Jump to content

Global warming???


Recommended Posts

For those who factor in faith...

Sitting in church one Sunday a couple of years ago, our pastor addressed global warming briefly in conjunction with his sermon, and it made great sense to me that God has always made His followers responsible for stewardship of resources. However, for those of us that firmly "believe"...it is comforting to know that God created all of this, and for man to think he can destroy what God created...especially in light of the fact that God proclaimed He would "pull the plug" at a time of His choosing...well, once again man tries to step in and play God.

For me...it is over when He says it's over, and this is just one less thing I have to worry about. "A time to sow, a time to reap...a time for all season's under God"...and the cycle goes on.

Shotster

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rhode Island

    8

  • gungho

    7

  • rprovines

    5

  • Rick T

    5

I heard about the global warming and how it would raise the sea level so I ran out and bought an ocean view property. As soon as it becomes ocean front I'm selling and retiring on the profits.

Hate to burst your bubble but it looks like you will be working for awhile longer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ....siddall

Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warning!

It depends on what is a long time.  A recent Nova program predicted that sea level will rise 3 feet by 2050.  A foot from melting ice of Greenland, a foot from melting ice from Antarctica, and a foot from melting mountain glacial ice.  I think the folks predicting are scientists with Phds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 I think the folks predicting are scientists with Phds.

and so am I (but I am a Material Scientist and not a climatologist).

One thing I have learned with dealing with Ph.D.'s is to look to the source of their funding and the implications thereof (follow the money).

If global warming is proven to be not valid, all these Ph.D.'s are out of a job at worst or lose their funding at best.  They have a vested and biased interest in proving global warming to be true.  Thus the climatologist in England that lied, falsified date, and destroyed data.

Follow the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard about the global warming and how it would raise the sea level so I ran out and bought an ocean view property. As soon as it becomes ocean front I'm selling and retiring on the profits.

Hate to burst your bubble but it looks like you will be working for awhile longer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ....siddall

That's OK. My wife buys skinless chicken 'cause she says it will make me live longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks about this issue in terms of the global carbon cycle:

Pre:

Presentation1.jpg

Post:

Presentation2.jpg

No one sees a problem here?  Apparently the global carbon cycle is not important?  There's no way that fundamentally changing it is going to have negative consequences?

To be honest I could care less what "scientists" on either side of this issue say.  It's conceptually very simple to me.

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have learned with dealing with Ph.D.'s is to look to the source of their funding and the implications thereof (follow the money).

That a pretty convenient way to justify your position.

I don't believe that smoking is bad for you.  Scientists that work to document the negative effects of smoking are funded through anti-smoking $$$'s that come about through lawsuits of the tobacco companies.  Thus, they have a vested and biased interest in proving that smoking causes health problems, because the source of their funding depends on it.  Therefore, we should not believe their results that say smoking is bad for us; the opposite is true and smoking is actually good for you.

I believe we are ruining our wildlife populations by hunting them.  Many wildlife research projects are funded by $$$'s derived from hunting license sales and sales of firearms and ammunition.  Sometimes they study the effects of hunting on wildlife populations.  Thus, they have a vested and biased interest in the continuation of sport hunting, because their funding depends on it.  Therefore, we should not trust results that tell us hunting has no effect on populations; the opposite must be true and we should end sport hunting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The optimist in me says we're going to resolve all the questions of global warming today. The pessimist says Brad is going to end up shutting this thread down.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 I think the folks predicting are scientists with Phds.

and so am I (but I am a Material Scientist and not a climatologist).

One thing I have learned with dealing with Ph.D.'s is to look to the source of their funding and the implications thereof (follow the money).

If global warming is proven to be not valid, all these Ph.D.'s are out of a job at worst or lose their funding at best.  They have a vested and biased interest in proving global warming to be true.  Thus the climatologist in England that lied, falsified date, and destroyed data.

Follow the money.

There is something to this.  ALL of the few major scientists denying global warming have received money from oil companies and coal companies, their foundations, and their executives.  

Those supporting climate change have received money from hundreds of private foundations, medical institutions, think tanks, the US and NATO militaries, university endowments, a variety of government agencies all over the world, international organizations, etc.

I wonder who's more dependent upon whom for funding?

Close it down, Brad.  

As for the religious determinist, you might ask your pastor why he believes that the good lord didn't give man free will.  If he believes that there is free will - then his thesis is not tenable because that means we have the ability to make mistakes and suffer the consequences.  If we screw up the climate it isn't because it was predestined, it's because we chose to ignore the clear warnings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
R.I. maybe you should be more concerned with water vapor since it accounts for about 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect.

I didn't say anything about warming.  I just said that changing the Earth's carbon cycle probably isn't going to be without negative consequences.

Do you believe the global carbon cycle is not important?

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites
Close it down, Brad.  

I hope that doesn't happen.  I'm enjoying the thread.  No feathers getting ruffled, just a civil exchange of ideas.  Until it derails, I hope this one can continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are talking about climate change (global warming) then CO2 emissions (esp. man made) are rather insignificant when compared to water vapor.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...