• 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!

Eschatology and Global Warming

Jack Hays said:
I thought I answered, but I'll try again. No, it is not a moral issue because humans are not wrecking the planet. Your "issue" is merely a residue of the religious need for an original sin from which we must be saved.

[h=3]The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: Alex Epstein: 9781591847441 ...[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443
[/URL]



The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels [Alex Epstein] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Could everything we know about fossil fuels be wrong?
Click to expand...

Humans are definitely wrecking the planet. It's patently proven.

Your psychoanalysis of some desire to resolve sin is both oversimplistic and evasive. I'm a scientist who has seen first hand what human activities are doing to biological life. I'm qualified to talk about it.

We are responsible for how our activities impact this planet and all life on it. You are immoral.
 
Northern Light said:
Humans are definitely wrecking the planet. It's patently proven.

Your psychoanalysis of some desire to resolve sin is both oversimplistic and evasive. I'm a scientist who has seen first hand what human activities are doing to biological life. I'm qualified to talk about it.

We are responsible for how our activities impact this planet and all life on it. You are immoral.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You are exporting your inner struggles to others.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense. You are exporting your inner struggles to others.
Click to expand...

You can't dictate to someone what's happening inside of them, or psychoanalyze them just because you disagree with their argument. That's sociopathic. It's also clear that you're trying to evade the moral dilemma posed to you by making personal digs at me.

You're immoral if you support widespread destruction and pollution of the environment with no recourse. There's no getting around it.
 
Northern Light said:
You can't dictate to someone what's happening inside of them, or psychoanalyze them just because you disagree with their argument. That's sociopathic. It's also clear that you're trying to evade the moral dilemma posed to you by making personal digs at me.

You're immoral if you support widespread destruction and pollution of the environment with no recourse. There's no getting around it.
Click to expand...

Conditions are improving, not deteriorating. I face no moral dilemma.
What I face, what we all face, is a widespread and irrational need to control the behavior of others because of an imaginary crisis.
 
Jack Hays said:
Conditions are improving, not deteriorating. I face no moral dilemma.
What I face, what we all face, is a widespread and irrational need to control the behavior of others because of an imaginary crisis.
Click to expand...

Human standard of living may be improving, but environmental conditions are deteriorating everywhere that humans inhabit. You're talking to a biologist who has had their finger on the pulse of ecological status for a long time. I have colleagues all over the world. Things are not currently getting better. Perhaps they will with the advent and application of technologies and laws that help with bioremediation... but right now we are on borrowed time. It's mostly humans who inhabit the wealthy nations who have the luxury of pretending that nothing is happening because their amenities are temporarily shielding them from the coming realities. Developing nations are already having huge problems on this front, especially with the loss of habitat and climate change.

Calling something imaginary that is scientifically proven already - and has been for the past 30 years or so - just goes to show what an immoral dogmatist you are. Your jig's up.
 
Northern Light said:
Human standard of living may be improving, but environmental conditions are deteriorating everywhere that humans inhabit. You're talking to a biologist who has had their finger on the pulse of ecological status for a long time. I have colleagues all over the world. Things are not currently getting better. Perhaps they will with the advent and application of technologies and laws that help with bioremediation... but right now we are on borrowed time. It's mostly humans who inhabit the wealthy nations who have the luxury of pretending that nothing is happening because their amenities are temporarily shielding them from the coming realities. Developing nations are already having huge problems on this front, especially with the loss of habitat and climate change.

Calling something imaginary that is scientifically proven already - and has been for the past 30 years or so - just goes to show what an immoral dogmatist you are. Your jig's up.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I find your claims fraudulent and laughable.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I find your claims fraudulent and laughable.
Click to expand...

You haven't addressed anything I said though... just another ad hom. This adds further evidence to the fact that your entire intellectual premise is rooted in immorality.
 
Northern Light said:
You haven't addressed anything I said though... just another ad hom. This adds further evidence to the fact that your entire intellectual premise is rooted in immorality.
Click to expand...

I believe I addressed your claims in toto. There is no environmental crisis. There is no climate crisis.
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe I addressed your claims in toto. There is no environmental crisis. There is no climate crisis.
Click to expand...

You "addressed" it by giving me a pseudo-psychoanalysis of my character which was not only incorrect it was also sociopathic.

You've now compounded that with the lie that you somehow addressed my points, when in fact you totally evaded them.

You are really being a liar now, Jack.

It's really unfortunate that you're not willing to have a discussion about the ethics of industrial civilization because they are a huge component of the environmental debate that you simply cannot pretend doesn't exist. Your pretense reeks of immorality and dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
You "addressed" it by giving me a pseudo-psychoanalysis of my character which was not only incorrect it was also sociopathic.

You've now compounded that with the lie that you somehow addressed my points, when in fact you totally evaded them.

You are really being a liar now, Jack.

