Could There Be a 'Reason' For Climate Change Denial?

I assumed that everyone knows that nuclear reactors create heat. The relevant part of the law was that heat is one of the most difficult forms of energy to convert. Even when converted to latent energy, the liquid will ultimately condense and convert the energy back into heat.

My whole point was that heat produced by nuclear fission is ADDITIONAL to all others. Therefore it must alter the balance.

An interesting point is that oxygen levels on this planet are remarkably constant. Only a small amount is consumed by animal life, the rest is by combustion.
This raises the point that as we are changing the balance, are wildfires occurring to restore it. If so, we are in a lot of trouble as we convert less oxygen to produce the heat that we require to live.
Once again. warming the oceans is promoting more sea vegetation that is the main source of free oxygen on the planet.

Their just seems to be a lot more questions than answers and I fear that we are just burying our heads in the sand.

 

Are these theories of gods purely theosophical, though, or does our finely-tuned universe lend them some scientific credence?

I'm just not understanding why these are not scientific theories based on the evidence at hand. It seems really hypocritical and frankly pretentious to me. You can't come to the conclusion that we have a universe finely-tuned for the existence of life and conclude that a belief in simulation is a teleological argument and a belief in multiple realities is a scientific argument.

I kind of use the word "scientific" in a loose sense as well. I mean, at least these theories could be the playthings of established scientists, as the multiverse is.

It's also kind of bizarre that adding entities is regarded as something purely unscientific. Like, if I see "E=MC2" written on a chalkboard in a math class, I probably come to the conclusion that a human wrote it. Unless there's an elephant in the room. But maybe science isn't really the arena of reasonable conclusions. If not, scientists should readily admit that. That science isn't the only means by which people can reach reasonable conclusions.

They should, because when you think about it, it really isn't! Science does not have a monopoly over good theories or things that are reasonable to believe. Tell me the universe seems finely-tuned for life, and I'll just as soon believe that it was as I'll come to the conclusion that reality constantly splits off into every conceivable possibility, if one theory is unscientific and the other is scientific. Which is more absurd?

I know I for one have absolutely no sense of these other realities. Life doesn't seem that way to me at all. I absolutely feel that I am the only me in existence, and if there were more it would be redundant to the point of making the universe so stupid that we should give up on scientific inquiry altogether anyway. That's how boring I am.

 

I think that you have seen the light.
We dabble with the balance of nature at our peril.

 

Definitely. And we're fucking reckless with the human psyche.

 

I can and I am by ascribing to the anthropic principle for the Multiverse. The validity of the the Simulation Hypothesis rests on premises, which while it utilizes observations of the world, it's clearly structured as a philosophical argument.

This is not incompatible with the Multiverse...

I'm not saying that I ascribe to the Multiverse necessarily either, I'm attempting to help you to understand some of the nuance here to help clarify.

 

I'm not structuring it as a philosophical argument. I'm saying that the belief in multiple realities has as much foundation as a belief that the universe was finely tuned. I mean, the immediate conclusion when you're presented with the evidence is that the universe was finely tuned. It takes some creativity to suggest that it was the product of a multiverse. To strip it to bare bones, just say a belief in a general creator of some sort.

But seriously, neither of these, as a belief, is scientific. They're both just theories, and as science has no monopoly over what constitutes a good theory, I'll go with simulation over multiverse any day of the week.

Nothing's incompatible with the multiverse, because no one understands it, primarily because it doesn't exist.

 

Copanhagen Interpretation is incompatible with the Multiverse.

 

Way to be completely pedantic. I don't know if that's just a thing where the scientifically inclined can't grasp context or if they're being obtuse because they think you're an idiot.

 

Way to be completely pedantic. I don't know if that's just a thing where the scientifically inclined can't grasp context or if they're being obtuse because they think you're an idiot.

 

Or maybe I should have just said "It's CoPENhagen Interpretation."

