Talk to me about Global Warming

[Alenee]

What is the general overview of why warming is such a big problem? From what I gather, the globe has always been warming, but I know there are obviously those who believe our emissions in the last 100 (or more) years are causing it at a faster rate.

[Colleen]

What is the general overview of why warming is such a big problem? From what I gather, the globe has always been warming, but I know there are obviously those who believe our emissions in the last 100 (or more) years are causing it at a faster rate.

Yes, the rate of change is key. There were an array of thoughtful opinions (on both sides of the issue) offered in this previous discussion: http://67.202.21.157/forums/showthread.php?t=5170&highlight=global. Not that it isn't worth talking about more/again; just thought I'd offere that for starters.:)

[Alenee]

I just *knew* it had been discussed...right before I joined the boards! Thanks for this link. It's a long read but I'm going to try to wade through it.:)

[Kathy in MD]

What is the general overview of why warming is such a big problem? From what I gather, the globe has always been warming, but I know there are obviously those who believe our emissions in the last 100 (or more) years are causing it at a faster rate.

I'll try to do a fast overview. Hopefully someone will have a good, thorough web site to direct you to.

First off, the globe has not always been warming. However the climate has always been changing. Until recently it was always thought to have occurred slowly, but recent research indicates that the climate can hold fairly steady until a critical tipping point is hit and then sudden changes occur.

But the current problem is more critical because we're talking about OUR species - finding places to house them and being able to feed them. We're also more aware of the importance of other species, flora, fauna and microbes, in our health.

A few key points:

1) Ocean level rises - this is projected based on both melting glaciers and hot water expands. I forget what the latest % of humans live within a few hundred feet of sea level and close to the ocean. This will lead to mass relocations and possibly very expensive ocean control devices. Combined with this is projected larger storm surges, which will further erode the land and affect those who live at slightly higher elevations.

2) Rainfall patterns - Our modern crops are bred to closely match the current climate and soil conditions in the more industrial agricultural countries. We're currently mining the aquafers under the plains to grow a lot of our basic grains. Further reductions in rainfall combined with increased temperatures would lead to greatly reduced crop yields. And warmer temperatures further north wouldn't mean that we could automatically move our crops further north because boreal soils (soils developed under northern evergreens) are very different from soils developed under grasslands.

3) Warmer temperatures in the temperate areas will allow current "tropical" deseases to migrate north.

4) There is some fear that the Gulf Stream would be "shut off" by massive amounts of melting glaciers. This would/could turn much of Europe's climate into a climate similar to northern Canada. This would further reduce food production.

5) Earlier melting of snow packs - many areas depend on melting snow packs to provide drinking and irrigation water.

These are just a few of the concerns. Some are relatively new concerns because of improved computer models and new field research. The computer models are tested against past weather reports for the last hundred, hundred and fifty years.

[Remudamom]

My opinion, which I probably expressed in the other thread, is that it's all globaloney. God's got it all under control, I don't have to worry about it.

[Colleen]

My opinion, which I probably expressed in the other thread, is that it's all globaloney. God's got it all under control, I don't have to worry about it.

Yes, those of us who believe God has control don't have to "worry", per se. But His control doesn't asbolve us of educating ourselves and being responsive. I am not talking here solely about global warming. Sick horse? Why deal with it? God's in control! Car making an odd sound? No worries. God'll deal with it. Interesting how people wash their hands of responsibility ~ and rest easy in God's controlling arms ~ on a rather selective basis.

[Parabola]

My opinion, which I probably expressed in the other thread, is that it's all globaloney. God's got it all under control, I don't have to worry about it.

Must be nice to be this certain. Me, I'm quite worried. I'm pretty sure the only one who can get us out of this mess is ourselves....and we are not doing so good so far.

