Scientist predicted countries would be underwater by now

John	U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." ohn Kallies "The warning from 1989 is some kind of good message" is not my point at all. My point is that they've been saying this stuff with the same sensational doomsday time frame and the same rhetoric and the same purse strings for 50 years. We've only been measuring these things for a couple hundred years, and I have zero faith in the objectivity of the money behind the science. Yes, we should do a much better job than humans have since the Industrial Revolution started. But I don't believe the sensational nonsense for a minute. I'd be interested in objective honest information about the carbon footprint of manufacturing and disposing of a hybrid vehicle. Or the environmental impact of simply manufacturing and transporting a windmill. Much less hundred of thousands of them. There's got to be better answers, but the media spin has zero credibility.
Tom	I certainly understand skepticism about media headlines and wanting to get objective data. But what sources would you accept as objective? There are some important observations to make about the posted article. The UN official that they are talking about, Noel Brown, is not a climate scientist. Also, although the wording in the AP article is confusing and easily misunderstood, he was not saying that countries would be underwater by the year 2000. He was saying that some countries would be underwater in the more distant future if trends are not reversed by the year 2000. Perhaps more importantly, the studies that he was trying to cite do not talk about sea level rise in the year 2000. They were talking about the year 2100 and beyond if trends continue. Interestingly those predictions are being backed up by more recent studies. I don’t think your skepticism is bad, but it does seem to be too easy to just dismiss thousands of scientists operating in a multitude of countries as just being paid off or getting funding from sources with the same nefarious goal. Many IPCC scientists, for example, volunteer their time for free. There are also scientists who were hired by people in the hopes of disproving climate change but ended up confirming it. One famous case is that of Richard Muller. He is a physicist (not a climatologist) and was a well known and vocal climate change denier. He was hired by the Koch brothers to study climate change in hopes of poking holes in the science. After studying the data and the science for a couple of years he changed is mind and concluded that not only is global warming happening, it is almost entirely caused by human activity. If all the climate scientists were just worried about their jobs, then you would expect that scientists who worked for the U.S. Government under administrations that were hostile to the idea of human caused climate change, such as George Bush, would have produced reports criticizing the idea of human caused climate change. They didn't do that. They did just the opposite. Can we hold the above scientists as more likely than not of being objective sources? I think your question about the environmental impacts of hybrid cars and windmills are good ones. I think such questions are still up to debate. I do think, however, that it is getting more and more difficult to make an argument that climate change itself is not a serious concern. If you don’t trust the media, you can easily find information from the scientists themselves. If you don’t trust them, who do you trust and why? Did UN Official Say Nations Would Vanish If Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000?

template

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/d6zlwl/assalamalaikum_sisters_and_brothers_so_i_was/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Ranting About Climate Protestors

