Again, it's you who is labelling people. Ever heard of framing? I can skew the results of a survey by framing the question in a certain way; and similarly you are skewing the perception of critical scientists by labelling some of them as "deniers". That word brings up association with holocaust denialism and 9/11 "truthers", etc.
It is usually the scientists who challenge so-called "accepted" science that make the most significant breakthroughs. Ignaz Semmelweis wasn't taken seriously by his colleagues, he was ridiculed for his hypothesis, and ultimately his career was ended as a direct result of people opposing his so-called "fringe views".
Before the mid-1990's we didn't know about the ghrelin hormone, the leptin hormone, and we didn't know that the insulin hormone plays an important role in the homoeostasis of hunger.
Not to mention we didn't know what cholesterol was or how important it is to the health of virtually all living cells in our bodies.
What about John Snow? He was the ONLY person to suggest the water pump on Broad Street to be the source of the cholera outbreak in 1854. At the time no one believed him, because the predominant theory of the time was the miasma theory of disease. This was actually the first event that eventually lead to the miasma theory being discarded a few decades later. Unlike Semmelweis, Snow WAS able to gather convincing evidence to prove that the source of the cholera was the water pump on Broad Street. If Snow had not been there with his fringe theory, then it appears no one would have identified the source of the 1854 London cholera outbreak.
Assuming that our climate does rise by say 6 degrees over the next few centuries (which is entirely possible), all the scientific data shows that this will result in a much greater vegetation yield; deserts will slowly become smaller as more land becomes more fertile, and the higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will also cause most vegetation to grow faster and healthier. When the earth formed it is believed at that time the atmosphere was almost entirely CO2 - 1 million parts per million (1,000,000 ppm). Then the ocean algae appeared, and since then CO2 has always been dropping, all throughout the Earth's 4.3 billion year history; and the data for the past few million years shows this to be true. To put this in perspective, 500 million years ago the CO2 concentration was 7500 ppm. CO2 concentration right now is about 400 ppm or so. But in a Greenhouse the CO2 concentration is much higher - in fact it's not unusual for greenhouses to set CO2 concentrations above 1,000 ppm in order to increase the yield, and the quality of the crop. So the data shows indeed that CO2 is good for the planet, and will have positive effects.
Now one of the interesting things though is that not all effects are what we would consider to be positive. Sure, there's going to be less desert, and ice on Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Russia slowly melt there'll be more fertile land available for use. But sea levels will rise, climate patterns will change over time, and some places will undoubtedly be worse off (particularly in the next few decades and couple of centuries). Ecosystems will change, this may mean that some species go extinct. It is an inherently uneven system; even though the planet will be better off overall, we do have to adapt. We'll need to create new dams to deal with the change in rainfall patterns. We'll need to (in Australia) plan for more farming to be happening in the north of our country and less in the south. It may eventually have an effect on coral bleaching too.
When all is said and done, 1,000 years from now the planet will be better off than without our contribution to global warming. 1,000 years from now Australia will no longer be mostly desert, it'll be mostly forest. And yeah of course that'll increase the risk of forest fire; but you can't have one without the other. All this scaremongering about trying to prevent it is really silly.
Now remember what I said about framing? What you normally hear is "deserts are threatened by global warming". Makes it sound bad doesn't it?
So I don't think your assessment is right; we've got a great future, and things are only getting better and better not worse and worse.
A quick note on your Trinitarian comment - I only included Christianity. I didn't include any other religion. The Gospel of John makes the divinity of Jesus explicit. John 1:1, 2:19-21, 3:13, 4:13-14, 4:26, 6:40, 8:12, and perhaps the most important verses where Jesus makes himself equal with Jehovah and thus claims deity:
John 5:17: But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
John 5:23: that all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
There's a reason why it's in the minority. You have to ignore the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation to claim that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus is deity AND still say you're a Christian.
It is usually the scientists who challenge so-called "accepted" science that make the most significant breakthroughs. Ignaz Semmelweis wasn't taken seriously by his colleagues, he was ridiculed for his hypothesis, and ultimately his career was ended as a direct result of people opposing his so-called "fringe views".
Before the mid-1990's we didn't know about the ghrelin hormone, the leptin hormone, and we didn't know that the insulin hormone plays an important role in the homoeostasis of hunger.
Not to mention we didn't know what cholesterol was or how important it is to the health of virtually all living cells in our bodies.
What about John Snow? He was the ONLY person to suggest the water pump on Broad Street to be the source of the cholera outbreak in 1854. At the time no one believed him, because the predominant theory of the time was the miasma theory of disease. This was actually the first event that eventually lead to the miasma theory being discarded a few decades later. Unlike Semmelweis, Snow WAS able to gather convincing evidence to prove that the source of the cholera was the water pump on Broad Street. If Snow had not been there with his fringe theory, then it appears no one would have identified the source of the 1854 London cholera outbreak.
Assuming that our climate does rise by say 6 degrees over the next few centuries (which is entirely possible), all the scientific data shows that this will result in a much greater vegetation yield; deserts will slowly become smaller as more land becomes more fertile, and the higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will also cause most vegetation to grow faster and healthier. When the earth formed it is believed at that time the atmosphere was almost entirely CO2 - 1 million parts per million (1,000,000 ppm). Then the ocean algae appeared, and since then CO2 has always been dropping, all throughout the Earth's 4.3 billion year history; and the data for the past few million years shows this to be true. To put this in perspective, 500 million years ago the CO2 concentration was 7500 ppm. CO2 concentration right now is about 400 ppm or so. But in a Greenhouse the CO2 concentration is much higher - in fact it's not unusual for greenhouses to set CO2 concentrations above 1,000 ppm in order to increase the yield, and the quality of the crop. So the data shows indeed that CO2 is good for the planet, and will have positive effects.
Now one of the interesting things though is that not all effects are what we would consider to be positive. Sure, there's going to be less desert, and ice on Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Russia slowly melt there'll be more fertile land available for use. But sea levels will rise, climate patterns will change over time, and some places will undoubtedly be worse off (particularly in the next few decades and couple of centuries). Ecosystems will change, this may mean that some species go extinct. It is an inherently uneven system; even though the planet will be better off overall, we do have to adapt. We'll need to create new dams to deal with the change in rainfall patterns. We'll need to (in Australia) plan for more farming to be happening in the north of our country and less in the south. It may eventually have an effect on coral bleaching too.
When all is said and done, 1,000 years from now the planet will be better off than without our contribution to global warming. 1,000 years from now Australia will no longer be mostly desert, it'll be mostly forest. And yeah of course that'll increase the risk of forest fire; but you can't have one without the other. All this scaremongering about trying to prevent it is really silly.
Now remember what I said about framing? What you normally hear is "deserts are threatened by global warming". Makes it sound bad doesn't it?
So I don't think your assessment is right; we've got a great future, and things are only getting better and better not worse and worse.
A quick note on your Trinitarian comment - I only included Christianity. I didn't include any other religion. The Gospel of John makes the divinity of Jesus explicit. John 1:1, 2:19-21, 3:13, 4:13-14, 4:26, 6:40, 8:12, and perhaps the most important verses where Jesus makes himself equal with Jehovah and thus claims deity:
John 5:17: But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
John 5:23: that all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
There's a reason why it's in the minority. You have to ignore the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation to claim that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus is deity AND still say you're a Christian.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
