The end of the world as we know it

[Poopadoop]

How do you think this will happen? I've ranked the three most likely (in my mind) scenarios.

1. Nuclear winter due to either an accident or some loony Dr. Evil type getting hold of nukes.

2. Planet goes on crazy exponentially growing feedforward heating loop due to global warming. Ice caps melt, every city on a coastline becomes another Atlantis.

3. Nature (asteroid, volcano, etc.).

[wufwugy]

1. Nature (asteroid, EMP). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2. Everything else is minuscule in comparison. Nuclear winter is >0, but I think that has been avoided and will continue to be avoided. The global warming thing doesn't appear to stack up. It's the slowest of slow moving disasters (if it's a disaster in the first place) and probably the worst of it would result in all major coastlines using similar protections as the Netherlands does. I'd probably put biological warfare above nuclear, and probably technological (like Von Neumann bots) above nuclear as well. Granted, I don't think there is risk of runaway technological destruction like people like Musk are obsessed with.

[wufwugy]

I suspect that Earth will be habitable for biological organisms up until the sun expansion in 4B years or whenever.

[JKDS]

Super Virus/bacteria/etc, then Nuclear Winter.

While Global Warming is real and its consequences will be insane, I dont see us dying from it.

[Poopadoop]

Ya global warming could be survivable. I was just thinking of one that accelerates too quickly for us to deal with it. Though ya, probably unlikely now i think about it.

I think superbug is unlikely too though. There have been superbugs before and life went on.

[Poopadoop]

I suspect that Earth will be habitable for biological organisms up until the sun expansion in 4B years or whenever.

I'm talking about humans, not some shit that lives in boiling sulphur water. Do you think we will still be here 4B years from now?

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, global warming will probably be very destabalizing for a lot of people. Not me though, I'm headed north into all that fertile Canadian post-artic land.

My money is on some natural disaster like an asteroid or volcano or Black Plague round 2.

[OngBonga]

Global warming is bollocks, jfc. They've been on about it for well over a decade now, our summers are still shit, and Pacific nations haven't been reclaimed by the ocean yet.

I'd say it'll be one of the following...

1. Economic collapse leading to WWIII... possibly nuclear, but even without nukes, the economic consequences of a war between USA & Europe vs Russia & China would be terrible for all parties.

2. Volcanic winter - Yellowstone Park being the prime candidate, but there's Katla in Iceland too which has huge potential, not to mention the chain of volcanoes around Indonesia.

3. Disease

4. Extraterrestial event - massive meteor. Most ET events would be devastating for the impact area only, it would take a monster like the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs to fuck the world up.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about humans, not some shit that lives in boiling sulphur water. Do you think we will still be here 4B years from now?

No we won't be "here" in 4B years.

We'll be somewhere else, unless we've wiped ourselves out.

I'd say we've got 2B years to colonise another planet, which leaves a couple billion years for panic.

[wufwugy]

I'm talking about humans, not some shit that lives in boiling sulphur water. Do you think we will still be here 4B years from now?

That was just a side add-on.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about humans, not some shit that lives in boiling sulphur water. Do you think we will still be here 4B years from now?

This is a bit harsh on organisms so fucking hardy. Show some respect.

"Some awesome motherfucker that lives in boiling sulphur water."

[OngBonga]

I think superbug is unlikely too though. There have been superbugs before and life went on.

When we talk about the "end of the world as we know it", bugs definitely have the potential. The Great Plague would have been an EOWAWKI scenario, it radically changed the world. EOWAWKI doesn't mean end of human survival, it just means radical change in population and living conditions.

[wufwugy]

1. Economic collapse leading to WWIII... possibly nuclear, but even without nukes, the economic consequences of a war between USA & Europe vs Russia & China would be terrible for all parties.

This may change to my #1, but in a different way. I think it will have more to do with rot of human institutions. The source of the rot is probably twofold: (1) people living sheltered lives and having no sense of the ways of the world. An example of this sort of thing can be seen in how many westerners embrace the proliferation of a movement whose goal is to subjugate, murder, and enslave those very westerners (Islamism). (2) The organizing principle behind Islamism and the state. They're both totalitarian and both have a featured history of near total eradication of culture and freedom.

