Renowned physicist's theory spells trouble for atheists

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

In the 2000's we now have man-made global warming that had to be re-labeled as "man-made climate change" when global warming was simply not true. 

I know it can be tiresome to look up actual data to support claims, but let me just share a little bit with you.

1. " The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁵ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁶ "

2. " The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁷ "

3. " The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006"

More recent comment on Antarctica:

“There’s a lot of year-to-year variability in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but overall, until last year, the trends in the Antarctic for every single month were toward more sea ice,” said Claire Parkinson, a senior sea ice researcher at Goddard. “Last year was stunningly different, with prominent sea ice decreases in the Antarctic. To think that now the Antarctic sea ice extent is actually reaching a record minimum, that’s definitely of interest.”

I will completely agree with you that the "worst case scenarios" of doom and gloom are most likely going to turn out to be hyperbole. However, global climate change (including warming) is consistent with observations and is indeed reality. Making unsupported claims without having any facts and characterizing the opposite position (that actually has supporting facts) as inconsistent with reality is an.... interesting... way to argue a point..

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

[MorningGlory]

Hopefully, we can get back to the topic............which is NOT climate change.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

Hopefully, we can get back to the topic............which is NOT climate change.

Sure, what do you think about Dr. Kaku’s claims regarding the existence of God and falsifiability?

[MorningGlory]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Sure, what do you think about Dr. Kaku’s claims regarding the existence of God and falsifiability?

I think Dr. Kaku is thinking.  I don't believe he's a true believer but his mind is working.  One post in this thread refutes this but after rereading the Dr.'s comments I believe he is going in a new direction.  Anyone who could believe in an uncaused, random universe is lacking in both intellect and common sense. 

[Enoch2021]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Sure, what do you think about Dr. Kaku’s claims regarding the existence of God and falsifiability?

Who cares, He's not a Scientist.  Even if he was... still, who cares.

It's akin to heading up to Walmart and asking a random person the same questions.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

On 12/29/2017 at 12:01 PM, siegi91 said:

I believe Prof. Kaku has been misunderstood. 

Who cares, the man's a Clown.

 

Quote

By the way, I actually met him once at a conference.

Astonishing.

 

Quote

He does not believe at all in a personal God

Who cares what he "BELIEVES". 

 

 

Quote

As you said, he is no lightweight

Right, he's a Heavyweight Clown.

 

Quote

So, considering that he is not a lightweight, should we take man-caused global warming and a pantheistic sort of Spinoza's God as seriously as well?

What on Earth?    I wouldn't trust him if he told me the air pressure in his tricycle tires.

 

Quote

Or aren't we, or the web site that misquoted him, systematically apply selection and confirmation bias to only the parts we like? 

  Let's get to some "Cow Bell" ...

 

Can you explain something to us:  How in the World can you use your Computer/Smart Phone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ...The Fairytale ? Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism Religion?

 

regards

 

[Enoch2021]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

 

So frankly, science doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to ginning up all this stuff about the environment

 

Yea, because NONE of it is "Science".

 

Quote

and I don' need to work too hard given that science has been working for 40 years off of faulty data.

"Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method.  "Science" doesn't: "WORK", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey.  To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE.  Science isn't ALIVE, Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

On 12/30/2017 at 9:40 AM, one.opinion said:

What predictions are you referring to? Please provide scientific publications that make these predictions. It is completely possible that some predictions were erroneous, but it would be good to back up sweeping generalizations with fact.

  There were no "Scientific Predictions" because they're isn't A SINGLE Viable "Scientific Hypothesis"...that which BIRTH "Scientific Predictions", in this entire genre.

There were however many Nostradamus/Jimmy-The-Greek/Carnival Tent "Predictions"  back in the day about "The Next Ice Age" (rotflol) and then they switched to "ALL The Coastal Cities will be Underwater". (rotflol)   It's like watching Laurel and Hardy Reruns!!

 

Quote

I don’t know what your trust level is with NASA

  x 10^{00000000000000000000000000000000000000000} ----> 

 

regards

[1to3]

17 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

Quote

I don’t know what your trust level is with NASA

  x 10^{00000000000000000000000000000000000000000} ----> 

NASA? once a liar....

Only God can change a liars heart into an honest one.

 

NASA Caught Lying About Moon Images By Their Own Employees ...

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/03/nasa-caught-lying-about-moon-images-by-their-own-employees/

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

Anyone who could believe in an uncaused, random universe is lacking in both intellect and common sense. 

I'm won't go quite that far, but it does seem to require an unwarranted amount of overlooking the obvious.