Scientists are those people who acquire knowledge through organized systematic proceedings that result in accurate descriptions and allow predictions to be made. They conduct experiments and do research aimed at verifiable observations that produce conclusions based upon the accumulation of their work.
As new information becomes available (from observation, experiments, etc.) scientists change their conclusions to fit the new data. History records the progress of science.
Scientist attempt to overcome bias, ignorance, tradition, and a whole host of other human weaknesses in an effort to learn the truth.
Currently, scientists from many fields of speciality are trying to communicate something to the rest of us - speaking to the human populations of the world. They are saying that global warming and climate change are being advanced by our human activities and that the conclusion will be disastrous for human beings.
We have, on the one hand, science telling us what is concluded through meticulous study and experiments. On the other hand, we have a wide variety of people telling us something totally different. We can see that those with the 'different story' are motivated by their own self gain. We can also see that they lack knowledge and information.
We should be able to make some judgements about ourselves based upon who we chose to follow in this particular scenario. We could follow the scientist who study, experiment, observe and draw rationed conclusions about the information before them. Or, we could follow the businessman who has virtually no knowledge other than knowing that they want to make money.
The business community that opposes taking action to reverse global warming has pursued a campaign of misinformation to confuse the public and to make it appear scientists are not in agreement on the subject of climate change. There is consensus among the experts. Ninety-seven percent of scientists engaged in the study of global warming are in agreement that humans are the primary cause and the end result will be catastrophic for the human species.
It becomes a question of just exactly how stupid are we, collectively and individually? We seem dedicated to ignoring the message that the scientists is trying to deliver to us.
A scientific study titled "Methane Hydrate: Killer Cause of Earth's Greatest Mass Extinction" warns us that "Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic. But the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic."
The study highlights the fact that the most significant variable in the Permian Mass Extinction event, which occurred 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of all the species on the planet, was methane hydrate.
The circumstances around methane hydrate have been studied intensely. The time scale for the release of methane would be shorter for hydrates below the shallow Arctic Ocean.
Science concludes that a 50-gigaton release of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is highly possible. This would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. This compares with the approximately 1,475 gigatons of carbon dioxide humans have released since the year 1850.
In other words, the global warming we have already caused is feeding on itself and is creating additional warming even if humans stopped all emissions. Global warming is releasing tremendous amounts of methane hydrates from below the oceans.
A scientist specializing in this area believes that methane releases from decaying frozen hydrates could result in emission rates that "could change in order of magnitude in a matter of minutes," and that there would be nothing "smooth, gradual or controlled" about it.
To the largest extent, the die has already been cast and it is a matter of time before we experience the effects of global warming. The timing could be very sudden and it could happen any day... all of the pieces are already in place.
Scientific study of human history on this planet would draw conclusions about human-beings. The conclusions would be based on systematic analysis of the facts surrounding human existence. Given the overwhelming consensus of scientific information concerning global warming and climate change, and given the overwhelming rejection of that information by the worlds leaders, the conclusion would necessarily be that humans are insane and not capable of thinking rationally.
What are the possible explanations as to why the worlds governments and world government leaders have made the conscious decision to not talk about global warming and climate change... 'Just simply cut that language from our discussions'. As unbelievable as that sounds, and it is unbelievable, it is true. Rather than identify and correct the causes of imminent human calamity, our organization of political systems has decided to ignore the problem.
Our systems of governance have decided not to make necessary efforts to save ourselves if we can, instead we would rather focus on the profits of annihilating ourselves with atomic bombs.
Our world-wide collective approach to global warming and climate change is absolute proof that human-beings are stupid... and that's the truth !!!
