What? Are you talking about the scientists that have copious data that unequivocally proves that a major climate change is occurring?
6
deleted
· 4 years ago
I imagine guest is referring to individuals like AOC who seem to preach the Climate Change Apocalypse.
Just because change is occurring, does not mean that projected change is scientific fact.
That’s like saying just because you jump off a building doesn’t mean you’re going to hit the ground. Without a major intervention you will hit the ground. Yes, until it happens it is not a fact, but unless you can see Spider-Man swooping in, it’s a pretty good bet the jumper will hit the ground.
On the flip side, you can be reasonably certain that if you drop a rock from the third floor of a hospital, it's not going to end up detonating a MOAB secured in a bunker on the other side of the country.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
@roanoke No, it's not.
It's more like tracking as much data as you can from a master dart thrower, and then using that data to predict how they will perform in conditions they've never been in before.
Can you get some accurate predictions? Most likely. Are there trillions of variables you can't predict? Of course.
.
Should we take care of our planet? Duh. It's the only one we've got. Should we pollute less? You'd be stupid to say we should pollute more. Should we accuse Christians of destroying the world? That will do absolutely nothing to hinder climate change, and you're a fool if you think it will.
I haven’t accused Christians of anything, let’s start with that. And I firmly believe there is plenty of room for science and Christianity in the same body.
I am suggesting that just because it seems like the scientists are guessing at the trajectory based on past data with flawed accounting for variables, doesn’t mean there’s not more to it.
And to your point, they can’t point to exactly where on the dart board his dart will land (and largely they aren’t claiming to) but they can in fact accurately report that if he throws the dart, it will (without intervention) leave his hand. And that’s what we are looking at here. Climate change is happening. It’s is a thrown dart in motion. The dart has left the players hand.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
The original tweet shared here says that if someone believes in Biblical endtimes, they shouldn't be in charge of policy making. The general conversation in support of tweets like this is slightly more polarized, blaming Christians and Republicans for climate change.
.
It starts to feel like scientists are guessing because social media has built a cult to "Science", hailing its apparent infallibility and refusing to recognise its flaws.
.
It also feels like science is being used improperly to push a political agenda. Especially when the "facts" keep changing.
Global warming becomes climate change. The date of the Climate Apocalypse is 11 years from now, or 2050, or within the next 200 years. Glacier National Park used to have signs up saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Turns out it's not true, and they changed the sign without telling anyone.
I believe we should take care of the earth, but riling people into partisan panic won't ever help.
Okay. I see where you’re coming from, but keep in mind that not all Christians believe in biblical endtimes as such. So the argument doesn’t have to be an attack against Christianity. And for many people it is not.
Part of the communication difficulties come from trying to translate the terms and distill the ideas. So for example, it started as “global warming” because the climate (climate not weather, these are distinct) trend is overall warming. But that phrase didn’t help people understand because people said, “warming?! But it’s cold outside now.” To make the language more accessible the term was updated to “climate change.” It’s not that the information has changed, it’s that the communication has.
And just like any group of Christians cannot control the messaging of all groups, neither can any group of scientists. I mean that to say, that sometimes people spew nonsense in the name of science just as they do in the name of religion, love, any other passion.
deleted
· 4 years ago
So, now that we're on the same page:
The climate change death culters believe in a potentially imminent wave of destruction we can't stop, so we should vote for Democrats.
The crazy Evangelical fringe groups routinely predict potentially imminent destruction we can't stop, and they urge us to vote Republican.
.
It's almost like normal people who think are getting caught in the crossfire of arguments that won't actually fix the problems of pollution and excessive emissions.
Right? She's basically saying only atheists should be allowed in policy making.
If she meant that religion shouldn't be taken into account in governmental decisions (which makes sense) then her phrasing is atrocious.
Just because change is occurring, does not mean that projected change is scientific fact.
It's more like tracking as much data as you can from a master dart thrower, and then using that data to predict how they will perform in conditions they've never been in before.
Can you get some accurate predictions? Most likely. Are there trillions of variables you can't predict? Of course.
.
Should we take care of our planet? Duh. It's the only one we've got. Should we pollute less? You'd be stupid to say we should pollute more. Should we accuse Christians of destroying the world? That will do absolutely nothing to hinder climate change, and you're a fool if you think it will.
I am suggesting that just because it seems like the scientists are guessing at the trajectory based on past data with flawed accounting for variables, doesn’t mean there’s not more to it.
And to your point, they can’t point to exactly where on the dart board his dart will land (and largely they aren’t claiming to) but they can in fact accurately report that if he throws the dart, it will (without intervention) leave his hand. And that’s what we are looking at here. Climate change is happening. It’s is a thrown dart in motion. The dart has left the players hand.
.
It starts to feel like scientists are guessing because social media has built a cult to "Science", hailing its apparent infallibility and refusing to recognise its flaws.
.
It also feels like science is being used improperly to push a political agenda. Especially when the "facts" keep changing.
Global warming becomes climate change. The date of the Climate Apocalypse is 11 years from now, or 2050, or within the next 200 years. Glacier National Park used to have signs up saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Turns out it's not true, and they changed the sign without telling anyone.
I believe we should take care of the earth, but riling people into partisan panic won't ever help.
Part of the communication difficulties come from trying to translate the terms and distill the ideas. So for example, it started as “global warming” because the climate (climate not weather, these are distinct) trend is overall warming. But that phrase didn’t help people understand because people said, “warming?! But it’s cold outside now.” To make the language more accessible the term was updated to “climate change.” It’s not that the information has changed, it’s that the communication has.
And just like any group of Christians cannot control the messaging of all groups, neither can any group of scientists. I mean that to say, that sometimes people spew nonsense in the name of science just as they do in the name of religion, love, any other passion.
The climate change death culters believe in a potentially imminent wave of destruction we can't stop, so we should vote for Democrats.
The crazy Evangelical fringe groups routinely predict potentially imminent destruction we can't stop, and they urge us to vote Republican.
.
It's almost like normal people who think are getting caught in the crossfire of arguments that won't actually fix the problems of pollution and excessive emissions.
If she meant that religion shouldn't be taken into account in governmental decisions (which makes sense) then her phrasing is atrocious.