[Remudamom]

Yes, those of us who believe God has control don't have to "worry", per se. But His control doesn't asbolve us of educating ourselves and being responsive. I am not talking here solely about global warming. Sick horse? Why deal with it? God's in control! Car making an odd sound? No worries. God'll deal with it. Interesting how people wash their hands of responsibility ~ and rest easy in God's controlling arms ~ on a rather selective basis.

Very true, perhaps I just don't feel that God has put global warming on my responsiblity list. I see a very big difference in stewardship of my life and trying to save the world. I know what to do for an injured horse. I'm not convinced that global warming is something I need to get excited about. All you have to do is to google it, and you can see that there are just as many scientists out there saying that it isn't a problem, that the earth goes through weather cycles. One site says it's two degrees hotter every 100 years? I need more than that to get my panties in a wad, much less give out ANR.

[Colleen]

Very true, perhaps I just don't feel that God has put global warming on my responsiblity list.

So if you don't feel led to respond to an issue (or potential issue), it must be nonsense? How does that follow?

I see a very big difference in stewardship of my life and trying to save the world.

What's the difference? They go hand in hand.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet.

A good way to ease into a study of Global Warming if you don't have a science background is to watch "An Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[Remudamom]

So if you don't feel led to respond to an issue (or potential issue), it must be nonsense? How does that follow?



What's the difference? They go hand in hand.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I simply stated my opinion that it's baloney, and if you want to make me out to be irresponsible, go right ahead. I am taking care of my part of the earth because I can. Sorry if you think I'm not living up to my responsibilities.

[Alenee]

Ouch Colleen! Let's not go hurling insults here! I just wanted to know what both sides see from a purely scientific viewpoint, not your opinions of those who disagree with you.

[newbie]

I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet.

A good way to ease into a study of Global Warming if you don't have a science background is to watch "An Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

I agree and on another note, someone needs to find or start a No drilling petition so I can sign it, I have seen two pro. in the past two wks.

Thats not fair.
Jet

[Remudamom]

Ouch Colleen! Let's not go hurling insults here! I just wanted to know what both sides see from a purely scientific viewpoint, not your opinions of those who disagree with you.

I think she just feels very strongly about this. We all have our buttons!:)

[Parabola]

I agree and on another note, someone needs to find or start a No drilling petition so I can sign it, I have seen two pro. in the past two wks.

Thats not fair.
Jet

Pass that petition my way when you're done signing it.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I agree and on another note, someone needs to find or start a No drilling petition so I can sign it, I have seen two pro. in the past two wks.

Thats not fair.
Jet

Considering the effectiveness of petitions- especially online ones- I'm not worried. Something much more effective is to call or write directly to your representatives and let them know how you feel. Also, it's about time to vote again. :D

[newbie]

I dont think anyone has buttons or has hurled insults. I think we are all very strong individuals with certain opinions. And when you throw , religion or politics or even green issues in the mix, everyone has their opinions and beliefs.

I think we all respect each other , because as I have seen on alot of polls we all have a ton in common.

Jet:grouphug:

[newbie]

Pass that petition my way when you're done signing it.

I am not tech savvy, so can I pass the torch to someone else to start one.

Jet

Seriously, I cant even attach a link. I barely got an avatar and think I am cool.

[Colleen]

Ouch Colleen! Let's not go hurling insults here!

Can you explain to me how the questions I posed equate with hurling insults? Thank you.

[Parabola]

Considering the effectiveness of petitions- especially online ones- I'm not worried. Something much more effective is to call or write directly to your representatives and let them know how you feel. Also, it's about time to vote again. :D

No you're right. They're not particularly effective policy changers are they? Why a bunch of people willing enough to sign their name to an issue doesn't wield more political weight is a travesty of sorts. So I guess the benefit of petition leans more for the signers than the politicians. Just sort of a way to make your stand known. Analogous to standing up for what you believe in.

[Perry]

Here's (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/567728305) one.

[Perry]

Others here. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/environment-and-wildlife/oil-drilling/all)

[Parabola]

Here's (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/567728305) one.

