| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
10 |
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
When Bascom did his work at Scripps these processes weren't well understood. For example, Santa Barbara harbor was created by building a protective
sea wall along it's north edge. This resulted in sand being dumped at the end of the wall, right at the harbor entrance. In effect the construction
was causing the harbor to fill up because the waves lost their force right there. This resulted in an ongoing dredging operation to keep the harbor
open.
The US Army Corps of engineers greatly benefited from Bascom's work and began to develop models at the start of every project. These models simulated
the coastline in structure, with waves being generated and sand movement being observed. I don't know, perhaps much of this is now being done with
computers. These days the Corps probably knows as much about the dynamics of Shell Beach and Land's End as anyone.
The following link contains one of their recent projects in Maine. Page 11 (pdf page 20) is of interest as it shows an image of a completed model
ready to collect data. Changing the variables will affect how and where the sand will be deposited.
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/7/8/2/CERC-TR-95-11.pdf
It's unlikely that the Escalera Nautica is researched to this degree. That's unfortunate. It should be. |
there is always a new wave to go with their missteps.... unless, of course you factor in dana point!
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
I know that this thread has veared way off the original post, or it seems to me that it has. There has however been significant interest in it and an
extensive range of views expressed.
I appreciate the range of views held by Nomads and I have a question that has been niggling at me. I am interested in Theology. I know that Mexico is
primarily a Roman Catholic Country though I understand that Mormanism and Pentacostalism are growing by leaps and bounds.
I know that some view the embrace of the belief in Glabal Warming as a form of a naturalist religion. The Roman Catholic Church has weighed in on the
subject:
"Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, said that three themes from Catholic social teaching inform the theology of climate change: priority for the poor, pursuit
of the common good, and practice of prudence. The poor will suffer the most from the effects of climate change, and humanity needs to make sure their
needs are not forgotten. Passing on the gift of creation to future generations, without doing irreversible harm, is an aspect of serving the common
good. The practice of prudence demands that we act thoughtfully but with urgency to halt further climate disruption."
I am curious about why other religions might oppose Global Warming on Theological grounds. I know the arguments about science and global warming, I
don't understand the theology. Do Fundamentalist Christians oppose the existance of global warming on theological grounds?
This topic is highly debated in the USofA. Is there a debate on this issue in Mexico? My reading of Spanish is not sufficient to inform myself about
this. I know that Enviornmentalism is on the rise in Meixco amoung educated youth, is there opposition to this by churches?
Again, I promise not to flame anyone, I am just curious.
Thanks
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
There is a theory out there, probably backed up by the fact that the previous US administration was packed with Christian fundamentalists, that folks
are waiting for the rapture. The idea is why should we spend money or make any effort to protect this wonderful earth of ours because we're hoping to
not be here soon. JMHO
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in
temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet.
The sun (the big hot thing in the sky that makes the world warm daily) is the reason the temperatures change... CO2 levels increase AFTER periods of
heating... CO2 is NOT the cause... In fact, just the opposite happens... After CO2 levels rise (following the solar caused warming) is when the earth
COOLS...
I am talking about periods of hundreds of years between the warm and cool periods... The same as Al Gore shows in his movie, only he doesn't point out
the higher CO2 levels FOLLOW global warming! Also, he has no explanation for the changes happening long before burning of fossil fuels.
NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science.
One volcanic eruption can produce more ozone depleting/ greenhouse gasses than ALL produced by man... and volcanoes have been erupting long before man
has been making smoke or eating beef!
Don't be fooled... The sky isn't falling... They (Government and government paid scientists) want your money and more power for themselves.
30 years ago they predicted a new ice age was starting and worked on plans to warm the planet... That didn't give them the power and control over
you...
Use your own mind, read the facts from non-government paid researchers...
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
NOPE.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bajahowodd
George Bush was an avowed Born Again Christian and his views were informed by that perspective. I believe that Bush II both denied the existance of
Global Warming and if it existed that it was not caused by man. I am wanting to better understand that perspective and I appreciate your input.
So is one theory that the end is near and the sooner the better? I think I understand that perspective. It is all God’s plan so humans should not
interfere with it. It is Predestination; it is all planned before the dawn of man. God has a plan and it is playing out. So by interfering or defining
human causation for global warming then one is presuming the power of God and committing the sin of blasphemy or interfering with God’s plans for the
world?
