How To Eradicate Religion In A Single Generation
Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss believes he has the prescription for eradicating religion -- or largely removing it from society -- in just one generation. Billy Hallowell writes at The Blaze:
Krauss, who made this claim while delivering a speech to the Victorian Skeptics Cafe in Australia in late August, spoke, among other subjects, about how children should be taught about faith in schools, claiming that religious systems shouldn't be treated "as if they're all sacred."Instead, he argued for changes in how children learn about religion and critical thinking -- proposals that are just beginning to gain traction this week.
"What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes and show the silly reasons why they each did what they did," he said. "Instead of shying away from it, we have to explicitly educate people to confront their own misconceptions."
Addressing the future of religion, Krauss cited gay marriage and slavery in offering up a dire prediction: that religion could be largely eradicated within just one generation's time.
I think he's overestimating the level of attention people pay in school and underestimating the power of confirmation bias, a human cognitive bias describing how we seek out information that confirms our beliefs and aggressively ignore information that disputes them.
I'll be curious to see how that whole nihilism train runs...
SwissArmyD at November 7, 2014 10:57 PM
This is complete nonsense, which will not work.
People do not want to be logical or even rational. They want to be happy!
There is not enough return on investment for the average Joe to spend his time learning. Instant gratification can be had by simply assuming that everything will be alright without personal action.
Radwaste at November 7, 2014 11:53 PM
If Krauss' idea takes hold, it won't be religion that's eradicated. It'll be public schools, as religious parents pull their kids out in droves and homeschool them. I'm an atheist, but I'd be cackling with glee at this.
Rex Little at November 7, 2014 11:59 PM
"I think he's overestimating the level of attention people pay in school and underestimating the power of confirmation bias, a human cognitive bias describing how we seek out information that confirms our beliefs and aggressively ignore information that disputes them."
That ain't the only problem. Anything people have insufficient education in or evidence for,they have to take on faith. Whether the priests of that faith are the Pope, Richard Feynman, Al Gore, or L. Ron Hubbard doesn't make much difference,
If you don't truly understand all the science, and the math behind it,you are as vulnerable as the most illiterate peasant to arguments from authority
I bet 90% of science teachers in the US (good union democratic lackeys that they are) believe AGW (man caused climate change) is a fact, not a theory.
You want them teaching your kid the difference between religion and science?
Life isn't that clear cut folks. It never has been, and it never will be.
Isab at November 8, 2014 12:50 AM
Why would I not be surprised to discover this guy is a fundamentalist Warmen.
Jeff Guinn at November 8, 2014 1:57 AM
Is that how we've been able to eradicate that vaccines cause autism?
Ppen at November 8, 2014 2:32 AM
And here's a great example:
"I bet 90% of science teachers in the US (good union democratic lackeys that they are) believe AGW (man caused climate change) is a fact, not a theory."
This statement shows no discipline in determining what the definitions of "fact" and "theory" actually are, AND fails to seperate politics from the science, itself.
Just who IS the "lackey"?
Radwaste at November 8, 2014 3:09 AM
Still, it would absolutely make sense for "social studies" to include an objective view of various world religions. AFAIK schools tiptoe around this subject, or avoid it entirely, so as not to offend anyone.
Religion should simply be treated factually, the various beliefs compared, the origins shown. All of this ranging from primitive shamam ismpiritualism through polytheism to the modern Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc..
This needn't be offensive in any way. Just show that there have been zillions of religions, each fitting in a particular context. That will open a lot of young eyes, and yet is entirely unobjectionable...
a_random_guy at November 8, 2014 3:18 AM
And here's a great example:
"I bet 90% of science teachers in the US (good union democratic lackeys that they are) believe AGW (man caused climate change) is a fact, not a theory."
This statement shows no discipline in determining what the definitions of "fact" and "theory" actually are, AND fails to seperate politics from the science, itself.
Just who IS the "lackey"?
Posted by: Radwaste at November 8, 2014 3:09 AM
You??