Care2 rocks! I've signed a lot of their petitions over the years. Great big wonderful site, worth exploring.

[Remudamom]

I think we all respect each other.

Jet:grouphug:

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm getting a pretty strong indicator of disrespect.

[Alenee]

Can you explain to me how the questions I posed equate with hurling insults? Thank you.

Okay, after re-reading your post, it wasn't a direct insult per se, but honestly, the way in which you stated it *seemed* insulting. I don't know how else to describe it to you.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

No you're right. They're not particularly effective policy changers are they? Why a bunch of people willing enough to sign their name to an issue doesn't wield more political weight is a travesty of sorts. So I guess the benefit of petition leans more for the signers than the politicians. Just sort of a way to make your stand known. Analogous to standing up for what you believe in.

Well- it's the nature of petitions in and of themselves. Anybody can make up signatures- especially online. I've signed my name as stuff like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse on a few just to prove a point.

To sign a name to an issue so it will count, I still say mailings, phone calls, or visits are a good way to go. At one time, I passed out stamped enveloped to people in my community to actually get them to send mail to a representative. Forming groups in your community is good too- there is power in organized numbers.

People who hold elected offices sometimes go under the rule of thumb that for every one person who takes the time to call/write in, there are 10 more that didn't but have the same opinion and will vote in that direction.

[Colleen]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I simply stated my opinion that it's baloney, and if you want to make me out to be irresponsible, go right ahead.

I'm not trying to make you out to be anything. If you feel irresponsible, so be it. If not, so be it. What I am trying to understand is how you arrived at the conclusion that global warming is globaloney. You initially shared your opinion that the issue is all "globaloney". Since your next sentence asserted that God's got it all under control, I assumed that you see a connection between the two. That is, regardless of what is or isn't happening with global climate change, it's all in God's hands. I pointed out that God's control doesn't preclude being responsive to an issue. You agreed and said perhaps you don't feel God has put global warming on your responsibility list.

I asked what I consider a question worthy of consideration. If a problem exists ~ or a potential problem ~ do give it thoughtful consideration, or do we label it as silly simply because we don't feel God's put it on our priority list of concerns? There are all kinds of issues to which I don't feel led to respond. Does that make those issues stuff and nonsense?


I am taking care of my part of the earth because I can.

Great! As I said earlier, being a responsible steward on an individual basis and "saving the world" go hand-in-hand.

[Colleen]

Okay, after re-reading your post, it wasn't a direct insult per se, but honestly, the way in which you stated it *seemed* insulting. I don't know how else to describe it to you.

Okay. I'm sorry it seemed that way. I think it's a worthwhile exercise, when we want to dismiss as nonsense what many consider a serious issue, to think through our reasoning. And the reasoning shared above lacks logic: Because God's in control, and because I don't feel He's put the issue on my responsibility list, it's a non-issue.

[Remudamom]

Okay. I'm sorry it seemed that way. I think it's a worthwhile exercise, when we want to dismiss as nonsense what many consider a serious issue, to think through our reasoning. And the reasoning shared above lacks logic: Because God's in control, and because I don't feel He's put the issue on my responsibility list, it's a non-issue.

To you it's illogical, to me it's faith.

[cin]

I think it's all part of a big cycle. I remember in the 70's we were headed towards another ice age and we were all going to die like the dinosaurs, under a big sheet of ice. Now, 30 yrs later, we're all going to fry. I beleive there was 'data' back then too, to support the theory du jour.

[Parabola]

I think it's all part of a big cycle. I remember in the 70's we were headed towards another ice age and we were all going to die like the dinosaurs, under a big sheet of ice. Now, 30 yrs later, we're all going to fry. I beleive there was 'data' back then too, to support the theory du jour.

The theory du jour of the 70s is pretty much the same theory du jour of current times. Its the same data, we just currently have a better understanding of it then we did 30 yrs ago, and we also have more data to look at too. Its the same theory: global climate CHANGE.

