Cathay Pacific Bets Big on BioFuels
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will all be long dead... and the oceans will have risen no more than a few millimeters, and the temps globally will have changed less than 1 degree. Some places will get warmer while others cool. Do I give a crap? Not really, I refuse to endorse turning the global economy on its head over all this uncertainty. With all the problems in the world, we have much bigger fish to fry. There is one rogue nation and the largest state sponsor of terrorism test launching ballistic missiles and developing nuclear weapons. FFS, you might want to concern yourself with that over climate change. Duh!
If you think CO2 levels are so important, lead by example and refuse to make your living flying around in high altitude carbon emitters. After all, if no one would pilot airliners, the earth could reduce carbon emissions by a whopping 3-4% and still have almost no effect on climate change, which is more than any of these ridiculous climate accords are proposing.
This is all about government controlled income redistribution. The fix is in, and all the money is behind one side, except for those evil oil companies who keep the buildings warm, the lights on, and the transporters moving. How dare they make a profit! Corporate pigs!
Sorry, but I've got kids to raise and a retirement to plan for, this doesn't even crack the top 20 for my list of concerns. If it is high on your list, fine, but leave me out of it. I don't want to pay a single penny to this crackpot science which admits it cannot "fix the problem" without sending us all back to living in cold, dark caves where we won't even be allowed to light a wood fire for fear of the dreaded CO2 molecule. Oh btw, you might find one of those nasty assault rifles handy if you are living in that cave someday.
Now back to your cup of stfu!
If you think CO2 levels are so important, lead by example and refuse to make your living flying around in high altitude carbon emitters. After all, if no one would pilot airliners, the earth could reduce carbon emissions by a whopping 3-4% and still have almost no effect on climate change, which is more than any of these ridiculous climate accords are proposing.
This is all about government controlled income redistribution. The fix is in, and all the money is behind one side, except for those evil oil companies who keep the buildings warm, the lights on, and the transporters moving. How dare they make a profit! Corporate pigs!
Sorry, but I've got kids to raise and a retirement to plan for, this doesn't even crack the top 20 for my list of concerns. If it is high on your list, fine, but leave me out of it. I don't want to pay a single penny to this crackpot science which admits it cannot "fix the problem" without sending us all back to living in cold, dark caves where we won't even be allowed to light a wood fire for fear of the dreaded CO2 molecule. Oh btw, you might find one of those nasty assault rifles handy if you are living in that cave someday.
Now back to your cup of stfu!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, it is extreme scientific arrogance to be able to claim full knowledge about climate changes, merely by measuring (often with local inaccuracies) weather and climate conditions over a period of less than a lifetime, when climate has been in existence for billions of years.
The fact that many of us are uneducated on the subject doesn't mean that we should not believe what they say just because we don't like what they say, albeit it is a very primal reaction to just dismiss and deny things we don't want to be true. Nor should we ignore the underlying message because they do not all agree on the details.
And while there is disagreement on the projected effects of global warming, there is a consensus that the effect will be damaging. Just how much is what's still being debated.
The more data there is, the better the guess becomes.
But even if you're an optimist, if you have been told that you might have cancer and that it could be caused by your smoking, would you wait until it's confirmed to try to quit?
Weather data has been collected for more than a lifetime. Accurate data has been recorded for over a century. No matter how deep you want to delve into the debate, the deniers don't seem to want to offer an alternate explanation for the sharp rise in temperatures since the beginning of the industrial era about 70 years ago, nor do they want to explain the linear correlation between such increase and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Coincidence maybe?
The frequency and magnitude of severe weather events is also higher than ever recorded.
We will all be long dead... and the oceans will have risen no more than a few millimeters, and the temps globally will have changed less than 1 degree.
The average global temperatures have risen by 0.8°C since I was born. With any luck, I can expect to live the same amount of time again and, extrapolating the current rate of increase, they will have risen to over 1.5°C by the time I kick the bucket.
There is one rogue nation and the largest state sponsor of terrorism test launching ballistic missiles and developing nuclear weapons.
except for those evil oil companies who keep the buildings warm, the lights on, and the transporters moving. How dare they make a profit! Corporate pigs!
But otherwise, I'm sure Trump has a valid reason for defunding climate research and erasing all the climate data. He probably just needs more space to store his tweets. He's "like, a really smart person" after all.
