Couple of clingers in my de-converting

[KevinM1]

It should be noted that Lindzen is a noted contrarian, and many other climatologists disagree with his assessments.

[Won2blv]

I want you to know that I have more respect for you than most people on this forum but can you honestly say that 100 years ago man had the ability to do harm as much as they do today? Global warming is one issue that is a proactive harm. I think their are lots of un foreseen harms, like the spread of MRSA viruses. 

Of course they had the ability to do unspeakable harms 100 years ago, what about the British concentration camps in the Second Boer War? Here's a picture of one of the victims (warning: graphic):

---

---

That little girl died aged 7 after being held in a British concentration camp in an attempt by the British to get her father to surrender. Concentration camps were used by a variety of different nations from the early 1800's through to the end of WWII by the Nazi's. More recently, in the early 90's there was the Dretelj camp, and in the 00's-present arguably Guantanamo Bay.

Post-WWII we have the Geneva Conventions. The two camps I just mentioned, Dretelj and Guantanamo both contravened the Geneva Conventions, and also the UN Convention against Torture. So while it's true that war crimes still happen, they happen on a far reduced scale from what they did in the past and there is far greater accountability. It is my fond hope that one day Bush, Cheney, Obama, the CIA staff in Cuba, and the Pentagon (, etc.) are held to account and prosecuted for their war crimes, preferentially in Geneva.

Global Warming is NOT a crisis. Here's respected climate scientist Richard Lindzen (contributor to IPCC reports):

http://youtu.be/i1CR0v7dwXU


And just look at how he gets heckled when interviewed by someone who ISN'T a climate scientist!

http://youtu.be/mOU306AvvHE

Is it any wonder why you only hear the alarmist side of the argument? That's what sells newspapers, and it's what sells policies that can benefit political agendas. We are in no danger of Global Warming harming our future on the planet, none whatsoever. Global Warming will have an inequitable effect across the globe, and that's true, and that's part of what we have to plan for. But it isn't going to wipe everyone out, nor is it going to create more droughts and more natural disasters. In Australia it is believed that for us overtime Global Warming will have the effect of shifting rainfall north whilst the national average remains constant. This will change the landscape over times, just as has always happened for millions of years now right across the world. There was a time when Antarctica was once covered in vegetation and land mammals. There are farms from the middle-ages on Greenland that are still under permafrost from the little ice age. That's recent history and goes to show that the fertility of the land is always shifting, and follows regional climate change.

The thing about Lindzen is that he is 1 scientist that differs in his opinion from 97% of climate change scientists. Could a creationist use 1 scientist that doesn't believe in evolution to make his point valid? And the worlds climate does change but over thousands and millions of years. Its the sudden quick warming that is alarming. I live in Utah and for the past 15 years I have watched the ski season get shorter and shorter every year. Even aside from climate change. Look at the dwindling honey bee population and how that would affect our food

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3045124/this-...much-salad

Or I read an article today about how deepwater horizons oil spill is still affecting the ecosystem in the gulf. Then there is over fishing that is depleting many types of fish in the oceans. I know that alarmism sells newspapers but in America at least, we don't hear about much of this on the main stream news. Its basically politics, ISIS and Kim Kardashian. There is a new documentary about how big business is able to shift the public perception of dangerous things called, "The Merchants of Doubt"

---

I want you to know that I have more respect for you than most people on this forum but can you honestly say that 100 years ago man had the ability to do harm as much as they do today?

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840

just a bit over one hundred years ago.

I don't understand the correction? I never even mentioned the Industrial Revolution. My point is that 100 years ago humans had a lot of ability to do harm. Since WWI and WWII we have had a relatively peaceful world to live in. Especially compared to the previous centuries. However, we have become more efficient in a lot of areas as well. Imagine if Hitler had nukes? Think about when someone is as hellbent as he was in a country with nuclear weapons. Or drone weapons. Obama sorta apologized for the death of 2 innocents that were american and italian but claims that drones don't kill innocent civilians. One way that the administration gets around the fact that they do kill innocents is that males over a certain age are assumed to be combatants. Humans have learned to fudge the numbers very well too when necessary

---

So, TLDR how can I feel confident that what is going on with humans is not a right on track of biblical prophecy but really just business as usual? And please please please, I could tell you about how much I care about hearing on the different dates of the JW past but I am not sure what the rules are on cursing.

Throughout human history, people have been predicting calamity and disaster.  For the past 1,500 or so years there have been numerous attempts at predicting the end of the world, and most of the signs are the same ones: an increase in natural disasters, an increase in crime and a seeming loss of consideration for ones fellow man, and so on.  Time and again people have warned their contemporaries that things have gotten worse and worse and that it's not possible for the downward trend to continue, hence it must be the time of the end.  1,500 years.  Give or take.