Well- it's the nature of petitions in and of themselves. Anybody can make up signatures- especially online. I've signed my name as stuff like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse on a few just to prove a point.

To sign a name to an issue so it will count, I still say mailings, phone calls, or visits are a good way to go. At one time, I passed out stamped enveloped to people in my community to actually get them to send mail to a representative. Forming groups in your community is good too- there is power in organized numbers.

People who hold elected offices sometimes go under the rule of thumb that for every one person who takes the time to call/write in, there are 10 more that didn't but have the same opinion and will vote in that direction.

You're right. Petitions are about the lowest level of involvement. Which is too bad, most people don't have time for the things that would really make a difference. Or they have introvert issues.....

[Colleen]

To you it's illogical, to me it's faith.

That trump card doesn't quite work with me because I share your faith. I firmly believe God has it all under control, too. And as I said earlier, His control doesn't preclude our awareness. And just because something's not on your responsibility list (although, really, it is on your list, as far as personal stewardship is concerned) ~ not having it on your list doesn't mean it's nonsense (or "globaloney";)).

[Perry]

The media presented it that way, but that was really never the view of the scientists. Good summary here. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

[Remudamom]

That trump card doesn't quite work with me because I share your faith. I firmly believe God has it all under control, too. And as I said earlier, His control doesn't preclude our awareness. And just because something's not on your responsibility list (although, really, it is on your list, as far as personal stewardship is concerned) ~ not having it on your list doesn't mean it's nonsense (or "globaloney";)).

I am aware. I just don't believe it. And quite frankly, I don't have a problem with you taking it seriously, why do you have such issues with me shrugging it off?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

On a lighter note- I just opened a beer from Magic Hat. All their bottlecaps have little sayings on them. This one was well-timed and said:

"The planet has needs for your deeds" :D

[Colleen]

I am aware. I just don't believe it. And quite frankly, I don't have a problem with you taking it seriously, why do you have such issues with me shrugging it off?

I was hoping to understand how you'd arrived at your position, but clearly, we're making no progress. Oh, well. That happens sometimes.

[newbie]

Others here. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/environment-and-wildlife/oil-drilling/all)

Thank you , I signed and bookmarked so I can read more and send more.

Jet

[Holly IN]

All I know it is globaloney!

I also know that scripture does teach that God is in control. We can't change anything but only He can.

Also more scientist disagree with the global warming than agree. There is a report that came out about it (it is very hush hush) stating a small paltry sum of scientist actually agree with it. It was very interesting.

I will have to ask my dh where that report is before I get slammed for stating this fact. I will be back tomorrow to give a link (hopefully).

Also I do not agree that Al Gore's film is scientific to watch on global warming. His movie is more of his political agenda on global warming. Wrath was put on him everywhere he went in presenting this movie or his talks....it snowed in places that never had snow. Something tells me that God is in control here. ;)

Holly who is really sticking her neck out in this thread...:001_huh:

[newbie]

All I know it is globaloney!

I also know that scripture does teach that God is in control. We can't change anything but only He can.

Also more scientist disagree with the global warming than agree. There is a report that came out about it (it is very hush hush) stating a small paltry sum of scientist actually agree with it. It was very interesting.

I will have to ask my dh where that report is before I get slammed for stating this fact. I will be back tomorrow to give a link (hopefully).

Also I do not agree that Al Gore's film is scientific to watch on global warming. His movie is more of his political agenda on global warming. Wrath was put on him everywhere he went in presenting this movie or his talks....it snowed in places that never had snow. Something tells me that God is in control here. ;)

Holly who is really sticking her neck out in this thread...:001_huh:

God is in control. But I dont believe he is purposefully ruining the planet. I believe we have a ton to do with that.

God, however did leave us in the Garden of Eden to make our own decisions and take care of Eden. oops. I think we need to take care of this planet, because every piece of life is dependent on each other. We are all here for a reason. And the reason , I can see is sitting down to dinner eating.

