I think scepticeye is right not to believe in global warming.
The evidence is suggestive only, not confirmed.

However, the energy crisis we’re all facing running out of oil,
prepares well for the next stage of human civilization.

Some scare propaganda puts pressure to ease the transition.

WeeDie - 11 March 2010 03:30 AM

I think scepticeye is right not to believe in global warming.
The evidence is suggestive only, not confirmed.
However, the energy crisis we’re all facing running out of oil,
prepares well for the next stage of human civilization.
Some scare propaganda puts pressure to ease the transition.

I don’t think the statistical data leave any doubt as to the fact of global warming (with its accompanying climate change), it is the cause of this increase in temperature that is in question. Is it a naturally occurring global cycle or is it partly attributable to man’s use in a few hundred years of the fossil fuels that took billions of years to form.
I believe, that even if we are only partly contributing to GW, we MUST identify the souces and take steps to minimize our impact on this process. The stakes are too high. One half degree rise in temperature in addition to any naturally caused rise in temperature may well have catastrophic effects. There may be a point of no return. Let’s try to avoid that point at all costs. It would be prudent global management.

WeeDie - 11 March 2010 03:30 AM

The evidence is suggestive only, not confirmed.

Yep. And when it is confirmed it is too late.

GdB

GdB - 11 March 2010 12:03 AM

With respect - Now that get’s my Funniest post of the Year nomination. I see no scepticism in any of your posts, of which there are many, on denial of Global Warming. On the contrary they have all the hallmarks of a religious proselytizer. Closed minded, self congratulatory and most at home, it seems to me, in the many love-in-like threads hereabouts. Least at home with any discussion of the facts except those with voluminous one-sided links akin to religious links to the Bible.

Look into the mirror, scepticeye.

Ha.. I have no problem debating but it is rather silly when you simply echo my post back without even a smidgen of originality.

WeeDie - 11 March 2010 03:30 AM

I think scepticeye is right not to believe in global warming.
The evidence is suggestive only, not confirmed.

Sadly you are indeed correct.

However, the energy crisis we’re all facing running out of oil,
prepares well for the next stage of human civilization.

I agree and that is what we should be concentrating on.

Some scare propaganda puts pressure to ease the transition.

Unfortunately scare tactics often rebound and have the opposite affect to that desired. This is what is happening now.

No, it has been confirmed, but by the time you and the other deniers finally realize it, we will be roasting in a hell of our own making. Even then, there will be those denying the truth of the matter. I think some who realized the truth actually welcome it as a sign of the coming ‘armeggedon’, and the second coming of their ‘christ’.

Sigh, the conversation is derailed by a denier.

Anyhow citizen… back to your original post.

Perhaps a better phrase you are looking for is secular humanism?

I think it’s a term that covers a broad range of beliefs/perspectives and better characterises what many of our concerns are:

- enlightenment vales of reason and rationality
- a secular viewpoint in which we can live happily without god/s
- trust in the scientific method to tell us facts about the universe around us
- a concern for the rights of the individual around the globe… that ethnicity, sex, religion, political views are not the cause of persecution
- that religion is a private matter, and should not intrude into the public space

Saying it is the “only answer” might be divisive… perhaps saying it is the most *reasonable* answer you can arrive at if you are true to following the sceptical method.

More often than not becoming a secular humanist means examining our own personal beliefs and views… it took me years to discover that secular humanism best described my world view. After flirting with religion in my late teens and early 20’s I finally let myself acknowledge my own non-belief. The same with discoering the amazing world of science. Journey, discovery and wonder… these are the positives we should highlight and praise.

We don’t sinmply deny god/s because we are grumpy contrarians, we thrill in disvovering the universe around us. We chose reason over blind faith; we chose discovery over the myopia religion/ideology casts over too many peoplea view of the world. We look at the universe without ideological filters and preconceptions.

Hope that helps somewhat.

Hmmmm..I feel renewed ....

Apologies for digging up an old topic, but I heard the term Scientific Agnosticism today, and the level of discussion in this forum thread impressed me.

Given that the term appears to be a contradiction or oxymoron, perhaps this Socrates quote has relevance: “All I know is that I know nothing”

Or in other words, my only science is agnosticism.

That is how I see scientific agnosticism. Thoughts?

Intellect, sensations and emotions, effect thoughts from artist, agnostics and scientists;

Are these effects functions of life, what is life a function of?

Cuneiform - 19 December 2012 01:36 AM

Given that the term appears to be a contradiction or oxymoron, perhaps this Socrates quote has relevance: “All I know is that I know nothing”

Or in other words, my only science is agnosticism.

That is how I see scientific agnosticism. Thoughts?

Well, demonstrating a huge ego, I’ll explain Socrates’ statement.  I believe he was speaking of his knowledge as an approximation.  Since there is essentially an infinite amount of knowledge in the universe, the ratio of any finite amount he had to all that exists would be essentially zero.  That is, he could say he knew (approximately) nothing. 

However,  “my only science is agnosticism” is still an oxymoron.  Even though he may have only a tiny bit of knowledge (science), he does know that, so calling it “agnos” is internally illogical.

Occam

In context, they (Socratic School) may have been proposing a way of understanding existence,

Like the aphorisms—“born again” and “dying to know”

What I find most curious is theist skepticism of science. Belief in the unknowable but disbelief in the factual…....odd…..

Do reason and reasons for reason, faith and beliefs for faith come from the same place—our thoughts;

Are our thoughts an effect of life, is life an effect of nature, is nature an effect of the cosmos universe;

Is observation transformational, subjective to objective; when experienced as an object then,

will our thoughts become more objective?