I don't want to pay a single penny to this crackpot science which admits it cannot "fix the problem" without sending us all back to living in cold, dark caves where we won't even be allowed to light a wood fire for fear of the dreaded CO2 molecule.
Oh, and if you bothered to look into it a little, no one but a few hard core hippies is seriously considering a solution that curtails global economic growth and prevents you from living with all the comforts you currently enjoy. It's all about solutions which favor sustainability, efficiency or the diversification of energy sources. If anything, they create potential for economic growth and a fairer distribution of resouces rather than the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few who control the global energy reserves and would like it to stay that way.
That said, I'm sure you love to see the Sauds fly around in their gold plated private jumbo jets. They deserve it after all, and it's not like some of that money funds terror groups... No, that's only Iran, right?
And it's perfectly fine to have an Oil tycoon head the US foreign affairs. I'm sure it's because he's so good at international diplomacy and nothing else.
Your rhetoric is indicative of your understanding of the issue and your level of progressive and inquisitive thinking. You bring nothing to the debate other than your unshakable belief that it's all false because you say so and want so. Facts are so yesterday.
But whatever floats your boat. It's all a conspiracy. Fake news. Hail Trump. Believe him and no one else. He says it like it is. He is the messiah.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worlds average temperature has been falling for almost 20 years. The global warming cabal has doctored temp evidence (proven) and when that is taken out of the statistics, there, again, has been no warming. The worlds oceans are not rising. There has been record arctic ice for the pastd two years. The global warming crowd are for the most part the same liberal, power hungry group of elites that use the quasi-religion that is 'global warming' as yet another method to dictate to the masses, and tax and profit from them at the same time (...and just a bunch of hippies?....really. The head of the UN environmental group admitted this week that their 'goal' is to change our system of economic freedom). Even with our 'best' efforts, we could only effect the global temp about 1/10th of 1 degree C, at the cost of trillions of $$$. Mankind would benefit far more if that was dedicated to eradicating disease. And btw YM, it's always the same...say it's to 'save the children'. I'm sick of the entire lot of you. If you want to 'save the planet', then YOU can start by selling your car, stop flying an airplane and contributing YOUR income voluntarily to the 'cause'. Stay out of my pocket. Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather data has been collected for more than a lifetime. Accurate data has been recorded for over a century. No matter how deep you want to delve into the debate, the deniers don't seem to want to offer an alternate explanation for the sharp rise in temperatures since the beginning of the industrial era about 70 years ago, nor do they want to explain the linear correlation between such increase and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Coincidence maybe?
The frequency and magnitude of severe weather events is also higher than ever recorded.
The frequency and magnitude of severe weather events is also higher than ever recorded.
2. The Industrial Revolution is generally regarded as having started in the early 1800's, not just 70 years ago. Pollution from coal-burning was widespread and highly visible in cities such as London by the late 1800's.
3. The frequency and magnitude of weather events is reflected in the flood and drought events. We have flood and drought events measured in terms of;
1 in 20 year flood or drought events
1 in 50 year flood or drought events
1 in 100 year flood or drought events
1 in 200 year flood or drought events
1 in 500 year flood or drought events
These flood or drought events are recorded in flood heights, or lack of rainfall, and recognised by every authority from planning authorities, to agricultural authorities, to building authorities, and even recognised by scientists.
If these regular, extreme flood and drought events are recognised, why doesn't the GW/CO2 fraternity recognise and acknowledge that extreme climate events are linked to these flood and drought events?
The greatest heatwave in Western Australia happened during 1933, during the Great Depression (1929-1933), a period of the least industrial and human activity in the Nation.
Industrial activity in Australia was running at 1/3rd of the level of industrial activity prior to 1929, during 1933.
The heatwave records created during the 1933 W.A. heatwave have not yet been broken.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CX is betting big on something related to fuel, one could bet the rest of the industry will be doing the exact opposite. Yet again they look for the most expensive fuel they can buy.
A certain large US operator has its own oil refinery, they posts ed massive profits (and large staff bonuses).
A certain large US operator has its own oil refinery, they posts ed massive profits (and large staff bonuses).
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a typical reaction from the smug, self-serving elitists that us knuckle dragging plebeians 'just don't get it' and are far too stupid to analyze what these smart 'scientists' are doing. And we simply turn our back on the so-called 'science.'
