Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accelerate Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018

[Maccabee]

Fair question, I don't know whether breathing is categorized under "human-caused carbon emissions". Personally, it is one of my favorite activities.

I'm a diehard fan of breathing. Not a day goes by that I don't do it at least once.

 

[gfm7175]

Why do you think the age of the earth is unknowable?

Good question.

The answer to that question is because no human ever observed the creation of the Earth. We have no functional time machines to go back in time to observe that event (or to test null hypotheses of any theories concerning that event). We simply have no idea what actually happened, nor when it actually happened, thus we only have religious theories about that event, and supporting evidence for those theories.

 

[Deuce]

Good question.

The answer to that question is because no human ever observed the creation of the Earth. We have no functional time machines to go back in time to observe that event (or to test null hypotheses of any theories concerning that event). We simply have no idea what actually happened, nor when it actually happened, thus we only have religious theories about that event, and supporting evidence for those theories.

If it's based on evidence it's not a religion.

Also, I find it laughable to suggest it's impossible to know something happened without having been physically present to witness it. I suppose you think dinosaurs are a religion too.

 

[Quaestio]

No, I don't. I do not deny Science nor Geometry.


The age of the Earth is unknowable... One can only have religious beliefs about it...


Inversion Fallacy.

Yes, we can know the approximate age of the earth from the decay rates of the radioactive elements in meteorites and other rocks. From this, scientists can say that it's approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. I'm not interested in your religious beliefs that the earth could be less that 10,000 years old.

You don't even know what an Inversion Fallacy is either.

Neither logic or science are your strong suits are they?

As you are zealously (and possibly religiously) opposed to reading any science textbooks or any of the relevant published research literature, perhaps you could take some classes at a local community college instead of parroting nonsense from Into the Night or religious websites or pseudoscience conspiracy blogs or a website with a list of logical fallacies you don't seem to know how to apply correctly.

I find it kind of sad that some people need to reject science and reality because of their religious/ideological beliefs. And even more pathetic when they try (and fail) to use 'logic' or semantics to do it.

Spoiler

Cue "Church of Global Warming!" mantra, 3, 2, 1...

 

[Quaestio]

Good question.

The answer to that question is because no human ever observed the creation of the Earth. We have no functional time machines to go back in time to observe that event (or to test null hypotheses of any theories concerning that event). We simply have no idea what actually happened, nor when it actually happened, thus we only have religious theories about that event, and supporting evidence for those theories.

It's not surprising that Creationists (especially Young Earth Creationists) and Climate Truthers overlap.

Contrary to what you mindlessly parrot from your sock-like buddy Into the Night, "supporting evidence" is very much integral to science. Into the Night probably read some random web page on Karl Popper and misunderstood it (as usual) and you've just copied what he says.

 

[Quaestio]

If it's based on evidence it's not a religion.

Also, I find it laughable to suggest it's impossible to know something happened without having been physically present to witness it. I suppose you think dinosaurs are a religion too.

Ah but Creationists believe that 'dinosaurs' are mentioned in the Bible (behemoths- Job 40:15–24), so they accept them. Have you ever seen a Young Earth Creationist "museum"?

It's hard to believe there are still some grown adults whose religious/ideological beliefs require them to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, or that the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist.

Cue gfm7175's mindlessly parroted mantra that "supporting evidence isn't used in science, it's only used by religions". He redefines the concept of 'science' so that he can then accuse people of belonging to the "Church of Global Warming", so he then can dismiss all the fields of science relevant to climate science as "a religion".

Into the Night obviously read something on some random webpage about Karl Popper's philosophy of science and misunderstood it, and gfm7175 just parrots whatever Into the Night posts - almost like he was his sock buddy.

 

[Deuce]

Ah but Creationists believe that 'dinosaurs' are mentioned in the Bible (behemoths- Job 40:15–24), so they accept them. Have you ever seen a Young Earth Creationist "museum"?

It's hard to believe there are still some grown adults whose religious/ideological beliefs require them to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist.

Nobody alive has seen a live dinosaurs, therefore I say they're a religion!

I mean that's what we're working with here.

 

[Quaestio]

Nobody alive has seen a live dinosaurs, therefore I say they're a religion!

I mean that's what we're working with here.

Yeah I know. Sad really. Have you ever seen Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham talk? gfm7175 and Into the Night sound a lot like him.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah I know. Sad really. Have you ever seen Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham talk? gfm7175 and Into the Night sound a lot like him.

Is that the guy who thinks peanut butter disproves evolution?

 

[Quaestio]

Is that the guy who thinks peanut butter disproves evolution?

LOL! And bananas too, which are apparently an "Atheist's Nightmare!"

