• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religion of Green

Which is why there have also been massive technological improvements in battery technology. Air-based energy storage, graphene batteries, potential energy batteries, there's lot of work being done on this.

What do you define as massive since I began studying batteries around 1954-5 and do not know of amy massive improvements to batteries? About making batteries, seems we use energy to produce the batteries which is what I thought the green religion does not want used?
 
What's your source for that? Let me guess, you'll either post another PragerU video (go figure, a guy with ties to the fossil fuel industry opposes actual science on climate change) or from a scientist being paid by a company that directly profits off the causes of climate change?
Due to the post ^^^^ above, who here believes I owe that poster a reply?

He is sure proving the Green New Deal is just a religion.
 
I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a relatively new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...

Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
 
I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a relatively new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...

Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
Another interesting point, is that if you asked many of the AGW proponents why this topic is so important to them,
many will say that they want the Earth to remain habitable, yet almost no scientific papers actually postulate that Earth will be uninhabitable because of greenhouse gasses.
 
We have long had a history of people wanting to believe anything. It could be the Sun God. It could be the God of the Oceans. It can be the god of Climate fear.


If you believe everything from a fake online "University" (Prager U), you'll believe.... anything.
 
We have long had a history of people wanting to believe anything. It could be the Sun God. It could be the God of the Oceans. It can be the god of Climate fear.



Hi Robertinfremont,

And than there is a growing number of people who accept science over believing in a god, any god for that matter.


Joey
 
Rules are normally what Democrats crave. Did you know about that?

Hi Robertinfremont,

Yes, that is true. And there is a good reason for it. There is a government in place for the sole reason of managing a country. This is done because without it there would be total anarchy. When rules are in place people function better. The less rules you have the more anarchy you have. People function better when they know what they have to do and what they should not be doing.

But, you have to be careful which rules you implement and how you implement these rules. You do not want a totalitarian system like China. But places like Singapore actually show that, under the right circumstances, this could work as well.

Anyway, we have democracies. And with that in mind, we should still keep in place and put in place many rules. Because if you let the rule making up to the people in the streets than there would be a lot more trouble than you see today in Portland, Oregon...

Joey
 
Yup, exactly. Its some sort of apocalyptic cult that hates human beings and worships nature.
They're called Republicans. Lol
 
i think the OP is struggling with his grief. maybe we should try to help.
 
Hi Robertinfremont,

Yes, that is true. And there is a good reason for it. There is a government in place for the sole reason of managing a country. This is done because without it there would be total anarchy. When rules are in place people function better. The less rules you have the more anarchy you have. People function better when they know what they have to do and what they should not be doing.

But, you have to be careful which rules you implement and how you implement these rules. You do not want a totalitarian system like China. But places like Singapore actually show that, under the right circumstances, this could work as well.

Anyway, we have democracies. And with that in mind, we should still keep in place and put in place many rules. Because if you let the rule making up to the people in the streets than there would be a lot more trouble than you see today in Portland, Oregon...

Joey

Were I to tell you that your home is a good example of total anarchy, does that strike fear into your heart?

The term anarchy is often, nay nearly always, misunderstood to mean bad.

But it does not mean bad. It means lack of immediate supervision.

You want more immediate supervision over your life.

I want us to return to the system of our founders, maximum freedom.

Incidentally the religion of the Green makes enormous changes to your life. They of course are not imposed today so a selling process is in operation. To have posters like you speak of anarchy and how great rules are.

But those are not your rules, they want you to follow, those are their rules. And rules are not optional. Freedom should be thought of as clean water and air and cities are thought of. To cherish freedom. To ask them for more rules is begging for a dictatorship.
 
And you can tell this about the video...without watching it?
I watch part of the video, and the section not about beliefs was related to the practical application of low duty cycle energy sources like wind and solar.
This is a very relevant discussion, because to assume we can supply the energy for our on demand world for low duty cycle sources is very naive.
Forget PragerU for a second, as the topic is well covered in a TED talk by a lifelong environmentalist.
Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger
Without massive energy storage, wind and solar cannot get us from where we are to where we need to be.
I have also in the past, this year in fact, Michael Shellenberger's excellent TED talks.

He used to be a radical too.

My major problem with the alarmists is their tactics. If they want to tell me they will change something, that is wonderful. Stop forcing me to change is my requsst. If you believe the Eagle is a danger to windmills, great. I don't believe that but if you do, no harm to me. And yes I said a harm to windmills. Many environmentalists worry the deaths of the Eagles due to windmills will wipe out the Eagle. So the deaths would contribute to the death of windmills.

Climate is not your last hurricane or that tornado. Weather was those events. Simple heat is not a problem. 2 degrees over 150 years is in the regular course of nature. And were it the fault of man, it still does not matter at all. We tolerate such changes during our regular days and do not notice harm.
 
I have also in the past, this year in fact, Michael Shellenberger's excellent TED talks.

He used to be a radical too.

My major problem with the alarmists is their tactics. If they want to tell me they will change something, that is wonderful. Stop forcing me to change is my requsst. If you believe the Eagle is a danger to windmills, great. I don't believe that but if you do, no harm to me. And yes I said a harm to windmills. Many environmentalists worry the deaths of the Eagles due to windmills will wipe out the Eagle. So the deaths would contribute to the death of windmills.

Climate is not your last hurricane or that tornado. Weather was those events. Simple heat is not a problem. 2 degrees over 150 years is in the regular course of nature. And were it the fault of man, it still does not matter at all. We tolerate such changes during our regular days and do not notice harm.
None of your last paragraph is true
 
Which is why there have also been massive technological improvements in battery technology. Air-based energy storage, graphene batteries, potential energy batteries, there's lot of work being done on this.
Batteries come with many problems too. Some batteries use precious limited source elements to improve them. Anyway in physics you learn that batteries are limited to a particular range of volts. Volts also called EMF is what forces electric currents to flow. In other words a V = 1.5 which is the accepted range of lead acid batteries just does not provide enough push to get a lot done. You will notice that at the high output AC supply systems at the Dams do not try to use the battery to store the current. AC can't be stored in batteries thus only DC can be stored. Also when one factors in the losses over the transmission lines, they find other problems too.
In the ideal world our wind would blow at a steady rate for the entire year. Solar would not be limited to the daytime. The Greens are a religion, not a science.
 
Batteries come with many problems too. Some batteries use precious limited source elements to improve them. Anyway in physics you learn that batteries are limited to a particular range of volts. Volts also called EMF is what forces electric currents to flow. In other words a V = 1.5 which is the accepted range of lead acid batteries just does not provide enough push to get a lot done. You will notice that at the high output AC supply systems at the Dams do not try to use the battery to store the current. AC can't be stored in batteries thus only DC can be stored. Also when one factors in the losses over the transmission lines, they find other problems too.
In the ideal world our wind would blow at a steady rate for the entire year. Solar would not be limited to the daytime. The Greens are a religion, not a science.
NASA is not a religious organization
 
I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a relatively new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...

Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
That is truly thought provoking Jack and well researched.
 
Were I to tell you that your home is a good example of total anarchy, does that strike fear into your heart?

You do not know what you are talking about (simply because you do not know me), you are generalizing and did not listen to me previously.

I can not function without rules. So inside my home there are rules that are followed. I need those rules to function. And my son also, he is a MiniMe the poor boy. But I never have to get angry at him, never have to sanction him. I just talk to him and explain. And than it is ok. Which is pretty amazing for a 2 year old kid, but that is besides the point. Anyways; therefore, my home is far from an anarchy.

Having said that, I like your example and conceptionally I sure understand what you mean.

The term anarchy is often, nay nearly always, misunderstood to mean bad.

Completely agree. And thought it surely does not have to be bad, you can not deny that it also can be bad. If people were never inclined to do something bad in the first place, than there would never have been any rules, because we wouldn't need them. The only reason there are rules, is because time has proven over and over again that people need rules.

I want us to return to the system of our founders, maximum freedom.

I worry you think to black and white. There is much in between. But if you want it black and white, let's give it a go.

You want to return to the system of your founding fathers? Fine.
You also want to go to work tomorrow by horse? You want to close the internet and get all your bills and invoices by mail again? You want to go back to the times when after an argument you can ask for a duel in the middle of the street? You wanna go back to the days that you can not safely travel from east to west without the serious risk of being robbed?

You can't have it both ways I am afraid. And that is why we need those rules. And when the system shows strain than the rules need to be reviewed and adapted. Because time changes. It always has and always will. And therefore, so should the rules.

Now I fully agree that we need a good talk about which rules being implemented. Because yes, it is easy to go over the top. Like I see here in China every time I come here. But there is something between how China does it and how we do it in the west. The way they do it here is not sustainable. But neither is our way. Look around you at the division in our society. Look around you at the discontent. That is not sustainable in the long run.

Joey
 
Hi Robertinfremont,

Yes, that is true. And there is a good reason for it. There is a government in place for the sole reason of managing a country. This is done because without it there would be total anarchy. When rules are in place people function better. The less rules you have the more anarchy you have. People function better when they know what they have to do and what they should not be doing.

But, you have to be careful which rules you implement and how you implement these rules. You do not want a totalitarian system like China. But places like Singapore actually show that, under the right circumstances, this could work as well.

Anyway, we have democracies. And with that in mind, we should still keep in place and put in place many rules. Because if you let the rule making up to the people in the streets than there would be a lot more trouble than you see today in Portland, Oregon...

Joey

I want to suggest several things to you and those thinking as you think.

On Government and rules

41Vcp1-mQ8L._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


I have more for you from Youtube if you say you want to see this.

I have to spend a lot of time digging through my youtube history to locate the speaker I want you to know about.
 
Back
Top Bottom