I believe that your post is saying something else also, if I understand it. There is the belief that we are in "end times" and it makes sense to do as
much as possible, as fast as possible to get to Armageddon and the Rapture when all believers will be taken up to be with God. I see how this could
lead to a "non interventionist" approach to this issue. It’s the best of all possible worlds so don’t mess with it.
Does this mean by implication that if man is causing global warming that it is part of God's plan and a form of arrogance on the part of man to try
and take responsibility for it and to do something about it? Is this another variant of Predestination?
I have read that some Fundamentalists view Environmentalism as a form of Nativistic Religion, a view of Nature as God, and that when man defiles
nature and the environment that s/he is acting against or defiling God (Nature). If Environmentalism is seen as a Heresy then it is a sin that
violates the First Commandment of the Bible: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I wonder If there is also a rift along the lines that Science itself is a form of religion that posits itself upon “theories” like “the Theory of
Evolution”, “The Big Bang Theory” etc. So Science is always to be suspect in its conclusions? So from this perspective all “Scientific” findings are
based upon hypotheses that postulate causality not related to the “Prime Mover” that is God.
There is a lot of passion on this issue and that level of passion indicates to me that fundamental underlying issues are at play either beyond or in
addition to economic issues.
I am curious. Again I want to understand. I will not flame anyone who responds to this question. There must be very real fundamental beliefs, beside
the scientific debate, that underlies the Religious opposition to the two issues involved, the existence of Global Warming and the belief that man has
caused it. These two may be separate issues in the minds of some religious people, or maybe they are the same to some.
I have already posted a Roman Catholic perspective that focuses on the responsibility of mankind to be stewards of the enviornment for the good of
mankind. I would imagine that this is the common belief system in Mexico at least as far as the Catholic Church doors, if this issue is even one that
is considered by the common person.
It may be that the newer Christian religions have a different perspective and I believe that they do. These beliefs will inform generations of
believers and will directly affect efforts to affect enviornmental change on many levels i.e. fisheries, estuaries etc. and I think it is important to
clearly understand these perspectives.
Thanks,
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you David, I appreciate your input.
You wrote in part, and I have quoted what appear to be the theological issues in your post. If I have omitted, taken out of context or misunderstood,
please clarify.
"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in
temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."
"NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science."
It appears that you equate Global Warming and Man Made Climate Change and see both as products of a "religion" because it a "theory" about something
that has existed in Gods domain, that is before the existence of man. "First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!")—the first divine command.
The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named. Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")—the second
command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies". etc. That is a very interesting perspective and I appreciate
your sharing it. If I understand what you are saying; man is claiming responsibility for that which belongs to God. Man does not create nature or
modify nature, only God does.
Your second point seems to go along with the Blasphemy idea that Man has usurped that which belongs to God, the power to create this sort of change,
and that is Blasphemy in that Environmentalists claim that man can change only what God can. In other words Environmentalists are claiming to have the
power of God.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
Iflyfish: Shari Bondy told me I was going to like you!
These are legitimate questions and well phrased. As an atheist I may even have a different take on the answers; if we had them.
There is a fundamental unfairness in a society that allows wide open religious freedom within the bounds of a republic to have any substantial number
of the citizenry hand over their destiny to what appears to be an Armagddon sect. For many with no interest in "ever-lasting life" an unfair burden
must be shared by those who continue to effort toward making the world a better place. In my judgment there are a meaningful number of people whose
lives could be better today if it were not for those with a vision of the gates of heaven swung wide and lit like noon-day by the fires of World War
III.
I was instructed by my friend Don Chico in San Nicolas' that the perception that Mexico is a Catholic nation is even less true than the degree to
which the USA is a Christian nation.
We were discussing G W Bush having made comments about how he was chosen by God to lead America at this time. Chico told me that it would be a HUGE
scandal if the President of Mexico ever said such a thing. It is my understanding that Mexico has a separation of church and state.
It has been concerning to many to see the rise in visibility of fundamentalist concregations who seem to behave like there was always a god in the
pledge of alliegence and they'll bleed before it comes out. The constitution is clear on this issue. Yet, in a period of post-war rush, radical
anti-communism, and conservative religous politicians in power they were a pushover for the lobbying power of the Knights of Columbus. The world's
largest organization of Roman Catholic men at that time had a massive budget and went on a crusade to get their god "over all" in a new pledge of
alliegence. The government folded. Different from Mexico, the USA has a national religion, we are bombarded by it every time we touch our money. I
hope I've not been incivil.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
vgabndo
I am pleased that our mutual friend would suggest that we would get on well. I hope to meet you some day. I am acking to get back to Baja. Lots has
been in the way of that happening of late. Thanks for the personal note.