AGW is a scientific theory. A theory that there is less and less evidence to support, which is why they had to switch the name to *climate change*.
This isn't how real science works. You change your theory to follow the evidence, you don't eliminate or hide evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
Evolution is a theory also, but many elements of the scientific support for evolution are facts.
The ability to sequence the genome has given more support to evolution than any other competing theory. So much evidence, in fact, that no one really challenges it scientifically any more.
Do you truly not understand the difference between a fact and a theory?
Isab at November 8, 2014 3:25 AM
This needn't be offensive in any way. Just show that there have been zillions of religions, each fitting in a particular context. That will open a lot of young eyes, and yet is entirely unobjectionable...
Posted by: a_random_guy at November 8, 2014 3:18 AM
I admire your spirit, but considering half of high school graduates in this country are darn near functionally illiterate, don't you think it is expecting a lot for them to actually grasp comparative religion which is usually an upper level college course?
Most these kids can't even find India on a map, never mind knowing a few of the basic tenants of the Hindu religion(which is pretty much meaningless unless you know quite a bit about Hindu culture, and the caste system)
Culture drives religion, not the other way around.
Isab at November 8, 2014 3:40 AM
I'll be happy if the Religion of Gaia Worship and the cult of Obama disappear.
dee nile at November 8, 2014 5:07 AM
Isab, it is not working. You cannot change your earlier post, in which you demonstrated that the definitions of fact and theory are strange to you.
Follow my link – and then, do a little investigation yourself. Tell me: when you burn something, where does the heat appear?
Then, when you burn a pound of gasoline, can you tell me the weight and volume at STP the products occupy? If you took a high school chemistry class, you should be able to do that.
(just to be clear – the word, "fact" is not used in scientific or engineering fields observing logical rigor, and the word, "theory" refers to a detailed description of phenomena which delineates their causes and effects. Think, "gravity".)
Radwaste at November 8, 2014 5:13 AM
@ Radwaste
You're shooting blanks on this one or your points are so minute that I'm missing them.
Enlighten me.
Bob in Texas at November 8, 2014 6:52 AM
I think Isab should have used "hypothesis" instead of "theory" in her statement.
Matt at November 8, 2014 8:18 AM
To further explain,"In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable."
Matt at November 8, 2014 8:20 AM
However Isab can still be considered linguistically correct because her audience in not solely composed on scientists and in plain English theory also means,"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Matt at November 8, 2014 8:24 AM
Matt makes a great point. If I had a dollar for every idiot who tried to say that evolution was only a "theory" and therefore no better than creationism, I'd be on the beach in Tahiti with a harem of bikini models.
But no, I'm here, praying the Rapture comes to save me before America's CEOs export tens of thousands of jobs and I have to compete with some guy in India who can live on a dollar a day.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 8, 2014 8:26 AM
Well now I got to backtrack, linguistically correct except for this:
"AGW is a scientific Theory." No. AGW is a scientific hypothesis.
Matt at November 8, 2014 8:33 AM
He's right, though. The arguments used to indoctrinate young children to religion are exactly the same transparent fallacies from which we're warned off in Logic 101. We'd have a much saner world if kids were required to complete that course before anyone was allowed to argue religion or politics in their presence.
That said, it would be 100% ok with me if Rex Little's prediction comes to pass instead.
As for global warming/climate change, everyone with an attention span greater than one sound bite already knows that's been disproven, just like all the other phony emergencies the environmental movement made up before it. Now if we can just get the public to similarly realize that terrorism is a phony emergency, too, we can start to become a free country again.
jdgalt at November 8, 2014 8:56 AM
Addressing the future of religion, Krauss cited gay marriage and slavery in offering up a dire prediction: that religion could be largely eradicated within just one generation's time.
Another guy saying that with just the right push, the world could change in record time. If people would just listen!!!
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 8, 2014 9:48 AM
AGW is a scientific theory.
So is gravity.
