Global Warming and Darwinism

Anthropogenic-Catastrophic-Global Climate Change and Darwinism have something in common; you can't see them in action. You can't observe them. You can't feel them happening. In fact, you need experts to tell you not to believe your own lying eyes. You need experts to tell you that they are happening. Indeed, if not for the experts, the rest of us would be left with only our observations, measurements and test results. If not for those priestly experts, we mere laymen would be left to believe that there would be no way that random mutations could accumulate into ever increasing functional complexity, let alone come into being by the same spontaneity. If not for those heavenly prognosticators, we of the here and now would dismiss anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change as either an anthropocentric arrogance or a hoax.

This is not the first time that experts, in some narrow field of expertise, were left to sincerely believe that life on earth as we know it depended upon their unique insights. I have personally heard preachers and politicians make the same claim.

 

You also haven't seen atoms, theory of relativity work, the round earth, black holes, wind, the South Pole, and O.J. committing murder, yet you believe all these things. Maybe you have seen some photos, but photos can be faked right?

 

Unlike Darwinism though the alarmists have lost all their credibility.

Between their multitude of failed predictions and being caught falsifying data its no surprise only the far left is actually worried about it.

 

Most of what we know, we take on good authority, including all historical statements,
but that doesn't make it true.

To the extent that the things you list above are not disproved by my observations, measurements or tests, they may stand. To me, it's not so much that anything is really ever proved as much as it is that all of the other ideas that I have considered have been disproved. Whatever remains is what I am left to believe, then that's tested, and so on, and so on.

One's knowledge is nothing more or less than what that one is left to believe.

Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas. Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing new and old ideas. The source of an idea may influence whether or not I test the idea in the first place, but who proffered the idea, or who brought the idea to my attention, plays no part in my observations, measurements or tests.
I form my own opinions. I don't need a priest, a politician or a scientist to tell me what to believe.

 

A century ago, the left's worry was over Darwinism's eugenic implications.

 

Hmm, so how do you feel about doctors, i.e. scientists. You can do what you want but your logic is dangerous to a society.

 

Thinking for yourself is "dangerous to a society"?

 

For most of medical history, miasma was believed to be the primary cause of disease, and bleeding was a mainstream treatment for many maladies. Almost everyone who devoted their lives to the science of their day wasted their lives on mumbo jumbo. In fact, so few were those who were who's work we could build upon that we can know their names. I find absolutely no consolation in the "scientific consensus". I am way, way past 'so you think that you know better than the church?', or "so you think you know better than the priests?'.

 

One only has to look at the weather related natural disasters occurring in our country and in other locations around the world to know that things are not as they used to be.For the past two years we have suffered one disaster after another.The storm surge we suffer up and down both the East and West coasts is far more devastating now than at any time in my life

 

That's called awareness bias.

 

The scientific authority once told us the earth is flat and a ship can sail off the end. Man cannot control the earth's climate any more than he can make rain, change the earth's rotation, or influence the sun's temperature. Those who believe, or act like they believe, we are ruining the earth climate do so to sound smarter and more intelligent than Carl Citizen. Please stop the acting and join the real world and just enjoy the ride.

 

So your stance is that scientists are wrong and corrupt ... yet here you are basing your decisions on the findings of scientist whose findings you find acceptable because you think that those scientist are not wrong or corrupt ... whatever.

 

Again, you're basing your conclusions on the work of scientists you find support your personal bias ... all the while crying out that scientists are corrupt idiots.

 

Not at all. I just point out common sense. There are enough opinions to fill a book and I have mine. Of course the earth's climate is changing over the past millions of years. It started long before man and it's going to continue no matter the actions of man. I certainly don't believe we must eliminate fossil fuels or we will all die in 12 years -- do you?

 

Sure, what could be simpler than comparing recent natural disaters with those from 200 years ago, when there was no US infrastructure to speak of?

 

We do not live in a climatologically optimum time period. Our plants are starving. Humanity would benefit from atmospheric concentrations of CO2 several times higher than they are now. Humanity would benefit from global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even as high as they were during the Phoenician high period.

In my opinion, anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are neither significant or negative in their nature. If we could do what the climate alarmists claim that we are doing, I'd be all for it. Let's do it. Let's green up and warm up the planet. Let's optimize the environment. Let's take filthy wilderness and restore it to garden. Let's multiply fill the Earth and subdue it. Unfortunately, I don't think that we're all that just yet.

My environmental goal is quite simple. I want to maximize human well being. Human beings do this by taking dirty and dangerous wildernesses and making them cleaner and safer for human beings.

The misanthropes' environmental goal is just as simple. They want to minimize human impact on the environment. They see humanity as an invasive species or a cancer. They believe that the only real problem on Earth, the only thing "unnatural", the 'original sin', is exactly humanity attempting to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.

I am a humanist. I don't have a misanthropic bone in my body. I love human beings. I want humanity to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it; but to do that, we must be wise. We must not be wasteful. We must forge ahead very carefully. But first, and much more importantly, we must not let the misanthropes fool us into believing that we are "unnatural" or that anything uniquely human is "unnatural". Nothing is unnatural. There is the natural and the supernatural, but there nothing that is "unnatural". Don't buy that bs.

 

I basically know two things about electricity, never even seen an electron: If you don't know what you're doing and mess with it it'll kill you, and if you don't pay the electric bill they shut if off. But I believe in electricity as a practical matter and always pay the bill and am grateful to the electric company for providing such great, unbelievable technological convenience that has only been widely available to the masses for about a hundred years.

In the long run global warming, should there be some significant amount of it, is most likely good for humanity also.

 

A big side effect of global warming is sea level rise. If the arctic melts, then that is 20 feet, if the antarctic melts, that is 200 feet. In the past, these two have melted many times. In fact, during the dinosaur era, the earth is entirely ice-free, North America was a desert, and the great planes was a shallow sea. Experts are afraid we are turning our greenhouse layer and temperatures back to the dinosaur era.

 

But that could be good for humanity.

Besides, Al Gore hasn't seen a half-inch of his predicted 20'.

 

When did radical communist care about the environment?

 

The Artic ice is sea ice. Even if all of the sea ice in the world melted, the sea level wouldn't rise a bit.

 

Again with the personal attacks. Please, try to address the ideas and not the people.

 

Florida seniors starting to abandon Florida due to increased storm activity and erosion and flooding, causing huge spikes in property insurance.Both East and West coasts are seeing similar devastation.

 

No, global warming will cost countless trillions of dollars in economic damage from most of our major cities being flooded and property permanently damaged.

 

Much of the ice is above the water, e.g. all the ice on Greenland. That ice will raise the sea level.