To be precise 101% of global warming beyond the pre-industrial mean is being caused by Human activity. The 101% of climate change because prior to the modern industrial era the world climate was slowly cooling.
This is based on evidence and logic.
Global temperature has ceased rising and is now falling. Industrialisation is more pronounced now than then, there are more people now than then. If human impact is such a great cause for "global warming" why then is this not continuing?
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict. Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.
Who was the fool, who the wise man, who the beggar or the Emperor? Whether rich or poor, all are equal in death.
Global temperature has ceased rising and is now falling. Industrialisation is more pronounced now than then, there are more people now than then. If human impact is such a great cause for "global warming" why then is this not continuing?
Warmest year on record was 2010, 2011 turned out to be markedly cooler. Maybe the recession is biting a little.
The variations are from heat transfer from the air to the ocean.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
you mean on record as is recorded in modern times right. clearly global temperatures have varied just as quickly in the past as they are now. global warming is environmental alarm-ism at it's best.
I am the love child of Tony Abbott and Pauline Hanson
Now have close look between the Spencer bullshit chart and an actual instrumental record. From about 1650 the Royal Society measured England's temperature using a new do-da called the thermometer.
No, you're wrong. She is right, you don't have to disprove something that is not evident. As Kant pointed out, proofs and disproofs of god are equally irrelevant, you neither prove or disprove the existence of god. He wrote that in reaction to a time which was highly concerned with finding proofs for god and literally digging him up somewhere.
The Anthropomorphic god simply arises via our instincts for a paternal figure in our lives. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a non-Anthropomorphic creative god.
You tell me that I am wrong and then go on to propose my position as what is correct. funny way of arguing, but I will take affirmation where it is available.
Failing to prove the existence of something or even showing the impossibility of proving the existence of something is not the same as proving the non-existence of that same thing. In the end it is a Mexican standoff. You can take any position you like in the sure knowledge that you cannot be proven wrong, but you also cannot prove that you are right.
Quote:
Not true. Science tests, propositions with logic and known facts. In religion the opposite occurs, it is simply faith without evidence. Aka, mysticism and transcendentalism. Science deals with objective reality, religion deals with subjective realities like morals. There is no morality in science, so religion is necessary for society to function.
Exactly. They are orthogonal. Being a mystic in no way stops you from taking a scientific approach to cosmology at the same time. You can make use of the fact that PI is 3.14159etc with or without believing there is an answer to the question "why is PI=3.14159etc." In the end there will always be something that is unexplainable that you can choose to explain using or not using a deity.
Science is, in the end, descriptive. It tries to make sense of what we can perceive - that is, find the causal and correlative relations between things we can perceive and to develop predictive models based on those relations. It is not concerned with the question of why we perceive what we perceive. It has no need to be concerned with that question. That is the province of religion, mysticism or whatever you you want to call it.
Quote:
The Anthropomorphic god simply arises via our instincts for a paternal figure in our lives. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a non-Anthropomorphic creative god.
I agree with that too.
Strindberg
1 Nov 2012, 03:29 PM
In David Hume's time it was impractical to remain a respected public figure as a self-professed atheist. Even Darwin used the word "creation" rather than "evolution" throughout the Origin of Species. Hobbes was threatened with a trial by Parliament for his suspected atheism. John Stuart Mill's atheism could only be revealed after his death in posthumous essays. Shelley was expelled from Oxford for a pamphlet entitled "The Necessity of Atheism". No atheists (or even non-Anglicans) were allowed to teach or even study at Oxford or Cambridge.
Not absolutely sure what you are trying to say here. It is almost certainly true that David Hume was an atheist. He certainly was not a theist because he denied the possibility of miracles. It is just possible that he was a theist (essentially someone who believes that there was a creator God who set things in motion and after that has not interfered). He was not too worried about the establishment though. In "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" he laid waste to the teleological proof of the existence of God (essentially intelligent design) that was popular at the time with a vigour, efficiency and elegance that makes Richard Dawkins look like the philosophical also-ran that he is.
He was a Scot from Edinburgh, so he was not eligible to be on the staff at Cambridge and Oxford anyhow. He was, however, not allowed to take up the chair in Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh precisely because of his atheistic leanings. Essentially, he seems to have been an atheist who admitted that he could not prove the correctness of his belief. Mind you, he also held that the fact that the sun has risen every morning until now did not provide a basis for a rational belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Pretty rigorous chap David Hume. To my mind the greatest philosopher to have written in English. (but that is also something that I cannot prove.) Also in actual fact a legendary pisspot (cue Monty Python sketch).
We should definitely take steps to reduce pollution, but we should do it for reasons such as improving air and water quality.
We shouldn't be doing it in order to prevent the climate from changing, because if we do it to prevent the climate from changing then we have no way to measure success, as the climate will change anyway...
But on what consistent basis do you propose to distinguish control of pollution for air-quality reasons (which "we should definitely take steps to reduce") from control of pollution for climate change reasons?!?
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