Tim	I liked this post...so I “stole” it... Copied and pasted from anonymous source: To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change: You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom. You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars. You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy, Your entertainment comes from electric devices. Here’s an idea: Tell your teachers to switch off the air-conditioners... Walk, ride a bike, ride the bus, or car pool to school. Switch off your devices and read a book. Eat less manufactured, processed food. Learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others. (Note: this comment got 77 likes. Apparently this view is popular)
Betty	it is to bad this will never happen. so sad
Tom	Even if we assume that these things are true, does it tell us anything about whether climate change is real?
Tim	Tom, I don’t know - but if I remember my school days... I was taught that Ohio was mostly covered with glaciers a long while back (before man was there)... Yep, climate changes!
Tom	es. We know that climate has changed before there were humans. We also know that it can be disastrous to the species living at the time. Just because it can happen naturally, does it mean that it can’t also be caused by human activity?
Tim/td>	Tom, maybe - maybe not. We can only control what we can control..../td>
Michael	Tim, I agree. The climate has changed on earth over eons of time. What is the actual mean temperature of the earth supposed to be? Unless we determine that ,what are we basing climate change on? What is the baseline we are using as a reference? Sounds manufactured to me.
Tom	Tim, if the current trends are caused by human activity, wouldn’t that suggest that they could be corrected by human activity - if we had the will?
Tom	Mike, ’m not sure that the average global temperature is supposed to be anything other then what current conditions make it, including the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air. I do think that we know what range it should be for us to be comfortable as a species, and what range it should be in to prevent massive economic disruption. What makes it sound manufactured for you? Is it the fact that climate has changed in the past? Or do you not trust the data? Or do not agree with conclusions drawn from the data?
Tim	Tom, maybe...maybe not. The real question is IF this is caused by human activity - right?
Tom	Tim, Yes. That is the question. I’m just trying to find out why you don’t believe in human caused climate change.
Tim	Tom, I’m not saying it isn’t - but I’m also not saying it is. Maybe you don’t recall the 80s when “the ice age is coming”.... but that was real.... Now...oh shit - we are going to burn to death, the ice is melting, and cities are going to be under water.... oh yea, and we now only have 10 years before the end of the world... Were they wrong then - or are they wrong now?
Dave	It's not about the correct mean temperature, Michael, is the unprecedented rate of change that's scary. It also doesn't matter whether rising sea levels are caused by human activity or not, we still need a plan to move people out of the way.
Tim	Dave, but we seem to focus on humans causing the problems instead of preparing folks to get out of the way. If it is going to happen, a smart person would not be there when it comes. Sometimes...there is a place for Darwin’ism!
Tom	Tim, actually I do remember the 80’s. I was in college. What I remember is that even then most climate scientists were talking about warming, not cooling. There were a handful of people talking about global cooling but they weren’t representative of the mainstream science. Also, I don’t know of any serious science is saying that we have only 10 years until the end of the world. What they are saying is that we may only have 10 years to reverse trends to prevent serious problems further in the future. Usually they are talking about things happening at the end of the century.
Tim	Tom,maybe - maybe not... I guess it comes down to who has the social media podium, if they are credible, and if they happen to be right. Look, if someone really thinks that the oceans are rising - logic would say move. By liberal left hysteria is the current “in thing”... so why not - let’s go with it!
Dave/td>	Tim, if millions of people are impacted simultaneously over a short period of time, individual choices and efforts will not suffice, because, living in big cities we are far too interdependent. We need the best science we can to give us credible scenarios to prepare for.
Tom	Tim, I actually agree that there is hysteria on the left, but there is also hysteria on the right. I’m sure that you would agree that what is true isn’t dictated by politics or belief. Isn’t there a way that we can cut through all that and determine what is most likely to be true? Is it reasonable to expect that everybody can just move? What happens if Bangladesh or the Nile river valley permanently floods? Where do you think all those people are going go?
Tim	Dave, I guess what matters then is what “short period of time” is defined as.... I don’t see any hysteria in those coastal cities - even those they are the ones inciting the hysteria. I guess if folks put money where their mouths are - and started packing their bags and moving away, I’d give them more credit...
Tim	Tom, I’m sure if you looked back in history, you would find that what you are asking about actually has happened - many times. Humans are like cockroaches - somehow we seem to adapt to changes and move on.
Tom	Tim, I think that humans would probably adapt and survive, at least some would, but adaptation involves a lot of pain and misery. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid that if we can? I’m sure you wouldn’t say that we shouldn’t try to avoid an economic depression if we can just because eventually society would get out of it. This, of course, says nothing of all the species that can’t adapt, or the poorer people who may not.
Tim	Tom, according to those on the left - we have 10 years before Armageddon is here. So folks have time to make plans.
Tim	Tom, again, no one serious is saying we only have 10 years to Armageddon. The 10 years is to prevent serious problems that happen 80 to 100 years from now. Ten years is not much time to reverse trends.
Tim	Tom, but 10 years is enough time to get away from those areas that may be an issue.... if those who are spreading the hysteria really think it is an issue..
Tom	Tim, there is no need to get away in 10 years. And where would the population of Bangladesh go? Perhaps they’ll all start heading here. Would you feel comfortable with that?
Michael	Tom, I do not agree with the conclusions of the data. We only know a very minute amount of data in the timeline of earths existence. We are basing our actions on that. The earth has been evolving for millennia. We as humans have been existing far less. I think we devote too much time and effort trying to change something that has been happening for a very long time. I also feel Politics are being used to force this issue.
Tim	Tom, humans have adapted and changed for the short amount of time we have been here (like cockroaches)... adapt to your surroundings or Darwinism sets in - right?
Tom	Michael, what made you conclude that politics are driving the scientific consensus? If I could demonstrate to *your* satisfaction that there are ways to determine climate conditions way back into the past and that carbon and methane levels in the atmosphere correlate with climate change in the past, and that we can tell how much of the carbon level increases since the industrial revolution are due to human activity, would that diminish your confidence that humans aren’t the cause?
Tom	Tim, so we shouldn’t try to prevent disasters?
Tim	Tom, sure - go ahead. But is it possible to do so without such hysteria? It seems that hysteria rules the day...
Michael	I feel we are being forced to accept a point of view from politics to their own gain. Yes I am sure that we as humans have contributed to our current climate, but what about natural causes as volcanos and sandstorms from the Sahara desert? The Mayan culture disappeared ,as per soil samples, because their tropical jungle became dry. No industrial pollution then. Natural progression of climate.
Tom	great. I’ll give it a try, but not tonight.
Tom	Michael, no one is arguing that climate hasn’t changed in the past. The consensus is that this time it’s being caused by human activity. I’m no expert, but I seem to remember that the Mayan thing was a local condition. There are reasons why the climate scientists, and the peer reviewers, don’t think volcanoes or sand storms are the cause. In my view, it’s politics that is driving the denialism. It was not that long ago that the Republican Party had climate change concerns as part of their platform, then some big donors got involved and that all changed.
Dave	Michael, whether or not it is a natural phenomenon, the rate increase in temperature is unprecedented in the history of the human race. It is also far faster than normal evolutionary cycles can adapt in larger animals with longer gestation and maturation periods. For instance, corn yields drop off precipitously as temps rise a couple of degrees, and it's such a critical food source this can have massive worldwide impact.
David	Tim, when Malibu real estate is 1/4 of it's current value I'll reconsider the claim of the ocean rising.
Tom	n a nutshell, this is just some of how we know climate change is real. 1. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know this. It's physics. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory 2. We know what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been in the past. We know this because we've been collecting samples since the 1950s, and we have been analyzing air bubbles trapped in various ice sheets going back to at least 650,000 years. 3. We know what ancient temperatures were. We know this through multiple lines of evidence - ice layers, studying the chemistry of ancient sea shells, fossilized tree ring size, and so on. 4. There has been an increase in global warming every time that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This matches what we would expect given the basic physics that has been demonstrated in the laboratory (see above) 5. Nowhere in the past have CO2 levels spiked anywhere near as high or anywhere near as fast as they have since the start of the industrial revolution 6. We know that spike is the result of human activity. One way we know this is because carbon that is emitted from burning biomass such as fossil fuels has a unique isotope as compared to other carbons. We know it has a unique isotope because it is demonstrable in the lab. The chemistry is clear. 7. We are seeing a steady increase in average worldwide temperatures as we would expect from higher levels of CO2. 8.Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs 9. We are seeing increased acidification of the oceans as predicted from higher CO2 levels 10. We are seeing shrinking glaciers 11. And the evidence goes on and on and on and on. This is what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are saying. It also matches my own personal observations. I've been to Glaciers in the Alps, Iceland, Africa, Andes, Himalayas, and around North America. At all of these they talk about how the glaciers have been shrinking for decades. There are photos for comparison. I have been scuba diving at coral reefs and have gone back years later to find that the color as been all been bleached out just as you’d expect if the oceans are becoming more acidic.
Tim	Tom, he good news is, that according to some, we have 10 years before the end of the earth - so I’m sure someone will figure it by then...
Tom/td>	Tim, Again, no serious scientist is saying that we have 10 years until the end of the earth. They are estimating that we have about 10 years to reverse trends to prevent serious problems by the end of the century and beyond.
Tim	right - and those same folks said Miami would be underwater by now.... This is what happens when those on the left scream “worst ever” for everything - then everything else becomes just noise... I guess we will find out in 10 years if it was too late....
Tom	Who are you citing?
Tim	Tom, the Dems have quoted “worst ever” for everything since the 2016 election. As for climate change - you don’t have to look further than those who are pushing the “Green New Deal”.
	So far your argument seems to go like this: Premise 1: teenage climate activists are hypocritical Premise 2: liberals are hysterical Premise 3: I believe that some people in the past predicted Miami would be underwater by now Premise 4: climate has changed in the past Premise 5: I don’t understand how scientists could know Implied premise : scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying it (and their peer reviewers) are either biased or have never considered objections that amateurs like me can think of and don’t know what they are talking about. Conclusion: it’s a bunch of hype Surprisingly some of the people following this thread seem to think that this is great logic. Is this really the logic of the right? Are you sure that you aren’t subject to emotional biases that you’re fond of accusing everyone in the left of?
Tim	no Tom, you just jumped to conclusions on number 5...and your implied premise. It’s funny that at no point in this discussion have you acknowledged that the left 1) has spewed a bunch of hype on this; and 2) that folks have been incorrect on their predictions in the past. Both those statements are accurate truth.