I appreciate your sharing your perspective as an Atheist. I believe we could have some very interesting discussions.
Your friend Don Chico makes a good point and one that my Anthropologist brother makes. He says that when one observes worshipers in a Roman Catholic
Church in Mexico you might actually be observing a person worshiping an ancient pre-Columbian god. I have seen the plumed serpent woven into the
architecture of a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Mexico. I have seen the Otome people dance around a Cathedral that they claim is their pyramid. The
Cathedral in the Zocalo of Mexico City is built of the stones of the Pyramids. Native symbols appear in the paintings of many Mexican Cathedrals.
I wonder if there are more Theological issues at play in this dialogue. I appreciate David's clarity in his response; I hope I got it right. I wonder
if others know of Religious reasons why one would question the existence of Global Warming or that Global Warming, if it exists, is caused by man. I
am still curious about this.
I would like to know if I got what David was saying and would like to hear from others on the subject. I think there is much for all of us to learn
from this dialogue. I think there is more here than meets the eye and that firmly held Religious beliefs have something to do with the talking past
each other that happens with this topic.
If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that
would keep one from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and once
one believes then one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I have
this right David? I don't want to distort what David is saying.
From this perspective one could postulate that an Atheist is a person with a belief system about Theism (the belief in the existence of a god) is
actually taking a Theist position in postulating that there is no god. One could say using David’s logic, if I understand him correctly, that Atheism
would qualify as a Religion also. It might be that the opposite of Theism is not Atheism but a state of Indifference (Yawn). It's an interesting
perspective don't you think?
I hope others will pitch in their ideas as to the Theology involved in this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the thinking on this. It
may be one of the most important issues of our time.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Don't forget the Pantheists who have the whole thing surrounded. Since God is Nature magnified to infinity, changes in climate are both natural and
Devine. Won't see those people in many fistfights after a couple of six packs of loudmouth. I've been a practicing member all my life and continue to
feel safe, holy and satisfied. Why I think I could play handball with the Pope and Algore on a court in Sedona.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Osprey]
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Do Pantheists play the flute? Do they worship at the sacred pan? Is Panamerican?
If I read Davids post accurately the argument goes that believers in Global Warming and that it is man made are essentially Pantheists who postulate
that Nature is God. Therefore any conclusion that there is global warming or that man caused it is a Religious belief.
" 'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in
temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."
"NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science causes climate change. Man is NOT more powerful than NATURE/ GOD/ Natural Science."
I don't want to misrepresent David's position and hope to hear if there is more to this on a theological level.
Your position sounds similar to David's a Theist position that God is Nature. " Since God is Nature magnified to infinity, changes in climate are both
natural and Devine" You do not accept that it is an either/or proposition but a both/and proposition and that you avoid arguments that involve six
packs of loudmouth. Your position, if I understand it is that global warming exists and that you believe it to be both man and god caused because it's
all part of the same ball of infinite yarn.
This is getting very interesting. I knew that there was more to this than data about weather patterns.
Iflyfishwhennotponderingquestionslikethiswithamigosaroundthenomadfire
This is getting very interesting.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:
"If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs
that would keep one from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and
once one believes then one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I
have this right David?"
Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions, ie. that man made global warming is a fact. No
true unbiased scientist would make such a statement... specially with so much data that supports just the opposite (that global warming and cooling
has been going on for centuries).
Since global warming has happened many times before without man, what is the REAL purpose in the campaign to blame man THIS TIME???
Thank you Iflyfish for such a mature discussion on this! Maybe we CAN discuss global/political/scientific issues without name calling and insults?
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you David, I appreciate your clarifying this for me.
"Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:
"........the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that would keep one
from taking in new information. In effect I think he is saying that Religion is essentially a closed loop based upon belief and once one believes then
one cannot take in new information but instead one takes in only the information that reinforces their Religious beliefs. Do I have this right David?"
“Because 'real' science is the continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions, ie. that man made global warming is a fact. No
true unbiased scientist would make such a statement... specially with so much data that supports just the opposite (that global warming and cooling
has been going on for centuries).”