U.S. Pressures Group of 20 Into Dropping Climate-Change Reference From Joint Statement
from Common Dreams by Nadia Prupis Finance ministers for the Group of 20 (G-20), which comprises the world’s biggest economies, dropped a joint statement mentioning funding for the fight against climate change after pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia. A G-20 official taking part in the annual meeting told Reuters that efforts by this year’s German leadership to keep climate funding in the statement had hit a wall. “Climate change is out for the time being,” said the official, who asked to remain anonymous. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stressed that the move did not mark the end of the road for the statement. The G-20 is scheduled to meet in full in July in Hamburg. “There can be a way to overcome disagreements today—that is, not writing about it in the communique,” Sapin told reporters on Friday. “But not writing about it doesn’t mean not talking about it. Not writing about it means that there are difficulties, that there is a disagreement and that we we must work on them in the coming months.” The statement does mention the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but overall the language appears weaker than previous communiques, critics said. Bloomberg reported: The 23-page draft, obtained by Bloomberg News, outlines how the most prosperous nations can lead by example, cutting their own greenhouse-gas emissions, financing efforts to curb pollution in poorer countries and take other steps to support the landmark Paris climate accord. “The link between global warming and the organization of financial markets and even the organization of the global economy” is particularly important for France, Sapin said in Baden-Baden. “We’ll see whether there’ll be agreement with the U.S. administration, but there can be no going back on this for the G-20.” At the last G-20 meeting in July 2016, the group’s financial leaders urged all countries that had signed onto the landmark Paris climate accord to bring the deal into action as soon as possible. But President Donald Trump, who has referred to global warming as a “Chinese hoax,” took office vowing to remove the U.S. from the voluntary agreement. On Thursday, a day before the finance meeting, the Trump administration unveiled its “skinny budget” proposal, which included a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As Friends of the Earth senior political strategist Ben Schreiber said at the time, “With this budget, Trump has made it clear that he is prioritizing Big Oil profits over the health of the American people.” 
Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year, according to a new Cornell study.
Here is an interesting conclusion from an Australian microbiologist, 'Humans WILL be extinct in 100 years'.
One of the biggest threats facing mankind is the growing problem of global warming and there's no way emission reductions will be enough to save us from our trend towards doom. At a recent G7 conference plans were announced for countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years. But many top scientists from around the planet say that’s far too late. Even if these emissions are brought under control technologies need to be be found to reverse the climate apocalypse that has already begun. 
and while we do not want to believe it, it certainly seems to be the truth !!!
|
At a certain point in the development and growth of a child in the United States, there is a good chance that child will believe in Santa Claus. As the child grows older and learns more of the real world, the belief in Santa Claus fads away. It is similar with belief in the Easter Bunny and a variety of other childhood fantasy characters. Belief is gradually replaced with knowledge.
For those who believe in Santa Claus to be fighting and killing those who do not believe in Santa Claus is a difficult concept to accept by rational people. That one person would seek out and kill another person who professes different beliefs is bizarre and yet belief or lack of belief has been the major factor behind most wars. Belief distinguishes one side from the other.
Nationalism receives major credit for war along with economic exploitation, but even in these situations, religious belief enters the equation and adds intensity to the conflict.
Christians do not practice the teachings of Jesus. Christians ignore the history of their own religion and create a mythology in total conflict with the actual facts of Jesus life base on whatever evidence history has recorded. Jesus certainly wasn't of European descent among the many other lies of his existence.
The people who push religion, especially Christianity in the United States, rely on the same deceptive measures as big tobacco, big oil, and global warming deniers... create doubt in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... and then name that doubt 'God'... and then place the burden on non-believers to prove that 'God' does not exist... it has worked for all of these centuries.
And, really, if there is a 'god', he/she/or whatever is clearly a sadist... we are running around the planet slaughtering each other by the millions in the name of god... claiming to be fulfilling god's purpose... dedicating ourselves to the very worse motivation possible, and absolutely sure that we are 'right'. All because we believe.
The laws of physics are the real god. The god of thermodynamics will heat things up enough to create hell here on Earth... and, that's the truth !!!
“The Stupidity of Belief”
The Inner Politics and Nature of Mankind Have Not Changed in 7,000 Years
By John Kozy
Oh, How primitive we are still!
Around 1600, when Europeans began to use the methods of learning that are now called scientific, Galilleo peered at the moon. In 1969, a man walked on the moon. In fewer than 400 years, people went from peering at the moon to walking on it.
Scientific knowledge works. Yet beliefs, claims that are not and often can never be known, have caused human beings to kill each other in wars at least since the first city states were organized around 4,000 BCE.
The people who lived in these states believed that their cities were protected by patron deities and when the cities went to war, the war was thought of as fought for or even by the deities themselves. Ever since, war has always had a religious aspect. Armies have always gone into battle believing god was on their side, even when two peoples who claimed to believe in the same god fought each other. The absurdity of that seems to have always eluded people. It is noteworthy that even today the leaders of nations ask their patron deities to bless their countries.