I think there is a remarkably high chance that we're on a mostly unavoidable path of Equilibrium (the movie) level totalitarianism.

[Poopadoop]

Was the Great Plague EOWAWKI? I'm not saying it didn't shake things up but civilization didn't go back to the Stone Age or anything.

[Poopadoop]

(1) people living sheltered lives and having no sense of the ways of the world. An example of this sort of thing can be seen in how many westerners embrace the proliferation of a movement whose goal is to subjugate, murder, and enslave those very westerners (Islamism). (2) The organizing principle behind Islamism and the state. They're both totalitarian and both have a featured history of near total eradication of culture and freedom.

1. Not true. Westerners don't exactly 'embrace' Islam. Nor is the goal of any mainstream form of Islam to 'subjugate, murder, and enslave' anyone.

You could argue 2) is true in the sense of countries like present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia. But neither of these countries has shown any interest in exporting their own brand of theocracy.

Also a distinction should be made between fucked up governments and the religion they've hijacked to provide themselves with legitimacy. Historically, Islam has been a much more tolerant religion than Christianity, and much less inclined to subjugation. Two examples are the Arab conquest of Persia and the Ottoman conquests of N. Africa, the Mid East, and the Balkans. In both cases the conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religion, culture and language.

[OngBonga]

Was the Great Plague EOWAWKI? I'm not saying it didn't shake things up but civilization didn't go back to the Stone Age or anything.

Well it certainly radically changed the way people lived. Of course, we eventually emerged stronger as a species, but yeah I'd say the plague falls into the category of EOWAWKI... in fact I'd probably say it's a decent threshhold for what defines EOW... anything less significant is not probably not worth discussing in this context.

[wufwugy]

1. Not true. Westerners don't exactly 'embrace' Islam. Nor is the goal of any mainstream form of Islam to 'subjugate, murder, and enslave' anyone.

You could argue 2) is true in the sense of countries like present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia. But neither of these countries has shown any interest in exporting their own brand of theocracy.

Also a distinction should be made between fucked up governments and the religion they've hijacked to provide themselves with legitimacy. Historically, Islam has been a much more tolerant religion than Christianity, and much less inclined to subjugation. Two examples are the Arab conquest of Persia and the Ottoman conquests of N. Africa, the Mid East, and the Balkans. In both cases the conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religion, culture and language.

Western education has let us down.

It is verified that Islam has encroached and eradicated. It has been steady and effective. A less proximate cause for why Islam does this is because it is the way of Muhammad. Muhammad abrogated every other element of Islam, and he spread his message as a warlord. "Moderate Islam" is half in this world and half out of it. It is still mostly sharia, but with some small not-fully-Muhammad elements. Note that the Islamic reformation is ISIS. Even the tiny degree of secularization to some small areas of Islam across the globe is apostasy to the way of Muhammad. As all religious reformations do, they go back to the scriptures. ISIS is scriptural Islam.

Islam was created with the purpose of destroying Christianity and western culture. Perhaps a good way of going over the head of the propaganda education we've all received is to look at how and why Islam spread and what has become of those regions. It successfully destroyed the origin regions of Christianity (and western values) and turned them into >98% Islam. ISIS is trying to follow Muhammad by turning them into 100% sharia instead. Everywhere that Islam goes, it becomes wholly Islam.

There's much more but I'll stop here.

[a500lbgorilla]

Global warming is bollocks, jfc. They've been on about it for well over a decade now, our summers are still shit, and Pacific nations haven't been reclaimed by the ocean yet.

No trolling?

[OngBonga]

No trolling?

I see no evidence. I see plenty of motives for creating such a problem, or at the very least exaggerating it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Was the Great Plague EOWAWKI? I'm not saying it didn't shake things up but civilization didn't go back to the Stone Age or anything.