So I hope to steward some land for their future and teach them that we need to care not only for ourselves but for the other inhabitants that cannot speak for themselves. Only if they are not spider, snake or rodent, but everything else is okay. And ants, those are bad too.

Ok, I will jump off of soapbox.

Jet

[ereks mom]

I think it's all hype -- a classic case of "Chicken Little-itis". :ohmy: Of course, this is just my humble opinion, based on the research I've studied. You (collective) are certainly entitled to believe differently if you want. And in a few million years, maybe we'll be able to determine who was right. ;)

[Cafelattee]

has been going on for a century.

This website documents the past climate rhetoric since 1890. We should be in the next ice age by now.

I just don't believe the global warming hype.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

[Remudamom]

I think it's all hype -- a classic case of "Chicken Little-itis". :ohmy: Of course, this is just my humble opinion, based on the research I've studied. You (collective) are certainly entitled to believe differently if you want. And in a few million years, maybe we'll be able to determine who was right. ;)

Yeah, I'm with you and Holly, and in a million years I'm gonna say neener, neener!

[melissaL]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
you guys are so funny

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

All I know it is globaloney!

Where does this word come from? I've seen it twice in this thread so far. Is it something from a radio host, or what?

[mom31257]

I don't have time to read all of this thread, but my dh read a book this summer by Michael Crichton pertaining to climate change. I can't remember the name. I know he writes fiction, but uses a lot of real science in them. He showed me graphs that showed the years last century when CO2 emissions were rising the most, the temperature was actually going down. He doesn't like science to become political and I agree. People are getting on the bandwagon because there is money to be made. Universities are doing the research so the grant money will keep coming in even if the research doesn't prove it. I read that Al Gore's house uses as much energy in 1 year as it takes to power 240 houses in 1 month. That's hypocrisy.

I want to take care of the environment; however, people's needs should come first. I went to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens this month and I was very upset by something. We got a plastic cup that said it was made from 100% corn. How can we be putting corn in our gas tanks and plastic cups when people are starving around the world????? It just seems cruel. I wanted to take it back and ask for something that couldn't have fed a hungry child.

Forgive my forwardness, please. Since I saw those graphs and that cup, I'm a changed woman.

Amy of GA
Darin's wife for 17 years
11yo dd
5yo ds

[lighthouseacademy]

From all I have read and heard on both sides of this, I believe it to be hype with little substance. This is not to say that we are not causing pollution or that we ought to not make an effort to be good stewards of our earth. On the contrary, we should be aware of our pollution and that of our hobbies and consumption. For example, the cows we raise to slaughter produce far more harmful emissions than all the cars on the road- but you never hear about that. I also believe that God is in charge of the grand scheme. That being said, he is not a puppeteer and I believe he is bound by the laws of nature which He created- thus if we destroy a population or we dump toxins into the rivers, they will not be twinkled clean again by our loving Father but we will be left to deal with the natural consequences of our actions.

BTW, please tell me how snow storms in mid-April in Washington show warming?

[Momto4kids]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I simply stated my opinion that it's baloney, and if you want to make me out to be irresponsible, go right ahead. I am taking care of my part of the earth because I can. Sorry if you think I'm not living up to my responsibilities.

:iagree:

I think we need to be good stewards of what we have but....God did not intend for the earth to last forever.

[CLHCO]

Yes it has, and yes, sometimes even far faster than it has in the last century. You have to go back a bit further than the last 500 years though.

Speed - take the warming that was just recently (this last month) found to have occurred at the end of the last ice age. So fast it made the scientists heads spin just looking at the data.

There were some prehistoric times where the ocean temperatures were believed to have gotten up to 100 degrees, with alligators at the south pole, so hot has been seen too, just not in recent recording. I admit we didn't have anyone taking exact records at the time, so perhaps this is a bit off in the speculation. Time will tell on all ends.

I haven't read all responses but I will confess we did just finish watching back to back:

1) An Inconvenient Truth :thumbdown:
2) The Great Global Warming Swindle :thumbup1:

There are other places, I assume, where the science is far more credible on this issue, but Al Gore's movie got a big thumbs down on content, but a big thumbs up on emotional manipulation. :svengo: Do watch it, but don't stop there.

I recently went on a site trying to debunk some of the very compelling evidence of "Great Global Warming Swindle", because it seemed so convincing the the other side needed a say. After reading the very scientific sounding article trying to disprove that movie's main charge, I read the comments. The debunk was not very solid, from what I finally concluded, it just sounds good to those who want to hear it debunked and don't mind omissions in evidence to prove a point one already wants to prove. Details of the flaws were brought out in the comments by many who study this. Debunk to the debunk of the debunk. Such rabbit trails can be entertaining, I admit.

Very recent global temperatures (not simply local variations that fit some expected shifts of some places hotter, some a bit colder but we must look at the over all...) have shown things may not be as toasty as people expected they would be at this point. Recent information does take some time to shift through though, so we'll hold our breath a bit longer.

I would encourage a good look at both sides and keep your eyes out for manipulation, which any side of any issue is likely to resort to, intentionally or not. OK, usually intentionally. It's such a hot button issue today that we really owe it to ourselves to do some of our own study, never simply listening to either end of the media, something discussed in an earlier thread.

[Peek a Boo]

From all I have read and heard on both sides of this, I believe it to be hype with little substance. This is not to say that we are not causing pollution or that we ought to not make an effort to be good stewards of our earth. On the contrary, we should be aware of our pollution and that of our hobbies and consumption. For example, the cows we raise to slaughter produce far more harmful emissions than all the cars on the road- but you never hear about that. I also believe that God is in charge of the grand scheme. That being said, he is not a puppeteer and I believe he is bound by the laws of nature which He created- thus if we destroy a population or we dump toxins into the rivers, they will not be twinkled clean again by our loving Father but we will be left to deal with the natural consequences of our actions.


:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

Where does this word come from? I've seen it twice in this thread so far. Is it something from a radio host, or what?


i had to look it up too ;)

http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/luce-cla.htm

[Colleen]

IOf course, this is just my humble opinion, based on the research I've studied.

Sometimes it's like too much information is coming at us from too many different angles. If you're able to recall, though, can you refer me to some of the research you mentioned?

[Soph the vet]

Global Warning: 2 Peter 3:1-9
My dh want to wear a shirt that says that.

I am basically with Holly and Remudamom on this. I thought this article by Dr. Jay Wile was interesting: http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf
I don't know if the link will work (because I am a link illiterate as you already know) but you can at least retype the address into your search engine.

[Remudamom]

I was hoping to understand how you'd arrived at your position, but clearly, we're making no progress. Oh, well. That happens sometimes.

I missed some comments.........how did I arrive at my decision? Well, I read about it and thought "Wow, what a bunch of baloney!" Not scientific enough for you, I gather?

Yes, a tad snarky. I just noticed I'm the only one being reamed for a personal opinion.

[Parrothead]

All I know it is globaloney!

I also know that scripture does teach that God is in control. We can't change anything but only He can.

Also more scientist disagree with the global warming than agree. There is a report that came out about it (it is very hush hush) stating a small paltry sum of scientist actually agree with it. It was very interesting.

I will have to ask my dh where that report is before I get slammed for stating this fact. I will be back tomorrow to give a link (hopefully).

Also I do not agree that Al Gore's film is scientific to watch on global warming. His movie is more of his political agenda on global warming. Wrath was put on him everywhere he went in presenting this movie or his talks....it snowed in places that never had snow. Something tells me that God is in control here. ;)

Holly who is really sticking her neck out in this thread...:001_huh:
Not sticking your neck out alone. :iagree:

2007 was .07% cooler. I have to find the data for a link though.