The American president, for instance, always asks god to bless America, never the American people. Gods, it seems, only protect states, not their peoples who are decimated in wars for the sake of their nations. Remember John F. Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Throughout human history, people, like soldier ants, have always existed to preserve the state rather than visa versa. So here we are, seven millennia since the founding of city states, still acting just like the pagans of Mesopotamia. For seven millennia of belief guided human history, the progress of human nature has stood still!
I have written previously that mankind is creedal rather than rational an that ideology (creed, dogma, belief) is a lie that will not die. Religious beliefs certainly exhibit those characteristics. The primitive nature of religion is also evident. In the Ancient World, religious rites were practices to propitiate gods. Today they are used to dispatch dead souls to their rightful places in eternity. The funerals of Antonin Scalia and Nancy Reagan are examples of rites that date at least as far back as the Roman Empire. It is clear that the conventional notion is that religious belief is a “higher” virtue. Those with it are considered to be better than those without it. This notion persists despite the large number of logical absurdities that have been identified in religious doctrines and other creeds. Remember Tertullian’s Credo quia absurdum—”I believe because it is absurd.”
Despite this history, people seem to be addicted to creeds. In the United States of America, whose Constitution prohibits the Congress from adopting a state religion, officials still commonly speak the language of belief—”In God we trust,” “one nation under God,” and “God bless America.” Yet religious Americans worship multiple gods. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. So the word ‘god’ in these expressions has no definitive denotation. The God of the New Testament is incompatible with the God of the Torah. Americans seem oblivious to the fact that a sentence containing a substantive with no denotation is utterly meaningless, and any connotation it possesses is entirely subjective.
The French, during the Revolution of 1789, sought to destroy the Catholic religion specifically and religion in general. But in 1801, Napoleon signed an agreement with Pope Pius VII marking an end to the attempt. Similarly, during the First World War. Orthodox Russian prelates carried holy icons through the trenches before battles begging God to bring victory in coming battles only to see the Russian army annihilated instead. So when the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, the newly created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics banned religion and locked the doors to all churches. Yet in 1991, when the USSR was transformed into the Russian Federation, the church doors were unlocked and the Russian people flocked to churches to resume their faith in the Orthodox Church. Similar attempts to promote the eradication of religious belief are going on in China with little success. What accounts for this persistence of creedology?
In fact, this persistence is so strong that it is commonly considered to be virtuous. The admonition, “Stand up for your knowledge” is never heard, but “Stand up for your beliefs” is common. Yet if beliefs are claims that are not known to be true or cannot ever be known to be true, the admonition advises people to maintain and flaunt their ignorance. Creedology is an attribute of utter stupidity. Still creeds seems to be what human beings live by.
Any nation’s “way of life” is defined by its creeds—religious, political, economic, social, educational. No one has ever shown that any of these creeds is better than the others. As a matter of fact, creedology is such a dominant trait of human beings that even science has become a creed. Not only does science consist of a well defined group of methods of learning, it also conveys the belief that those methods will eventually solve all of mankind’s problems, a belief entirely like the Christian belief in the Second Coming. But there is not one iota of evidence to support this belief. Instead of science making mankind less creedal, creedalism has made science into just another creed. Science has become nothing but a handmaiden of belief. Scientists are now as much soldiers in ideological wars as seekers of knowledge. This kind of science will never make it possible for human beings to live in harmony with nature or live together in peace. Unless human beings can be weaned off of this attachment to belief, Homo Sapiens is a doomed species.
But such a weaning might not be possible. The human attachment to belief might be instinctive. In fact, considering the attachment to belief as instinctive might be the only way to explain the human attachment to creeds for over seven millennia, which makes all of the horrible deeds of people to be the result of a generic trait rather than personal faults.
Is this stupidity the essence of the human condition? It is if standing up for beliefs is a virtue rather than a vice. Standing up for what is known to be true is the better practice.
People do not wage war over what mankind knows; they wage war over what they merely believe and that is doubly dumb.
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.
The Inner Politics and Nature of Mankind Have Not Changed in 7,000 Years
By John Kozy
Oh, How primitive we are still!
Around 1600, when Europeans began to use the methods of learning that are now called scientific, Galilleo peered at the moon. In 1969, a man walked on the moon. In fewer than 400 years, people went from peering at the moon to walking on it.
Scientific knowledge works. Yet beliefs, claims that are not and often can never be known, have caused human beings to kill each other in wars at least since the first city states were organized around 4,000 BCE.