Tom	Tim, the left is not the same thing as climate scientists. Bashing the left doesn’t give us any insight to whether the scientific consensus is correct. You still haven’t shown where the scientific consensus has been wrong regarding climate trends. You still haven’t provided any citations. Ad hominem attacks are not valid and appear emotional. By the way, I did acknowledge earlier on that there is hysteria on the left just as there is hysteria on the right. I tried to make the point that this is some what irrelevant to determining the truth about what is happening in regards to climate. Indeed this was the whole point of my original comment.
Tim	Tom, there is no emotion here - and there are no attacks - just facts.. It doesn’t take much work to dust off brain cells and recall the claims in the past about “climate change”... which has seen at least a couple name changes in my lifetime (planet is cooling - and the deep freeze is coming, to global warming — everything is melting and cities will soon be under water)... If you want to look them up - there is this thing called Google or Bing. Just realize that when you do that - that there are computers sucking up our valuable electricity to complete that search... so maybe a trip to the library to pull out an old fashion style book and look it up...oh yea... there are valuable green resources used for that as well... If you don’t think the left is pushing this hysteria - then maybe you should think about who is pushing the “Green New Deal”... Think about who implemented the banning of straws - even when you still have plastic lids on the cups - will that next? What are you doing to cut your impact on this? No phones? No cars? No AC? No heat? No using electricity? Yes, the climate is changing and we may or may not be able to do anything about it. You know - you could also always go over to India, China, Russia or the other high polluting countries and plead your case...because until they address the issue - our efforts (no matter how drastic) will only be a drop in the bucket.... So do your feel good stuff and continue to push the hysteria - meanwhile, I’m goin to take a ride in my big gas guzzling jacked-up pickup truck.
Tom	Tim, you’re still not arguing the actual science. Whether I’m a hypocrite or not, whether the left is pushing the Green New Deal or whether I’m willing to my give up my AC or not doesn’t say anything about the data or the truth of the actual science. You seem to be hung up on the fact that the left has generally supported climate science and has accepted the consensus as if that somehow means that the science is untrustworthy. As recently as 2008 the Republican Party’s platform stated that climate change was a problem that needed to be addressed. Who was ‘pushing’ the science then? https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/.../2008-republican-party... I”m told that in other countries there is no left/right divide over the topic of climate change, it’s just science. I’m not so sure that some of your “facts” aren’t more perceptions. My memory is that although some scientists were talking about global cooling in the 70’s, there were more that were talking about warming. Googling around seems to confirm this. This webpage links to studies that confirm this. https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part... Is it possible that your perception was influenced by the popular press and not by what was actually happening in the science community? At any rate the record shows that over time a higher and higher percentage of climate scientists concluded that the earth is warming. The fact that the minority who thought the world might be cooling, changed their minds as more data was collected is not a bad thing. It’s what you would expect. A consensus is built as the evidence supports one theory over others. The fact that a scientist can be found that changed their mind is not evidence that the science is shaky as so many like to claim. If anything it points to it being stronger I have been googling around and reading books (thanks for the sarcasm by the way) and I haven’t found reputable climate scientists who have said we’d be underwater by now except for some misquotes. I was hoping that if you hear something that makes the science not seem credible that you would go out and find out what the scientists are actually saying. As far as what we should be willing to give up is a different discussion and a worthwhile one. It may be that there are things that we can do through technology and elsewise that would alleviate the problem and wouldn’t be that painful. Just dismissing the science and be unwilling to make any effort seems like a recipe for disaster. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-party-platform?fbclid=IwAR0ppbrLpMy4zBkKWDA7c4TpBi9ob0afq-9x4-GEGVIX5nbrqjEO4xkQhJE
Tim	Tom, I’m not hung up on anything. You cannot seem to acknowledge that either the past climate change calls were wrong then - or they are wrong now... Or maybe you could just get a grip and say we aren’t able to predict hurricanes accurately (even when they are right off our shores)... I’ve said that the climate is changing... it has been doing that for thousands of years. However, I’m not buying into everything that is being spewed about this... In a couple of short weeks the next “most important” topic will be presented and you all will be ranting over that.... I’ll be anxiously waiting of course....
Tom	Tim, In my very last comment I acknowledge that there were some climate scientists in the past that thought that the earth might be cooling. Go have a look, you won't have to scroll far. I merely said that they were in the minority and that as more evidence came in over the years fewer and fewer of them maintained that position as it became increasingly clear that warming was more likely. Did you read the link I provided? Here is a graph showing the number of papers arguing cooling, unsure, and warming over time. Predicting hurricanes (and weather) is a very different thing than predicting climate change. One is about an individual events and the other is about long term trends. When I stand on the beach I can’t predict exactly how far each individual wave will roll in, but if I watch long enough I can tell if the tide is coming in or going out. It’s about trends. I agree that our attention span is short. It is a concern that people’s focus will shift. This, of course, says nothing about whether human caused climate change is true or not. Neither does my “having a grip." It’s ok to be skeptical. It’s a good thing. But why not try to find out what the scientists are saying about any objections that you have? There are online resources where you can find out. It’s reasonable to assume that any objections you have have been considered in the studies.

