Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based? Somebody call? Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what people do. It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the world? Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything. As if all other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because you've never been high enough to see its curvature yourself. Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not Christian, but spiritual none the less. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith. Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or not. Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion? Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't. As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then? Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin valley! It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all. A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt build up in the soil? The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the world. The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference. High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming could be more than just inconvenient. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |