Discussion:
OT - Human CO2 Emissions Are Supercharging Corn Yields
Add Reply
David Brooks
2024-10-21 22:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How can carbon dioxide, which has been portrayed as a dangerous
pollutant threatening the very existence of humankind, be considered
even remotely beneficial? Sadly, such a question can be expected from
people – children and adults – who have been fed irrational fears in
place of well-established science that shows CO2 to be an irreplaceable
food for plants and necessary for all life.

https://cornwallalliance.org/human-co2-emissions-are-supercharging-corn-yields/

What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
--
Always wondering!
David
Snit
2024-10-21 23:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
How can carbon dioxide, which has been portrayed as a dangerous
pollutant threatening the very existence of humankind, be considered
even remotely beneficial? Sadly, such a question can be expected from
people – children and adults – who have been fed irrational fears in
place of well-established science that shows CO2 to be an irreplaceable
food for plants and necessary for all life.
False dichotomy. Too much O2 is bad for you but you need it to breathe. Of
course C02 is needed... but too much is harmful.
Post by David Brooks
https://cornwallalliance.org/human-co2-emissions-are-supercharging-corn-yields/
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
The evidence overwhelming shows it is real and is causing harm now. The denial
of it is deeply harmful.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Mike Easter
2024-10-21 23:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.

Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.

Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.

The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.

On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.

The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.

There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.

Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
--
Mike Easter
pothead
2024-10-22 01:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.
100% correct!
--
pothead

See Kamala Harris best interview ever.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112
She really knocks this one out of the park.
Don't you agree?
Snit
2024-10-22 01:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor,
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/here-are-10-myths-about-climate-change

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/6-myths-about-climate-change-busted

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Every scientific source notes it IS a big factor. What do you base the idea
that the evidence is not what we should go with?
Post by Mike Easter
because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
Huh? Saying we should not be putting lead and CO2 and other pollutants into
the environment in ways that does not cause great harm is about harm
reduction.
Post by Mike Easter
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2,
Agreed. And we should have been doing this long ago and with more focus.
Post by Mike Easter
but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Yes... we are WAY behind where we should be.
Post by Mike Easter
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2024-10-22 01:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor,
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/here-are-10-myths-about-climate-change
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/6-myths-about-climate-change-busted
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Every scientific source notes it IS a big factor. What do you base the idea
that the evidence is not what we should go with?
Post by Mike Easter
because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
Huh? Saying we should not be putting lead and CO2 and other pollutants into
the environment in ways that does not cause great harm is about harm
reduction.
Post by Mike Easter
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2,
Agreed. And we should have been doing this long ago and with more focus.
Post by Mike Easter
but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Yes... we are WAY behind where we should be.
Post by Mike Easter
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
you're american
Snit
2024-10-22 01:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor,
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/here-are-10-myths-about-climate-change
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/6-myths-about-climate-change-busted
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Every scientific source notes it IS a big factor. What do you base the idea
that the evidence is not what we should go with?
Post by Mike Easter
because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
Huh? Saying we should not be putting lead and CO2 and other pollutants into
the environment in ways that does not cause great harm is about harm
reduction.
Post by Mike Easter
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2,
Agreed. And we should have been doing this long ago and with more focus.
Post by Mike Easter
but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Yes... we are WAY behind where we should be.
Post by Mike Easter
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
you're american
Am I?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Chris
2024-10-22 06:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping.
A lethal dose of cyanide is also tiny. Does it make less concerning?

The fact that global CO2 levels are tightly coupled with global climate
means that even modest changes in levels have global consequences. Do you
also believe +2 degrees just means sunnier days?

The carbon cycle is carefully balanced and very sensitive to change. As
Dickens wrote the difference between a good or bad situation is
surprisingly small:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six
, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and
six, result misery"
Post by Mike Easter
There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
Hence why the focus is important. We have released 100s of thousands of
years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in about 200 years.
Post by Mike Easter
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
What people fear is the destruction of their lives through floods and
storms which wouldn't ordinarily happen this often or this violently.
Post by Mike Easter
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
Forest fires are intentional when already in a tinderbox environment. Just
look at Canada and Siberia. Again, it is all tightly couple. More CO2 =
more heat = more melting = more radiative heat = more fires = more CO2
added infinitum...
Post by Mike Easter
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers.
In shorthand; don't offend the NIMBYs. If you're too slow, the wars in the
middle east etc will end up at your shores. You'll get upheaval either way.
Post by Mike Easter
The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Such a defeatist view. Change is inevitable and an opportunity, unless
you're addicted to old fashioned thinking.
Post by Mike Easter
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
The opposite is true. People who don't want change prefer to paint it that
way to cover their own selfish, biased attitudes.
David Brooks
2024-10-22 08:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping.  There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
 This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda.  Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers.  The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
You present a balanced view, acknowledging that many factors influence
climate trends, and not all are driven by human activity. You refer to
historical climate variations, like the Little Ice Age, to illustrate
that the Earth's climate has natural fluctuations. You downplay the
significance of CO₂ compared to other atmospheric gases like water
vapour, suggesting that the focus on CO₂ may be driven by certain
agendas, particularly those trying to exert control over human behaviour.

At the same time, you criticise both extremes in the climate debate —
those who exaggerate the dangers of global warming and those who
outright deny any climate change. Your position seems to be that while
the climate is warming and there are good reasons to reduce CO₂
emissions, the transition to cleaner energy sources should be gradual
and not cause major political or economic upheavals.

It sounds like you advocate for a pragmatic approach, balancing
environmental concerns with economic and technological realities.

I agree with you! :-)

Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
--
David
T i m
2024-10-22 13:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 22/10/2024 09:05, David Brooks wrote:

<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.

However, what your (false) hope gives you is the opportunity to take no
personal responsibility for the situation, which of course suits you and
your kind as you can 'carry on as usual', no need for you to do anything
different, no need to give up whatever your sense of entitlement allows
you to consider ok.

You can do this because you are old, blind (to the science) and selfish
as you don't even care about the future for your own family, let alone
the rest of mankind and all life on this planet.

As has been hinted at by others, the climate of this planet is something
that took billions of years to obtain a stable balance and one that has
been supporting all sorts of life. This balance has been upset by us
over a VERY short period of time, not giving the closed loop system of
this planets climate time to react / balance.

We aren't just experience a change in the weather, we are on the
precipice of a very big and potentially catastrophic change in the
general climate, one where *just* a couple of degrees IS ALREADY
impacting most of us.

Once we trip over the edge (and we may have already done so) there will
be no going back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?

Cheers, T i m
Steve Carroll
2024-10-22 16:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?

(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
%
2024-10-22 16:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
Snit
2024-10-22 17:00:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2024-10-22 18:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Skeeter
2024-10-22 20:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
Chris
2024-10-22 21:40:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
Er. More like the *opposite* of being in a cult
Snit
2024-10-22 22:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
Er. More like the *opposite* of being in a cult
How can Skeeter not know the leader of the party just changed? LOL!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2024-10-22 22:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Chris
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
Er. More like the *opposite* of being in a cult
How can Skeeter not know the leader of the party just changed? LOL!
Huh?
Chris
2024-10-23 06:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Chris
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
Er. More like the *opposite* of being in a cult
How can Skeeter not know the leader of the party just changed? LOL!
Huh?
Already forgotten Biden?
Snit
2024-10-22 22:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
You ignored this and just went into trolling. It is simply a fact you and
other Trump backers show what I noted:

Unquestioning loyalty: this is NOT seen on the other side... when the leader
was also a senile old man the party picked another.

Us-vs-them mentality: Democrats are much more about inclusion.

Rejection of evidence: Democrats are far from perfect, but accept scientific
evidence far better.

