Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:08 PM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,355
As far as I know, it's not possible to show that God is not real. It's not possible to show Santa Claus is not real, either.

It's possible, you can prove a negative with a contradictory positive. We know how Santa Claus was created and evolved, proving that he's made up and not real. Same with god and all the god myths. We can draw a clear line from African superstitions to Egyptian mythology to the cult of Ba'al to judaism to christianity, one religion stealing from another to build their own mythology.

Then don't generalize so sloppily. You said "most atheists", not "most atheists who aren't Chinese".

You know what I was talking about and you're just acting stupid.

I don't get why you're using this as a foundation premise. It's like saying "atheists believe God isn't real" is functionally identical to saying "atheists don't believe God is real", and it isn't.

I never said that, and now you're just twisting my words in a feeble attempt to win a pointless argument. And while the latter may be true for most atheists, there are gnostic atheists that believe is not, and can not be, real. Slight difference, but both of those exist.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #52  
Old 12-28-2019, 06:52 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
As far as I know, it's not possible to show that God is not real. It's not possible to show Santa Claus is not real, either.

It's possible, you can prove a negative with a contradictory positive. We know how Santa Claus was created and evolved, proving that he's made up and not real. Same with god and all the god myths. We can draw a clear line from African superstitions to Egyptian mythology to the cult of Ba'al to judaism to christianity, one religion stealing from another to build their own mythology.
That doesn't prove anything about God, it just demonstrates that beliefs about God are of suspect validity. It's entirely possible to believe something is true for no good reason, and it happens to be true anyway, independent of your beliefs.

In the case of "converting" someone to atheism, it might be easy to point out that religious beliefs are mere superstitions, leading that person to question his adherence to those beliefs and to abandon them, but this says or proves nothing about God, just religion.

Quote:
Then don't generalize so sloppily. You said "most atheists", not "most atheists who aren't Chinese".

You know what I was talking about and you're just acting stupid.
No, I'm pointing out a major flaw in your approach, the same kind of flaw theists use when they say "atheists really do believe in God, they're just angry at Him because He doesn't let them do whatever they want."

Quote:
I never said that, and now you're just twisting my words in a feeble attempt to win a pointless argument. And while the latter may be true for most atheists, there are gnostic atheists that believe is not, and can not be, real. Slight difference, but both of those exist.
I agree the argument is pointless, for what it's worth. Your phrasing is simply sloppy, and you reinforce it every time you say some variant on "proving god doesn't exist." And the claim that "Most atheists were once christians" is simply incorrect. To me it looks like the product of a narrow world-view that assumes Christianity as some kind of global and historical default condition. Even now, well under half the human population is some flavor of Christian.
  #53  
Old 12-28-2019, 02:40 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Incorrect. Agnostics just claim not to know if any gods are worth bothering. Theists bother one or more gods. Atheists don't bother with gods. Just as "bald" is not a hair color, so "atheism" is not a belief system.
The word atheism contains theism, or belief. Atheism is the lack of this belief.
I have not the slightest clue as to what you mean by "bothering" but gnostic as I said means knowledge.
Quote:
Back to topic. People believe exactly what they want to believe. Trying to convince a believer is IMHO a waste of energy. My cousin, not a simple person, won't listen to any atheist talk because her dead baby is in Jesus' arms and that gives her great comfort.

As Thomas Kuhn noted, paradigms die out when all their believers do.
I suspect many if not most believers believe what they got taught as children, and what their community believes. Many are isolated from any evidence against their beliefs. See for instance how little most creationists know about evolution.

I learned in Hebrew Scholl that Moses wrote the Torah, and it was given before the entry to Canaan. I became an atheist the moment I found when the Bible was really written.
  #54  
Old 12-29-2019, 10:46 AM
chaidragonfire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 19
Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion.


Climate change is called "weather". Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of. And most of those issues have corrected themselves or have been made infinitesimal. Mankind has nothing to do with this planet shifting on it's axis, or the continents shifting, which in turn creates altered weather patterns. Mankind has never had control over this, and anyone who thinks so is an imbecile. The earth has shifted and changed all of it's life, and will continue to do so, even after mankind has long disappeared from killing themselves.


Walking on the moon. Well, I've watched many a program and documentary on this, including the conspiracy theory ones. From what I've heard and seen in these programs, if any of it is to be believed, there is more factual evidence that the moon landing never happened and was fake. Several scientists in different programs brought up the same issue on this matter though.............at that time in our history, there was no protection from the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding this planet, and no living thing could have survived going through it to the moon.

