EnviroLink Forum

Although if you start trying to justify a scientically centred idea such as global warming in religious terms then you will lose any credibility you had.

Credibility in science is not a requirement for the faith based people and the point was to get action not credibility. So far the use of science against itself has worked pretty well in preventing any significant action to mitigate the impacts. Religion might succeed in such a case since the people do not need facts to decide to act.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I'll say, it's not exclusively the religious standing in the way. If not due to divine inspiration, scientists do so for non-religious beliefs in an of themselves, premature interpretations, etc.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I would not be so bold to assume evangelicals or Christians are automatic conservatives. The OP and much of the subsequent discussion is misleading in this regard.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

I can see why you like the idea;

Having tried to convice the world the there is a terrible doom awaiting us with scientific language and been robustly challenged by science types to the point of losing the argument you must find an alternative aproach to getting your control phantasy to rule over us all.

Oh, dear.
The big bad commies are back!!!!

You're serious about this, Tim? Really?
There just isn't any science produced by dozens of scientists in numerous reports over years of time supporting climate change?

Who said anything about liking the idea? I merely pointed out the facts surrounding religion not needing facts, just as the deniers can ignore the science for their wish to maintain the economic status quo.

The use of science types is far from using scientists, which is why the belief in the pseudo-science of denial is closer to a religion than not.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Scientists, yes. Science types, which are those who pretend to be based in science, not so much. You find those published in Energy and Environment or making up fake petitions with Perry Mason's signature to support the "science-ish" position.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The "consensus" expressed in the IPCC's report gives numbers which show there is nothing to panic about.

Personally I think the IPCC paints it as black as possible. Even when they do this the numbers show nothing to panic about.

Do you have anything which shows that the IPCC has underestimated the problem?

Do you have anything from any reputable scientist or scientific organization that supports this claim?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes, the IPCC's 4th report where the figures for the worst case scenario are that by 2100 there could be a 6.4 degree temperature rise which at most would result in a 59cm sea level rise. The maximum figure for the temperature change has now been revised down to about 3 degrees c.

I am not at all worried by a less than 2 foot sea level rise. I think that no city will be overwhelmed by such a tiny problem particularly given the huge warning period.

The amount of effort being expended into different power sources will bear fruit soon. At least before 2100. So Solar or Fusion or cheap Fission or something else will result in us not digging up coal. CO2 is a non-problem.

Interesting isn't it how quickly the drive for those alternate power-sources grew once there was talk about climate change, eh?

If Bangladesh can efford these wonderful walls, then we're good to go.

If they can't.....

Bangladesh gains 2cm of mud every time the floods come. That's 2cm for land 10km away from the river. There is very little land so far from the rivers in Bangladesh.

So that's 2m up and a seal level rise of 2 feet.

Bangladesh will continue to grow as it has been since the Indian and Asian plates collided.

If they got organised they could of course do a Holland and create lots more land.

Sure they could.....with that economy of theirs booming and all....

http://www.irinnews.org/Report/75094/BA ... griculture

This article is a bit dated: I'll see if I can find something more recent...