Post settings Labels Published on 9/22/19, 9:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time Permalink Location Options

Ranting About "Climate Hoax"

Paul:  Good stuff here. No facts, just 2 dudes blabbering. Though I tend to lean towards history of the worlds.

https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/469428940068768/

Gene: You want the truth !!!! This guy is the truth !!!!!!

Also check out Micheal savage on KNZZ ... his last 4 shows have been about the facts on the vorstex ice core samples that were taken 2miles into the Antarctic shelf.

Real Data concludes that global warming is a trillion dollar business for the elites.

Oh ... and global warming doesn't exist of course .

Mary: Okay, so you founded the weather channel decades ago. However, the important question should be: Has Mr. Coleman conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change? If so, then please provide your scientific findings. If not, then he's just using his position as founder of the weather channel to promote his "opinion", not based on scientific fact.

Scott: He is a puppet, an old puppet at that....one of the first of many to be put in place. His age does not make him more credible. So I guess we can continue destroying the climate and depleting our resources. Yeah there's nothing man can do to reverse anything....idiots.

Gene: i agree no global warming..just the weather pattern that the earth goes through year to year made by GOD not man...boy GOD is laughing at the liberals who think they have GODs power...man dont make weather

Makes sense to me! It's all about the money. This is why all the crying liberals are against Trump, because, as I have repeatedly said, their gravy train is going to derail. Obama care is making Democrats rich, global warming is making Democrats rich by forcing people to purchase solar and wind power as they watch their stock investments rise. You get the picture. Trump wants to drain the swamp and they are in panic mode.

George: Lol. There is no debate on climate change. It's been changing for millions of years. The debate comes in when it is used as a political platform and spending millions of federal tax dollars around the world. You can debate that all day. This video clip is what it is.

As you pointed out, the founder of the weather channel isn't providing any facts. I would say that he is just throwing out accusations.

Paul: For me the question is whether humans are causing the climate to change in a way that it otherwise wouldn't have.

Of course. Time will tell. Maybe this is the way it's suppose to be? Not like we have history of it happening before. Time will tell all. But we do have a responsibility to be responsible.

Tom: There are many reasons not to offer a rebuttal. It takes way too much time to go through all the lines of evidence. It takes way too much back and forth addressing all the objections that are typically raised. And after all that, people are still just going to believe what they want anyway.

But even so, here in a nutshell is just one line of evidence of how we know climate change is real.

1. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know this. It's physics. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory

2. We know what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been in the past. We know this because we've been collecting samples since the 1950s, and we have been analyzing air bubble trapped in various ice sheets going back to at least 650,000 years.

3. We know what ancient temperatures were. We know this through multiple lines of evidence - ice layers, studying the chemistry of ancient sea shells, fossilized tree ring size, and so on.

4. There has a been an increase in global warming every time that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This matches what we would expect given the basic physics that has been demonstrated in the laboratory (see above)

5. Nowhere in the past have CO2 levels spiked anywhere near as high or anywhere near as fast as they have since the start of the industrial revolution

6. We know that spike is the result of human activity. One way we know this is because carbon that is emitted from burning biomass such as fossil fuels has a unique isotope as compared to other carbons. We know it has a unique isotope because it is demonstrable in the lab. The chemistry is clear.

7. We are seeing a steady increase in average worldwide temperatures as we would expect from higher levels of CO2.

8. We are seeing increased acification of the oceans as predicted from higher CO2 levels

9. We are seeing shrinking glaciers

10. And the evidence goes on and on and on and on.

This is what the overwhelming majority of climate scientist are saying. It also matches my own personal observations. I've been to Glaciers in the Alps, Iceland, Africa, Andes, Himalayas, and around North America. At all of these they talk about how the glaciers have been shrinking for decades. There are photos for comparison.

Still not convinced? Doesn't surprise me. I wont argue.

Paul: And what is wrong with a little cleansing,? Sept 23 it all ends anyway, so go and live! YOLO!