I think the world population went from 450 mil to 375 mil.

Something nasty that could break through our considerable defenses would definitely shake the world.

[a500lbgorilla]

I see no evidence. I see plenty of motives for creating such a problem, or at the very least exaggerating it.

Peer reviewed scientific literature is composed upon evidence. There's a lot of it.

[OngBonga]

I'm quite happy to dismiss peer reviewed scientific literature. These same people will tell me jet fuel can melt steel but not passports.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh yeah? Where do they say that?

[JKDS]

Oh shit, I forgot.

Wiped out by terminators is probably #1, and within the next century.

[Savy]

Peer reviewed scientific literature is composed upon evidence. There's a lot of it.

Pfft science schmience

[OngBonga]

Oh yeah? Where do they say that?

In the media, where people get their facts from.

[a500lbgorilla]

Scientists don't do media. They do peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[a500lbgorilla]

[OngBonga]

Scientists don't do media. They do peer-reviewed scientific literature.

That's media.

[OngBonga]

Wow, rilla is at the point where global warming denial is on a par with creationism.

[OngBonga]

Because rilla needs it cleared up...

The difference between climate change denial and creationism is that one is based on paranoia (whether justified or not, that's the debate), while the other is based on religious delusion (ie there is no debate).

[a500lbgorilla]

That's media.

Have you ever read a scientific journal?

[Savy]

Wow, rilla is at the point where global warming denial is on a par with creationism.

It is funny that your friends mum tells you something and you think the world is on the brink yet tonnes of evidence backing something up and it's hearsay.

[a500lbgorilla]

Because rilla needs it cleared up...

The difference between climate change denial and creationism is that one is based on paranoia (whether justified or not, that's the debate), while the other is based on religious delusion (ie there is no debate).

I was more after Mac's clever play. You can diminish anything, if you know what you're doing.

[OngBonga]

It is funny that your friends mum tells you something and you think the world is on the brink yet tonnes of evidence backing something up and it's hearsay.

Yeah because I trust my friend's mum, but not media. My friend's mum is at the very least sincere in her beliefs, and is way better qualified to make that claim than I ever could be.

[OngBonga]

Have you ever read a scientific journal?

Do you know what media means?

[Poopadoop]

So anyone who knows more than you about something must be right? Unless they're a scientist?

[Savy]

Yeah because I trust my friend's mum, but not media. My friend's mum is at the very least sincere in her beliefs, and is way better qualified to make that claim than I ever could be.

It's very hard to believe that a media run by rich people are pushing an agenda that makes people want to implement policies which lose them money. You'd think the millions they spend trying to squash things like that would be somewhat at odds.

[OngBonga]

So anyone who knows more than you about something must be right? Unless they're a scientist?

Do you know what trust means?

[a500lbgorilla]

Do you know what media means?

Lets parse the difference between sorts of media.

We're making media right now, but many would not consider it so.

[OngBonga]

It's very hard to believe that a media run by rich people are pushing an agenda that makes people want to implement policies which lose them money. You'd think the millions they spend trying to squash things like that would be somewhat at odds.

Well let's assume just for one minute that is is all bollocks. I wouldn't assume that their lies are losing them money, I would assume the opposite. I'm not going to pretend how the complexities of that works, but I'm gonna suggest that maybe it's for the greater benefit of big business due to excessive regulations killing the smaller competition. Fuck knows. But if they're lying about it, then they're not losing money, they're making it.

[Savy]

On topic - I'd be most worried about diseases in the short term. Lots of relatively scary things to do with resistance to antibiotics.

[Poopadoop]

Muhammad abrogated every other element of Islam, and he spread his message as a warlord.

The historical arguments go both ways. There's plenty of examples of Christianity being spread by force.

"Moderate Islam" is half in this world and half out of it. It is still mostly sharia, but with some small not-fully-Muhammad elements. Note that the Islamic reformation is ISIS. Even the tiny degree of secularization to some small areas of Islam across the globe is apostasy to the way of Muhammad. As all religious reformations do, they go back to the scriptures. ISIS is scriptural Islam.

