[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

+1 on the first part, but I disagree at the end. Mankind is only where we are today because of learning from our world. The reason we don't know everything is that we're still learning, and the reason we didn't know everything thousands of years ago is that it takes time.

And yes, the fact that we're still learning means that we're wrong about a lot. In fact, the more we learn, the more things we can see we're wrong about. But I don't see that as a good enough reason to give up and stop trying.

I did state in the same post you are quoting that I'm not objecting to the study of the consequences of global warming or climate change.

"This isn't to say that study of global climate change is worthless, only that despite our best efforts, we will still be wrong about the future."

My overall point is that it is human nature to assume any change is bad, and we're conditioned to believe that many things are trending in a negative direction given the overwhelming negative focus from the media.

*Below not directed at Charlie.

I question whether global warming is a net (all things considered) bad, and if it makes sense for humanity to give it the amount of attention it currently consumes. My skepticism of global worrying is born out of my dislike for waste and inefficiency, not out of love for burning fossil fuels or drilling in ANWAR. It's entirely possible (probable) to devote an inordinate amount of time, effort, and resources, and unduly strain relationships with others under the pretense of preserving the environment as it stands today.

There are many more immediate concerns affecting well-being that deserve greater attention. Most of us will die of cardiovascular disease or cancer, which should be of great concern to us. Much of crime and poverty is related to substance abuse or mental disorder, and this directly impacts both the dependent/disordered victims, and the victims of their crime.

I can go on and on with things more deserving of attention, again, not to say that climate change is deserving of no attention, just that it is outsized. I'm also calling for rational media coverage of the topic of climate change. A news outlet shouldn't fear offending their left-leaning base by reporting on, say, the benefits of global warming.

The news should be concerned with the facts, and as Ben Shapiro often says "the facts don't care about your feelings".

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'll go out on a limb here; there's no conflict between free will and determinism, as the former requires the latter in order to function. One can consider Universe as a giant clockwork or pinball game, except for intent. It operates on a quantum level and cascades up to the macro level.

Ontopic: What causes the butterfly to flap it's wings which causes the storm halfway around the world later?

Now I've successfully steered the conversation towards something interesting . I see free will and determinism as a paradox; both valid, but in opposition to each other. In my view, we are free to choose what we were always destined to choose. While I acknowledge that destiny implies that individual actions were inevitable, I don't see it as grounds for dismissing accountability. Holding people accountable for actions has an enormous influence over the behavior they are destined to choose.

That which causes the butterfly to flap its wings is the very thing that causes everything; the first cause. Now the question is, what came before the first cause?