Gene: Human activity on Earth = .00001% of Earth Time ! People who believe Climate Change is due to human activity are the same people I could convince that Dinosaurs died due too many Dino Farts! How did the Ice Age happen??!! Wasn't cruise ships dumping margarita ice overboard. Earth goes through Natural Cycles, just like all life forms and species.

Tom: Your response proves that you don't understand what the climate scientist are saying. Do you really believe that it never occurred to the thousands of scientists studying climate change, and the millions who accept the reality of it, that the climate has changed naturally in the past? It is in fact because of climate scientists that we know what climate was in past.

Gene: The Government only pays scientists who back Global Warming. Billions of dollars...as a "scientist" looking for pay I would do the same thing or defunded. Same thing happened to Ghostbusters

When you dig ice cores in the North and South Poles you are not looking at worldwide data, you are looking at Pole Data that is entirely different from the Equatorial Regions of human civilization. Gas, Microwaves,XRays, etc. have different acceptancies towards Electronic/Earth Grid points of orgin. "Science" needs money just like everyone else, but Dead Wrong on this issue

Tom: I hear this argument a lot. The government will only hire climate scientists that will produce reports claiming global warming is real. Where is the evidence of this? Saying that you would produce false reports to protect your funding is only evidence of what you would do. It says nothing about what scientists who are subject to intense peer review and whose reputations are so important to their careers would do. If government employed scientists were just trying to please their bosses, then you would expect that scientists who worked for the U.S. Government under administrations that were hostile to the idea of human caused climate change, such as George Bush, would have produced reports criticizing the idea of human caused climate change. They didn't do that. They did just the opposite.

And what about the thousands of scientists here in the U.S. and around the globe who are not being paid by the U.S. Government who have studied climate change and have concluded that it is primarily human caused.

And what about scientists who were hired by parties specifically to criticize the idea of climate change, but ended up confirming it. One famous case is that of Richard Muller. He is a physicist (not a climatologist) and was a well known and vocal climate change denier. He was hired by the Koch brothers to study climate change in hopes of poking holes in the science. After studying the data and the science for a couple of years he changed is mind and concluded that not only is global warming happening, it is almost entirely caused by human activity.

Attacking the motivation of experts is a lawyers trick. It's just an attempt to distract attention from the actual evidence.

Gene: Tom, good talk. I appreciate anyone who gives time, thought and true effort into any discussion. I am sure that since The Industrial Revolution mankind has emitted enough CO2 to tilt the scales of Earth's temperature, but this is just a blip. When I look into the future I invision a museum of "human past" and when they look at 1800 - 2100 people will be so confused at how stupid we were. Past civilizations thought they were invincible through technology, yet they were thier own worst enemy. You only learn from mistakes and unfortunately history repeats itself. I agree we need clean nrg, but we are globally economic dependent on fossil fuels. Sadly this is a problem for the future

Tom: likewise Chris. I appreciate your openness. I agree that we're dependent on fossil fuels and I know that there are problems with renewable energy sources. And I still drive my car and maybe that makes me a hypocrite.

I do think that in any question such as climate change you need good data to base your decisions on. It's ok and even desirable to question the methodology of collecting the data and the conclusions drawn from the data, but any discussion without data is just conjecture. I'm disturbed by current efforts to do away with our data collecting ability.

Anyway I appreciate your listening to me.

Muslim Heaven

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/d6zlwl/assalamalaikum_sisters_and_brothers_so_i_was/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

