Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

It all boils down to this:

 

 

[homersapien 11,431]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Did not realize you had to accept AGW as the gospel to be a good steward. Doubt that you live any differently than I do. 

You are confusing religion with science Salty.  They are not the same. One is fantasy, the other reality. Stewardship based on reality has value. Stewardship based on fantasy is not stewardship at all.

[homersapien 11,431]

16 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

....Blind in scientific ignorance and ideology.  Homer regurgitates but doesn't understand an iota of what he absorbs. It is the level of willing submission that we are faced with these days. Political science over real, quantifiable science...by any means necessary. 

I have  BS and an MS from Auburn University, have published papers in scientific journals and hold 8 patents.  What is your science background?

[johnnyAU 3,643]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I have  BS and an MS from Auburn University, have published papers in scientific journals and hold 8 patents.  What is your science background?

BSME from Auburn University, PE, 30+ years in industry, partner in 2 companies, 1 science, 1 engineering, designed/installed instruments (and referenced by several scientific papers) at multiple universities/companies in US.  And no, my name isn't "Johnny". 

What is your discipline?

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are confusing religion with science Salty.  They are not the same. One is fantasy, the other reality. Stewardship based on reality has value. Stewardship based on fantasy is not stewardship at all.

I am not confusing anything. I am respectful of your knowledge and beliefs. 

Religion and science are not the same but they can co exist. Of course you write one off as mythical. 
 

Stewardship and doing what is best for the environment is what is. Doesn’t matter what you believe.

[homersapien 11,431]

28 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

BSME from Auburn University, PE, 30+ years in industry, partner in 2 companies, 1 science, 1 engineering, designed/installed instruments (and referenced by several scientific papers) at multiple universities/companies in US.  And no, my name isn't "Johnny". 

What is your discipline?

An engineer.     Might have known.

[homersapien 11,431]

26 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am not confusing anything. I am respectful of your knowledge and beliefs. 

Religion and science are not the same but they can co exist. Of course you write one off as mythical. 
 

Stewardship and doing what is best for the environment is what is. Doesn’t matter what you believe.

Yet, there are plenty of religious people who think the earth is in God's hands instead of man's and we shouldn't worry about it.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

Why would you put a kid (athlete) in front of Senator Kennedy and expect he could influence legislation?  If only he could have questioned Greta.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

The world is not convinced:

 

4000 HP Lamborghini yacht and car manufacturers are discontinuing EVs because of lack of sales.  

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yet, there are plenty of religious people who think the earth is in God's hands instead of man's and we shouldn't worry about it.

And there are plenty of religious people that think the world is in Gods hands yet understand our responsibilities in preserving the resources. Like I said. Just as responsible as you but don’t get overly worried about the Siberian permafrost and destruction from too much methane released into the atmosphere.
 

BTW, you know God does not intend for the planet as we know to continue. Destroyed by fire according to the Bible. Maybe he is using AGW as a part of the process.

[homersapien 11,431]

20 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

BTW, you know God does not intend for the planet as we know to continue. Destroyed by fire according to the Bible. Maybe he is using AGW as a part of the process.

Actually, it's not the Bible that foresees that, it's science.  The earth will ultimately be consumed by the sun when it goes "red giant".

And your last sentence confirms my point.  Man controls our fate, not some imaginary "god". 

Finally - as others have pointed out - AGW will not "destroy" the earth. Possibly not even our species.  But things will get very bleak for your progeny.

Edited March 22 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

On 3/20/2024 at 5:32 PM, Cardin Drake said:

I just don't see any serious thought behind the solutions proposed by the left.  How do you move away from fossil fuels intelligently without hamstringing your own economy?  Nuclear is the only solution we have now.  Instead we are cutting nuclear and coal and making ourselves more dependent on natural gas every day.  That's great as long as there is no disruption in supply and the price is low. Neither can be guaranteed long term.  There's no cost/benefit analysis or risk analysis, or overall plan.   Meanwhile China builds a new coal plant every week. 

This unfortunately illustrates a mindset which is perhaps the immediate obstacle.

Apparently, any proposed solution you disagree with is "leftist" by definition.  I suppose it's natural - if not inevitable - that such a problem becomes politicized.  

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

On 3/22/2024 at 9:17 AM, homersapien said:

Actually, it's not the Bible that foresees that, it's science.  The earth will ultimately be consumed by the sun when it goes "red giant".

And your last sentence confirms my point.  Man controls our fate, not some imaginary "god". 

Finally - as others have pointed out - AGW will not "destroy" the earth. Possibly not even our species.  But things will get very bleak for your progeny.

The Bible says what it says.

I have not confirmed anything you’ve said, even if your “imaginary” superior intellect thinks I have.

[auburnatl1 5,013]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

The Bible says what it says.

I have not confirmed anything you’ve said, even if your “imaginary” superior intellect thinks I have.

In neither science or the Bible is anything forever.  In science even the universe itself (not just the earth) has an end. If people would stop being so literal on both sides they’d see there isn’t that much disagreement .

How would God explain the universe to peoples from the stone through iron ages?