Steve Daniels at November 8, 2014 10:42 AM
Her you go Steve Daniels:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf
It maybe be the shadow of another unknown force, but that doesn't change the fact that it seems to work everyday... it may just not be what we think it is, anymore than our own existance.
We may well be a computer simulation, or data spread across the even horizon of a monster black hole, and we will never really know that.
The climate of the earth has changed MANY, many times, and the earth itself is such a large system, we are not very far along understanding it.
Is that a good reason for all the choices we make? Dunno, humans are EVEN MORE complax than earth.
When they ban air travel I'll believe they are serious about AGW.
After all those shiney metal boxes spew carbon directly into the high atmosphere at an alarming rate...
But has anyone looked into that?
Oddly, all the climate change people fly off in those planes to Fiji to talk about this.
My theory is that, for them, it's a boondogle.
SwissArmyD at November 8, 2014 11:57 AM
This is why evangelical atheism is just another religion. And one with a bad history of purges and genocide.
Ben at November 8, 2014 1:06 PM
You ask too much. The purpose of a public education is to produce a compliant citizen. I'd be happy if 80% of High School graduates could read with comprehension, write coherently and handle basic math.
MarkD at November 9, 2014 5:17 AM
I know it has been several days and you probably aren't checking on this, but I have to ask what is your scientific background Radwaste? Because your swing from AGW to closed system combustion make it look like you haven't a clue. You've pulled this gem out of your pocket several times and it has always been a complete non-sequitur.
Ben at November 9, 2014 10:56 PM
Ben,
As best I can tell Radwaste is not a scientist. Instead he is someone who works in a scientific field and tends to know more than the average person does about fundamental scientific concepts... but that doesn't keep him from getting into lots of trouble sometimes because he doesn't actually seem to know the limits of his knowledge.
In this particular case he is 100% correct regarding the fact that Isab completely botched the discussion regarding "facts" and "theories" from a scientific perspective (furthermore, she has demonstrated in other discussions that her knowledge of climate science is woefully inadequate for her to possess an informed opinion on the subject... let alone to always be so adamant about her position).
That being said, discussing equations of state from systems described by close to equilibrium thermodynamics is not appropriate for open systems that are far from equilibrium like the Earth.
To properly understand climate change requires a detailed understanding of feedback loops and various forcings that drive climate in various ways.
Unfortunately this complexity is why so many people don't understand this topic.
The other reason many people do not understand this subject is because they are politically/religiously motivated to believe something that the science doesn't support. That is always a recipe for science denialism.
Artemis at November 10, 2014 2:54 AM
The politically/religiously motivated thing goes both ways Artemis. While I have respect for the people trying to do weather/climate research it is still a very soft field. And the politics involved are huge. There is a lot of answer trying to find a question in that field.
Ben at November 10, 2014 8:38 AM
Ben,
It really doesn't go both ways in the manner that you speak.
There is a very real, very tangible element to certain religious groups that believes without a shred of legitimate evidence that climate change cannot occur because their deity promised that the earth would not be flooded again.
There is no such opposite set of religious dogma that suggests to people that the climate is in fact changing regardless of the facts brought to the table.
This is not even close to an even split.
I do find however that when there are differences of opinion, in the interest of being "fair" people like to split it down the middle and just call it 50/50.
It isn't 50/50 in this case... the bias that exists when it comes to these issues is heavily skewed to one side... and it isn't the scientifically minded who are causing the lions share of these distortions/denials.
As far as weather/climate research being "soft", that is pretty much an empty claim without context.
It may be comparatively "soft" when looking at say the precision necessary to calculate the trajectory of a probe being sent to Mars... but it is comparatively "hard" when looking at fields that study things like human behavior.
The question is whether or not climate science is suitably robust to make reliable predictions within the realm it claims to have predictive power... and the answer to this question is yes.
Climate science isn't about predicting the temperature in your backyard next week... it is about predicting large scale trends that influence the globe over the course of decades-centuries.