It's really unfortunate that you're not willing to have a discussion about the ethics of industrial civilization because they are a huge component of the environmental debate that you simply cannot pretend doesn't exist. Your pretense reeks of immorality and dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Industrial civilization has been the greatest boon in history for mankind and our planet. Your irrational fears are not suitable debate material.
 
Northern Light said:
You "addressed" it by giving me a pseudo-psychoanalysis of my character which was not only incorrect it was also sociopathic.

You've now compounded that with the lie that you somehow addressed my points, when in fact you totally evaded them.

You are really being a liar now, Jack.

It's really unfortunate that you're not willing to have a discussion about the ethics of industrial civilization because they are a huge component of the environmental debate that you simply cannot pretend doesn't exist. Your pretense reeks of immorality and dishonesty.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]Climate Change Debate[/FONT]
[h=1]Psychologists “Affirm Without Doubt” the Evidence for Imminent Climate Catastrophe[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to Psychology Today contributors Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, psychologists are united in their determination to help climate “deniers” face the need for urgent climate action to prevent imminent human extinction, though they are uncertain about how to deliver group therapy to millions of people…


If Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman had even the most basic grasp of the science, they would know that the “current rate” of global warming, between 1-2C / century depending on how you measure it, is not even remotely on track to hit 3.5C by 2050. An enormous acceleration of the current rate of warming would be required to hit 3.5C by 2050.
The evidence for imminent climate catastrophe is far from unequivocal.
Even the IPCC leaves room for doubt about the significance of global warming. The IPCC’s lower bound climate sensitivity of 1.5C warming / doubling of atmospheric CO2would make global warming a complete non-event, even if we burned every scrap of recoverable fossil fuel on the planet.
There is substantial peer reviewed evidence climate sensitivity is even lower than the 1.5C lower bound provided by the IPCC.
By making unsupported assertions about climate science and the future fate of the human race, and by attempting to dispel legitimate doubts about the urgency of the alleged climate crisis, in my opinion Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman are potentially doing unspeakable harm to the lives and wellbeing of people within their sphere of influence. Let us hope Sara and Jack realise the enormity of their error.
[/FONT]
 
Surface Detail said:
Yawn. More denial thinly disguised as academic study. You're not fooling anyone, Jack.



Bernie Lewin
Click to expand...

Jack Hays does not seek to fool anyone but to present them with the truth about the AGM hysteria, backed with solid evidence. Your use of the word 'denial' tells me all I need to know about you.
 
[h=1]The Two Faces Of Denial[/h]Posted on 14 Jan 19 by THOMASWFULLER2 • 27 Comments
It is certainly true that there are some skeptics that deny aspects of climate science–we remember folks like Doug Cotton and Oliver Manuel. My rough guess is that they comprise about 1% or less of the contrarian community. Sadly, for climate activists, these outliers serve as poster children for their anti-communication efforts. But the activist … Continue reading →


. . . Those furthest out on the spectrum of opinion on the climate conversation have managed to hijack the issue. Those most convinced that our emissions of greenhouse gases spell doom are not only willing to slander and sabotage scientists working in good faith, but are willing to throw the IPCC under the bus to get what they need. Complete control of the conversation.

Unlike these bomb-throwers, I’m happy to leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which set of ‘deniers’ is more threatening, more damaging to not only climate science, but science as a whole.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Guest Opinion: Why Climate Change Isn’t Science[/h][FONT=&quot]Why Climate Change Isn’t Science By Daniel G. Jones Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned,…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/why-climate-change-isnt-science/"]
211207_5_-460x260.png
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Guest Opinion: Why Climate Change Isn’t Science[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Why Climate Change Isn’t Science By Daniel G. Jones Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned,…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/why-climate-change-isnt-science/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

He didn't mention "Nuclear Winter" stories that were running in the press in the
late '80s & '90s right along with the first of the global warming "Crisis" alarms.
 
Jack Hays said:
Industrial civilization has been the greatest boon in history for mankind and our planet. Your irrational fears are not suitable debate material.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying otherwise. You lack objectivity, Jack. It's not either/or. We can have a technological civilization that doens't harm the ecosystem on the scale we are seeing. All the solutions already exist, they only need to be implemented. Unfortunately they can't because business firms have a lot of money to control government now.

Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to gatekeep the discussion. You especially don't get to troll me by telling me how I feel. Stating a fact is not stating a feeling, but nice try by implying that I'm afraid. The sociopathic behaviour continues. :roll:

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/13/psychologists-affirm-without-doubt-the-evidence-for-imminent-climate-catastrophe/"]
Psychology-Today-220x126.png
[/URL]Climate Change Debate[/FONT]
[h=1]Psychologists “Affirm Without Doubt” the Evidence for Imminent Climate Catastrophe[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to Psychology Today contributors Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, psychologists are united in their determination to help climate “deniers” face the need for urgent climate action to prevent imminent human extinction, though they are uncertain about how to deliver group therapy to millions of people…