Perceived persecution: Listen to how many times Trump pretends he is a victim.
Post by Skeeter
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2024-10-22 22:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
why not , you are
He is part of Trump's cult if nothing else.
No cult. Just you parroting everyone else. Nothing original.
Unquestioning loyalty. Us-vs-them mentality. Rejection of evidence. Perceived
persecution.
A cult.
You ignored this and just went into trolling. It is simply a fact you and
Unquestioning loyalty: this is NOT seen on the other side... when the leader
was also a senile old man the party picked another.
Us-vs-them mentality: Democrats are much more about inclusion.
Rejection of evidence: Democrats are far from perfect, but accept scientific
evidence far better.
Perceived persecution: Listen to how many times Trump pretends he is a victim.
Post by Skeeter
Nope. You're wrong again. I guess we can say if you follow Kamala then
you also are in a cult.
What a load of nothing.
T i m
2024-10-23 06:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
Probably, that or he's just either soft (as in 'in the head') or, like
you, happy to do *anything* to keep the conversation going, no matter
what the personal cost.
Post by Steve Carroll
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
Again, more projection and arrogance to even think I would care what you
think or say. Please stop looking so needy, especially to me.

It's not my job to prove his cloud wizard exists but his and he can't so
he realises he's onto a sticky wicket (especially amongst so many atheists).

Cheers, T i m
Snit
2024-10-23 13:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T i m
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
You know it's his "cloud wizard" that enables him to treat you the way
he does despite how poorly you've treated him, right?
Probably, that or he's just either soft (as in 'in the head') or, like
you, happy to do *anything* to keep the conversation going, no matter
what the personal cost.
Post by Steve Carroll
(cue up "T i m" falsely accusing me of being a 'religious zealot' now)
Again, more projection and arrogance to even think I would care what you
think or say. Please stop looking so needy, especially to me.
He cannot imagine how others are not as invested in his one-sided war as he
is. It has literally become his life. He brings up his arguments with his kids
and others in his life. It is a primary focus of his both in and out of
Usenet.
Post by T i m
It's not my job to prove his cloud wizard exists but his and he can't so
he realises he's onto a sticky wicket (especially amongst so many atheists).
Cheers, T i m
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Chris
2024-10-22 21:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
It's worse than that. He believes anything that it does is flawless by
definition so even if we all boil to death due to our own stupid actions
David will be content as it's all "part of the plan". Thereby absolving
himself of any responsibility.
Post by T i m
However, what your (false) hope gives you is the opportunity to take no
personal responsibility for the situation, which of course suits you and
your kind as you can 'carry on as usual', no need for you to do anything
different, no need to give up whatever your sense of entitlement allows
you to consider ok.
You can do this because you are old, blind (to the science) and selfish
as you don't even care about the future for your own family, let alone
the rest of mankind and all life on this planet.
As has been hinted at by others, the climate of this planet is something
that took billions of years to obtain a stable balance and one that has
been supporting all sorts of life.
Not to be that guy, but the climate hasn't been stable for billions of
years. Throughout earth's time it has undergone some major upheavals. Many
of which resulted in mass extinctions. The current period has probably been
stable for the last few hundred thousand years.
Post by T i m
This balance has been upset by us
over a VERY short period of time, not giving the closed loop system of
this planets climate time to react / balance.
The carbon cycle works on a cycle of millions of years.
Post by T i m
We aren't just experience a change in the weather, we are on the
precipice of a very big and potentially catastrophic change in the
general climate, one where *just* a couple of degrees IS ALREADY
impacting most of us.
Once we trip over the edge (and we may have already done so) there will
be no going back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?
Cheers, T i m
David Brooks
2024-10-23 07:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T i m
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
However, what your (false) hope gives you is the opportunity to take no
personal responsibility for the situation, which of course suits you and
your kind as you can 'carry on as usual', no need for you to do anything
different, no need to give up whatever your sense of entitlement allows
you to consider ok.
You can do this because you are old, blind (to the science) and selfish
as you don't even care about the future for your own family, let alone
the rest of mankind and all life on this planet.
As has been hinted at by others, the climate of this planet is something
that took billions of years to obtain a stable balance and one that has
been supporting all sorts of life. This balance has been upset by us
over a VERY short period of time, not giving the closed loop system of
this planets climate time to react / balance.
We aren't just experience a change in the weather, we are on the
precipice of a very big and potentially catastrophic change in the
general climate, one where *just* a couple of degrees IS ALREADY
impacting most of us.
Once we trip over the edge (and we may have already done so) there will
be no going back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?
Hi T i m,

I understand your concern about the potential consequences of climate
change and appreciate your passion for the topic. I recognize that many
people, including scientists, are deeply worried about the future of our
planet.