Now you may wonder why it is easier to predict things long term over the near term because it seems counter intuitive.
However, please consider the following questions:
1 - Will it be warmer in your backyard two weeks from now than it is today?
2 - Will it be warmer in your backyard 8 months from now than it is today?
I put forth to you the proposition that the second question is easier to answer and have a high degree of confidence that you will get correct than the first question.
The reason the second question is easier to answer even though it is over a much longer time period is because you can take advantage of well known climate trends that are unlikely to change. The near term prediction on the other hand will require a very detailed understanding of the exact nature of global weather patterns at any specific moment and require more computing power than we currently have available.
This is a conceptual barrier that I believe many people do not appreciate. That in many instances it is easier to predict what will happen a year from now than it is to predict what will happen tomorrow.
Artemis at November 11, 2014 1:01 AM
If you are worried about rainbow Christians are you also worried about moon landing deniers and people who think Apple is sending homosexual conversion signals with iPhones? There are far more people who think the moon landing was faked than those who think god is protecting the earth because of Noah.
And since you asked, how much warmer or colder will your backyard be 365 days from today to the nearest 0.05C? That gives you more wiggle room than the IPCC.
Ben at November 11, 2014 4:19 PM
Ben Says:
"There are far more people who think the moon landing was faked than those who think god is protecting the earth because of Noah."
Can you prove this assertion because I have not seen any data that tells me the relative size of these populations.
In any case, people who deny the moon landing do concern me because I am concerned any time someone makes a claim that has no basis in reality.
"And since you asked, how much warmer or colder will your backyard be 365 days from today to the nearest 0.05C? That gives you more wiggle room than the IPCC."
It doesn't seem like you actually have a very good understanding of the types of predictions climate scientists are making.
You are confusing precision measurements with predicting long term trends.
Allow me to help draw the distinction for you.
When climate scientists predict the Earth as a whole is experiencing a warming trend driven by certain factors (including human activities)... it isn't substantively different than you looking at a toddler and predicting that by the time they are an adult they will be taller than they are at the time of your observation.
You may not be capable of determining that toddlers final height as an adult, or how tall they will be in 5 years to within 1 inch... but you can say with utter confidence that they will in fact be taller in 15 years than they are today.
That the question you ask revolves around precision over trending suggests that you don't really understand what you are talking about in regard to this topic.
A climate scientists is in a great position to tell you that if certain conditions remain unchanged (i.e., like the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2), we can expect the global average temperature 50 years from now to be higher than they are today... they are not trying to predict the local temperature in your backyard 50 years from now to within a fraction of a degree (nor do they claim to be able to do that).
I know this concept can be difficult to grasp... but it is entirely possible to make accurate predictions about long term trends without being capable of predicting the precise outcome of very specific events.
It all really boils down to a poor understanding of chance and probability.
For example, I can tell you with utter confidence that if you roll a fair die you will have about a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 1... but I cannot tell you exactly what you will roll on any given toss of the die.
Your complaints about "wiggle room" really have nothing to do with the topic.
Do you actually have science based criticisms of the climate science?
I find that people who have issues with the predictions of climate science will object to all many of political or personal things... but they don't ever seem to offer valid scientific criticism. This appears to be primarily because they don't actually understand the science.
Artemis at November 11, 2014 5:29 PM
Ben,
One more thing... I'm also going to guess that you aren't all that familiar with the metric system.
0.05C is an extremely precise measurement.
It is so precise in fact that the local temperature within your climate controlled house fluctuates more than this on a local basis.
The temperature outside is not stable to within 0.05C over any reasonable length of time.
That you do not seem to understand this suggests that you are in no position to be critical of climate science.
You would be better off simply saying that you do not know enough to have an informed opinion on this subject.
Artemis at November 11, 2014 5:43 PM
Artemis,
0.05C comes from the latest IPCC report. They consider 0.02C is the maximum level of annual increase in global temperatures they consider acceptable. 0.048C/year they consider disastrous. That you don't know this implies you know nothing about current climate politics.