[/FONT]
If Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman had even the most basic grasp of the science, they would know that [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/"]the “current rate” of global warming, between 1-2C / century depending on how you measure it[/URL], is not even remotely on track to hit 3.5C by 2050. An enormous acceleration of the current rate of warming would be required to hit 3.5C by 2050.
The evidence for imminent climate catastrophe is far from unequivocal.
Even the IPCC leaves room for doubt about the significance of global warming. The IPCC’s lower bound climate sensitivity of 1.5C warming / doubling of atmospheric CO2would make global warming a complete non-event, even if we burned every scrap of recoverable fossil fuel on the planet.
There is substantial peer reviewed evidence climate sensitivity is even lower than the 1.5C lower bound provided by the IPCC.
By making unsupported assertions about climate science and the future fate of the human race, and by attempting to dispel legitimate doubts about the urgency of the alleged climate crisis, in my opinion Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman are potentially doing unspeakable harm to the lives and wellbeing of people within their sphere of influence. Let us hope Sara and Jack realise the enormity of their error.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Do you have a point?
 
Northern Light said:
Nobody is saying otherwise. You lack objectivity, Jack. It's not either/or. We can have a technological civilization that doens't harm the ecosystem on the scale we are seeing. All the solutions already exist, they only need to be implemented. Unfortunately they can't because business firms have a lot of money to control government now.

Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to gatekeep the discussion. You especially don't get to troll me by telling me how I feel. Stating a fact is not stating a feeling, but nice try by implying that I'm afraid. The sociopathic behaviour continues. :roll:



Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

[h=1]“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”[/h]William Shakespeare, ​Julius Caesar

You continue to insist on an external cause for your internal problems. The discussion is appropriate because that's the theme of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Nobody is saying otherwise. You lack objectivity, Jack. It's not either/or. We can have a technological civilization that doens't harm the ecosystem on the scale we are seeing. All the solutions already exist, they only need to be implemented. Unfortunately they can't because business firms have a lot of money to control government now.

Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to gatekeep the discussion. You especially don't get to troll me by telling me how I feel. Stating a fact is not stating a feeling, but nice try by implying that I'm afraid. The sociopathic behaviour continues. :roll:
Click to expand...
There is only very subjective evidence that our technological civilization is harming the ecosystem.
Also the current solutions are not economically viable yet to be implemented.
People will quickly adopt a solution, when that solution is the least cost path, that still completes the required tasks.
 
longview said:
There is only very subjective evidence that our technological civilization is harming the ecosystem.
Also the current solutions are not economically viable yet to be implemented.
People will quickly adopt a solution, when that solution is the least cost path, that still completes the required tasks.
Click to expand...

It's not subjective at all. Take something like plastic pollution in the oceans: very measurable and very much confirmed. The breakdown is killing marine life. Another example... deforestation.... in order to plant industrial agriculture. Particulate matter in the atmosphere is another, not just CO2 but SO2.

There's nothing subjective about the very real ways that humanity's economic systems pillage the planet and kill wildlife. We are looking at a mass extinction event that is confirmed to be caused by humans, mostly through habitat destruction.

And you're saying that's subjective?
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”[/h]William Shakespeare, ​Julius Caesar

You continue to insist on an external cause for your internal problems. The discussion is appropriate because that's the theme of this thread.
Click to expand...

Only a psychopath would try to gaslight a trained scientist into believing that a scientifically-understood phenomenon is only in their heads and somehow a result of a mere psychological problem.

It's laughable that you also try to compare consensus level findings with religion just because scientists who have read the evidence call you out on your repeated non-sense.

With you, the dogma is never ending. That's why you have to continue creating strawmen and mischaracterizations. That's all pundits really have in their ideological repertoire because the people doing the real work think you're wacko.

Maybe if you want to really get epistemological, you should take this discussion to the philosophy section, rather than pretend it has any relevance whatsoever to climate science.
 
Northern Light said:
It's not subjective at all. Take something like plastic pollution in the oceans: very measurable and very much confirmed. The breakdown is killing marine life. Another example... deforestation.... in order to plant industrial agriculture. Particulate matter in the atmosphere is another, not just CO2 but SO2.

There's nothing subjective about the very real ways that humanity's economic systems pillage the planet and kill wildlife. We are looking at a mass extinction event that is confirmed to be caused by humans, mostly through habitat destruction.

And you're saying that's subjective?
Click to expand...

If you want to move the goal post, that is another discussion, this thread is called "Eschatology and Global Warming",
and the evidence that our technological civilization is harming the ecosystem by causing global warming, is still very subjective.
 
longview said:
If you want to move the goal post, that is another discussion, this thread is called "Eschatology and Global Warming",
and the evidence that our technological civilization is harming the ecosystem by causing global warming, is still very subjective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We have done very little warming, but have melted lots of northern ice with aerosols. Not CO2.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Agreed. We have done very little warming, but have melted lots of northern ice with aerosols. Not CO2.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it were all CO2 then the Antarctic would have seen similar warming, and it has not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom