets, science has public ridicule, tenure, etc.Scientists have tunnel vision just like other humans. Scientists have University degrees which grant some of them Supreme Arrogance. I suspect most scientists in private conversations with good friends will admit to beliefs they would nevber Publish. Another thing about this rising ocean 'threat.' It seems to me that Earth might want the levels to rise, but $$$ interests want to retain the status quo. Which just isn't going to happen. And let me end with a question. Is it possible that other factors, especially solar activity, could be adding to climate change? ta-ta fer now... moo and hallenrm 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 ...Science has research budgets, science has public ridicule, tenure, etc. Scientists have tunnel vision just like other humans....Of course, of course they do. Scientists have heads just like serial killers. Does that make scientists "just like" or "comparable" to serial killers? Of course not! You are attempting to use a lesser form of the fallacy: <condemnation by association>. Scientists write books just like science fiction authors. Does that mean the scientific books are "no better" than fiction? Come, come, that just won't fly. Yes, scientists criticize and even ridicule each other. So what? Does this suppress free thought today? No it does not. The Inquisition tortured and killed millions. Did that suppress free thought? You bet it did, Bucko!!! Scientists do not go to war with each other, declaring Crusades and Jihad. Are scientists ever wrong? Sure they are! But notice that Science has continually gained knowledge and understanding, probing ever deeper into the structure of our Universe, at the atomic scale and the cosmic scale. What has religion learned in the last thousand years? That gays and lesbians caused the flooding of New Orleans?? :doh: And let me end with a question. Is it possible that other factors, especially solar activity, could be adding to climate change?...No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 And let me end with a question. Is it possible that other factors, especially solar activity, could be adding to climate change? You wanna take the wager and find out? If it's us and we do nothing, we all die, if it's not us and we do nothing, we all die. if it's not us and we do something, then nothing happens. if it us, and we do something, then we've saved the world. In other words, the worst possible course of action is to do nothing. Or, maybe just... No. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 And let me end with a question. Is it possible that other factors, especially solar activity, could be adding to climate change? ta-ta fer now...YesIf you look though the very many "Planet Warming" type threads you will see many suggestions. Planetry mechanics, natural 1,000 year cycles of the sun or the earth, wobble etcHowever the consensus seems to be emerging that man-made activity is increasing the planet's temperature (maybe only in the short term). Still many disagree with this and have some good science to back up their positions. In something as complex as life and earth science we will never have a bead on all the possible variables. So we may just end up with an educated guess that it would be a good thing for all if we tried to reduce CO2 emissions.It is unfortunate that 44% of USAans (USA=the major source of CO2 )believe that Armageddon is coming within 10 years-so why should they worry?From Pyrotex:That gays and lesbians caused the flooding of New Orleans?? Wow! I'm impressed!I didn't realise that gays were so powerful! I will be a lot more respectful in future!:hyper: Pyrotex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 Yes. If you look though the very many "Planet Warming" type threads you will see many suggestions. Planetry mechanics, natural 1,000 year cycles of the sun or the earth, wobble etc...You're confusing a hypothesis with a (sound) theory. I can hypothesize that global warming is caused by termite farts (which contains methane). But it isn't a viable theory until I collect the facts and do the math. It is a "possibility" as long as the jury is out. But when the jury comes in with their facts and figures and says, "no, termites do not produce near enough methane to cause the observed global warming", then that hypothesis is no longer a viable "possibility". If the jury says, "yes, the facts and figures show that this adequately explains global warming", then you got a working theory. Yes, there are many proposed explanations, such as natural cycles of the sun (not found), wobbles of the Earth (not big enough), and many others, but the facts and the math have shot most of them down. They are no longer real "possibilities". Wow! I'm impressed! I didn't realise that gays were so powerful!Don't you listen to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell??? Yes, gays flooded New Orleans, destroyed the Twin Towers, caused Bird Flu and retook the House and Senate for the Heathen Liberals. And on a very limited budget, thank you very much! :) :hyper: :) :) :) :) I will be a lot more respectful in future!:)As well you should! Look what happened with Alexander the Great when HE didn't get enough respect!