Why call the religion "climate change" when it declares only one ideal climate?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I placed this forum topic in religion only due to the fact that progressives have a religious-like zeal for the subject of climate change. But their article of faith is a simple claim that there must be one, singular, ideal climate sought among the plethora of climates the earth has, and has had, and ever will have, worlds without end. This one single climate, like heaven, is sought at the exclusion of much else in their litany of cross-logic thoughts. 

They have already changed their mind on a concept that is, after all, merely a few decades old; changed by virtue of the discovery that the name of god used to be "Global Warming," but it had the bad manners to exhibit a cooling trend. Well, we are in a phase of an ice age, after all, called, by real science, the Quaternary.

Speaking of science, this religion is based on a science of a mere 200 years of age, while real science, geology, astronomy, physics, are thousands of years old, and none declare themselves "in."

So, argue, if you will, why making the claim of climate change would reduce our myriad of climates to one, as if consolidating the body politick, or is that more appropriately called "a congregation of vapors?" [Shakespeare, Hamlet, II, ii]
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
One climate of variations.

And a variety of thoughts

Such tenuous fluff exhibits



Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
What variations are maintained in a single climate? The Sahara is a variation of a rain forest, just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest? 
You accuse fluff, then offer nothing concrete. Typical prog.thinking.
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you think that by calling it a religion and being so sardonic in tone, you have a shred more credibility or intelligence?

Even if you were right and this was a hoax, you're representing your side in the most arrogant way possible which is likely to turn away potential believers in your cause. Foolish move, if you ask me.
Topic's author
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you think that by calling it a religion and being so sardonic in tone, you have a shred more credibility or intelligence?
No.

Even if you were right and this was a hoax
I mentioned no hoax. That's your charge. I said religious zeal. Zealots are where there are found. If you want to go there, hoax-wise, fine. Let's start by: 

So, argue, if you will, why making the claim of climate change would reduce our myriad of climates to one

Foolish move, if you ask me.
Who's asking? You. 
Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Sardonic? Oh, we can wax poetic on that one:

Sardonomy
Forecastio
Carbolingus
Particulasty
 
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
 
Climabation
Can be fun,
Join the holy orgy
GreenDeal Sutra
Everyone!

#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
You have only proven me correct. It is not only clear that you are dedicated to the tone of arrogance but also clear that you have no real intended message whatsoever as you reply this:


I mentioned no hoax. That's your charge. I said religious zeal. Zealots are where there are found. If you want to go there, hoax-wise, fine.
Since you are not fighting all the scientists and collaborated evidence from many different sources whereby the only ones opposing climate change with pseudoscience findings are people with financial interest in it (oil, gas, coal, general factory owners), it is clear that you're not really standing for it being a religion. You admit it is a scientific finding via what you've omitted addressing in your reply.

Topic's author
#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
What science? By what coordinated, calibrated measurement equipment, all tuned to the same calibration standards, taking just temperature measurements, let alone humidity, sea level, etc., from around the globe, then summarizing the temperatures, and other criteria, of varied climates as a global average? When each climate has it's own range of annual temperatures, and other criteria, and which data should not be summarized as a grand average, and expect to declare what the temperature range should be for a non-extant singular, ideal climate?

I know a thing or a million about measurement equipment, and the pitfalls of calibration of said equipment, gage repeatability and reproducibility, and interpretation of collected data. Measurement is a science that has effect on every science known to man, and with that science as uncontrolled as it is in your "climate science," a two-hundred year old science compared to sciences of a few thousand years of experience, the errors in data interpretation are many-fold more prevalent in climatology. Yet, your proponents claim your science is "in?"

And you wonder why I'm sardonic? That's your declaration of a "collaborated evidence" science, and my declaration of a whacko religion. Or is it only progs who are allowed to declare all God-fearing people as whacko?
#9
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
it declares only one ideal climate?

I thought we already went over this in another thread.

If it is true that there exist people who believe there should be only one ideal unchanging climate then you should be able to provide an example of such a person and a short description of what the ideal climate is which they believe should exist.
#10
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
He isn't saying that the climate isn't changing, he is acknowledging the change then building a strawman whereby according to him the people of his unnamed "climate change religion" apparently believe that the environment should remain forever static and unchanging (as opposed to what they are really saying which is that too rapid of an environmental change such as our increasing ocean acidity will have severe negative effects on the biospheres).

Read more carefully next time.

#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't need to read more carefully next time, he need to write less carelessly.
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I knew exactly that this was what he'd written by the way, I am not sure why you think I had to make it clear to someone who wrote BS to wind the opposition up that I understood their poor attempt at satire.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
You can troll all you want, I am only here to make it clear that your trolling has failed both to garner support and to intimidate opposition. Right now the world happens to have an issue more pressing than climate change, until coronoavirus it was actually almost the single most pressing issue if you understood enough about the science. The second/first being income inequality and abuse of the poor and vulnerable.

#14
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I knew exactly that this was what he'd written by the way,

Actually you thought that he was saying climate change was a hoax (which is not what he was saying and also not what I said he was saying).

The evidence that you thought that is the following quote:

Even if you were right and this was a hoax,

#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, I pretended to not understand what he's written to address what he actually believed and was truly arguing beyond the BS joke.
#16
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I pretended to not understand

You must do that a lot.
Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
provide an example 
The IPCC first report of 1990: "we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 ˚C per decade)" IPCC 1990 FAR - Working Group I: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change

Well, first, the predicted margin of error equals up to, and greater than the total amount of predicted change; a horribly inaccurate statement of margin of error, i.e., virtually 100% MOE. You might as well say Death Valley [-279 ft], and Mt. Whitney [+14.505 ft], one hundred miles apart, and an elevation change of 14,785 ft, are capable of equalizing within the decade. 

Second, according to NOAA, the actual global mean temperature shift  over the three decades since the first IPPC report noted above, has been 0.6 oC, a mere 66% of the IPCC prediction. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You are trying to make me feel something, perhaps it is humiliation, perhaps it is doubt in my intellect. Both have failed. To make it clearer to you what motivated me to ignore that actual angle he was taking, he posted this in the religion subforum. Are you meaning to tell me that I should address the religion of climate change as a serious notion vs atheism towards there being an ideal climate?

I am not concerned with your faith in my abilities, I am excellent at being underestimated.

Topic's author
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
unnamed?
The name of the religion is "Climate Change" with a splinter sect called "anthropogenia."

#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The IPCC first report of 1990

Please stay on topic for just a moment. According to the thread title and OP there is an "ideal climate" advocated by "people of the climate change religion". Please quote the part of the report where this "ideal climate" is described. If said description is not in this report then what report is it in?
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Since the consensus is that any temp rise is "bad" then the ideal climate temperature is present-day or cooler.
#22
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
the consensus is that any temp rise is "bad"

They say any temp raise at all - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt? Please include a citation with your answer (no strawmen need apply).

In the latter case temperatures higher than ours would be acceptable according to them so long as they are reached gradually and therefore they have no ideal temperature.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Earth has come through just fine with instantaneous comet impacts and instant supervolcano co2 bursts into the atmosphere. Humans aint going anywhere anytime soon unlike the dumb dinosaurs.

Didn't humans survive the Toba eruption on a planet with ungodly gigatons of instant CO2 in the air while they were still living in caves? Referring to the 70,000 year ago event. https://www.businessinsider.com/genetic-bottleneck-almost-killed-humans-2016-3
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Do you now see why it is pointless to engage the absolute joke of an angle they take here? Stick to the real topic, it helps them realise their flawed logic.
#25
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The question I asked in post 22 was "Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"

The question you answered in post 23 was "Do [you] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"

Notice that these are completely different questions. In other words you failed to address my question to you and instead attempted to divert the topic into a tangent.

The fact that you feel the need to change the subject is telling but I won't bite. Please answer my original question from post 22 now.
#26
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Between the four of us (GP, faux, you, and me) I am the only one that is actually trying to stick to the topic which is odd considering I am not even the one who made the thread.
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
and that is where you have fallen short of understanding the real debate here, not I who has failed to understand.
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Since bad is subjective, sure. But we've been through a lot worse 70,000 years ago while we were still living in caves than any doomsayer scenario presented today. Humans are now de-facto the cockroach of the Earth, for better or worse. We can't even extinct our species at this point even if we tried.

#29
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay the question was, again...

"Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"

It isn't a yes or no question. "Sure" isn't an answer.

The options are:

A) They think any raise in temp is bad no matter what.

B) They think any change of climate, including temp raise, is bad only when it occurs too rapidly to allow the biosphere to adapt.

Very simple question. The fact that I have to ask it so many times without you even understanding the question (or possibly pretending not to so you can try to change the subject) should honestly embarrass you.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Probably a bit of both since bad is subjective.