(May 7, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Aractus Wrote: 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.
Its funny that I am not arguing with you about climate change. I won't use the label, "climate change denier" anymore. However I do find that some of your reasoning is fallacious. For example, sighting others that went against the grain and were right. I wouldn't know what this fallacy is technically called but you're implying that people were the exception to the rule before therefore so is the guy I believe is also the exception. Or you're saying that the 97% statistic is false? I'm not really sure. One thing I can promise you is this, I will look into the matter more thoroughly. I do not believe in having a stance on anything because "most people" have that stance.
And again with the trinity, even 2 of those scriptures that you quoted imply two separate beings in my opinion. And the 3rd only implies that Jesus existed before Abraham. There is no problem there for me. I do believe that according to the scriptures Jesus was a "god." I believe Isaiah referred to him as a mighty god as well. The bible writers did believe Jesus was a heavenly figure whether or not he was. But I find very little evidence that any of them assumed him to be the almighty. And again, from a JW's perspective, it is only faith strengthening to see where we differ from other religions. Triune gods, the immortal soul, idol worship, etc are common facets of most religions. I am sure that you have a clutch of scriptures you could share with me. You are obviously an intelligent person, however, in the 3 times I have read the bible I have come across scriptures that don't make sense to me at the time but I can say that overwhelmingly the presuppositions I held when reading the scriptures made the reading easier and more sensical.
But I do notice an additional point with your posts that I have already mentioned... that is, anyone can be convinced of anything. That is not an argument for whether you are right or wrong. Even the holocaust deniers and truthers you mentioned have "facts" they use to base their beliefs. That isn't a sleight towards what you believe. I just remember once when I heard someone say that the reason why there are smart people that believe in god and the bible is because they can come up with smart witty rationalizations for their beliefs and ideas. But that only begs the question, what idea or belief can't have a smart or witty rationalization? So you tell me, why are you immune from cognitive dissonance?