I'm no scientist, but the impossible has always occurred, so there is no telling. But my personal opinion is, that it was faked. To much evidence points to it being faked, than it being true.


Science is the art of investigation into a specific piece of evidence. When people hear "science" or "scientist" they immediately think of concrete, proven facts, which is incorrect. Scientists may discover facts here and there, during their research and investigations, but they are for the most part only theorists. They take what is known, weigh it against the unknown, and postulate a theory on the matter or subject. This does not make anything a scientists says actual fact, only theory or opinion.

I personally take offense of any "scientist" telling me anything they state is fact, if they haven't previously given rock solid evidence of what they state is true. In other words, I take what scientists say "with a grain of salt".

A REAL scientist will give you what facts they have, the unknowns, and theories, to let you make up your own mind of whether something "is" or "isn't". Anyone else is a fraud or attention seeker.



That all being said........I think you have confused "selective ignorance" with personal opinion. It is YOUR opinion that THEIR opinion is wrong. If that weren't the case, then YOU would also be stated as having "selective ignorance" because you refuse to listen to their side.



An ignorant person is someone who HASN'T learned something yet.

A stupid person is someone who REFUSES to learn something (also moron and imbecile).

An obstinate person is someone who firmly believes their own opinion, regardless of facts or proof, and will never believe otherwise.

A fuktard is someone who is stupid beyond all comprehension of being stupid, and it's a waste of time to even speak with them, as they are unwilling or unable to learn anything, as well as understand concepts or ideals.

Last edited by chaidragonfire; 12-29-2019 at 10:50 AM.
  #55  
Old 12-29-2019, 10:56 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaidragonfire View Post
Atheism is a religion.
Wrong, and frankly discouraging to take anything written after this sentence seriously, but I'll give it a shot.

[reads rest of post]

I feel my initial reaction fully justified.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #56  
Old 12-29-2019, 11:00 AM
chaidragonfire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Wrong, and frankly discouraging to take anything written after this sentence seriously, but I'll give it a shot.

[reads rest of post]

I feel my initial reaction fully justified.

As many of my teachers and employers I have heard comment to closed minded people--

"If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
  #57  
Old 12-29-2019, 11:20 AM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,355
Atheism is a religion.

WRONG! And I'm tired of idiots and imbeciles (your word, so don't bitch about it) saying it is, even after having it explained to them over and over how atheism is the lack of belief in god, any god. Even gnostic atheists, who state with absolute certainty that god does not exist, are not religious. There is no dogma in atheism, no rules, no commandments, nothing attendant in any religion. Atheism is not a religion.

Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of.

WRONG! Science has shown how pollution, specifically excessive amounts of CO2 gasses in the atmosphere, has led to global warming, climate change, extreme weather, whatever they're calling it to get it through the heads of idiots that this shit is real.

Walking on the moon... was all faked

WRONG! We walked on the moon, whatever anomalies you can point out have all been explained by actually competent scientists. The lunar module was constructed in such a way to protect from the Van Allen belt, and we didn't spend a lot of time there. So what other bullshit do you have for that? No stars visible? The infamous C rock? Visible cables supposedly holding up the astronauts? All have been explained so that anyone with his head not stuck up his ass can understand.

Science is... only theory or opinion.

WRONG! A scientific theory is not just opinion, but as close to objective truth as you can get. Scientific theories are proven facts. If you don't believe this, then jump off a tall building, since gravity is only a theory.

A stupid person is someone who REFUSES to learn something (also moron and imbecile)

WRONG! A stupid person is someone incapable of learning. Refusing to learn would make you obstinate.

A fuktard is someone who is stupid beyond all comprehension of being stupid, and it's a waste of time to even speak with them, as they are unwilling or unable to learn anything, as well as understand concepts or ideals.

WRONG! It's spelled fucktard. But you seem to have categorized yourself here. Unable or unwilling to learn or understand concepts, that's pretty much your whole post.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?

Last edited by atimnie; 12-29-2019 at 11:23 AM.
  #58  
Old 12-29-2019, 12:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaidragonfire View Post
As many of my teachers and employers I have heard comment to closed minded people--

"If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
Some people will talk in clichés until the cows come home.
  #59  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:34 AM
Small Clanger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 2,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaidragonfire
Atheism is a religion
I think you'll get some push-back on that here.

We also have:

* Climate change is a hoax.
* Moon landings, hoax.

"I'm no scientist", No fucking shit.

Do you want to chuck in some Flat-Earth and Anti-Evolutionary options here? Also, Quantum Physics is some sort of "scientists'" in-joke, it's all made up bollocks, right?

Checks join date (May 2019) this clown has lasted 7 months?
  #60  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:24 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,709
Regarding the Van Allen belt, it's my understanding that it is indeed a dangerous place - if you linger there. The Apollo trajectories, I read, were chosen to specifically avoid the most hazardous regions and pass quickly through what couldn't be avoided. It would not at all surprise me if the Apollo astronauts (and astronauts generally) were at a higher risk of long-term health problems due to radiation exposure, but this would be somewhat offset by the selection process that goes into becoming an astronaut in the first place - these people are generally in well-above-average physical shape and if they don't smoke (or had to quit smoking - amusing article on the topic) in order to train, they already have a significantly reduced cancer risk.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #61  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:15 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Regarding the Van Allen belt, it's my understanding that it is indeed a dangerous place - if you linger there. The Apollo trajectories, I read, were chosen to specifically avoid the most hazardous regions and pass quickly through what couldn't be avoided.
Quite right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Al...r_space_travel
Quote:
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[33] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][34] Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field.
The belts lie in toruses circling Terra. Launch from a pole to skip the belts, and Sol will still roast us. I'll take improved shielding, thanks.

Back to willful ignorance. We believe what we want to believe, even as reality whacks our heads. A knowledge system allows or requires self-correction; a belief system, not. We can paste-together beliefs from anywhere and personalize them as we wish. Jehovah told Noah to load his ark with sub-sustainable populations of animals "that walk on all fours." AFAIK the only insects that qualify are mantids. All other insects and arthropods are thus Satanic. That's not open to scientific disproof, so it's true, Q.E.D.

Squash the bugs! Except my pet tarantula. It's specially blessed. Just gaze into those eyes...
  #62  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaidragonfire View Post
Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion.
As others have said, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are a near infinite number of possible gods. Why would I believe a god who interacts with the inhabitants of a planet in a galaxy three galaxies over does not exist? I lack belief in this god, until I get good evidence of its existence. That's what any rational person should do. We might believe that some gods, the types that created the universe in 6 days, don't exist.
Quote:
Climate change is called "weather". Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of. And most of those issues have corrected themselves or have been made infinitesimal. Mankind has nothing to do with this planet shifting on it's axis, or the continents shifting, which in turn creates altered weather patterns. Mankind has never had control over this, and anyone who thinks so is an imbecile. The earth has shifted and changed all of it's life, and will continue to do so, even after mankind has long disappeared from killing themselves.
Climate and weather are different. In the Bay Area we have microclimates, which have very different average temperatures in the summer, for instance. On a particular day a hotter climate may be cooler than a colder one.
On Christmas day my daughter's town in Indiana was warmer than my town in the Bay Area. You think this is an indication of their climates?
Quote:
Walking on the moon. Well, I've watched many a program and documentary on this, including the conspiracy theory ones. From what I've heard and seen in these programs, if any of it is to be believed, there is more factual evidence that the moon landing never happened and was fake. Several scientists in different programs brought up the same issue on this matter though.............at that time in our history, there was no protection from the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding this planet, and no living thing could have survived going through it to the moon.
This just shows you should brush up on your critical thinking. I personally saw Apollo XVII take off. Even assuming there was some good reason for faking Apollo XI (and there wasn't) why fake six more?
Plus, I saw a vial of moondust at MIT in September 1969. Pretty fast to arrange a fake. Samples had been sent out already - were all the scientists who analyzed them in on the hoax?
Quote:
I'm no scientist, but the impossible has always occurred, so there is no telling. But my personal opinion is, that it was faked. To much evidence points to it being faked, than it being true.
I can only guess that you haven't looked into evidence for the moon landings, or understood why the supposed evidence against them is crap. Are you aware that there is a reflector placed on the moon by the astronauts which you can bounce lasers off of? Are you aware that the Australian tracking stations that received transmissions from the astronauts could tell where the transmissions came from? If you wanted to, you could match the view of Earth from Apollo VIII and later flights with the weather that day. How could that be faked in real time using 1968 computers? I could go on.
So let's see if you can admit that your beliefs are demonstrably incorrect. That will tell us where you fall on your own scale.
  #63  
Old 01-02-2020, 08:23 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
Climate change is even harder. It's become incredibly politicized and the green movement has been really bad at talking about it. If you believe in it, you are expected to change your lifestyle, likely to be less enjoyable... so there's another reason not to believe in it. It's hard to get people to think about the future. It's even harder to get people to perceive the risks. Headlines that we soon will be unable to stop temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius don't provoke outrage and aren't viewed as credible. (They should also use the term Fahrenheit if the intent is to convince Americans.) According to Peter Sandman, a risk communication specialist, "the most important truth in risk communication is the exceedingly low correlation between whether a risk is dangerous, and whether it's upsetting". This applies to climate change, vaccines, and many other issues.
I agree. The marketing/method of persuasion is one of the absolute worst, especially if it is true that our grandchildren will die a miserable death.