We can see a form of this "things are getting worse" all the time, because as we get older we strip many of our oldest memories down so that they're a romanticized version of the past.  Nostalgia gets us to look at the past as an ideal time, and everything since then has gotten worse and worse, and so the world seems to be on the road to catastrophe.  So we really can't tell if the current time is a sign of the end, of the coming of one god or another, because humans have proven utterly incapable of properly reading the way things are going on a global level and applying that towards what the future holds.

I know how nostalgia affects our memories of the past but every  almost every climate scientist fears that humans could be on a track of self extinction. So its not just a, "back in my day" kind of thing. I am in my late 20's and in my short life I have seen my states climate change rapidly. For example, the ski season is getting shorter and shorter. Fortunately this will mainly affect our tourism. But its something that I have seen before my eyes change

---

Nic: I don't pre suppose any "holy book" is fairy tales. I conclude that they are most likely fairy tales, there's a big difference. You would do the same about any fantasy book you picked up, regardless of whether you knew who wrote it, when, or why. If I found any reason to believe they might reasonably have any truth to them beyond the mundane, then I'd be happy to admit it. But I don't.

I understand it must be very hard to see my point of view, just as it's hard for me to know what it's like to be indoctrinated, because I never have been. (I'm assuming you were, please correct me if I'm wrong. It's not an insult, I recognise it as the equivalent of abuse so I feel sympathy.) So I appreciate my attempts to be rational and logical may appear to be something quite different to how I intend them. All I can do is tell it like it is, to the best of my knowledge and understanding. I'm not trying to trick anyone, only to encourage critical thinking and logic. I have nothing to gain by "getting more atheists" except the satisfaction that I helped someone through something difficult and helped free them from the shackles of religion. But if people just think about things I'm happy, and clearly you are doing so.

When you use the "But what if [scenario]" argument to try and make part of the bible seem possibly real, I understand the tendency to do that because you're so used to thinking that it is real and the characters in it are real. But to me it's no different from saying "But what if Lord of the Rings actually happened and Sauron was defeated but not destroyed. He could be gaining in power, and this is causing all the evil in the world. Every evil thing just shows how much more powerful he is getting". I can't definitively say "No that didn't happen and isn't happening" but I don't need to, because I have no reason to think it actually is happening. We have limited time in life, so there's no point spending it on ideas and claims that have no logical support behind them. There are infinitely many!

If you want to beat religion and see through it, that is the mental shift you need. Don't ask "How do I know this isn't true?" (the argument from ignorance fallacy); instead ask "Do I have any good reason to think this is true?" (the sceptical stance). Find out what the real reasons are you believe things, and evaluate those reasons. If you believe something, you have a reason. It may be a good or a bad reason. You may not even be aware what the reason is until you start analysing your thoughts.

If the reasons to believe are good, they will stand up to scrutiny, so there is nothing to fear from enquiry.

I apologise if I come over as anything other than just wanting to help and discuss. I try my best to be helpful, and to understand the theist position. I appreciate I won't always succeed at this, having never gone through it myself.

I very much appreciate you. You are blunt without having to belittle me. I did assume from your websites bio that you presupposed that god didn't exist. I think it was a story too about how silly you thought prayer was at a young age. I don't like being told that I was indoctrinated but thats probably just because it makes me feel like my beliefs aren't valid as a starting point. I am trying to figure out what I believe. But my experience on these forums has been that atheist are subject to the same kind of fallacies and emotional speed bumps that EVERY human is subject too. Cognitive dissonance is something that even an atheist can experience. Or the genetic fallacy, "you only believe that because you were born into that religion" or the red herring fallacy, "well what about when your god of "love" murdered the whole planet"

On this threads subject what do you think? Have humans put the world in and overall better or worse condition? And even if you say a better one, how do you feel about the ecosystem seemingly being under duress? Or the fact that there is more possibility today than ever for every man woman and child to be obliterated due to weapons of mass destruction?

[Aractus]

The thing about Lindzen is that he is 1 scientist that differs in his opinion from 97% of climate change scientists. Could a creationist use 1 scientist that doesn't believe in evolution to make his point valid? And the worlds climate does change but over thousands and millions of years. Its the sudden quick warming that is alarming. I live in Utah and for the past 15 years I have watched the ski season get shorter and shorter every year. Even aside from climate change. Look at the dwindling honey bee population and how that would affect our food

That just isn't true.