So you posit that Religion is a "closed system of beliefs" that do not allow for new information to change ones already firmly held beliefs. The
Philosopher Kant would call this "a priori assumptions" and he claimed that all philosophic positions contained them. In Immanuel Kant’s. Prolegomena
to Any Future Metaphysics. he took the position that all Philosophical (read religious) debates should start with an analysis of these a priori
assumptions.
You have stated clearly some of these assumptions in your posts.
If I understand your position you have conclude that it is impossible, by definition, for science to ever come to any conclusion. You have also and
that belief in. It would also appear that you have concluded that science is another form of religion. "Because 'real' science is the continuous
collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions"
I would also conclude from your statement that if one is has a fixed set of beliefs (religion) that one is not amenable to changing ones opinion if
the new information challenges ones pre-existing beliefs.
Am I understanding your position? If so then I think we are getting at the crux things.
I appreciate your sharing your perspective, one that I think may represent clearly the religious opposition to ideas like Global Warming and the
notion that man has caused global warming.
Let me know if I got this right. I really do want to understand this.
Iflyfish
edited for clarity
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Iflyfish]
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Iflyfish, I think you got it right with this:
If I understand David then the belief in Global Warming and that it is caused by man is a Religious position based upon faith in a set of beliefs that
would keep one from taking in new information.
Thank you Iflyfish for such a mature discussion on this! Maybe we CAN discuss global/political/scientific issues without name calling and insults?
|
I, too, think you got it right.
Most of us gather information and draw conclusions.
DavidK has drawn conclusions and is now looking for facts to support them.
Thank you for making me understand how this reversal has come about.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Skipjack Joe]
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
David stated it quite clearly in an earlier post in this thread:
"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in
temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."
A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my
opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion.
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
flyguy, don't denigrate Panthieism by asking if we have a Flute. We don't have Idols but we have one of the best Icons: Pan Bimbo
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
O, I get it so Panamainia is excessive panning. Is a diseased Pantheist deadpanning?
flyguy
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
>>> If I understand your position you have conclude that it is impossible, by definition, for science to ever come to any conclusion. You
have also and that belief in. It would also appear that you have concluded that science is another form of religion. "Because 'real' science is the
continuous collection and analysis of data and there are no conclusions"
I would also conclude from your statement that if one is has a fixed set of beliefs (religion) that one is not amenable to changing ones opinion if
the new information challenges ones pre-existing beliefs. <<<
Nope, not quite... Religion is static, science is dynamic. People can and do change what they believe all the time.
WHEN NEW evidence disproves previous beliefs, then a conclusion can be made. A conclusion can be changed... I mean, science proved the world is not
the center of the universe, for example.
The 'man made global warming' group seem to say it is a conclusion and are ignoring the facts when given to them by non-political scientists. Common
sense about the history of warming and cooling for thousands of years or more is also beyond this group's grasp.
Why is it the politicians in the majority right now cannot accept that global warming might actually be a natural event that man cannot alter? You
have to ask yourself why this issue now... when the economy is hurting so bad? Could it be a distraction so we don't focus on the economy going down
the tube? When polled, people don't put health care near the top of what needs attention either... hmmmm. IT IS THE ECONOMY and this government doing
so much to ruin it... Health Care, Climate Change... all smoke and mirrors folks.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ken Bondy
David stated it quite clearly in an earlier post in this thread:
"'Global Warming' or 'man made climate change' is a religion, as it requires you to ignore real facts and history of the NORMAL/ NATURAL changes in
temperature that has gone on since long before man walked the planet."
A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my
opinion, global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion. |
Not global warming, but man made global warming Ken.
The world has warmed and cooled again and again without man... and it continues to do so with man... The graph (evidence) shows it. Global warming IS
science, Man-made global warming is a religion... ie. a populist belief and not a conclusion of science.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ken,
Thanks for weighing in on this. I think we are getting to the nub of it.
"A religion is something that requires you to ignore real facts and history. That's a very concise and accurate definition of religion. In my opinion,
global warming is based upon real facts and history, therefore it cannot be a religion."
So if distilled then David's argument goes like this?
Science = Religion
Religion = Science
Religion = Rigidly held belief system not subject to change via new information
Science = Unending series of examination of data with out conclusion
Therefore Science is an unending examination of data with out conclusion that is used to reinforce rigidly held beliefs which is called Religion.
Using this logic by definition science is religion and so all scientific argument is reduced to religious belief, or opinion, including your
statements about science.
I think I am getting the theology and logic here. Please correct me if I am not getting this right.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
10 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