First, I have no reason to distrust the experts. None. I know nothing about their subject and therefore I must take what they say, especially given their near unanimity on blind faith. Fair enough.

But given that, why is it only the far left-Greenpeace types that are pushing it? Surely (at least) moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats want to see their grandchildren live good lives. If it is truly such a looming potential tragedy, why are not 90% of the politicians (excluding Trump and the evil 10%) pushing for it? Why is there not MORE of an urgency? Why only the hard left like AOC and her ilk constantly talking about it? Does she love her unborn descendants more than, say, Mitt Romney?

Further, the blame is directed at people personally. It is MY fault for living in the suburbs, my fault for eating meat, my fault for driving an SUV, my fault for using oil and gas. Then something comes along like banning plastic straws and plastic bags and we are told that is to save marine animals. You look dishonest when you do that. You convince us that we are combating global warming but pass "Save the Whales" type laws under its heading.

Then it is something that the United States and Europe has to bear alone. China? Yeah they are the worst polluters, but I don't hear the left asking for heavy sanctions on them; just complaining at me and my SUV.

Next, we have already taken extraordinary steps towards lowering CO2 emissions. CAFE standards in cars have driven up prices except for the little unsafe cheesebox cars. Emissions are so much better you cannot even commit suicide in a car in an enclosed garage.

So, in short, the marketing issue on this very serious matter is manifest. You have people who generally hate us lecturing us like school children, passing irrelevant legislation, and doing nothing to the other guy who is far worse than we are.

Finally, what exactly is being asked of us? No more meat? No more SUVs or living in the suburbs? I've not heard a serious proposal about what Average Joe has to do to combat this other than a giant middle finger blaming us. You want our support, then first:

1) Quit putting radicals as spokespeople on this issue. Get moderates and some conservatives.

2) Give us an 8th grade answer as to how we know it is happening.

3) Tell us in concrete terms what we need to do to fight THIS issue. Don't piggyback other environmental issues on top of it. It looks deceitful.

4) At least be as hard on China as you are on the United States.




Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
The common-sense argument for climate change (assuming that the person you are talking to has any) is:

• The earth is warming up - this is as firmly established as any scientific fact about the weather could possibly be. It's possible to argue about the reasons for it, but not about the temperature rise itself.

• Human beings have been dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year - year after year and decade after decade. To imagine that this has no effect is unscientific.

• It's possible to argue about what the nature of the effect is, or how large it is, but it is not possible to argue that human activity has no effect. If volcanoes spewing out ash can affect world climate, then many decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can affect world climate. Actions have consequences.

• Large corporations whose industries produce greenhouse gases have a strong financial interest in preventing any regulation. They are pouring many millions of dollars all the time into funding anti-climate-change organizations, creating anti-climate-change talking points, publicizing them through media organizations which are friendly to large corporations, and lobbying governments. These are also facts.

• This means that any argument about climate change has to be very carefully and critically examined, and allowance has to be made for the propaganda effort financed by corporations who don't want to reduce emissions because that would reduce their profits. That is why it is best to accept the consensus of independent scientists.
This is an excellent start on the 8th grade argument mentioned above. However, I bolded the part about how actions have consequences. That's not necessarily intuitive. One could reason that the environment is so large compared to human output that the human output is like a pebble in the ocean. I know that isn't true, but it must be shown, not asserted.

Further your last two paragraphs betray a political bias that will not be accepted by many people. The same people who want to chop corporations off at the knees have wanted to do so long before climate change became an issue. Continuing to harp on corporations only exudes a political bias which will hurt the marketing effort.
  #64  
Old 01-07-2020, 04:01 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
No one is 100% rational all the time.
Not even Spock.
  #65  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:22 PM
LoneRhino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Not even Spock.
Pon Farr doesn't count.
  #66  
Old 01-07-2020, 08:42 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Not even Spock.
that damn human mother.
  #67  
Old 01-07-2020, 08:54 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsat3acr View Post
that damn human mother.
Spock was more logical than most Vulcans (until he got old), at which point he was still very rational, but removed the stick from his behind.
  #68  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:49 AM
jerez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 558
"Obtuse" might be a better word than "ignorant," but you know what happened to Andy Dufresne when he used it.