When exactly the opposite is true. Many of us DO come from scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical modeling backgrounds. And understand when there might be a rational basis for regulation and when there isn't. Which makes things worse in that we see what a deliberate lie it is. Many of us HAVE actually looked at the models, the adsorption spectra of carbon, the ability of the earth to re-radiate absorbed electromagnetic radiation in the IR bands, the concentration variation of CO2 over the (recorded) years (as well as have analyzed the tolerances in dating samples from the past as well as radiocarbon dating tolerances in general). Many of us do understand that no orbit is completely stable, the sun's mass does change as it converts matter to energy (resulting in varying gravitational pull), and see that figuring out what the solar constant does to four significant figures is a relatively recent development.
And many of us remember when only several decades ago the entire computing capacity of a nations' air defense system was a small fraction of the computing power of the computer these very words are being typed on. And when electron tubes ruled the day with analog computers and (by today's standards) very imprecise recorded measurements of anything.
And when fierce tornadoes and storms attacked sparsely populated areas without anyone knowing anything about it--or when they did they read it by newspaper several days later and didn't see radar images at all or even primitive video of it. When there was a whole bunch of space with a whole bunch of nothing and no one there to figure out WHAT the temperature might be--and even if someone did go out to write it down from time to time it was a guy with a mercury thermometer with a printed scale (of varying quality) on the side and a watch that ticked. Perhaps even using a real honest to goodness map and compass to figure out where he or she kinda was.
This is just within the last half-century; far too fast to rate even a blink of an eye in the history of humans walking the planet. Even less so compared to what the earth has done over her entire history where humankind itself is a short blink of its history so far.
We understand rates of change as well as understand what the earth has done through recorded history--and that is a very small fraction by terrestrial standards of what we really know.
We understand that CO2 levels might tend to follow median earth temperature (within the tolerances of us being able to actually date it which are quite wide to begin with and get wider the further back we go). And that 'tend to follow' does not imply a cause and effect relationship any more than someone putting their car in their garage causes it to rain outside.
We understand how glaciers covered (and carved out beautiful scenery) where some of us now live with the green grass a growing. All without any human interference whatsoever.
And that so-called 'science' has been wrong, politicized, and has sometimes even lied to populations throughout history (with noble or nefarious intent) in order to manipulate groups of people. Usually for the gain of a few self-proclaimed mortal saviors.
And that NO true scientist uses words like 'settled science,' 'irrefutable,' 'incontrovertible' and the like to try to browbeat those with opposite ideas in order to shut them up. True scientists realize the limitations of their modeling, that they don't know what they don't know, and realize they might be wrong--embracing those who might challenge their conclusions and have other ideas.
Which is exactly the opposite of what the so-called scientists, parrots, and politicians propagating the global warming myth have done.
Is it good to pursue other forms of energy ? Of course. But gas stations, oil refineries, and pipelines grew up as the demand for oil increased--funded by the folks who wanted to drive their car or airplane from where they were to where they weren't. Not from bazillion dollar boondoggles fueled by regulation, restriction, and taxpayer dough.
'Green' energy is a myth; ALL sources of energy 'pollute' in some way--with beauty being in the eye of the beholder as to whether a wind farm or coal power plant looks better. The ONE objective standard is cost which usually determines the best form of energy to be used at the time.
And maybe I'd listen maybe a little harder to the parrots when they'd stop flying their bizjets with their carbon guzzling entourage to the vital environmental conference they just have to attend--burning well more energy in the process than my family will use over the next decade--because they think they are the important ones and get to tell everyone else how to live.
When exactly the opposite is true. Many of us DO come from scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical modeling backgrounds. And understand when there might be a rational basis for regulation and when there isn't. Which makes things worse in that we see what a deliberate lie it is. Many of us HAVE actually looked at the models, the adsorption spectra of carbon, the ability of the earth to re-radiate absorbed electromagnetic radiation in the IR bands, the concentration variation of CO2 over the (recorded) years (as well as have analyzed the tolerances in dating samples from the past as well as radiocarbon dating tolerances in general). Many of us do understand that no orbit is completely stable, the sun's mass does change as it converts matter to energy (resulting in varying gravitational pull), and see that figuring out what the solar constant does to four significant figures is a relatively recent development.