The people who lived in these states believed that their cities were protected by patron deities and when the cities went to war, the war was thought of as fought for or even by the deities themselves. Ever since, war has always had a religious aspect. Armies have always gone into battle believing god was on their side, even when two peoples who claimed to believe in the same god fought each other. The absurdity of that seems to have always eluded people. It is noteworthy that even today the leaders of nations ask their patron deities to bless their countries.
The American president, for instance, always asks god to bless America, never the American people. Gods, it seems, only protect states, not their peoples who are decimated in wars for the sake of their nations. Remember John F. Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Throughout human history, people, like soldier ants, have always existed to preserve the state rather than visa versa. So here we are, seven millennia since the founding of city states, still acting just like the pagans of Mesopotamia. For seven millennia of belief guided human history, the progress of human nature has stood still!
I have written previously that mankind is creedal rather than rational an that ideology (creed, dogma, belief) is a lie that will not die. Religious beliefs certainly exhibit those characteristics. The primitive nature of religion is also evident. In the Ancient World, religious rites were practices to propitiate gods. Today they are used to dispatch dead souls to their rightful places in eternity. The funerals of Antonin Scalia and Nancy Reagan are examples of rites that date at least as far back as the Roman Empire. It is clear that the conventional notion is that religious belief is a “higher” virtue. Those with it are considered to be better than those without it. This notion persists despite the large number of logical absurdities that have been identified in religious doctrines and other creeds. Remember Tertullian’s Credo quia absurdum—”I believe because it is absurd.”
Despite this history, people seem to be addicted to creeds. In the United States of America, whose Constitution prohibits the Congress from adopting a state religion, officials still commonly speak the language of belief—”In God we trust,” “one nation under God,” and “God bless America.” Yet religious Americans worship multiple gods. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. So the word ‘god’ in these expressions has no definitive denotation. The God of the New Testament is incompatible with the God of the Torah. Americans seem oblivious to the fact that a sentence containing a substantive with no denotation is utterly meaningless, and any connotation it possesses is entirely subjective.
The French, during the Revolution of 1789, sought to destroy the Catholic religion specifically and religion in general. But in 1801, Napoleon signed an agreement with Pope Pius VII marking an end to the attempt. Similarly, during the First World War. Orthodox Russian prelates carried holy icons through the trenches before battles begging God to bring victory in coming battles only to see the Russian army annihilated instead. So when the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, the newly created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics banned religion and locked the doors to all churches. Yet in 1991, when the USSR was transformed into the Russian Federation, the church doors were unlocked and the Russian people flocked to churches to resume their faith in the Orthodox Church. Similar attempts to promote the eradication of religious belief are going on in China with little success. What accounts for this persistence of creedology?
In fact, this persistence is so strong that it is commonly considered to be virtuous. The admonition, “Stand up for your knowledge” is never heard, but “Stand up for your beliefs” is common. Yet if beliefs are claims that are not known to be true or cannot ever be known to be true, the admonition advises people to maintain and flaunt their ignorance. Creedology is an attribute of utter stupidity. Still creeds seems to be what human beings live by.
Any nation’s “way of life” is defined by its creeds—religious, political, economic, social, educational. No one has ever shown that any of these creeds is better than the others. As a matter of fact, creedology is such a dominant trait of human beings that even science has become a creed. Not only does science consist of a well defined group of methods of learning, it also conveys the belief that those methods will eventually solve all of mankind’s problems, a belief entirely like the Christian belief in the Second Coming. But there is not one iota of evidence to support this belief. Instead of science making mankind less creedal, creedalism has made science into just another creed. Science has become nothing but a handmaiden of belief. Scientists are now as much soldiers in ideological wars as seekers of knowledge. This kind of science will never make it possible for human beings to live in harmony with nature or live together in peace. Unless human beings can be weaned off of this attachment to belief, Homo Sapiens is a doomed species.
But such a weaning might not be possible. The human attachment to belief might be instinctive. In fact, considering the attachment to belief as instinctive might be the only way to explain the human attachment to creeds for over seven millennia, which makes all of the horrible deeds of people to be the result of a generic trait rather than personal faults.
Is this stupidity the essence of the human condition? It is if standing up for beliefs is a virtue rather than a vice. Standing up for what is known to be true is the better practice.
People do not wage war over what mankind knows; they wage war over what they merely believe and that is doubly dumb.
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.
 |  |