Watch this debate between a so-called alarmist and a so-called sceptic:

http://youtu.be/potLQR7-_Tg

Both of who are serious climate scientists, and notice how much they agree upon and how even the so-called alarmist doesn't take the alarmist position that you just claimed is representative of the "97%".

When I was in primary school we were taught that the gap in the ozone layer was so bad that it would take centuries to recover once we eliminated CFC's and that it may never recover. That's what we were taught in the 1990's, in public school. We weren't taught that there was any debate, we weren't taught that there was any scientific doubt about that projection.

Virtually all climate scientists accept 3 things: 1. that the earth is currently experiencing a warming period; 2. that anthropogenic GHG's have accumulated in the atmosphere; 3. that anthropogenic GHG's have likely contributed to the warming trend.

Now I'll give you an actual link to the so-called "97%" consensus and you can read the various statements for yourself on NASA. I want you to pay particular attention relative to point 3. Some are at one extreme saying that GHG's are responsible for the global warming trend and are a threat into the future. Others are more moderate and say that it is likely attributed to human activity with no mention about the future threat, and there are statements in-between. And that's just from the climate organisations that are featured on that NASA page.

Lindzen takes the position that 1. true, 2. true, 3. true but the effect in the future of adding more CO2 will not be as great in the past. And that's his area of specialist research. He researchers the hypothesis/theories that suggest there is a positive-feedback mechanism; and he takes the position that if there is a feedback mechanism that it's a negative one. Notice that even on the NASA page there not a single mention as to whether there's a positive feedback mechanism. Nor is there any mention of whether climate projections are agreed upon or not.

Here's another link to the definition of the consensus. Doran & Zimmerman, 2009. Examining the Scientific Consensus  on Climate Change. "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of active climate scientists agreed. That's what the consensus means, that's what your 97% figure comes from. Notice that the authors had to data-mine their data in order to arrive at that figure, and that in fact only 82% of scientists overall agreed. You could really question their methods. To arrive at that number they took in 10,257 surveys, and then only used 77 (less than 1%) of those surveys to get the 97% figure. They should have used a larger sample size of climate scientists than just 77. Here's another paper by Cook et al., 2013, that arrives at the same 97% figure using a similar criteria. Again they're just asking the question of whether human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, and again they had to data-mine to get the figure.

So don't come here and tell me that Lindzen disagrees with the 97% consensus - he doesn't. He's a part of that 97% figure, if he was asked that question he would answer "Yes." What you're doing is a typical bait-and-switch, and a typical stretch of the position of the "consensus". Just because there's 97% agreement on the points I mentioned above, and the question from Doran & Zimmerman 2009 doesn't mean you can stretch that to mean that 97% endorse the position that urgent action to reduce GHG's needs to be taken; on that statement there's far less agreement from active climate scientists. What you've done is labelled someone erroneously.

Note that the 97% figure is comprised of climate scientists who think that human activity is the primary cause, and those who think it is a significant contributor. It is not comprised only of the former. According to Cook et al.'s data, from the 12,000 abstracts that they considered, only around 0.5% took the position that human activity is the primary cause of climate change. The overwhelming majority of the papers took no position on either of those statements.

Let's have a look at how this would look in a graph shall we? First a graph you would normally see floating around the web:



This is a graph I made showing Cook et al.'s data:



Here's an article by two climate scientists Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger & Patrick J. Michaels written in 2014 that titled "If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped. Basically they showed that by using Cook's method you could prove the claim that 100% of climate scientists agree that climate change has stopped. Note that these two climate scientists say "the fact humans play a role in the enhancing the greenhouse effect leading to global warming is hardly actionable". Here's how they did it:

We identified papers published between 2009 and 2014 and currently cataloged in the Web of Science database that included either the term “pause” or “hiatus” or “slowdown” and subsequently, the terms “global” and “temperature.” We then read the abstracts of those papers (or the papers themselves if further investigation was required) and assigned them to one of the following three categories: “not applicable,” “acknowledging the existence of a slowdown or stoppage in global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) in recent years,” and “arguing that a slowdown or stoppage of global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) has not occurred in recent years.”

Of the 100 papers we identified, 65 didn’t have anything to do with recent global temperature trends (these typified papers published prior to about 2010). Of the remaining 35 papers, every single one of them acknowledged in some way that a hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.

Now to go back to the consensus claim. The IPCC 2007 report claimed that: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." and "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century." There is not, and has never been a consensus on those two statements.

Now take this one from IPCC 2013: "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

Would you notice again please that the claim of positive radiative forcing is NOT a consensus position. This is Lindzen's area of expertise and this is what he actively researches.