I'll try to pick out the more coherent bits here and reply to them.

First, ISIS is radical, fundamental Islam. It is not mainstream but outside of that. Whatever you've been told or heard Donald Trump say is the propaganda. A lot of the people living as muslims in ISIS controlled territory fucking hate it and don't want anything to do with it. A parallel can be drawn with Iran. 90% of the people living there don't support the government and would prefer democracy. They ignore dress codes in private. They buy alcohol on the black market and drink it in their homes. They had public demonstrations over the election and the army opened fire. It's a fucked up place. ISIS is another case where a group of assholes have co-opted a religion for their own fucked up purposes of seizing power.

Islam was created with the purpose of destroying Christianity and western culture.

I'm not a theologian but I'd be surprised if that was it's purpose any more than Protestantism was created to destroy Catholocism, rather than as a reaction to dissatisfaction with mainstream religion and an alternative way of worshipping the same God.

Perhaps a good way of going over the head of the propaganda education we've all received...

You're implying that people with tolerant attitudes to religion have been unduly influenced by their education. I would argue you've been unduly influenced by xenophobic, intolerant individuals.

... is to look at how and why Islam spread and what has become of those regions. It successfully destroyed the origin regions of Christianity (and western values) and turned them into >98% Islam. ISIS is trying to follow Muhammad by turning them into 100% sharia instead. Everywhere that Islam goes, it becomes wholly Islam.

Events in the middle east >1000 years ago were pretty minor compared to how Christianity has been spread historically. I've also quoted more recent examples that directly contradict your last statement.

I'm not defending Islam, I think all religion is fucked. But I think your kind of thinking is dangerous because it promotes the sort of mentality that will lead to a modern day crusade.

[Poopadoop]

Do you know what trust means?

Yes, and it's understandable you trust your friend's mom more than a complete stranger. But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

[Poopadoop]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

[OngBonga]

But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

Ok, this is fair enough. But what is it to "study"? If I want to learn about something, such as water filters, I go to wikipedia. I'm learning what someone else has written. If I then filter water as advised, and it's clean enough for me to consider it a success, then I'm going to assume that what I was told is truth. I might even teach other how to make water filters, spreading the knowledge. But how do I actually know that it worked as a result of what I was taught? I'm making a leap of faith. So, too, is every scientist who trusts their education.

The problem isn't necessarily that qualified people are lying directly to the people, the problem might be much more deep rooted than that. Maybe people are being taught lies as they become qualified.

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

[Savy]

You're kind of missing the point of what science is. You don't assume what you were taught was right. You only have to look at the history of science to see that schools of thought are constantly questioned and changed when errors are found.

Also who is running all of this? Setting up a process of lies that no one can possibly see through what would have to be at least a century ago for what benefit exactly?

[Poopadoop]

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

[OngBonga]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

[OngBonga]

You're kind of missing the point of what science is.

Not at all. How can anyone put to test climate change in the form of experiment? Isn't that what sceince is? Theories holding up to experiment? That isn't what's going on here, thus, climate change is pseudoscience.

[OngBonga]

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

Climate change is theory at best, disinformation at worst. You're putting faith in science, which is fine, but this isn't science. It's theory, and it's highly political in nature, which muddies the waters further. I have no faith in unproven science where there is so much politics involved.

[Savy]

Not at all. How can anyone put to test climate change in the form of experiment? Isn't that what sceince is? Theories holding up to experiment? That isn't what's going on here, thus, climate change is pseudoscience.

Good logic. I'm sold.

[OngBonga]

Good logic. I'm sold.

Fine, well for me climate change is on a par with religion. Those who buy it will defend its validity as though it is fact, when actually it is not fact.

Basically, people think it's fact because lots of scientists all nod their heads and say "yeah". That isn't what makes something a scientific fact. Theory holding up to experiment, that's what makes things fact.

At least recognise that there is a distinction.