The rest of your examples are once again completely beside the point. The question is not will the earth be warmer. It has been warming since the last ice age and no one is claiming mankind ended the last ice age. The question is how much is man produced CO2 increasing the warming. As you said these are extremely small numbers. That is the precision needed to prove CO2 based anthropogenic global warming.
I'm not the one who needs to educate themselves about the current state of climate science. But thanks for the laughs. Your response did tickle my funny bone.
Ben at November 11, 2014 7:53 PM
Sorry for the double consider. As Conan says, 'We need editing.'
Ben at November 11, 2014 7:55 PM
Ben Says:
"0.05C comes from the latest IPCC report. They consider 0.02C is the maximum level of annual increase in global temperatures they consider acceptable. 0.048C/year they consider disastrous. That you don't know this implies you know nothing about current climate politics."
I do not care about the "politics" when discussing things like facts and evidence... and frankly neither should you or anyone else.
The politics is a game played by people who don't care about facts or evidence, but do care about votes... votes and facts are NOT the same thing.
Climate change is a scientific issue... it is either happening or it is not... it can be dealt with by taking certain actions or it cannot.
When discussing science, politics has no seat at the table.
Popular opinion doesn't determine the nature of reality.
Next point because you still don't seem to be getting it.
That 0.02C per year figure that you are bringing up is not brought up in the context that you are using it, and that makes all the difference.
Do you know where that figure comes from?... if not I will explain it to you now.
The limit that is being discussed in a 2 degree centigrade increase over ~100 years. When you do the math this averages out to ~0.02C per year.
Again, please do not get confused by this point. An average value does not require a constant increase year over year for that entire century.
A decrease of 1C average global temperature one year followed by an increase of 1.04C the following year repeated over and over again for 100 years would yield an average increase of 0.02C per year even though at no point on a year by year basis did the average temperature increase by 0.02C.
That is how averages work... you are confusing an average value for a mandated year over year increase.
No climate scientist is saying what you are attributing to them.
The problem is your own lack of understanding of what that 0.02C figure means and not the 0.02C figure itself.
"I'm not the one who needs to educate themselves about the current state of climate science."
Yes... actually you do.
To demonstrate how silly your understanding is at the moment let me use the following logical analogy.
If I take someone who is 60 years old who is 6 feet tall, I could make the following mathematically accurate statement about them:
On average they grew 1 foot per decade of their current life span.
That is a mathematically accurate statement to make... but only a fool would take that to literally mean that at 10 years old they were 1 foot tall, and at 20 they were 2 feet tall, etc...
On average they may have grown 1 foot per decade... but the actual details of that growth are remarkably different than the average value would suggest.
You have made the exact same cognitive error here and instead of acknowledging your own lack of expertise on this subject you keep doubling down on how well you understand things.
Climate change is not something you measure from 1 year to the next... it is a LONG TERM trend.
That you keep confusing this is why I can confidently assert that this is an area well outside of your knowledge base.
Artemis at November 11, 2014 11:36 PM
"As you said these are extremely small numbers."
Just to make myself abundantly clear on this point.
These ARE extremely small numbers to measure with precision.
This means it is difficult to distinguish between a temperature of 1C and 1.05C when you are in an environment where the temperature fluctuates by ~0.1C every ten minutes or so.
On the other hand, if things are trending in a particular direction for long enough it suddenly becomes possible to measure a real difference.
For example, it might not be possible to accurately determine if the temperature has increased or decreased in your backyard from 5:00am to 5:05am... however, once the sun comes up and has been shining down on your backyard for hours, all of those 0.05C fluctuations tend to accumulate in the same direction and suddenly you can measure a real difference between the temperature at 5:00am versus 3:oopm.
The same is true of climate science... climatologists do not measure from 2012-1013 and draw their conclusions from 1 year of data... they collect and analyze data over decades.
By analogy that is the difference between trying to tell the difference in temperature minute by minute versus telling the difference in temperature from before sunrise compared to the middle of the afternoon.