My original point pertained to the fact that Global Warming is NOT a crisis. This is a sentiment shared by many more than just 3% of climate scientists. There are plenty of scientists within the 97% who do not think that global warming is a crisis, and plenty who do not think that projections are accurate.

[robvalue]

Nican: It is a sad fact that an awful lot of children are indoctrinated. By that I simply mean they are taught religious beliefs as fact rather than opinion, and are heavily discouraged from questioning them. I remember how you said JWs tend to own beliefs more, so perhaps their version is different, or milder. If you say you weren't indoctrinated, then I wouldn't presume to tell you otherwise. It was an assumption based on experience, and if it was wrong I apologize. When parents do indoctrinate (whether or not yours did) I think that at least most of the time they are doing what they think is right, they aren't willfully trying to mislead or harm their child. It's just that they themselves were most likely indoctrinated, so the cycle continues.

So I didn't mean to tell you that you were indoctrinated, apologies if I upset you. I was explaining what I thought most likely and asking for you to correct me if I'm wrong. It's a process of many degrees of course, not all indoctrination is the same. It can vary from very mild all the way up to violently enforced, and again if you were indoctrinated I wouldn't presume to tell you to what level. The fact that you are looking at your beliefs at all suggests a milder kind, if anything.

You are right, I am blunt in that I just try and state the facts as I see them, rather than sugar coating it. But I never mean to offend, and I'll happily change how I talk to you/others if it's causing any upset. My aim when talking to theists is to help them evaluate their beliefs (if they wish to) and I hope my matter-of-fact perspective may help with that.

Indeed, everyone is subject to all kinds of errors of thinking and I never mean to imply myself or other atheists don't make them. You can always assume that I am aware of this.

As for humans, I don't think they have improved things in general, I think they are the equivalent of a cancer to the planet. We are wrecking it, and have done untold damage to other forms of life. I would prefer we all died out as soon as possible. Humans have increased their own quality of life dramatically, but it comes at a cost. We get better, sometimes, at causing less harm while we are at it. I detest nuclear weapons and wish we didn't have any, same goes for guns. Our ability to create things has not always been tempered by an equal ability to see the dangers. However, I don't think any of this has anything to do with prophecy.

[Aractus]

While we're on the subject of the "97%" here's another graph I made:

[robvalue]

Coming back to the story on my website, yes I experienced prayer for the first time without being given any preconceptions about it first. My parents never told me about it, they certainly didn't make me believe it was pointless. I was coming to my own conclusions. I wasn't indoctrinated, nor was I told to be atheist.

What I experienced was people doing something very strange which I could see no point to. When I found out what the point was supposed to be, it made no sense. No one has since convinced me otherwise. I was 5 at the time, so I hope you agree that's a pretty blank slate. But regardless, I stand by the judgement I made even back then, and scientific studies have confirmed my suspicions. Of course I can't prove God isn't listening, if he exists. But that is again an unfalsifiable and therefor useless premise. However I can state that no scientific studies have demonstrated any benefit of prayer beyond the placebo effect, as far as I'm aware. The point of this is that if you haven't been fed information about a subject before experiencing it, then you are more likely to come to an objective conclusion. If you want to call me at age 5 a biased atheist militant bastard, then go ahead

Funnily enough, I did lose my shit once as a child and decided to pray. What I prayed for happened. However it was something that could quite easily have happened on its own. This is the trap of confirmation bias, and why I don't put any weight on my own anecdote. Also a sample size of 1 is not sufficient to draw any conclusions. I have since prayed for many other things, none of which would happen on their own, and none of which have happened. I didn't have any sincere belief what I was doing would work, or that anyone was listening, on any occasion. So there's examples of me being irrational by my own standards

Remember, I don't claim that there is no God, I don't claim Christianity is wrong, I don't claim prayer doesn't do anything. I have no need to, any more than I need to claim the sun isn't going to explode in 5 seconds. I simply don't have any reason to believe these things are correct. But I'm always open minded to further evidence, at least I try to be.

---

I thought I'd add a bit more about prayer. It falls under the general problem of not being falsifiable.

I pray for something to happen. If it happens, at any point, then the prayer "worked" and so God exists and is listening. If it doesn't happen, then either I didn't pray hard enough, didn't believe enough, it wasn't the right time, God has a better plan, etc... but god exists and is listening. So there is no way it can be falsified. There is a pre drawn conclusion no matter what happens.

Also, if we pray for stuff and God alters what he was going to do based on our prayers, that means he either didn't know what the best thing to do was, or wasn't intending to do it until we asked. That should raise some serious concerns, either way.