[OngBonga]

What makes climate change different from ghosts? Lots of people think ghosts are real. Science can't prove they are not.

Neither can science prove they exist. Does that mean they don't? Fuck knows, but until it can be proven one way or the other, it's not real science. Even if every single scientist in the world said they believed in ghosts, without proof, it's not real science.

Climate change is no different, except more people believe in it.

[Poopadoop]

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.

But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

It could be, but my argument was about the factors that lead to global warming, not the strength of the evidence that it's already here.

[Poopadoop]

Not at all. How can anyone put to test climate change in the form of experiment? Isn't that what sceince is? Theories holding up to experiment? That isn't what's going on here, thus, climate change is pseudoscience.

It kind of goes back to our previous discussion about nutrition. You can't do the experiment that proves conclusively that eating a healthy diet is good for you. So nutrition is a pseudoscience and you can just eat ice cream all day every day and you'll be fine.

Similarly, you can't do the experiment that proves global warming. But the indirect evidence is pretty damn suggestive imo. If you know that certain gases trap heat and you also know that those gases are being concentrated in the Earth's atmosphere, there's good reason to think that we're going to experience global warming.

[Savy]

Fine, well for me climate change is on a par with religion. Those who buy it will defend its validity as though it is fact, when actually it is not fact.

Basically, people think it's fact because lots of scientists all nod their heads and say "yeah". That isn't what makes something a scientific fact. Theory holding up to experiment, that's what makes things fact.

At least recognise that there is a distinction.

Yep 100%.

In fact the increase in the number of ghosts from the increased number of deaths probably creates a chilling effect that would cancel any so called warming out.

[JKDS]

You guys are ignoring the upcoming terminator apocalypse like it's nbd.

Don't let skynet win.

[Poopadoop]

You guys are ignoring the upcoming terminator apocalypse like it's nbd.

Don't let skynet win.

Oh ya, Jesus. How much salt do you think we'll need? Also, I'm going to go on google and learn how to build my own AK-47.

[OngBonga]

I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.

Well then you're taking the term "greenhouse gasses" too literally, perhaps victim of semantics propaganda. "Greenhouse gas" is just a buzzword that implies warming by its nature.

Greenhouses are made of glass, and are small. There is no glass casing surrounding the large atmosphere we have, so the conditions are incomparable.

Venus is indeed pretty fucking hot compared to Earth. It's closer to the sun.

I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.

Oh there is. I might not have hit the nail on the head, but it's definitely been explained. Mojo can indeed clear this one up, no doubt.

But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.

Venus is closer to the sun. Such mechanics maintain a realtive sense of thermal balance, it doesn't maintain a certain temperature.

The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.

Why do we assume oil companies are losing money as a result of global warming? Because they are so heavily regulated? It just means it's impossible for anyone to compete with the established companies. I have no idea, but like I said earlier, I don't expect it to be costing big business money, quite the opposite.

It kind of goes back to our previous discussion about nutrition. You can't do the experiment that proves conclusively that eating a healthy diet is good for you. So nutrition is a pseudoscience and you can just eat ice cream all day every day and you'll be fine.

Well it's not quite the same, because experiment will support the theory that nutrition is important. If you feed me a diet of bread and water for a month, while you eat a balanced diet, and every day we had a 100m race, my performance would deteriorate while yours would probably improve slightly, or remain stable. Certainly you would outperform me. Thus, the theory would hold up to experiment.

Can the same be said of climate change? What experiment can be done to put to test the theories?

[Poopadoop]

Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus but with no atmosphere, and it's slightly cooler than Venus. Explain that one Galileo.

How about this experiment? Build several greenhouses but use partially-reflecting glass that allows as much radiation out as it does in, so that just the glass alone won't change the temperature. Fill one with CO2, a few others with other greenhouse gases, and leave the last one with a normal atmosphere. See which ones get hotter than the others.

Or just read the fucking textbook that explains what a greenhouse gas does. I'm sure somewhere in there it describes the experiment that proves it.

