Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[Rufus_1611]

The earths climate change has nothing to do with God's judgement. But keep flipin maybe you will figure it out.

Do you have more to go off of or is this just because you say so?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Do you have more to go off of or is this just because you say so?

Sure.

In 2 Peter 3:12 it is important to look at the chapter as a whole which is always the case in any passage. The Judgment here is described as an instantaneous event rather than a slow oncoming as is the current earths cyclic climate changes.

Rev 16:8 Here we have one of the bowl judgments being dispersed. you would have to believe that we are currently in the tribulation period to apply this passage to the current climate changes.

The judgment of God on this world will be quick as is described in scripture. And I will not be here for it.

the idea that the earths cyclic climate changes are related to God's judgment on a sinful world is just as absurd as the assertion that the KJV is God. However, it does lack the characteristics to be heretical as the KJV thing is.

 

[DeeJay]

What does that mean? I'm staring at snow outside of my window in a region that typically doesn't get snow, it proves nothing. However, the fact that the ice caps on Mt. Hood are pretty much gone is pretty interesting. The fact that Portage Glacier in Alaska is now a lake, that's interesting. Glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising but we close our eyes, cover our ears, and speak no global warming. I'm not talking about causes or solutions, I am talking about being honest with ourselves that something very serious is happening or has happened to our environment.

Thats all good and your opinion should be heard. But it is extream arogance for these scientists to think that they have all the answers and the debate should be closed.

All discoverys have been born out of debate with opinions and desent. If you have a theory the only way to test it is to allow and debate desent.

How sure were people who thought that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that fire water and wind were the elements that made life, etc.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Thats all good and your opinion should be heard. But it is extream arogance for these scientists to think that they have all the answers and the debate should be closed.

All discoverys have been born out of debate with opinions and desent. If you have a theory the only way to test it is to allow and debate desent.

Well stated and I agree.

 

[Dragoon68]

According to one source, that pushes the global warming theory, from about 1850 to 1920 there was no real increase in global mean surface temperature. From 1920 to 1940 there was an increase of about 0.54 deg F. From 1940 to 1960 there was no real increase. That's strange considering all the increased industrial activity and wars of the times. From 1960 to 2000 there was an increase of about 0.76 deg F. That must have been because of all the extensive environmental controls we added during that time. Relative to absolute zero of -460 deg F this translates to an increase of one quarter percent over 150 years. That's not much in the world of science and engineering unless, of course, you have an agenda to push. More importantly, 150 years is not much time in the total timeline of the earth's history whether you believe it's thousands or millions of years old. Not many things can even be measured to such accuracy. Global temperature records are very recent. We don't know is how much it increased or decreased over the last 2,000 or more years but yet some geographical descriptions suggest there have been significant changes and they weren't the the last few hundred years. What we don't know for certain is what actually caused these changes. There are other forces at work besides man and his machines. For example, see http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html for a USGS report on the impact of volcanoes. No, I'm not claiming this is "the" cause but rather just saying there are other factors besides those of mankind. Man obviously didn't cause the ice age and that was, apparently, a very significant change. I'm sure we have an effect upon the earth and we do need to be good stewards of that which God has given us but I also think we can greatly over-estimate our impact to the total mass of the earth's seas, mountains, and skies. We also can divert a whole lot of our energy to "fixing" problems that don't really exist or cause other problems we don't think about until the burden hits us later. I respect science and engineering but remember that it is some scientists that push upon us the theory of evolution with its alleged "conclusive proof" that we are descendants of primates! That "proof" is very shaky even from a purely scientific point of view. Global warming based solely upon man's actions and, more so, changing it based upon man's actions are, to me, equally shaky theories.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Dragoon68,

I haven't seen you post on the board in a LONG time. Welcome back to the party.

I am not sure that I believe in global warming, although I think there is strong evidence of local damage to the environment. For example, the effects of acid rain are a type of local damage. I respect Al Gore, and enjoyed his documentary (though I don't agree with him on everything), but I am a believer that we can reverse the local damage we cause.

Good post though - made me think.

I trust that you and yours are well,
BiR

 

[LadyEagle]

The judgment of God on this world will be quick as is described in scripture. And I will not be here for it.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[hillclimber1]

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjA3OWNmN2RhMjJjNjE1ODRjYWQ4ZDA0YWRmNTkwY2U=

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

I believe this....hill

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

From the article:
Major corporations and environmental groups on Friday announced what they called an "unprecedented alliance" to push for quicker action against global warming — urging lawmakers to pass mandatory curbs on carbon emissions, in contrast to President Bush's voluntary approach.

 

[Dragoon68]

Dragoon68,

I haven't seen you post on the board in a LONG time. Welcome back to the party.

I am not sure that I believe in global warming, although I think there is strong evidence of local damage to the environment. For example, the effects of acid rain are a type of local damage. I respect Al Gore, and enjoyed his documentary (though I don't agree with him on everything), but I am a believer that we can reverse the local damage we cause.

Good post though - made me think.

I trust that you and yours are well,
BiR

Thanks BIR! I hope likewise for you and your family.

Here's a link I found today to some comments - pro and con - on this subject:

http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650

It's a "heated" discussion - that much is for certain!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

No man-made global warming...

What if you are wrong, and the experts are correct?

 

[Pete]

I've been trying to work out reasons for popularity of this Chicken Little stuff but just haven't been able to...

I think most Christians (or anyone with some sort of theist world-view come to think of it) would say that God (or their "god") has the ultimate say in how long the planet has or doesn't have. I can't see how atheists would have a problem with it if they were consistent, after all, all the "goo to you by way of the zoo" documentalrys say we just got here by chance and are in a "cosmic shooting gallery" just waiting for the big one to hit.

About the only thing I can come up with is it's promoted by...I dunno...maybe some kind of quasi-pantheist-gaiaists? ....and how many of them could there possibly be

HELP!!

 

[The Galatian]

The evidence is now converting people formerly convinced that global warming was "politically incorrect."

Evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/n...998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

CEOS of large corporations:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

Even the world's greatest reality-denier has conceded:
In a striking about-face, the Bush administration has acknowledged that Earth is warming, and that the most likely cause is burning fossil fuels.
http://whyfiles.org/updates/080global_warm/index.html

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

What if you are wrong, and the experts are correct?

Hey Terry,

I think you make a great point. I am not sure how I feel about "global warming;" however, only the most foolish among us would dispute the environmental damage we have done on a local scale.

The thing that most perplexes me is the veracity with which some are attacked who would dare to suggest that global warming does exist. For example, Melanie Morgan wrote a hit piece against the Weather Channel a few days ago ( http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636 ), accusing them of making a "move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy." [Of course, this isn't the first time that Melanie Morgan has crafted a hit piece, is it?]

Why is so much anger directed at those who would suggest that global warming does exist? I have never understood that.

Regards to you and yours,
BiR

 

[hillclimber1]

What if you are wrong, and the experts are correct?

If we can head them off long enough, their grab for America's economic stability will be stalled long enough for the rapture to make it moot.

 

[hillclimber1]

I've been trying to work out reasons for popularity of this Chicken Little stuff but just haven't been able to...

I think most Christians (or anyone with some sort of theist world-view come to think of it) would say that God (or their "god") has the ultimate say in how long the planet has or doesn't have. I can't see how atheists would have a problem with it if they were consistent, after all, all the "goo to you by way of the zoo" documentalrys say we just got here by chance and are in a "cosmic shooting gallery" just waiting for the big one to hit.

About the only thing I can come up with is it's promoted by...I dunno...maybe some kind of quasi-pantheist-gaiaists? ....and how many of them could there possibly be

HELP!!

Their minions number in the very high millions and growing.

 

[hillclimber1]

The evidence is now converting people formerly convinced that global warming was "politically incorrect."

Evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/n...998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

CEOS of large corporations:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

Even the world's greatest reality-denier has conceded:
In a striking about-face, the Bush administration has acknowledged that Earth is warming, and that the most likely cause is burning fossil fuels.
http://whyfiles.org/updates/080global_warm/index.html

Oh yeah, I think it's a done deal, now that GWB has caved.

 

[hillclimber1]

Why is so much anger directed at those who would suggest that global warming does exist? I have never understood that.

Regards to you and yours,
BiR

The issue is the cause. Is it man caused? I think that's impossible. How about higher output by the sun? Seems plausible to me. Is it vastly changing currents in the seas? Seems plausible. These two issues alone could have influence thousands of times greater than man. IMHO

 

[777]

Yes, somehow man is causing global warming on Jupiter and the Sun, too, but I think it's all those "undocumented guest workers" they've got.

* cough * junk science * cough *

Oh yeah, I think it's a done deal, now that GWB has caved.

There's been no "cave", this is just more shoody reporting from the fair and balanced MSM:

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: “I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It’s wrong.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e43fe006-a58b-11db-a4e0-0000779e2340.html

That's a pretty strong denial, we'll see.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

The issue is the cause. Is it man caused? I think that's impossible. How about higher output by the sun? Seems plausible to me. Is it vastly changing currents in the seas? Seems plausible. These two issues alone could have influence thousands of times greater than man. IMHO

What evidence would support your belief that it's "impossible?" In other words, what body of research would you cite as the rationale for claiming that it is "impossible." Note that the other two issues are "plausible," yet the idea of man causing global warming is "impossible."

Like I said, I am not sure, but I would never claim that it is "impossible."

Regards,
BiR