Another example is praying generally to God. I pray to him to reveal himself to me. If I have an experience, say a rush of emotion, or something unexpected happens around me, or anything I can view as "success" then yay God exists and he has shown himself to me. But if I get nothing, then I didn't pray hard enough, I don't believe enough, it wasn't the right time... conclusion, God still exists. Again, it's a pre drawn conclusion either way.

For any kind of "test" to make sense, there must be a way of proving a claim wrong. Otherwise, all you have is a pre drawn conclusion and what actually happens is irrelevant.

I could similarly decide before hand God doesn't exist. If I get any emotions, weird occurrences, or anything that might indicate he exists, I put it down to coincidence, a hallucination, unreliability of emotions etc. Conclusion: he doesn't exist. If I don't receive any sign, then he also doesn't exist. So you see either way, you end up with the conclusion you already drew, because the test is not falsifiable.

[Aractus]

This is the problem with policy action on climate change.

Climate scientist Judith Curry testified before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology just last month and said that the USA's ambitious goal to cut CO2 emissions by 28% by 2025 would only cool the planet by 0.03 degrees Celsius by 2100; and that if they reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050 it will only cool the planet by 0.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. The numbers she quoted are from here (well the first one is anyway).

http://youtu.be/rce5CeKOC0c

The comment she makes on cholesterol is 100% correct. There used to be a consensus that it was bad; it is in fact one of the most vital chemicals in the human body and is found in all of our living cells.

[Won2blv]

Nican: It is a sad fact that an awful lot of children are indoctrinated. By that I simply mean they are taught religious beliefs as fact rather than opinion, and are heavily discouraged from questioning them. I remember how you said JWs tend to own beliefs more, so perhaps their version is different, or milder. If you say you weren't indoctrinated, then I wouldn't presume to tell you otherwise. It was an assumption based on experience, and if it was wrong I apologize. When parents do indoctrinate (whether or not yours did) I think that at least most of the time they are doing what they think is right, they aren't willfully trying to mislead or harm their child. It's just that they themselves were most likely indoctrinated, so the cycle continues.

So I didn't mean to tell you that you were indoctrinated, apologies if I upset you. I was explaining what I thought most likely and asking for you to correct me if I'm wrong. It's a process of many degrees of course, not all indoctrination is the same. It can vary from very mild all the way up to violently enforced, and again if you were indoctrinated I wouldn't presume to tell you to what level. The fact that you are looking at your beliefs at all suggests a milder kind, if anything.

You are right, I am blunt in that I just try and state the facts as I see them, rather than sugar coating it. But I never mean to offend, and I'll happily change how I talk to you/others if it's causing any upset. My aim when talking to theists is to help them evaluate their beliefs (if they wish to) and I hope my matter-of-fact perspective may help with that.

Indeed, everyone is subject to all kinds of errors of thinking and I never mean to imply myself or other atheists don't make them. You can always assume that I am aware of this.

As for humans, I don't think they have improved things in general, I think they are the equivalent of a cancer to the planet. We are wrecking it, and have done untold damage to other forms of life. I would prefer we all died out as soon as possible. Humans have increased their own quality of life dramatically, but it comes at a cost. We get better, sometimes, at causing less harm while we are at it. I detest nuclear weapons and wish we didn't have any, same goes for guns. Our ability to create things has not always been tempered by an equal ability to see the dangers. However, I don't think any of this has anything to do with prophecy.

You didn't offend me at all. I just believe that atheist can be the pot calling the kettle black sometimes. With you I don't find this as a huge problem because you actually engage with people. 

---

This is the problem with policy action on climate change.

Climate scientist Judith Curry testified before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology just last month and said that the USA's ambitious goal to cut CO2 emissions by 28% by 2025 would only cool the planet by 0.03 degrees Celsius by 2100; and that if they reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050 it will only cool the planet by 0.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. The numbers she quoted are from here (well the first one is anyway).

http://youtu.be/rce5CeKOC0c

The comment she makes on cholesterol is 100% correct. There used to be a consensus that it was bad; it is in fact one of the most vital chemicals in the human body and is found in all of our living cells.

This is all interesting. I'll say what our politicians say, "I'm not a scientist." But one thing that you have made me more entrenched in believing is this, humans can skew things how they want. Really for any position. And as far the trinity thing, it would not make sense for what JW's believe to be lock in step with most religions. Because we believe most religions to be false and spread false religious ideas. So for me, that is something that would be a point for JW's, being in the minority that is. But I'm still pretty skeptical on what I believe at the moment... I am going to find out more on this climate change thing. It seems like some of your points are pretty valid but some of those links too, are set up by climate change deniers. So I want to read more into the context of the facts 

[Aractus]

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.

[Won2blv]

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?