Last edited by jerez; 01-13-2020 at 02:50 AM.
  #69  
Old 01-13-2020, 05:56 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
...And you call yourself a Nice Guy, Jack?
Maybe his name is a take-off on 'Nice Guy' Eddie.

I'm tired of fighting ignorance, but there's one common theme that can be turned to the advantage of rational thought:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack View Post
... But oh no, the earth has gone through cold-warm cycles before...
There are two reasons this should INCREASE concern about climate change.
(1) Dramatic climate changes in the post show how fragile the climate equilibrium is. For example, the closing of a waterway, near present-day Panama, connecting two oceans was sometimes "credited" with plunging Earth into the Pleistocene Freeze. Modest CO2 changes have had a profound effect on temperature; and the present CO2 increase is quite immodest.
(2) The cold-warm cycles in the past have had a huge effect on ecology. Even now, with the big damage still to come, there are sharp ecological changes on view. In parts of the the ocean, jellyfish are replacing fish as key predator.
  #70  
Old 01-13-2020, 09:24 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. The marketing/method of persuasion is one of the absolute worst, especially if it is true that our grandchildren will die a miserable death.

First, I have no reason to distrust the experts. None. I know nothing about their subject and therefore I must take what they say, especially given their near unanimity on blind faith. Fair enough.

But given that, why is it only the far left-Greenpeace types that are pushing it? Surely (at least) moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats want to see their grandchildren live good lives. If it is truly such a looming potential tragedy, why are not 90% of the politicians (excluding Trump and the evil 10%) pushing for it? Why is there not MORE of an urgency? Why only the hard left like AOC and her ilk constantly talking about it? Does she love her unborn descendants more than, say, Mitt Romney?
I see that you are also falling for how even powerful interests are framing the narrative, they do not tell you how they also control the propaganda and even the mainstream corporate media falls into minimizing the harm that is being done.

But getting ahead of the point here, before powerful interests controlled the narrative, many conservatives still looked at the science, people like that pinko commie Margaret Thatcher:

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...e-change-15840
Quote:
Less noted is how seriously she viewed the threat of climate change and the robustness, more than 20 years ago, of climate science and the United Nations body tasked with assessing the state of that science.

In a 1990 speech at the second World Climate Conference, in Geneva, Thatcher compared the threat of global warming to the Gulf War, which was then just escalating following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And Thatcher, who spent 11 years as the United Kingdom's prime minister, called the work of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “remarkable” and “very careful.”
'Real Enough'

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations,” she told delegates, according to a transcript of the speech archived online at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. A short video also survives.

“Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community,” she said. “We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.”
More recently, you asked why it seems that AOC and others like her are the ones talking about it, it is because powerful groups (many times funded by the fossil fuel industry) succeeded in turning the Republican Party (specially the leaders) into a party of willful ignorants, that were compelled to make things like cap and trade a 'tool of the devil' when it was a good tool to involve private industry with the solutions and be a part of them.

The whole history of that can be read or seen in the obligatory to check Frontline program "Climate of Doubt"

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-13-2020 at 09:24 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-13-2020, 10:03 AM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaidragonfire View Post

Climate change is called "weather". Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER!
No, in a nutshell, weather is short-term, climate is long-term, which is based on many years of data collected. Weather is how you can plan what to wear the next few days or so in advance, and also plan any outside activities. Climate is many years of data collecting and taking that data to determine if the climate is staying the same or changing in the long-term. That data shows it is changing, it is warming up, and 97% of scientists in a survey think it is man-made.

If you're old enough, do you remember when the hole in the ozone was often in the news, and was getting bigger? Scientists were blaming CFC's for that. World leaders listened, and there was an international ban on such chemicals. Now, there is plenty of evidence just a few decades later showing how that particular hole has healed up, not entirely, but instead of getting bigger, there has been a vast improvement.

Keep that in mind when you hear of people that deny climate change is real, and that man is not contributing to that either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
But getting ahead of the point here, before powerful interests controlled the narrative, many conservatives still looked at the science, people like that pinko commie Margaret Thatcher:
Most also don't realize at one time quite a few important Republicans were also on the same page as Democrats concerning climate change being very real and was man-made. But corporations and their money, along with many religious folk thinking God will take care of it, have many burying their heads in the sand, and/or their bibles (same result).

Jim Jeffries take on it.

Last edited by Razncain; 01-13-2020 at 10:05 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017