[JKDS]

We know that over the last 110 years, the sea level was rising. (That's as far back as the data goes)

We know that over the last 20 years, the sea level rose twice as fast. (Using, among other things, satellites).

We know this is caused by melting ice, decreased snowfall, and the thermal expansion of the water.

And we know all of that is caused by the increasing temperature of the planet. As earth gets hotter, the ocean gets hotter. (Interestingly enough, if we had no oceans we would experience a much wider range of temperatures. This is because water is hard to heat up in comparison to most other things.)

No reputable scientist disagrees. But, like with all things, you can bullshit any topic and get a following. Why might this occur with global warming? Because the solution involves cutting our heat emissions. That's expensive.

[Poopadoop]

We know that over the last 110 years, the sea level was rising. (That's as far back as the data goes)

We know that over the last 20 years, the sea level rose twice as fast. (Using, among other things, satellites).

We know this is caused by melting ice, decreased snowfall, and the thermal expansion of the water.

And we know all of that is caused by the increasing temperature of the planet. As earth gets hotter, the ocean gets hotter. (Interestingly enough, if we had no oceans we would experience a much wider range of temperatures. This is because water is hard to heat up in comparison to most other things.)

No reputable scientist disagrees. But, like with all things, you can bullshit any topic and get a following. Why might this occur with global warming? Because the solution involves cutting our heat emissions. That's expensive.

Stop interrupting our bullshit with facts. I'm having fun here.

[wufwugy]

The historical arguments go both ways. There's plenty of examples of Christianity being spread by force.

There is an integral distinction. Scriptural adherence to Christianity is contrary to proselytizing by force. Religious reformations are always about a return to scripture. Christianity's reformations have been a wresting of the soul of Christianity away from the corruption of it by the Catholic warlords that you've described, and instead an embracing of Jesus.

Islam is the opposite. Scriptural Islam is the way of Muhammad. The way of Muhammad is jihad against non-believers by the sword. Muhammad abrogates every other aspect of Islam. This is taught in every mosque in the world. Muhammad was a warlord who murdered and enslaved, and he died with that as his final message.

First, ISIS is radical, fundamental Islam. It is not mainstream but outside of that. Whatever you've been told or heard Donald Trump say is the propaganda. A lot of the people living as muslims in ISIS controlled territory fucking hate it and don't want anything to do with it. A parallel can be drawn with Iran. 90% of the people living there don't support the government and would prefer democracy. They ignore dress codes in private. They buy alcohol on the black market and drink it in their homes. They had public demonstrations over the election and the army opened fire. It's a fucked up place. ISIS is another case where a group of assholes have co-opted a religion for their own fucked up purposes of seizing power.

ISIS is only radical to us. To the Islamic scriptures and their teachings, ISIS is the reformation, the return to scripture.

Most Muslims have elements of being "nominal Muslims" and elements of secularization. However, it is not from their scriptures and their teachings that they derive this.

I'm not a theologian but I'd be surprised if that was it's purpose any more than Protestantism was created to destroy Catholocism, rather than as a reaction to dissatisfaction with mainstream religion and an alternative way of worshipping the same God.

Its purpose was jihad against the non-Muhammad-like. In the scriptures, Muhammad's success was entirely by murdering and raping and subjugating. He preached early in life but it didn't work so he changed to being a warlord. Even the most liberal of Imams today teaches total abrogation by Muhammad of all previous teachings. Jihad by the sword is Islam's intent.

You're implying that people with tolerant attitudes to religion have been unduly influenced by their education. I would argue you've been unduly influenced by xenophobic, intolerant individuals.

I'm tolerant of people doing whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon others. This means that I am tolerant of Muslims who do not infringe. What I am not tolerant of is an ideology with the express purpose of killing me.

Islam cannot be changed because of its scriptural backing, and the strategy of its goal to eradicate all non-Muhammad-like elements of the world involves creep. The danger of this creep is seen in things like how there is a movement of young Muslims in the western world, who come from parents who are slightly more secularized, turning towards ISIS and similar jihad. The reason for this is because of the reality that religions can only reform towards scripture, and Islam scripture is jihad.