Atheist's Nightmare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

That's Ray Comfort, not Ken Ham. Ham is the guy who runs the Answers in Genesis Creation "Museum" in Kentucky. He's an Australian, but realized that he'd get a much better (and more lucrative) reception for his Young Earth Creationist crap in America, especially in the Bible Belt. I don't think Australians are (in general) religiously zealous and gullible enough for a 'museum' like that. It would quickly become a joke.

One of Ham's main 'debate' tactics is to say that no-one was around to observe the past and to ask "Were you there?"

 

[Bergslagstroll]

This doesn't do anything about developing countries as this technology is expensive, harder to implement and maintain, and needs significant infrastructure to support. Further, anyone who mentions China in a positive light on this subject I find difficult to take seriously. They are leading in nothing in this area. That narrative is all lies mostly based on bashing the U.S.

Korea on fine dust alert as polluted air blows in from China [VIDEO]

Conversely, the U.S. is actually a leading nation in innovations. We've done the most to advance battery technology and implement all kinds of alternative energy sources and are continually developing them. The difference between the U.S. and other nations is we let the private market work on the problem vs the government, which usually works out better.

That said, it's still not going to be available to developing countries and as more and more countries advance, CO2 output are going to increase, a lot. Not to mention that, by all accounts, he policies that we'd have to implement to effect the change that is needed are so extreme that they will literally never happen. So we are in for w/e is coming our way, good, bad, or indifferent.

China is leading the way then it comes to investments in renewable energy, that last year nearly half of the world’s new renewable energy investment came from China. While at the same time there are still a lot of things you can be critical of then it comes to China.

https://qz.com/1247527/for-every-1-the-us-put-into-renewable-energy-last-year-china-put-in-3/

Renewables are already starting to outcompete fossil fuel in for example India.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...ts-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#441790864c0f

Renewable power also help the poorest people in the world gain access to electricity, and even saving lives through the provision of cheap and clean solar power.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...ging-solar-power-to-the-developing-world.html

While you are right that US is a very innovative country so it sad that the Trump administration wants to spend billions of dollar on propping up unprofitable coal plants instead of investing in renewable energy.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

 

[gfm7175]

If it's based on evidence it's not a religion.

Actually, religion is what makes use of supporting evidence. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence.

Also, I find it laughable to suggest it's impossible to know something happened without having been physically present to witness it. I suppose you think dinosaurs are a religion too.

Yes, it is religious belief. It is a past unobserved event and there is supporting evidence for dinosaurs.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, we can know the approximate age of the earth from the decay rates of the radioactive elements in meteorites and other rocks. From this, scientists can say that it's approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.

We don't know whether those decay rates have stayed constant throughout history or not... we're making that assumption... In the end, we simply don't know for sure. It remains a religion.

I'm not interested in your religious beliefs that the earth could be less that 10,000 years old.

Nor am I interested in your religious beliefs about radiometric dating...

You don't even know what an Inversion Fallacy is either.

I know precisely what it is.

Neither logic or science are your strong suits are they?

I am quite studied on logic, and have a strong general knowledge of how science works, granted my knowledge on many specific theories and such is lacking due to lack of interest in them.

As you are zealously (and possibly religiously) opposed to reading any science textbooks or any of the relevant published research literature, perhaps you could take some classes at a local community college instead of parroting nonsense from Into the Night or religious websites or pseudoscience conspiracy blogs or a website with a list of logical fallacies you don't seem to know how to apply correctly.

Mantra ignored on sight...

I find it kind of sad that some people need to reject science

Agreed, so stop rejecting science. I fully accept and welcome science.

and reality

Define "reality"...

because of their religious/ideological beliefs. And even more pathetic when they try (and fail) to use 'logic' or semantics to do it.

Spoiler

Cue "Church of Global Warming!" mantra, 3, 2, 1...

Mantra ignored on sight...

 

[gfm7175]

It's not surprising that Creationists (especially Young Earth Creationists) and Climate Truthers overlap.

Bulverism Fallacy doubling as bigotry.

Contrary to what you mindlessly parrot from your sock-like buddy Into the Night, "supporting evidence" is very much integral to science.

No it is not. If it were, then it would lead to paradoxical reasoning, which is irrational... It would be including religion into science.

Into the Night probably read some random web page on Karl Popper and misunderstood it (as usual) and you've just copied what he says.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy...

 

[Deuce]

Actually, religion is what makes use of supporting evidence. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence.


Yes, it is religious belief. It is a past unobserved event and there is supporting evidence for dinosaurs.

:lamo

 

[Quaestio]

:lamo

Yeah, I know. Hilarious, but also kind of sad.