Please believe me when I tell you that you have demonstrated several very serious conceptual gaps in your understanding of this subject that you need to correct before you will have a good handle on how to interpret climate data.
Artemis at November 11, 2014 11:50 PM
Whatever Artemis.
You asked a stupid off topic question. I gave you a stupid but more on topic question back. You say you don't know anything about the politics of climate science and couldn't care less about them. So why do you care if there are a few people with moronic ideas? I guarantee you over 90% of the US populace doesn't understand quantum physics. But hey, your computer still works.
But as has been discussed ad nauseum here you won't admit you are wrong no matter how obvious it is.
Ben at November 12, 2014 6:29 AM
Ben,
Exactly how is it "off topic" when discussing climate science to discuss the distinctions between weather forecasting and global climate trends?
This is actually something that far too many people confuse... including yourself.
Global climate trends have nothing to do with weather forecasting in the sense of watching a meteorologist on the evening news.
This is why people like you will object to things like 0.05C per year when what they aren't actually understanding is that this is in the context of 5C over 100 years.
These are two very different things and before someone can have an intelligent conversation about climate change one must first establish that they understand the difference.
"So why do you care if there are a few people with moronic ideas? I guarantee you over 90% of the US populace doesn't understand quantum physics. But hey, your computer still works."
Why do I care if people are pushing moronic ideas???
Because people who push moronic ideas sometimes get backing and end up determining things that influence everyone elses life (including my own).
If people who peddled moronic ideas were happy to just discuss their ideas at their dinner parties with their fellow idiots then I wouldn't care... but these people try to push their agenda on everyone else when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about.
So far as quantum physics and computers are concerned... I will get just are irritated by those types when they start demanding that transistors be manufactured out of glitter because they want their computers chips to sparkle. I will just as vehemently explain to them that transistors need to be made out of semiconductor materials with a well defined bandgap (as well as other tightly controlled properties) and that glitter doesn't meet those requirements.
"But as has been discussed ad nauseum here you won't admit you are wrong no matter how obvious it is."
Exactly what am I wrong about in this case?
I am happy to admit when I am wrong when someone presents real and tangible evidence that I am incorrect.
The issue with this blog is that I am generally not dealing with real experts when it comes to science... as result I know FAR more than the people here tend to know.
It isn't that I am an expert in every field of science mind you, but someone who is an expert in one field of science tends to have a much deeper understanding of scientific principles in general than your average blog commenter.
In addition I only tend to comment on subjects were someone has gotten something VERY wrong and that I can demonstrate it.
Artemis at November 12, 2014 12:59 PM
In addition I only tend to comment on subjects were someone has gotten something VERY wrong and that I can demonstrate it.
Posted by: Artemis at November 12, 2014 12:59 PM
It is a good thing you aren't a lawyer Artemis, because you would be flailing about arguing about dicta, while totally missing the holding of the case.
Credentials, and education don't matter much in science. Climate science is a tricky one because it is really composed of several different very specialized areas of expertise, from meteorology to computer modeling, to biology, and various branches of chemistry, physics and atmospheric science.
If any one of these areas has gotten any one assumption wrong, or their data collection methods have been cherry picked, the whole hypothesis falls apart (which it pretty much has)
Weather may not be climate but weather data is what the so called climate sciences use to try and predict their long term trends, so it is relevant.
All educated people know that the earth has been warming for the last 20 thousand years or so.
The cause of that warming is the issue, and the evidence for it being caused by farming, and industrial output, is up for debate, and looking shakier all the time.
Another question is if it is self limiting or not?
Followed by, is there anything we can really do about it anyway?
The US could reduce our carbon emissions to near zero and that savings would be completely overwhelmed by the increased heavy industry and fossil fuel burning in Asia.
Right now I am in northern Japan. They shut down their nuclear power plants after Fukushima and the price of electricity, and heating oil has sky rocketed because of it.