And many of us remember when only several decades ago the entire computing capacity of a nations' air defense system was a small fraction of the computing power of the computer these very words are being typed on. And when electron tubes ruled the day with analog computers and (by today's standards) very imprecise recorded measurements of anything.
And when fierce tornadoes and storms attacked sparsely populated areas without anyone knowing anything about it--or when they did they read it by newspaper several days later and didn't see radar images at all or even primitive video of it. When there was a whole bunch of space with a whole bunch of nothing and no one there to figure out WHAT the temperature might be--and even if someone did go out to write it down from time to time it was a guy with a mercury thermometer with a printed scale (of varying quality) on the side and a watch that ticked. Perhaps even using a real honest to goodness map and compass to figure out where he or she kinda was.
This is just within the last half-century; far too fast to rate even a blink of an eye in the history of humans walking the planet. Even less so compared to what the earth has done over her entire history where humankind itself is a short blink of its history so far.
We understand rates of change as well as understand what the earth has done through recorded history--and that is a very small fraction by terrestrial standards of what we really know.
We understand that CO2 levels might tend to follow median earth temperature (within the tolerances of us being able to actually date it which are quite wide to begin with and get wider the further back we go). And that 'tend to follow' does not imply a cause and effect relationship any more than someone putting their car in their garage causes it to rain outside.
We understand how glaciers covered (and carved out beautiful scenery) where some of us now live with the green grass a growing. All without any human interference whatsoever.
And that so-called 'science' has been wrong, politicized, and has sometimes even lied to populations throughout history (with noble or nefarious intent) in order to manipulate groups of people. Usually for the gain of a few self-proclaimed mortal saviors.
And that NO true scientist uses words like 'settled science,' 'irrefutable,' 'incontrovertible' and the like to try to browbeat those with opposite ideas in order to shut them up. True scientists realize the limitations of their modeling, that they don't know what they don't know, and realize they might be wrong--embracing those who might challenge their conclusions and have other ideas.
Which is exactly the opposite of what the so-called scientists, parrots, and politicians propagating the global warming myth have done.
Is it good to pursue other forms of energy ? Of course. But gas stations, oil refineries, and pipelines grew up as the demand for oil increased--funded by the folks who wanted to drive their car or airplane from where they were to where they weren't. Not from bazillion dollar boondoggles fueled by regulation, restriction, and taxpayer dough.
'Green' energy is a myth; ALL sources of energy 'pollute' in some way--with beauty being in the eye of the beholder as to whether a wind farm or coal power plant looks better. The ONE objective standard is cost which usually determines the best form of energy to be used at the time.
And maybe I'd listen maybe a little harder to the parrots when they'd stop flying their bizjets with their carbon guzzling entourage to the vital environmental conference they just have to attend--burning well more energy in the process than my family will use over the next decade--because they think they are the important ones and get to tell everyone else how to live.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The spin, myths, unfounded nonsense, doublespeak and logical fallacies are now officially off the charts...
This is just like talking about religion with those believing in imaginary stuff wholeheartedly and don't want or need any valid evidence at all, while ignoring all the opposing evidence and employing as many logical fallacies as possible to maintain their beliefs.
Just like I don't spend time looking for Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Osiris or Jesus, I've shifted my focus onto finding out why otherwise smart people, such as Shep, cxorcist, Traf and others, so easily reject science that doesn't fit their received opinions - which, like religion, are largely based on the accident of birth (nationality/religion/parents/location) rather than the actual facts of science.
When there is a genuine scientific consensus about an issue, and no valid scientific controversy, why do people simultaneously (a) say they believe in science and (b) continue to disagree about the facts? It turns out that both sides of the argument do the same thing most of the time (basically, confirmation bias) but that is only about their personal opinions: The scientific facts are still true (and always improving and evolving). Even Charles Darwin, for religious reasons, tried as hard as humanly possible to find an alternative explanation for all the evidence of evolution that he collected for so many years all around the world, but there was and still is only one valid, observable, verifiable, non-supernatural explanation. And, there is no valid scientific controversy about this either.
Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on pilots to fly the airplanes and climate scientists to determine what's going on with the planet.