From my perspective, I believe that some things are ultimately beyond
human control and that faith plays a role in how we face such
large-scale challenges. That said, I don't see my stance as an excuse
for inaction or indifference. We all care about the well-being of future
generations, and I think it's possible to approach the issue from both
spiritual and practical angles.

While I may hold a different view on how the climate crisis will play
out, I do agree that we should be good stewards of the planet. Finding
solutions that balance environmental, technological, and social
realities is essential.

Thank you for sharing your perspective so passionately. I'm happy to
continue discussing how we can address these issues together, even if we
don't fully agree on every aspect.

Best,
David
T i m
2024-10-23 08:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23/10/2024 08:07, David Brooks wrote:
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Post by T i m
The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?
Hi T i m,
I understand your concern about the potential consequences of climate
change and appreciate your passion for the topic. I recognize that many
people, including scientists, are deeply worried about the future of our
planet.
You understand' that but ...
Post by David Brooks
From my perspective, I believe that some things are ultimately beyond
human control and that faith plays a role in how we face such large-
scale challenges.
Yes, you might but 'faith' doesn't actually fix anything does it?
Post by David Brooks
That said, I don't see my stance as an excuse for
inaction or indifference.
So what are you doing about it?
Post by David Brooks
We all care about the well-being of future
generations,
How do you show just how much you (personally) care OOI?
Post by David Brooks
and I think it's possible to approach the issue from both
spiritual and practical angles.
So 'doing nothing of practical purpose' and actually 'doing something
that should'.
Post by David Brooks
While I may hold a different view on how the climate crisis will play
out,
Yes, I am trying to play my part in a tangible way, you aren't.
Post by David Brooks
I do agree that we should be good stewards of the planet.
But don't feel you should be part of that solution yourself.
Post by David Brooks
Finding
solutions that balance environmental, technological, and social
realities is essential.
None of the BS matters if there is no habitable planet.
Post by David Brooks
Thank you for sharing your perspective so passionately.
It's just 'common sense'.
Post by David Brooks
I'm happy to
continue discussing how we can address these issues together, even if we
don't fully agree on every aspect.
We don't seem to agree on the aspects where you actually do something to
be part of the solution, not the problem.

So it's very easy to say we agree when you don't have to *actually* do
anything at all.

Cheers, T i m
Snit
2024-10-23 13:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T i m
<snip>
Post by David Brooks
Post by T i m
The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?
Hi T i m,
I understand your concern about the potential consequences of climate
change and appreciate your passion for the topic. I recognize that many
people, including scientists, are deeply worried about the future of our
planet.
You understand' that but ...
Post by David Brooks
From my perspective, I believe that some things are ultimately beyond
human control and that faith plays a role in how we face such large-
scale challenges.
Yes, you might but 'faith' doesn't actually fix anything does it?
Not directly, but it can help to inspire people -- if not used as an excuse
for inaction.

