Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

No even sure where to begin on that one. I'll defer to someone more willing...

 

Found your match eh Icky? LOL

 

The general idea is to add up all the changes and notice the trend whilst taking natural cycles into account.

So GC, how should a scientist talk to a non-scientist ? I presume without numbers or logic, since that is the language of science you find off-putting and condescending. Religion ? FUD ? I am at a loss.

 

I'm told ignoring trolls is the best approach.

 

I don't think it's that false or too simplified an impression. It's pretty simple really: According to the EPA, GLOBAL temperatures have gone up .29 degrees each decade. GLOBAL climate change isn't about how much snow or heatwaves Boston, Spokane, London, or even Kathmandu gets. It's about the average GLOBAL temperature change.

 

Yes, but climate change is a more accurate term, because localised changes are more extreme than smaller increases in a global average would imply.

 

Well that's semantics...how one wants to debate climate change for each area of the globe is a complicated matter. My point about the term "global warming" is that it's not outdated by any averaged, global data.

 

Fair enough. But, while we're discussing semantics.....

The point about 'global warming' being inaccurate is that not every place on the globe is getting warmer. And, an average is less useful as both summer and winter temperatures become more extreme.

 

Eh, the average temperature in every part of the world is going up though....global warming is accounting for the temperature differences between a winter hemisphere vs summer hemisphere. .29 degrees each decade is pretty consistant. A particular area in the globe might have a severe winter, but it's averaged yearly temperature is still going up.

 

Either way climate change/global warming is only half the problem. Increasing CO2 makes the ocean more acidic. At this rate within a few hundred years everything in the sea that makes shells or grows bones could go extinct. That would be bad.

 

I was reading somewhere that a return to organic farming (on an industry wide scale) would help curb CO2 by something like 40%. I'll look for a link.

If this were the case, do you think we would embrace organic farming on a massive scale, or do you think big Agra has too much of a ($$$) hold on farming practices (too much money to be made on pesticides, GMO's, etc.).

 

I finally figured out what 'denier' means, but I keep reading it in the same way one would pronounce 'derriere'

 

Sounds like a Freudulent slip to me

 

As a pessimist, I would like to note that you cannot expect rational, evidence-based public policy from a public that by and large believes that the Bible (and especially their own idiosyncratic interpretation of it) is a more reliable source of information than are peer-reviewed scientific journals. People who believe that the Earth is roughly six thousand years old, and is due to be traded in for something better any day now, are not going to be concerned about CO2 emissions from fossil fuel. People who believe that the human race is a special creation of an all-powerful supreme God, beloved by that God above all things, are not going to worry about the environment, because they believe that God will make everything right.

Religion may have served a useful purpose by creating cohesive communities and providing "answers" to unanswerable questions at the dawn of civilization, but in a globalized and technological age it foments hatred and violence, and obstructs solutions to the environmental problems that unregulated industry has created.

 

Daniel, we've had a row or two over religion in the past but you're spot on here. The only ray of hope with that lot is the concept of stewardship replacing dominion. Only time will tell. As more people are forced to take at least one bite from the sh*te sandwich we're all making change will happen. It will come too late for many probably, but where there's life there's hope.

 

I would have to say that when you look at what people worship, the American god is money. That is what really drives the "dominion" concept. A creation god worship has to be stewardship oriented, from thankfulness, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or Native American.

 

yeah, you're probably not too far off the mark there.

 

One of the reasons I like Wiccans and neo-pagans so much, even though I reject the supernatural portion of their religions as much as I reject all supernatural beliefs, is that they are generally strong supporters of environmentalism, since they worship the Earth itself, rather than some creator outside of nature.

The Marcionites were early Christians who believed that everything material was evil, and although Pauline Christianity persecuted and exterminated them, it did not entirely reject their negative view of all things material.

Wiccans are the complete opposite: imbuing the material world with all sorts of benevolent divinities. This view leads to respect for the Earth and a tendency to protect and preserve it. The Pauline view leads to contempt for the Earth and a propensity to trash it. To the Pauline Christian, the Earth is an enemy, trying to seduce us away from God and deprive us of heaven. To the Wiccan, the Earth is a loving mother, who provides for us and who should be nurtured in return. Both views are grounded in superstition. But one leaves the Earth trashed for future generations, while the other strives to leave the Earth as they found it or better.