Further reading about how personalities work? Liked this explanation, from Why Smart People Deny Climate Change: http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why...climate-change
"Americans tend to clump into two groups on this measure, one hierarchical-individualistic (let people alone and respect authority) and the other egalitarian-communitarian (reduce inequality and look out for the good of society). And it turned out that this measure of value was a much stronger predictor of concern about global warming than was scientific literacy or reasoning skill. Egalitarian-communalists were far more worried about global warming, and a better score on the science competence tests in their group correlated with slightly greater concern. But among the hierarchical-individualists, there was a stronger link between scientific literacy and less concern. That was what was responsible for the overall group result. (Hierachical-individualists were also a great deal less concerned about nuclear power than were egalitarian-communalists.)
Now, these results are a problem for the Enlightenment-era, rationalist model of politics, in which people weigh arguments according to standards of logic and evidence. In real life, people generally do that only when they have to—when, for example, it's required by their jobs.
For those who have to deal with it professionally, after all, climate change isn't in dispute. Agriculture experts, epidemiologists, disaster preparedness teams, civil engineers, military planners and the like can no more deny the state of the climate than an astronaut could believe in a Flat Earth."
This is just like talking about religion with those believing in imaginary stuff wholeheartedly and don't want or need any valid evidence at all, while ignoring all the opposing evidence and employing as many logical fallacies as possible to maintain their beliefs.
Just like I don't spend time looking for Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Osiris or Jesus, I've shifted my focus onto finding out why otherwise smart people, such as Shep, cxorcist, Traf and others, so easily reject science that doesn't fit their received opinions - which, like religion, are largely based on the accident of birth (nationality/religion/parents/location) rather than the actual facts of science.
When there is a genuine scientific consensus about an issue, and no valid scientific controversy, why do people simultaneously (a) say they believe in science and (b) continue to disagree about the facts? It turns out that both sides of the argument do the same thing most of the time (basically, confirmation bias) but that is only about their personal opinions: The scientific facts are still true (and always improving and evolving). Even Charles Darwin, for religious reasons, tried as hard as humanly possible to find an alternative explanation for all the evidence of evolution that he collected for so many years all around the world, but there was and still is only one valid, observable, verifiable, non-supernatural explanation. And, there is no valid scientific controversy about this either.
Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on pilots to fly the airplanes and climate scientists to determine what's going on with the planet.
Further reading about how personalities work? Liked this explanation, from Why Smart People Deny Climate Change: http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why...climate-change
"Americans tend to clump into two groups on this measure, one hierarchical-individualistic (let people alone and respect authority) and the other egalitarian-communitarian (reduce inequality and look out for the good of society). And it turned out that this measure of value was a much stronger predictor of concern about global warming than was scientific literacy or reasoning skill. Egalitarian-communalists were far more worried about global warming, and a better score on the science competence tests in their group correlated with slightly greater concern. But among the hierarchical-individualists, there was a stronger link between scientific literacy and less concern. That was what was responsible for the overall group result. (Hierachical-individualists were also a great deal less concerned about nuclear power than were egalitarian-communalists.)
Now, these results are a problem for the Enlightenment-era, rationalist model of politics, in which people weigh arguments according to standards of logic and evidence. In real life, people generally do that only when they have to—when, for example, it's required by their jobs.
For those who have to deal with it professionally, after all, climate change isn't in dispute. Agriculture experts, epidemiologists, disaster preparedness teams, civil engineers, military planners and the like can no more deny the state of the climate than an astronaut could believe in a Flat Earth."
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR. Whether you will ever come to terms with it, human beings are created with a yearning need to be spiritually fulfilled. That 'hole' in someones soul is designed to be only properly filled by the God who created us. Human beings spend their lives looking for that 'fulfillment'. In your (and many other liberals) case, you fill that emptiness with a substitute 'religion': global warming, or 'climate change'. You need something (and don't deny it, you come on here frequently and vociferously attacking religion), without you realising the irony that your religion is only another form of the need to be 'spiritually' fulfilled. btw, your dismissive attitude towards the considered belief of others, which suggests your own sense of intellectual superiority is ample evidence of why you seem so blinded to the voice of God. "None is so blind as one who will not see". You would do well to continue considering why other of your equally educated and intelligent colleagues feel differently about this subject.
Last edited by mngmt mole; 5th Feb 2017 at 03:06.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprising, again: One must have a "hole" that "needs" to be filled because one rely upon valid evidence instead of junk science, ancient fairy tales, dreams, voices in my head or what my parents taught me to believe.