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justforfun Posted November 24, 2006 Report Share Posted November 24, 2006 First, thanks for the replies. You could be right. I could be ... less right. Anything is possible. Nothing is certain, especially when it pertains to the future. I will try to discuss global warming in probabilities. Global warming is probably increased by CO2 emissions. Global warming could possibly be a result of other factors as well. Changes in the core of the Earth, Solar changes, other factors we aren't aware of. Reducing CO2 emissions is almost definitely a good idea. The scientific method has many good qualities which result in many good results. The same could be said for Democracy. The beauty of a forum of this nature is it gives people like me with little scientific training the chance to suggest ideas to others that might improve their 'models of reality.' I did not intend to slam scientists, just get them to consider other possibilities. I read lots of websites with 'weird' ideas about what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. While their scenarios are unlikely they are nowhere near impossible. I suggest we all be a little less certain about what will happen in the near future.... and that we keep communicating. Thats one of our most valuable tools! Stay tuned ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Something more actually on topichttp://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news568.htmThe day drew marching crowds worldwide, while one country facing a nasty climate-changed future saw some of its biggest ever environmental rallies - Australia. . . .Australia generates the highest carbon emissions per head in the world, as well as the highest water usage per head, yet these marches show a clear distance between the population and a government which remains a firm ally of the US’s ‘flat earth society’ climate change denial club. During his recent speaking tour, Al Gore asked to meet prime minister John Howard who refused saying he “didn’t take policy advice from a film.” The Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane also declined, saying he wouldn’t listen to the opinion of “an unsuccessful US presidency candidate who could not convince (his) own people.” Now John Howard has just given the biggest oil companies in the world (Friends of Bush and co.) a $60m gift to help them sequester carbon, with a totally untried tecnology.You have to wonder about kick-backs in the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maikeru Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 First, thanks for the replies. You could be right. I could be ... less right. Anything is possible. Nothing is certain, especially when it pertains to the future. I will try to discuss global warming in probabilities. Global warming is probably increased by CO2 emissions. Global warming could possibly be a result of other factors as well. Changes in the core of the Earth, Solar changes, other factors we aren't aware of. Reducing CO2 emissions is almost definitely a good idea. Not just CO2 emissions. Everyone focuses on CO2 emissions because of their bulk but we have to keep in mind there are many other potent gases (methane, water vapor, etc.); the building of cities and roads influence surface warming, because of materials, color, and heat radiation, transfer, and storage; and the increasing inability of our world to "bounce back" from what we do to it, with the destruction of rain forests and grasslands, warming seas that kill phytoplankton, etc. Those are what worry me. The fact that so many "causes" are converging and worsening so quickly. There are many factors, and we identify new ones gradually, but we must and can understand them and what is happening with our world and climate. I suggest we all be a little less certain about what will happen in the near future.... and that we keep communicating. Thats one of our most valuable tools! Stay tuned ... Not only do we need to continue to communicate, but also to communicate meaningfully and deeply. DougF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Not just CO2 emissions. Everyone focuses on CO2 emissions because of their bulk but we have to keep in mind there are many other potent gases (methane, water vapor, etc.); the building of cities and roads influence surface warming, because of materials, color, and heat radiation, transfer, and storage; and the increasing inability of our world to "bounce back" from what we do to it, with the destruction of rain forests and grasslands, warming seas that kill phytoplankton, etc. Those are what worry me. The fact that so many "causes" are converging and worsening so quickly. There are many factors, and we identify new ones gradually, but we must and can understand them and what is happening with our world and climate. Not only do we need to continue to communicate, but also to communicate meaningfully and deeply.Lovely post maikeru. (Sorry I can't give you any reputation points for it) I only discovered yesterday that Water Vapour is a bigger "greenhouse gas" than CO2. You live and learn. How do air conditioners work, then, do you think? They make CO2 from the energy they use; but then take water vapour from the air? So are they + - or neutral re warming? Or am I missing something. Phytoplankton is also being killed by DDT and its relatives. Sending my rubbish to the tip produces heaps of methane. I need one of those new-fangled indoor composters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chacmool Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 I finally got to see the movie last night. I was a bit disappointed by the heavy focus on Al Gore on his (failed) political exploits because it had no bearing on the facts he presented. Nevertheless, it was a sobering movie with some clear insight into the increasing threat of global warming. We are indeed in very deep trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Science teachers’ association accused of oil company influence Nov 27, 2006Special to World Science Some science edcators are quetioning whether the leading organization of U.S. science teachers has acted as a shill for the oil industry. The controversy erupted after the National Science Teachers’ Association rejected an offer of 50,000 free copies of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the popular film on global warming by erstwhile presidential candidate Al Gore. Global warming will take a disprportionate toll on Africa, creaing a greater risk of drought and fires, according to a study published in the Nov. 24 issue of the Afrcan Journal of Ecol. .. A producer of the movie claimed that as one reason for rejecting the DVDs, the teachers’ group stated that accepting them could hinder its fundraising. Writing in Sunday’s Washington Post, a producer for the movie suggested it may be no coincidence that the group’s funders include Exxon-Mobil Corp. . . .d.ialScience teachers' association accused of oil company influence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.