Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

might not want to believe everything you read:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

[metaL]

you might want to pay attention, because if you had been you'd know i dont believe everything i read.  I am aware that corruption exists in many ways, especially with regard to politics preventing inconvenient scientific discoveries from reaching the media.  I still believe that this issue should not be ignored. I'm glad you have everything figured out.

global warming is real

global warming is junk science propaganda, what scientists fail to realize is their fear factory causes more problems than it might solve

your claim that this is all propaganda would stand a better chance if this was strictly an american concern, but people all over the world are realizing that this is a problem which should not be ignored.

that isn't my claim

ok 

[reaper]

I still believe that this issue should not be ignored. I'm glad you have everything figured out.

i don't think the possible issue should be ignored. i do have it figured out - we don't know if global warming exists, yet we talk about it like fact.  what people fail to realize is if global warming did exists we could reverse it, and the decisions we are making based on global warming are dramatically hurting a lot of third world countries.  this isn't the way you go about something when you don't have a solid knowledge the problem exists.  the numbers from the IPCC are beyond fraudulent, and baseless from a scientific standpoint.

[DaHanG]

There is a concept called natural variation in statistics. For example, if it normally rains 30 inches per year in Washington with a standard deviation of 5 inches, it would be a pretty freaky year if it rained 44 inches (statistically speaking). You wouldn't expect this to happen in any one particular year. The same concept is applied to this warming change in climate over this single period of a century. It doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means it's unlikely (and suggests there may be other factors influencing this outcome).

the problem is determining what is normal

That's not a problem at all, we just look at the history of Washington's yearly rainfall.

i do have it figured out - we don't know if global warming exists, yet we talk about it like fact.

We do know global warming exists (just look at data). We don't know whether it's purely a natural occurrence or if we're contributing to it (and how much) - although the general scientific consensus is that we are at least partially responsible.

[reaper]

i mean global warming that we cause, you can't determine that based on rainfall in Washington.

We don't know whether it's purely a natural occurrence or if we're contributing to it (and how much)

that's what i've been saying. i was pointing out that those numbers from the IPCC are fraudulent, and made on poor grounds, same goes for the claim that there is a five percent chance natural warming accounts for all the warming.  not to mention the earth's temperature was rising steadily in the early 20th century, yet we weren't producing much greenhouse gases

but we are going to destroy the earth according to stephen hawking, and that is a fact.  but we have no idea if we produce enough "bad" gases to cause an effect.  not to mention we could fix it, if it was indeed a problem

[DaHanG]

i mean global warming that we cause, you can't determine that based on rainfall in Washington.

You are spot on by identifying rainfall in Washington and global climate are too different topics. 

Like I said previously, we know geologically based on ice cores in Antarctica and other methods what is a normal warming/cooling period and what isn't. How exactly are these methods performed? I don

[reaper]

no, none of this is really news to me, i read a book on global warming, and i realized we don't know what's going on.

we haven't recorded accurate weather data for that long, and since we are in the midst of a 100 year natural warming period, having high temperatures can be correlated with nature - not human causes.

i'm not an expert on global warming, or ice core samples, but i do remember reading how the ice core samples showed nothing relating to global warming (we cause).  i've always been talking about global warming we cause..where is the contradiction?  and if there is one, who cares about semantics anyways?

You are aware methane from cows is a greenhouse gas, correct? Raising cattle (in unnaturally large numbers for food), driving, flying, etc. are not entirely post 1940 concepts for humans. If there was less greenhouse output back then and the warming wasn

[DaHanG]

no, none of this is really news to me, i read a book on global warming, and i realized we don't know what's going on.

Right, we don

[DWxchzrles]

i would rather have global warming than another ice age

where i live 7 consecutive days below zero ties a record

and more below zero days to come

[metaL]

i would rather have global warming than another ice age

where i live 7 consecutive days below zero ties a record

and more below zero days to come

lol might be time to pack up and move 

[QuakeDuke]

Oh, but they can! I highly encourage you to go back and look at the context of which I said that. Religious experiences don't prove anything.