It has been well argued for a long time that this "need" to believe in silent, invisible, impotent, mythological characters, that many people "yearn" for, is just a side effect of evolution, just like every new Windows edition has its viruses too. Just because some people yearn for something does not make that thing true, real or right. Evidence makes things true, real and right. You recall may there was a time, just a little while ago in geological terms, that people yearned for Apollo, Thor, Mars, etc., and those yearned-for beliefs and gods came with burning at the stake, animal and human sacrifice, forced conversions, forced circumcisions, lifetime bans on divorce, subjugation of females - oh wait, a few of those still go on today - while "western" Judaism and Christianity came with everything in the Old Testament, too.
Arguing in support of valid scientific education and knowledge is not a religion (look it up yourself, if needed) and while it may be personally fulfilling to "convert" an ignorant or brainwashed individual back to reality (many friends have eventually let go of their Bronze Age nonsense) it certainly isn't "spiritually" fulfilling.
I've come up with a better analogy: Discussing and/or debating with global warming deniers is like talking to Scientologists. Everyone knows they are completely crazy and brainwashed except themselves, and they just keep on believing and defending their ridiculous position because its their position they believe, since they yearned for something and think they've found it. They may feel very fulfilled with their crazy talk and beliefs - but that doesn't make what they found to be true, real or right.
Right, so global warming is a myth.....and oil burning is good for the planet....and CO2 is not a problem....and deforestation is OK.....and melting icecaps and glaciers are a hoax......and all of this is natural with no human cause.....right! Got it, so let's just press on, then!
It has been well argued for a long time that this "need" to believe in silent, invisible, impotent, mythological characters, that many people "yearn" for, is just a side effect of evolution, just like every new Windows edition has its viruses too. Just because some people yearn for something does not make that thing true, real or right. Evidence makes things true, real and right. You recall may there was a time, just a little while ago in geological terms, that people yearned for Apollo, Thor, Mars, etc., and those yearned-for beliefs and gods came with burning at the stake, animal and human sacrifice, forced conversions, forced circumcisions, lifetime bans on divorce, subjugation of females - oh wait, a few of those still go on today - while "western" Judaism and Christianity came with everything in the Old Testament, too.
Arguing in support of valid scientific education and knowledge is not a religion (look it up yourself, if needed) and while it may be personally fulfilling to "convert" an ignorant or brainwashed individual back to reality (many friends have eventually let go of their Bronze Age nonsense) it certainly isn't "spiritually" fulfilling.
I've come up with a better analogy: Discussing and/or debating with global warming deniers is like talking to Scientologists. Everyone knows they are completely crazy and brainwashed except themselves, and they just keep on believing and defending their ridiculous position because its their position they believe, since they yearned for something and think they've found it. They may feel very fulfilled with their crazy talk and beliefs - but that doesn't make what they found to be true, real or right.
Right, so global warming is a myth.....and oil burning is good for the planet....and CO2 is not a problem....and deforestation is OK.....and melting icecaps and glaciers are a hoax......and all of this is natural with no human cause.....right! Got it, so let's just press on, then!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
CR....let's stick to CX issues, and try and not comment on how you are obviously so intellectually superior to the rest of us, because you personally have concluded there is no God, so therefore the rest of us that disagree must either be crazy/retarded/easily led...etc, etc. A review of most of your commentary over the years shows the same disturbing tendency to denigrate the intelligence and judgement of those that believe differently than you do. I'll continue to trust, believe and put faith in my God. You can choose to rail against him or deny his existence. Ultimately, one of us will be proved correct....
btw, why do you regularly insist on going down this route? Your comments on most things are intelligent, thoughtful and well expressed. Until you turn your gaze on those that have concluded that the universe is structured differently than you perceive it to be. I find common cause with the company issues that you express, I just find it sad that you have such a blind spot as to your attitude and opinion towards those that have concluded their existence is based on a different reality than yours. Be well.