Events in the middle east >1000 years ago were pretty minor compared to how Christianity has been spread historically. I've also quoted more recent examples that directly contradict your last statement.

I answered most of this already, but I'll add one thing.

It is not a coincidence that where Christianity dominates there is tolerance for other ways of life, while where Islam dominates there is tolerance for no other ways of life. The tiny degree to which there is some small tolerance (for example in Iran) is apostasy to Muhammad, and ISIS is Islam's "Protestant Reformation" trying to fix that.

I'm not defending Islam, I think all religion is fucked. But I think your kind of thinking is dangerous because it promotes the sort of mentality that will lead to a modern day crusade.

Interesting word choice. IIRC the Crusades make up ~<5% of the battles between Islam and the Christian West. The remaining battles were Islamic conquest upon Christian territory. The Crusades were a meager counter, curiously in Christian territory previously conquered by Islamic warlords.

[JKDS]

Intolerant christian Russia, tho.

[Poopadoop]

There is an integral distinction.

You know this isn't a phrase that is ever used in English right? Try just saying what you mean without sounding all high-falootin'

Scriptural adherence to Christianity is contrary to proselytizing by force. Religious reformations are always about a return to scripture. Christianity's reformations have been a wresting of the soul of Christianity away from the corruption of it by the Catholic warlords that you've described, and instead an embracing of Jesus.

That's a pretty broad statement. There's plenty of subsets of Christianity that didn't follow these lines, such as Mormonism.

Islam is the opposite. Scriptural Islam is the way of Muhammad. The way of Muhammad is jihad against non-believers by the sword. Muhammad abrogates every other aspect of Islam. This is taught in every mosque in the world. Muhammad was a warlord who murdered and enslaved, and he died with that as his final message.

Omfg you really believe that in mosques they are teaching people to kill all infidels?

ISIS is only radical to us. To the Islamic scriptures and their teachings, ISIS is the reformation, the return to scripture. Most Muslims have elements of being "nominal Muslims" and elements of secularization. However, it is not from their scriptures and their teachings that they derive this.

The best way to settle this is to ask a typical Muslim whether it is radical or not. I suspect they would mirror my arguments that ISIS is a corruption of Islam, not a return to it's roots or some kind of savior of the religion. Most of them fucking hate it full stop.

Its purpose was jihad against the non-Muhammad-like. In the scriptures, Muhammad's success was entirely by murdering and raping and subjugating. He preached early in life but it didn't work so he changed to being a warlord. Even the most liberal of Imams today teaches total abrogation by Muhammad of all previous teachings. Jihad by the sword is Islam's intent.

It's actually a lot more flexible than this. Jihad is only allowed when they are being directly threatened, such as when someone invades their home. It has to be called for by a top imam. There is no 'global jihad' currently in force against Christianity.

I'm tolerant of people doing whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon others. This means that I am tolerant of Muslims who do not infringe. What I am not tolerant of is an ideology with the express purpose of killing me.

So you believe the main goal of Islam is to kill all non-believers? By that logic all those Muslims living peaceful lives next to non-muslims over the centuries were in fact traitors to their religion and should have been destroyed.

religions can only reform towards scripture...

Completely false. Protestantism when it emerged was no closer to scripture than Catholicism.

and Islam scripture is jihad.

Also false, at least in the way you characterize jihad.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...m.html?start=9

[wufwugy]

Intolerant christian Russia, tho.

Explain please.

[OngBonga]

Here's a fact... when ice that is floating in water melts, the water level does not rise. Ice is less dense than water... which is of course why it floats. If you put ice into water, the level rises as a result of the ice displacing an amount of water equal to its mass. As the ice melts, it loses mass, and thus displaces less water. The resulting drop in water level balances out the gain in water level from the melted ice.