Ok. Sorry not to have gotten back on sooner, but when you feed the squirrels once a month to power the connection, and at that the connection is lucky to be in the range of 28800 or < , it takes forever (slight exaggeration here) for all this stuff to load.

First of all, my initial post still does not mention the word "religious", so you are certainly mistaken. the link is here:
http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62527#msg62527

If you will notice in my initial reply found here: http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62531#msg62531 (or any of subsequent times times I asked you about your desire to stay with the statement) you will find I did not say or quote you as using the word "religious". I only said you changed your post to reflect religious personal experiences after your follow up post  found here: http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62565#msg62565 after I had asked you several times if you wanted to stay with the quote "personal experiences prove nothing", a quote that is punctuated and appears to be a stand alone quote that refers to all personal experiences. I find nothing strange if someone did make a statement like that, although I don't believe you would fit into the category of those who believe this "existence" we experience is illusionary. There are a plethora of "religious doctrines out there that believe just that. I bet you've even heard of a couple of them yourself.

Since I've been accused of dishonesty, quadz is there any way you can somehow see what my original post was? I really hope this is possible as I take offense to your accusation. It really does seem you're unforgiving to word games based on this and the whole free will thing since your approach has been condescending in both instances.

I am sorry you feel you have been accused by me of being dishonest,  and unforgiving to word games (are word games a part of the scientific method I missed in class? )  It was never my intention to convey that - If I were going to accuse you of dishonesty,  I would say without mincing words that I believed in (whatever circumstance) I believed you were being dishonest.

Question though - Why should  your communications in this thread be looked at as word games and not condescending yet my not be accorded that status? I am sorry you believe my approach has been condescending, that hasn't been my intent either and I am totally at a loss as to how it would appear that way and some of the ways you've expressed yourself to some of those posting here aren't.

I thought I saw there are other posts continuing your thoughts towards me, so I will (provided the squirrels don't rebel) answer them in the posts that contain them.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

I applaud your analysis, but I'm curious as to whether you still think I was dishonest as you've implied?

Again, I am sorry you think I have implied you are dishonest. Wasn't my intention.

QD

[DaHanG]

First of all, my initial post still does not mention the word "religious", so you are certainly mistaken. the link is here:
http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62527#msg62527

If you will notice in my initial reply found here: http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62531#msg62531 (or any of subsequent times times I asked you about your desire to stay with the statement) you will find I did not say or quote you as using the word "religious". I only said you changed your post to reflect religious personal experiences after your follow up post  found here: http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=4240.msg62565#msg62565 after I had asked you several times if you wanted to stay with the quote "personal experiences prove nothing", a quote that is punctuated and appears to be a stand alone quote that refers to all personal experiences.

Yes. I feel like you are accusing me of dishonesty, as if I changed my entire initial post to reflect that of a religious experience. This is something I did not do. The edit was very minor and reflected something grammatical, which is why I specifically asked quadz to bring up the original post to prove you wrong.

Since I've been accused of dishonesty, quadz is there any way you can somehow see what my original post was? I really hope this is possible as I take offense to your accusation. It really does seem you're unforgiving to word games based on this and the whole free will thing since your approach has been condescending in both instances.

I am sorry you feel you have been accused by me of being dishonest,  and unforgiving to word games (are word games a part of the scientific method I missed in class? )  It was never my intention to convey that - If I were going to accuse you of dishonesty,  I would say without mincing words that I believed in (whatever circumstance) I believed you were being dishonest.

But you did outright say that I edited my initial post to convey the message of religious/spiritual experiences. That would be an accusation of dishonesty.

Question though - Why should  your communications in this thread be looked at as word games and not condescending yet my not be accorded that status? I am sorry you believe my approach has been condescending, that hasn't been my intent either and I am totally at a loss as to how it would appear that way and some of the ways you've expressed yourself to some of those posting here aren't.

Here

[reaper]

Right, we don

[metaL]

lol.. wow