CR....let's stick to CX issues, and try and not comment on how you are obviously so intellectually superior to the rest of us, because you personally have concluded there is no God, so therefore the rest of us that disagree must either be crazy/retarded/easily led...etc, etc. A review of most of your commentary over the years shows the same disturbing tendency to denigrate the intelligence and judgement of those that believe differently than you do. I'll continue to trust, believe and put faith in my God. You can choose to rail against him or deny his existence. Ultimately, one of us will be proved correct....
btw, why do you regularly insist on going down this route? Your comments on most things are intelligent, thoughtful and well expressed. Until you turn your gaze on those that have concluded that the universe is structured differently than you perceive it to be. I find common cause with the company issues that you express, I just find it sad that you have such a blind spot as to your attitude and opinion towards those that have concluded their existence is based on a different reality than yours. Be well.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Space
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your questions...
Traf: Because unfounded superstition and belief in the unverifiable supernatural, with a total disregard for valid evidence and logic, is the root of all evil, it's always influencing everything, and it's all around us every day.
(For you, some rhetorical questions - please don't answer: Which of the many did you choose? How do you know it shouldn't have been another? Do you respect the intelligence and judgment of those with different beliefs and realities than yours who flew planes on 9/11/conducted Crusades/led the well-organized prevention of prosecutions of Catholic priest pedophiles? All the above trusted, believed and had faith too.)
positionalpor: "Valid scientific data" means data continually evolves and is subject to revision, by qualified professionals, based on new evidence that is revealed through observation, discovery and experimentation verifiable by anyone anywhere (that is the whole foundation of science vs. magic/superstition/god did it), not through unverifiable texts or supposed dreams and voices heard about invisible, silent, supernatural things.
(Rhetorical for you: Which god am I confused about? Are you confused about Vishnu vs. Allah vs. Mercury vs. any other, or you just dismiss all of them but yours but others can't dismiss yours? Which scientific data changes every decade? The melting point of iron? Or did you mean the evolving hypotheses and/or theses based on the ever-evolving data because some things change over time, like CO2 levels in the atmosphere? And does that mean conclusions should never evolve as knowledge evolves - religion style?)
I still wonder why people aren't happy when they find out when they were wrong and can see the evidence for themselves for the way forward, like scientists do all the time (revising science continuously with new evidence, getting smarter and better rather than holding onto the past), and everyone is free to present contradictory, valid evidence and/or conclusions anytime - for open review.
Traf: Because unfounded superstition and belief in the unverifiable supernatural, with a total disregard for valid evidence and logic, is the root of all evil, it's always influencing everything, and it's all around us every day.
(For you, some rhetorical questions - please don't answer: Which of the many did you choose? How do you know it shouldn't have been another? Do you respect the intelligence and judgment of those with different beliefs and realities than yours who flew planes on 9/11/conducted Crusades/led the well-organized prevention of prosecutions of Catholic priest pedophiles? All the above trusted, believed and had faith too.)
positionalpor: "Valid scientific data" means data continually evolves and is subject to revision, by qualified professionals, based on new evidence that is revealed through observation, discovery and experimentation verifiable by anyone anywhere (that is the whole foundation of science vs. magic/superstition/god did it), not through unverifiable texts or supposed dreams and voices heard about invisible, silent, supernatural things.
(Rhetorical for you: Which god am I confused about? Are you confused about Vishnu vs. Allah vs. Mercury vs. any other, or you just dismiss all of them but yours but others can't dismiss yours? Which scientific data changes every decade? The melting point of iron? Or did you mean the evolving hypotheses and/or theses based on the ever-evolving data because some things change over time, like CO2 levels in the atmosphere? And does that mean conclusions should never evolve as knowledge evolves - religion style?)
I still wonder why people aren't happy when they find out when they were wrong and can see the evidence for themselves for the way forward, like scientists do all the time (revising science continuously with new evidence, getting smarter and better rather than holding onto the past), and everyone is free to present contradictory, valid evidence and/or conclusions anytime - for open review.
Last edited by Curtain rod; 5th Feb 2017 at 12:16.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got lost on the whole idea when governments started extorting money from the people to pay for all their wacky ideas about the climate. Maybe its the 6 billion plus people on the planet. Half of which contribute nothing to the human race. Should we eliminate them in the name of the holy church of climitology? That would help, no?
Otherwise you nanny finger wagers. Mind your own dam business. When I see you resign from your jet job. Than I will maybe consider that you are serious about the climate. Until than, hypocrisy is on display here.
Otherwise you nanny finger wagers. Mind your own dam business. When I see you resign from your jet job. Than I will maybe consider that you are serious about the climate. Until than, hypocrisy is on display here.