[homersapien 11,431]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

The Bible says what it says.

I have not confirmed anything you’ve said, even if your “imaginary” superior intellect thinks I have.

My intellect - imagined or otherwise - has nothing to do with the simple application of logic to your post

If - as you wrote: "God does not intend for the planet as we know to continue. Destroyed by fire according to the Bible. Maybe he is using AGW as a part of the process. God does not intend for the planet as we know to continue. Destroyed by fire according to the Bible. Maybe he is using AGW as a part of the process."

Then it's futile and pointless for us to do anything about it?   Correct?

To me, that certainly sounds like confirmation for what I said about the religious attitude - no need for action, it's in God's hands.

[Aufan59 80]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:40 AM, homersapien said:

I don't spend all my "time and money" on "all of the world's problems" -  that would be irrational.

I make time for a lot of different things.  (I don't focus all my time on myself.)

It's not.  It's empathetic, thoughtful and responsible

It is a moral obligation to spend your time, money and energy every problem our species faces - per your previous response.  The moral obligation does not end.

 

Unless you are spending all of your time, money and energy on these problems and have nothing left to give, there are some (probably many) problems that you are choosing not to spend your time, money or energy on.

Why aren’t you focused on those instead of wasting time on a forum?

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Then it's futile and pointless for us to do anything about it?   Correct?

To me, that certainly sounds like confirmation for what I said about the religious attitude - no need for action, it's in God's hands.

Absolutely incorrect. We are charged with the responsibility to take care of all creation.

It is not an “attitude”. 
 

 

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Absolutely incorrect. We are charged with the responsibility to take care of all creation.

It is not an “attitude”. 
 

 

I just reread it.  Apparently, it's just too nuanced for me.

And it's most certainly an "attitude" - or religious belief, worldview, perspective, personal philosophy... 

Take your pick.

 

Edited March 24 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

17 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

It is a moral obligation to spend your time, money and energy every problem our species faces - per your previous response.  The moral obligation does not end.

Yes, it is a moral obligation for all humans to consider existential threats to our species and contribute to their solution to the extent possible, and that is a moral obligation that does not end.

 

17 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Unless you are spending all of your time, money and energy on these problems and have nothing left to give, there are some (probably many) problems that you are choosing not to spend your time, money or energy on.

Spending all of my time, money and energy on AGW  (for example) is not practical or rational for obvious reasons.  But there isn't a day that goes by that it doesn't enter my mind.

As for as spending all my money, most of my current wealth - which is considerable - has already been allocated to various charities addressing many problems beyond global warming. 

Do I need to provide the list?

 

17 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Why aren’t you focused on those instead of wasting time on a forum?

I consider any time spent in the "public square" as part of my duty as a progressive and moral American, rather than a "waste of time".   As was said, AGW is as much of a political problem as it is a technical one.

Edited March 24 by homersapien

[Aufan59 80]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes, it is a moral obligation for all humans to consider existential threats to our species and contribute to their solution to the extent possible, and that is a moral obligation that does not end.

 

Spending all of my time, money and energy on AGW  (for example) is not practical or rational for obvious reasons.  But there isn't a day that goes by that it doesn't enter my mind.

As for as spending all my money, most of my current wealth - which is considerable - has already been allocated to various charities addressing many problems beyond global warming. 

Do I need to provide the list?

 

I consider any time spent in the "public square" as part of my duty as a progressive and moral American, rather than a "waste of time".   As was said, AGW is as much of a political problem as it is a technical one.

Unless your list includes every problem our species faces, you fall short of your own moral obligation, while still having bandwidth to help (time, money or energy).
 

I was trying to let you walk back your absurd statement that a person is obligated to help with every problem our species faces. 
 

Instead you double down on the absurdity by saying your posts here are helping the world’s problems.  

[SaltyTiger 7,854]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

As for as spending all my money, most of my current wealth - which is considerable

[homersapien 11,431]

5 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Unless your list includes every problem our species faces, you fall short of your own moral obligation, while still having bandwidth to help (time, money or energy).

 

First, I never said I am obligated to help with every problem our species faces.  That's a (lying) extrapolation.  Secondly you have a lot of chutzpah to say that I am "falling short of my moral obligation" when you don't feel you have any obligation at all.

At least - unlike you -  I am not reluctant to use part of my "bandwidth" for moral purposes.

[homersapien 11,431]

5 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I was trying to let you walk back your absurd statement that a person is obligated to help with every problem our species faces.

 

Again, I didn't say every problem.  But you have an obligation to help with existential problems.  Duuuuuuh.

Do you understand what an "existential" problem means?

[homersapien 11,431]

5 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Instead you double down on the absurdity by saying your posts here are helping the world’s problems.  

Did I say that?  No.    Once again a lying extrapolation.

If anything I think the opposite. Thanks to people just like you, I think we're pretty much ****** regardless of what I do. 

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Well Salty, It's all relative. 

In case your weren't aware, not having children, living beneath your means, and investing for 50+ years works wonders in our capitalistic system. 

But I am certainly not as rich as Trump.

So, what's your interpretation of "considerable"?

Edited March 25 by homersapien