Melting sea ice would not raise sea levels. It can't, not unless the ice is not completely submerged. Thus, if ice is responsible for rising sea levels, it's meltwater from land, not sea. That would manifest itself in heavier river discharge from cold areas, which would be evident in the form of villages and towns on rivers downstream from meltwater regions becoming inundated, especially during spring.

Another factor that is overlooked... higher temperature means greater evaporation, both due to increased energy, and lower relative humidity. I would expect this to counter thermal expansion. Furthermore, water only starts to expand above 4 degrees, which means water that is cooler (ie, most of the water in the oceans) would actually contract as it warms, until it reached 4 degrees, at which point expansion begins.

It's all bollocks and you people just lap it up.

[Poopadoop]

Lol ong.

[OngBonga]

I've just torn to shreds the concept of thermal expansion of the oceans and all you have is lol?

[Poopadoop]

Thus, if ice is responsible for rising sea levels, it's meltwater from land, not sea. That would manifest itself in heavier river discharge from cold areas, which would be evident in the form of villages and towns on rivers downstream from meltwater regions becoming inundated, especially during spring.

So those melting glaciers and polar ice caps aren't really melting?

Furthermore, water only starts to expand above 4 degrees, which means water that is cooler (ie, most of the water in the oceans) would actually contract as it warms, until it reached 4 degrees, at which point expansion begins.

It's not the water at the bottom of the oceans that's warming though is it? It's the surface water, and most of that is already > 4 degrees.

[Poopadoop]

I've just torn to shreds the concept of thermal expansion of the oceans and all you have is lol?

It's lol because the evidence says the oceans are rising, it's measurable and indisputable, and your answer is 'no they aren't' and you add some arguments for why 2+2!=4.

[OngBonga]

It's not the water at the bottom of the oceans that's warming though is it? It's the surface water, and most of that is already > 4 degrees.

So we're talking about the thermal expansion of a very small percentage of the water in the oceans then? And we're saying that's responsible for sea level rise of measurable amounts?

And it doesn't matter if you're only heating the surface. That heating will, over time, work its way down. That's the nature of heat... it moves from a warm place to a cold place. If we're taking thermal expansion seriously, well it would be expected to initially expand the sea, and then cause them to shrink as the heat takes hold at lower depths. How long has this been going on? A century they say? yeah, by now the deep oceans will be warming up, if indeed the surface has been doing so for a century.

Yeah it's all bollocks.

So those melting glaciers and polar ice caps aren't really melting?

Which ones? There's definitely a lot of ice melting here in the northern hemisphere. More than average? That's the question. As far as I can tell from a quick google search, the Arctic melt this year is not breaking records.

[OngBonga]

It's lol because the evidence says the oceans are rising, it's measurable and indisputable, and your answer is 'no they aren't' and you add some arguments for why 2+2!=4.

How is it indisputable? Have you made these measurements yourself? Show me the indisputable proof.

[Poopadoop]

So we're talking about the thermal expansion of a very small percentage of the water in the oceans then? And we're saying that's responsible for sea level rise of measurable amounts? .

I don't know the ins and outs of how it works, but if the oceans are rising I assume it cause ice somewhere on land is melting and/or the water is getting warmer.

And it doesn't matter if you're only heating the surface. That heating will, over time, work its way down. That's the nature of heat... it moves from a warm place to a cold place. If we're taking thermal expansion seriously, well it would be expected to initially expand the sea, and then cause them to shrink as the heat takes hold at lower depths. How long has this been going on? A century they say? yeah, by now the deep oceans will be warming up, if indeed the surface has been doing so for a century..

Again, don't know exactly. But if the surface heats up by 2 degrees and the really cold water is hundreds of metres down then I suspect it would take a long long time for that heat to work it's way down there. Heat's natural inclination is to rise, not sink.

There's definitely a lot of ice melting here in the northern hemisphere. More than average? That's the question. As far as I can tell from a quick google search, the Arctic melt this year is not breaking records.

What do you mean by more than average? More than a typical year? I'm referring to decades not how much melts in any given year.