 

I already provided my thoughts, it is you who cannot seem to grasp context.

 

People generate heat too.... remember the Matrix? It's just trivial.

With enough heat generated, you would be generating additional water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, so all turbine powered energy generation methods would fall into this.

Greenhouse Gases | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

I tell you again: people jump on your remarks and explanations because they have a different view on them. It's not circle jerking. You're being dishonest and actually the one who's making things personal, just by insisting that's why others tear your theory/explanation apart.
Then you get snarky, your convo partner get snarky in return and you act like your convo partner is doing something dubious. I do not feel the need to tell you this in PM if you post your personal opinions about why and how I supposedly react to you in here. Why tf should I?
I actually really like when you explain your thoughts, and you should realize if somebody else had posted that about science they got similar reactions.

You should realize that you often simply get a similar tone back as you give out. I'm trying to treat you as a normal poster.

 

Really don't want you to

I find it funny you act like im doing something very different. You even act like im rubbing in my supposed victory, when you display that kind of behavior far more often. But when I do something like charge a statement or be provoking/confronting in a reaction its to be nasty and im getting personal and when you do it its always in good fun... We both know its not like that.

I'm, and i think other people too, are reacting to the content because we all saw the same thing: something was off with it. I can only speak with certainty for myself but I'm not doing that primarily to change your mind. It always goes like this in these threads, opinions, thoughts and theories get countered; but when it happens to you its suddenly personal. Fuck that shit

A false accusation or portrayal of things gets to most people. It was put in that thread by Driftrue that you were making a lighthearted effort to end that discussion going in circles. But, as you admit, you ment that part serious. Seems only logical and fair to have pointed that out.

I will explain in PM and maybe also partly in those threads (as you take the liberty too. You know you could send a pm about this too )

Not really in the way you perceive it. But maybe this is something to expand on in pm.

I still feel honored by that

lol sorry, but I'm using the word truthbomb because its an excellent term after someone dropped their 2 cents. You're really really taking my use of it the wrong way. It should actually be seen as a compliment that i like your term so much i borrow it regularly. An excellent example thus of you taking things personal for no good reason. and spotting malicious intent where there's none (in fact, in this instance its closer to the opposite)

You're clearly the one who need to get over things.
You post some wacky theory or a shitty remark on a good post you didn't even read, you get a reaction. That's not a new thing on this forum either.
I WILL expand on why I seemed to do it more to your posts lately in PM: I'm sure if i would posted that in public you would put it as if im making you look a certain way. I'm not though. So i am already catering to you there by restraining myself from not posting everything in public threads. If you gonna accuse me some time more in public of things like getting personal when I only focussed on the content, or imply im trying to chase you off here I might not restrain myself though. And...wouldn’t wait for this PM. I'm gonna type it when it suits me. Not you

 

Y'all make up and be friends again so we can all meet in the netherlands one day and ride bikes together

Kthx

 

The thing is I never stopped seeing her as a HF friend. I'm just annoyed with her at this point because she takes everything personal. The truthbomb thing illustrates this perfectly. I'm actually glad she brought that up. Apparently every time i used that she got a very misplaced feeling for no good reason at all. I love the term truthbomb and how she (and now me too) used it. That I also react critically on some of her self proclaimed truthbombs because they don't ring true with me doesn't change that. It's a different thing. People can do both you know

 

Well I humbly disagree with your thought that manufacturing an infinite number or realities is any more scientific than hypothesizing a creator.

 

It's not just "my thought", it's an explanation why one is explored as science and the other isn't.

We could go further into details but it's clear to me you aren't all that interested in attempting to understand and admittedly I only know the concepts on a surface level, so I doubt that'd get us anywhere.

There are some aspects of the multiverse which don't sit well with me either but again it's from observations describing reality at super small scales, with results that don't make a lot of intuitive sense to practically anyone and attempting to extrapolate what those findings suggest on a macroscopic scale, or the scope of reality we experience.