Right now, cheap little tin wood burning stoves are selling like hot cakes down at the local discount store, because it snows twenty feet here between December and April and guess what all those poor Japanese are going to be burning to keep warm this winter?
I realize I am talking to an ideological wall so I will quit now.
Isab at November 12, 2014 4:05 PM
Fascinating, the amount of rationalization people will come up with to deny this...
Regardless of whether a "system" is "open" or "closed", when you burn something, the fire is the hot part.
That's not subject to political affiliation. Humans are dumping heat and chemicals into their environment. Period.
When you can tell me what results from burning a pound of gasoline, in calories and product - stoichiometric approximation is OK - I will then think you have a clue.
Anyone can quote editorials.
Radwaste at November 13, 2014 3:08 PM
Isab Says:
"Credentials, and education don't matter much in science."
Can you please for once in your life stop talking out of your ass.
If there is one field in the world where education matters is it science.
You seriously cannot be this stupid.
There is a reason actual scientists spend 10+ years gaining the education necessary to perform their craft... and it isn't because education is superfluous.
You lack education and expertise and hence shit all over those who have the things you do not possess.
If you had any wisdom at all you would know that sometimes it is good to listen to people who know more than you do about a particular subject and show a little humility.
You once tried to argue that plants contribute to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
After I explained to you how you have that completely backwards you backed off, but you still don't come close to acknowledging your level of ignorance on the subject.
The funny thing is that I would actually be willing to help you understand if you showed any willingness at all to listen.
But so far as you are concerned your cup is already full... you know all you need to... despite the fact that you continually get everything wrong on this topic.
Artemis at November 13, 2014 3:26 PM
Isab says:
"The cause of that warming is the issue, and the evidence for it being caused by farming, and industrial output, is up for debate, and looking shakier all the time."
Where exactly did you come up with this???
It is looking shakier all the time???
To who exactly?, not the experts who continually publish papers that demonstrate that the source of the recent warming trends (i.e.; over the last ~100 years or so) are primarily the result of human industrial activities.
When you say this is up for debate I don't even know what you mean.
Greater than 99% of climate scientists support the notion that modern climate change is driven strongly by human activities.
You are clinging desperately to the less than 1% of experts who have a different opinion and calling that a "debate"???
Is this what you do with medical advice as well?
999 physicians tell you that you have cancer and it is spreading... 1 doctor tells you that you are in remission... and when asked about your health you would respond with "well... there is some debate about it".
Only an idiot would handle their medical affairs in such a remarkably immature manner.
At some point in science we achieve what is called a concensus... it means that the overwhelming majority of the experts agree on a particular issue.
When it comes to climate change the expert concensus is that human industrial activity is a critically important component of what is driving the trends we currently see in the data.
If you have valid scientific grounds to make an objection please present your data and your sources.
Arrtemis at November 13, 2014 3:40 PM
Radwaste,
I would be satisfied if they could even explain what takes place chemically during a combustion reaction. I have no faith that they would even know the proper thermodynamic equations to use.
That being said, when discussing climate change the heat human beings are dumping into the atmosphere doesn't really matter all that much.
It is the chemicals that matter more because the total solar irradiance is greater than 1000W per square meter.
The major issues at play are trapped solar heat and the reduced reflective coefficient at the earths surface (i.e., the albedo) due to loss of snow and ice cover and the accumulation of soot.
What bothers me most about climate change deniers is that they never seem to discuss scientific issues at all... they just posit conspiracy theories in place of facts and evidence.
Artemis at November 13, 2014 3:57 PM
Quick correction. I stated the concensus was greater than 99%... when checking sources the actual level of agreement appears to be greater than 97%.
This 2% difference doesn't change the character of the argument I have put forth.
Again, only a fool would gather the opinions of 100 physicians on a growth... have 97 of them tell them that it is a form of malignant cancer, have 3 tell them it is benign... and then decide that they don't have to worry or do anything about it.
Artemis at November 13, 2014 4:19 PM
Leave a comment