...
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2024-10-23 13:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
Post by T i m
No, because you *believe* you cloud wizard will fix it all before we all
roast / drown but that (false) hope is without any scientific backing
whatsoever.
However, what your (false) hope gives you is the opportunity to take no
personal responsibility for the situation, which of course suits you and
your kind as you can 'carry on as usual', no need for you to do anything
different, no need to give up whatever your sense of entitlement allows
you to consider ok.
You can do this because you are old, blind (to the science) and selfish
as you don't even care about the future for your own family, let alone
the rest of mankind and all life on this planet.
As has been hinted at by others, the climate of this planet is something
that took billions of years to obtain a stable balance and one that has
been supporting all sorts of life. This balance has been upset by us
over a VERY short period of time, not giving the closed loop system of
this planets climate time to react / balance.
We aren't just experience a change in the weather, we are on the
precipice of a very big and potentially catastrophic change in the
general climate, one where *just* a couple of degrees IS ALREADY
impacting most of us.
Once we trip over the edge (and we may have already done so) there will
be no going back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
The the big question is what are you doing different to mitigate the
harm to all David? Praying harder?
Hi T i m,
I understand your concern about the potential consequences of climate
change and appreciate your passion for the topic. I recognize that many
people, including scientists, are deeply worried about the future of our
planet.
From my perspective, I believe that some things are ultimately beyond
human control and that faith plays a role in how we face such
large-scale challenges.
They might not be fully in human control, but that does not excuse us from not
trying.
Post by David Brooks
That said, I don't see my stance as an excuse
for inaction or indifference. We all care about the well-being of future
generations, and I think it's possible to approach the issue from both
spiritual and practical angles.
While I may hold a different view on how the climate crisis will play
out, I do agree that we should be good stewards of the planet. Finding
solutions that balance environmental, technological, and social
realities is essential.
Good!
Post by David Brooks
Thank you for sharing your perspective so passionately. I'm happy to
continue discussing how we can address these issues together, even if we
don't fully agree on every aspect.
Best,
David
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2024-10-22 13:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
You present a balanced view, acknowledging that many factors influence
climate trends, and not all are driven by human activity. You refer to
historical climate variations, like the Little Ice Age, to illustrate
that the Earth's climate has natural fluctuations.
This is stated to push the implied straw man that someone said otherwise. Or
that the climate models do not take this into account.
Post by David Brooks
You downplay the
significance of CO₂ compared to other atmospheric gases like water
vapour, suggesting that the focus on CO₂ may be driven by certain
agendas, particularly those trying to exert control over human behaviour.
Which is unsupported.
Post by David Brooks
At the same time, you criticise both extremes in the climate debate —
those who exaggerate the dangers of global warming and those who
outright deny any climate change. Your position seems to be that while
the climate is warming and there are good reasons to reduce CO₂
emissions, the transition to cleaner energy sources should be gradual
and not cause major political or economic upheavals.
It sounds like you advocate for a pragmatic approach, balancing
environmental concerns with economic and technological realities.
I agree with you! :-)
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
Not sure what you mean by this.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
David Brooks
2024-10-23 07:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by David Brooks
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
You present a balanced view, acknowledging that many factors influence
climate trends, and not all are driven by human activity. You refer to
historical climate variations, like the Little Ice Age, to illustrate
that the Earth's climate has natural fluctuations.
This is stated to push the implied straw man that someone said otherwise. Or
that the climate models do not take this into account.
Post by David Brooks
You downplay the
significance of CO₂ compared to other atmospheric gases like water
vapour, suggesting that the focus on CO₂ may be driven by certain
agendas, particularly those trying to exert control over human behaviour.
Which is unsupported.
Post by David Brooks
At the same time, you criticise both extremes in the climate debate —
those who exaggerate the dangers of global warming and those who
outright deny any climate change. Your position seems to be that while
the climate is warming and there are good reasons to reduce CO₂
emissions, the transition to cleaner energy sources should be gradual
and not cause major political or economic upheavals.
It sounds like you advocate for a pragmatic approach, balancing
environmental concerns with economic and technological realities.
I agree with you! :-)
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with The Great Flood in the Bible?

FYI - ChatGPD says ......

Convincing an atheist about the biblical story of the Great Flood can be
challenging because it often involves differing worldviews—religious
faith versus skepticism rooted in scientific evidence. However, if
you're trying to engage in a meaningful conversation, here are some
approaches that could help bridge the gap:

### 1. **Acknowledge Their Perspective**
Start by recognizing that their skepticism is valid from a scientific or
historical point of view. Acknowledge that many people struggle with
reconciling ancient texts with modern understandings of history,
geology, and biology. This shows respect for their viewpoint and opens
the door for a civil discussion.

**Example:**
*"I understand that stories like the Great Flood can be hard to accept
literally, especially when viewed through a scientific lens. But I think
there’s more to it than just a historical event—it's a story with deeper
meaning."*

### 2. **Focus on the Moral and Symbolic Lessons**
The Flood story is rich with universal themes—judgment, morality,
renewal, and hope. Even atheists can appreciate these values, and they
can be discussed without needing to agree on the literal truth of the event.

**Example:**
*"Whether or not you believe the Flood actually happened, the story
highlights how human choices can lead to destruction and how, even in
the darkest times, there’s hope for renewal. It speaks to something
deeper about our human experience, doesn’t it?"*

### 3. **Explore Historical and Cultural Context**
Mention that the story of the Flood is not unique to the Bible. Many
ancient cultures have flood myths, such as the **Epic of Gilgamesh** in
Mesopotamian literature. This shows that flood narratives were common in
the ancient world, often conveying similar moral or existential concerns.

**Example:**
*"Flood stories are found across various ancient cultures, from
Mesopotamia to India. Maybe these stories aren’t just about a literal
flood but reflect something about how early people viewed the
world—forces of nature and the idea of divine justice."*

### 4. **Discuss the Limits of Science in Explaining Meaning**
You can explore the idea that science, while excellent at explaining the
*how* of natural events, doesn’t always address the *why* behind human
existence and moral questions. Religious stories, including the Flood,
seek to address those deeper questions.

**Example:**
*"Science explains how natural processes work, but it doesn’t always
address why we have a sense of morality or justice. Stories like the
Great Flood don’t just explain events—they try to make sense of why we
care about things like right and wrong, justice and mercy."*

### 5. **Appeal to the Big Picture**
Rather than trying to convince them of the literal truth of the Flood,
invite them to consider what the broader themes of the story say about
humanity's relationship with the divine, morality, and the consequences
of evil. Even if the story isn't taken literally, its message about the
dangers of human wickedness and the hope for redemption can resonate.

**Example:**
*"Even if you don’t believe in the story as a historical event, don’t
you think it reflects something timeless about human nature? When people
forget their moral responsibilities, bad things happen. And the idea
that there’s always a way to start over is pretty powerful."*

### 6. **Share Your Own Faith Journey**
If appropriate, share why you believe in the story—not necessarily as a
scientific fact but as a source of spiritual truth or guidance in your
life. Personal testimonies can be more compelling than logical arguments
when it comes to faith.

**Example:**
*"For me, the story of the Flood isn't just about what happened in the
past—it's a reminder that, no matter how bad things get, there’s always
a chance for a fresh start. That’s something I hold on to in my life."*

### 7. **Engage with Their Questions**
Encourage the atheist to ask questions, and don't be afraid to admit if
you don’t have all the answers. Sometimes, the conversation is more
about mutual exploration than about winning someone over.

**Example:**
*"What part of the story do you find most challenging or hard to
believe? I’d love to hear your thoughts and see if we can explore it
together."*

By focusing on the story’s meaning, moral teachings, and common human
experience, you can create a conversation that respects both your faith
and the atheist’s worldview. The goal may not be to "convert" but to
offer a perspective that opens the door to deeper reflection.

=

However, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm off for a reunion lunch
with other retired RN ATCOs near our NAS at Yeovilton in Somerset!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAS_Yeovilton_(HMS_Heron)
--
Kind regards,
David
Snit
2024-10-23 13:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
Post by Snit
Post by David Brooks
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
You present a balanced view, acknowledging that many factors influence
climate trends, and not all are driven by human activity. You refer to
historical climate variations, like the Little Ice Age, to illustrate
that the Earth's climate has natural fluctuations.
This is stated to push the implied straw man that someone said otherwise. Or
that the climate models do not take this into account.
Post by David Brooks
You downplay the
significance of CO₂ compared to other atmospheric gases like water
vapour, suggesting that the focus on CO₂ may be driven by certain
agendas, particularly those trying to exert control over human behaviour.
Which is unsupported.
Post by David Brooks
At the same time, you criticise both extremes in the climate debate —
those who exaggerate the dangers of global warming and those who
outright deny any climate change. Your position seems to be that while
the climate is warming and there are good reasons to reduce CO₂
emissions, the transition to cleaner energy sources should be gradual
and not cause major political or economic upheavals.
It sounds like you advocate for a pragmatic approach, balancing
environmental concerns with economic and technological realities.
I agree with you! :-)
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with The Great Flood in the Bible?
FYI - ChatGPD says ......
Convincing an atheist about the biblical story of the Great Flood can be
challenging because it often involves differing worldviews—religious
faith versus skepticism rooted in scientific evidence. However, if
you're trying to engage in a meaningful conversation, here are some
### 1. **Acknowledge Their Perspective**
Start by recognizing that their skepticism is valid from a scientific or
historical point of view. Acknowledge that many people struggle with
reconciling ancient texts with modern understandings of history,
geology, and biology. This shows respect for their viewpoint and opens
the door for a civil discussion.
**Example:**
*"I understand that stories like the Great Flood can be hard to accept
literally, especially when viewed through a scientific lens. But I think
there’s more to it than just a historical event—it's a story with deeper
meaning."*
### 2. **Focus on the Moral and Symbolic Lessons**
The Flood story is rich with universal themes—judgment, morality,
renewal, and hope. Even atheists can appreciate these values, and they
can be discussed without needing to agree on the literal truth of the event.
**Example:**
*"Whether or not you believe the Flood actually happened, the story
highlights how human choices can lead to destruction and how, even in
the darkest times, there’s hope for renewal. It speaks to something
deeper about our human experience, doesn’t it?"*
### 3. **Explore Historical and Cultural Context**
Mention that the story of the Flood is not unique to the Bible. Many
ancient cultures have flood myths, such as the **Epic of Gilgamesh** in
Mesopotamian literature. This shows that flood narratives were common in
the ancient world, often conveying similar moral or existential concerns.
**Example:**
*"Flood stories are found across various ancient cultures, from
Mesopotamia to India. Maybe these stories aren’t just about a literal
flood but reflect something about how early people viewed the
world—forces of nature and the idea of divine justice."*
### 4. **Discuss the Limits of Science in Explaining Meaning**
You can explore the idea that science, while excellent at explaining the
*how* of natural events, doesn’t always address the *why* behind human
existence and moral questions. Religious stories, including the Flood,
seek to address those deeper questions.
**Example:**
*"Science explains how natural processes work, but it doesn’t always
address why we have a sense of morality or justice. Stories like the
Great Flood don’t just explain events—they try to make sense of why we
care about things like right and wrong, justice and mercy."*
### 5. **Appeal to the Big Picture**
Rather than trying to convince them of the literal truth of the Flood,
invite them to consider what the broader themes of the story say about
humanity's relationship with the divine, morality, and the consequences
of evil. Even if the story isn't taken literally, its message about the
dangers of human wickedness and the hope for redemption can resonate.
**Example:**
*"Even if you don’t believe in the story as a historical event, don’t
you think it reflects something timeless about human nature? When people
forget their moral responsibilities, bad things happen. And the idea
that there’s always a way to start over is pretty powerful."*
### 6. **Share Your Own Faith Journey**
If appropriate, share why you believe in the story—not necessarily as a
scientific fact but as a source of spiritual truth or guidance in your
life. Personal testimonies can be more compelling than logical arguments
when it comes to faith.
**Example:**
*"For me, the story of the Flood isn't just about what happened in the
past—it's a reminder that, no matter how bad things get, there’s always
a chance for a fresh start. That’s something I hold on to in my life."*
### 7. **Engage with Their Questions**
Encourage the atheist to ask questions, and don't be afraid to admit if
you don’t have all the answers. Sometimes, the conversation is more
about mutual exploration than about winning someone over.
**Example:**
*"What part of the story do you find most challenging or hard to
believe? I’d love to hear your thoughts and see if we can explore it
together."*
By focusing on the story’s meaning, moral teachings, and common human
experience, you can create a conversation that respects both your faith
and the atheist’s worldview. The goal may not be to "convert" but to
offer a perspective that opens the door to deeper reflection.
The biblical flood story presents both moral and scientific challenges.

Moral Critique:

From an ethical standpoint, God’s decision to drown nearly all life—humans,
animals, and children alike—raises concerns about justice. This collective
punishment seems extreme, especially given God’s omnipotence, suggesting
other, more compassionate solutions could have been employed. The idea of
wiping out all life contradicts modern moral principles, which value
rehabilitation over eradication.

Scientific View:

Scientifically, there’s no evidence supporting a global flood event as
described. Geological and genetic data do not align with such an occurrence.
However, many ancient cultures share flood myths, like in The Epic of
Gilgamesh. These stories might have originated from real, localized flood
events, passed down and mythologized over time. The spread of these flood
narratives can be traced through human migrations, reflecting a shared
cultural memory rather than a literal divine judgment.