OP	n Christian heaven, there is no gold, mansions, islands, women or treasury, people won't even keep their human body. In Islamic heaven, it is as physical as this life but it is perfect, there are women, gold, treasure, mansions, food and anything a person desires, it is eternal pleasure. Also, God isn't in paradise, He is above his creation, but paradise is located in seventh heaven, whereas Throne of God is above all creation. In Christian heaven, there is no gold, mansions, islands, women or treasury, people won't even keep their human body. In Islamic heaven, it is as physical as this life but it is perfect, there are women, gold, treasure, mansions, food and anything a person desires, it is eternal pleasure. Also, God isn't in paradise, He is above his creation, but paradise is located in seventh heaven, whereas Throne of God is above all creation
Tom	I’m interested in your statement “there are women... anything a person desires” Are these women who were on earth and went to heaven? What about what these women want?
Another Poster/td>	Do they have women in there? Why? Shouldn't one's wife be enough?
OP	It is called paradise for a reason and women will also get likewise, although there are different levels of paradise, so whoever was more pious on earth gets more in paradise. Here is how we know that ''enough'' is never in human nature, like even the wealthier person in the world will take a hundred dollar from the street, so everyone wants more. So, paradise is created to be a place of eternal happiness.
Tom	I’m still unclear as to what you’re saying. Are you saying that you’ll get more women than just your wife in Paradise? Does it matter how she feels about it? When you say that women will get likewise, are you saying that they will get multiple men? Will you have to let your wife have multiple men, or will you not care if she has multiple men once you’re in paradise. As the ratio of men to women on earth is roughly equal, does that mean in paradise that men and women will share each other’s husbands and wives so that they can have multiple partners? Or are there women in paradise who were there all along and were not born on earth so that each man can have multiple women? I suppose there would also have to be additional men provided so each woman who makes it to heaven can have multiple men? I’m just wondering how the numbers can balance out. Will you be ok with your wife being with these additional men? Should she be ok with you being with the additional women? When you said that there were different levels of paradise were you implying that women are on a lower level? Do they only get one man? Even so, I am still wondering how the numbers balance out so each man can have multiple women. Is there consent? What if you desire some women but the women don’t desire you? Are they given to you anyway? In that case, is it paradise for them? Would you be happy knowing that women don’t really want you? Or are their hearts changed so that they will desire you? In that case, is there free will in paradise?

Evidence for Noah (Muslim)

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/d6zlwl/assalamalaikum_sisters_and_brothers_so_i_was/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