In essence, the flood story can be viewed as an expression of moral concerns
within ancient societies, though it conflicts with modern ethics and science.
Post by David Brooks
=
However, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm off for a reunion lunch
with other retired RN ATCOs near our NAS at Yeovilton in Somerset!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAS_Yeovilton_(HMS_Heron)
Have fun!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Chris
2024-10-23 17:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
Post by Snit
Post by David Brooks
Post by Mike Easter
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There are a great many factors which influence climate trends. In the
non-millennial variety, we have the story of the Little Ice Age as
recently as the 18th & 19th centuries, but it was just some cooling in
the North Atlantic area and it wasn't really an ice age.
Of the more recent trending, we can observe an increase in atmospheric
CO2 from a small number to a slightly higher number, so that is a very
small increase in one of the atmospheric gases which aid in solar heat
trapping. There are much much larger percentages of other atmospheric
gases which also do that, such as water vapor.
Some would like to 'focus' on the CO2 situation, even tho' it isn't a
great factor, because it is one of the few that human behavior has
influenced due to a combination of the industrial revolution and the
increased production due to carbon fuels.
The result of the discussions have caused a lot of 'trouble' from those
who have agendas and would like to exert more control on human behavior.
This causes them to exaggerate the fears of warming and also to try to
influence the interpretation of the science of climate.
On the other side of the coin is the denying of any climate changes by
those who would choose to counter the effect of those who would foster
the prior agenda. Their interpretation is also not accurate.
The climate is warming some; there is a small increase in the amount of
atmospheric CO2 which comes from a lot of sources which are not all
intentional, such as forest fires.
There are a lot of good reasons why humanity should be trending toward
energy sources which do not add CO2, but that trending should not cause
upheavals in the global powers. The paths for efficient and safe
nuclear energy are complex, the paths for wind and solar power are not
always simple, and the necessity to continue to burn carbon fuels
extends significantly into the future.
Our politics are driven too much by extremists.
You present a balanced view, acknowledging that many factors influence
climate trends, and not all are driven by human activity. You refer to
historical climate variations, like the Little Ice Age, to illustrate
that the Earth's climate has natural fluctuations.
This is stated to push the implied straw man that someone said otherwise. Or
that the climate models do not take this into account.
Post by David Brooks
You downplay the
significance of CO₂ compared to other atmospheric gases like water
vapour, suggesting that the focus on CO₂ may be driven by certain
agendas, particularly those trying to exert control over human behaviour.
Which is unsupported.
Post by David Brooks
At the same time, you criticise both extremes in the climate debate —
those who exaggerate the dangers of global warming and those who
outright deny any climate change. Your position seems to be that while
the climate is warming and there are good reasons to reduce CO₂
emissions, the transition to cleaner energy sources should be gradual
and not cause major political or economic upheavals.
It sounds like you advocate for a pragmatic approach, balancing
environmental concerns with economic and technological realities.
I agree with you! :-)
Some people advocate for human intervention, while others, like me, see
it as part of a larger plan that probably shouldn't be altered by human
actions.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with The Great Flood in the Bible?
FYI - ChatGPD says ......
[snip]
Post by David Brooks
By focusing on the story’s meaning, moral teachings, and common human
experience, you can create a conversation that respects both your faith
and the atheist’s worldview. The goal may not be to "convert" but to
offer a perspective that opens the door to deeper reflection.
Interesting that chatgpt is encouraging you to not take the bible story
literally and focus on the allegory or metaphorical idea.

That doesn't really gel with your apparent view of an interventionist god.
Chris
2024-10-22 06:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Brooks
How can carbon dioxide, which has been portrayed as a dangerous
pollutant threatening the very existence of humankind, be considered
even remotely beneficial? Sadly, such a question can be expected from
people – children and adults – who have been fed irrational fears in
place of well-established science that shows CO2 to be an irreplaceable
food for plants and necessary for all life.
https://cornwallalliance.org/human-co2-emissions-are-supercharging-corn-yields/
This a known consequence of raised co2 and not a "gotcha".
Post by David Brooks
What do you think about the so-called "Global Warming" phenomenon?
There you go down a rung further on the crackpot scale. Firstly, it's no
longer called global warming as it confused ppl like you and secondly, it
is very, very real. Denialism doesn't stop it being being so.
Loading...