u/Edward_zigma	ssalamalaikum Sisters and brothers. So I was reading about Noah PBUH , and I really I found a ground breaking discovery in history.And I am sharing this first here on Reddit. I will talk about Islamic relations at last and what I am trying to tell here is, I think it is a very big breakthrough with scientific facts to make establishment of prophets more stronger, as Noah was also muslim. Please please please....read this till the end. At start I am just trying to make base so that you can understamd what I am talking about. P.S. This article does not talk about Hazrat Muhammad PBUH. Because here I am talking about more old facts. First lets talk what scientific facts and some history to make you use to about current knowledge and establishment of humans in the world and how they spread. We got human proofs from around the world. Some were as old as 36000 years old. But when it comes to first human settlements the line is little bit unclear. We discovered agriculture somewhat around 8000BC-7000BC. There were various human settlement around this world. But there is one migration which seems very interesting. This was the movements of Steppe pastoralists. For some pretext I want to tell you that steppe pastoralists were people who started lived above(north of) the black sea after 3500BC(most probably). Now there was a civilisation known as mesopotamia. This civilisation got destroyed mysteriously (afaik), and after that there were steppe pastoralists north of black sea. These pastoralists moved west and east in 3000BC. Those who moved west, travelled to europe and establish civilisations there like greece and others. These steppe pastoralists were known as Indo-european coz there migration and settlements were spread from India to europe. Thos who moved east first travelled to central asia and then some to Russia and some to India. And it is told that these pastoralists brought culture to India. Now there are two supports for this. First the languages such as latin, greece, sanskrit all shows similarity in words and consonants and grammer, which is a clear sign that these all languages evolved from same branch i.e. all are Indo european languages. Second support is that the presence of similar haplotype(common patterns in our genes to prove inheritance) to prove the common ancestry. When Steppe pastoralists started moving they had a common haplotype which is R1A. This R1A split into two haplotype when migration started. Thats how we came to knoe that Steppe pastoralists started moving in different directions. Because genetics tells that these two subhaplogroups split around 3000 BC. Z93 and Z282. Z282 is found in 91.6 %in Europeans and Z93 is found in 98% of Asians at present. This clearly tells 2 things now. First almost all the populatiom is present world is from those pastoralists above the black sea. And second, that this is a severe head blow to hindu culture of Indian subcontinent, who thought upto now that their culture was indeginous to India only. These facts now totally discard the genuinity of Non-Abrahamic religions as it came to this point that it seems that their own culture was a result of emmigration. From this we can came to conclusion that present modern day world is from those steppe pastoralists. I am very excited to share the facts I found. I really found some ground breaking relations between these Steppe pastoralists and this is the first site where I am sharing this. Now the serious matter. Do you know Noah was from Mesopotamia too. We do not know exact dates about Noah, but from dates of Mesopotamia we can make a guess that it should be around 5000BC-3500BC. Next, we also know that Noah made a ship, and thats how he survived the flood. The 44th verse of the chapter Hud: “When the word went forth: "O earth! swallow up thy water, and O sky! withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated, and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and the word went forth: "Away with those who do wrong!" We can assume that everything was destroyed after the great flood. If we join the date of mesopotamia destruction i.e. 3500 BC and assume that its same year of great flood. After some days(in the same year i.e. somewhere around 3500BC), Noah landed onn Mount Judi(stated in Quran). And you know now that Steppe pastoralists started moving around 3000BC(age of Noah was 950 years). And now's time for strongest relation. Do you know where Mount Judi is.? It's just below Black sea. Everything fits now. They had 500 years(3500BC TO 3000 BC). They might have crossed/ travelled North of Black sea. And from there these people travelled all around the world. This came as a serious headblow to all other Non-Abrahamic religions specially in South Asia, India. The dates are fitting. The geography is fitting. We muslims are on our Imaan. But this world wants proofs. And I think this is one of the greatest revealations of this time. There is no doubt there is none worthy to worship but Allah. And Muhammad was his messeneger. May Allah forgive me if I am wrong somewhere. I call to all the muslim sisters and brothers, who know about history, genetics and other fields to share their facts regarding this. Assalamalaikum.
onetimehelper	Where are your sources? Sorry, but as a Medical Student, I just can't see numbers and claims without actual evidence or a study. It sounds interesting, but the manner it's presented seems suspect. I've heard discussions in the mosque with similar passion, but I promise you, without sources or real data it only makes the religion you associate with look easily swayed from the perspective of educated outsiders - who are already biased to think they way. And for our brothers and sisters, they might end up spreading misinformation, when one of the major points of our Deen is to stand upon the Truth (Haqq) - this is why Islam produced the scientific method, and the scales of evidence. There are some issues with some of your arguments but without any evidence to back your claims, I respectfully do not see the point of discussion. So please upload some sources, since you claim to have made this discovery alone somehow and you do not seem to be a scholar on either Archeo, Anthro or Sociology - so based on my Deen of truth, I honestly can't accept what you claim with my heart and brain, even if it looks and sounds good to my eyes and ears. Thank you brother/sister. Salaam.
Tom	I’m not a Muslim, and I say this with respect, but I have to agree with onetimehelper in that this theory does come across as confirmation bias. It seems like you think that you’ve come across some evidence that confirms a belief that you already have and that you’ve excitedly latched on to it while ignoring all kinds of evidence that refutes the Noah’s ark story. And the problems with the Noah’s ark story are many. How did 2 of every animal species get to the ark? Did kangaroos swim across oceans and hop thousands of miles to get to the ark and travel back again? Did animals that are only adapted to a specific climate such as penguins make the journey? Did slow moving animals like sloths that have a top speed of .24 kilometers an hour and sleep 15-18 hours a day swim across an ocean and travel thousands of miles to the ark and back? What about all the animals that feed on only one specific species of plant. How did the plants get to the ark so those animals could feed? During the flood was the water salty? If so, how did the fresh water fish survive? If not, how did the salt water fish survive. Were fish on the ark? How did the 8 people on the ark feed the all those animals? No modern zoo of that size could operate with only 8 staff members. Why don’t we see evidence of a global flood in the geological record at the time frame of the story? The DNA evidence that was cited as evidence of common ancestry between pastoralists and other groups is also is used to determine common ancestry between humans and other species which raises a lot of other questions. The list of problems go on and on. Of course you can always explain away these problems by just citing divine intervention, but if you’re going to ignore counter evidence in such a manner, why bother looking for confirming evidence?

February 28, 2019

Jackie Doe I do not understand quantum physics, but I don’t doubt that it exists. I do not understand all of God’s whys and wherefores, but I don’t doubt they exist.

Tom Gibson Jackie Blundell I also don’t understand quantum mechanics. There are many things in science that I don’t understand. But the way science goes about figuring things out seems more reliable than the way that religion does. In science a hypothesis is presented and people think up ways to test it. What would we expect to see if the hypothesis is correct? What observations would prove it incorrect? Then it is tested and retested. Then other people scrutinized the tests looking for flaws. Then others conduct their own tests. If the hypothesis doesn’t stand up to all this, then it isn’t accepted. 

I don’t understand quantum mechanics but I understand the reliability of the method that was used to discover it. I know that over a hundred years of increasingly sophisticated experiments have confirmed it over and over again. I know that test results have been the same regardless of where they were conducted in the world, and regardless of the political persuasion or religious beliefs of the person conducting the test. I know that it is even possible for me to test it at home using the double slit experiment. 

Even though I don’t understand quantum mechanics, it seems a very different thing for me accept it than to accept other things I don’t understand when I have to accept them based on faith.