[chiguirre]

There's a teaching company class that analizes the evidence of global warming and its potential consequences:

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1219&pc=Science%20and%20Mathematics

It's very thorough and truly interesting.

[Marie in Oh]

I hate that it is a political issue. I mean, why does it have to be? Being a good steward of the earth is just being a good human being, Christian or not, but I think Christians have a responsiblity to lead the way, not blow it off.
We just got a book and DVD from the Action Institute that talks about Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Looks like a good place to start.

However, I agree that there are many studies that point out that warming is a non-issue. I just read an article that there are signs of climate cool, including a study of a glacier on Mt. Rainier that says a glacier there has been thickening over the past 7 decades or so. In fact, it said that it had thickened by 17 meters from 1994-1997. That is pretty recent.

I think that climate is cyclical and that we haven't been around long enough, or have been keeping records long enough, to know if this is a normal warming or cooling pattern. I think it is pride that makes people think that we know what is going on with God's universe.

And again, I can't stand that it is political and that people who aren't scientists in the political arena claim to be experts in this area when clearly they are not. It isn't political, it is personal. I can't stand agendas such as these. It the same people who push saving the earth in the political arena that push other things that are, in my opinion, much more heinous than the affect of global warming. But that is a whole nother post.

[Parrothead]

I'm being lazy and don't want to repost. Check this thread for the info on 2007 being cooler: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30404&highlight=global+cooling&page=2

Look for my hammock guy about the fifth post or so.

[Ellie]

My opinion, which I probably expressed in the other thread, is that it's all globaloney. God's got it all under control, I don't have to worry about it.
:iagree:

Yesterday I heard that Pluto, Mars, and Jupiter's temps went up a degree at the same time that Earth's did. Hm. Guess some other their inhabitants are using too many resources there, too. Of course, then we could have the discussion about how one measures the Earth's temperature in the first place.

[Joanne]

This issue has become so polarized and politicalized that I think many sources of "information" are not studied, researched and compiled without bias.

In my (admittedly less than intense) research and study on this and related topics, I am inclined to conclude that the issues of global warming and overpopulation are dramatisized from environmentalists who:

1) Typically hold a particular political viewpoint
2) Are passionate about care for the earth and life on it

While I find A LOT of the scientific info from conseratives to be bad science, I don't wholeheartedly "believe" in the perspective behind propaganda such as An Inconvient Truth.

[Laurie in CA]

[QUOTE=mom31257;397372]I don't have time to read all of this thread, but my dh read a book this summer by Michael Crichton pertaining to climate change. I can't remember the name. I know he writes fiction, but uses a lot of real science in them. He showed me graphs that showed the years last century when CO2 emissions were rising the most, the temperature was actually going down. He doesn't like science to become political and I agree. People are getting on the bandwagon because there is money to be made. Universities are doing the research so the grant money will keep coming in even if the research doesn't prove it. I read that Al Gore's house uses as much energy in 1 year as it takes to power 240 houses in 1 month. That's hypocrisy.

Amy, the book your hubby read was State of Fear by Michael Chichton. I read it too and it is quite a page turner (warning there was some "adult" stuff in it of a s*xual nature and some cannibalism, kinda gross) so I wouldn't suggest it as a "read aloud" to the kids.

We watched an excellent show on the history channel a few months ago called "The Little Ice Age". It was a documentary with no political agenda one way or the other about global warming and showed weather patterns of our great planet earth. I was quite amazed and would highly recommend this for those on both sides of the global warming issue. I would even like to try and see if Netflix has it and watch it again.

Laurie in CA
dd(14) TOG and other stuff

[ereks mom]

...can you refer me to some of the research you mentioned?

Ten Myths of Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/)

Unmasking An Inconvenient Truth (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_kininmonth.pdf)

Ecohysteria: A Scientist Examines the Environmentalist Movement (http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf)

Testimony of Dr. John R. Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf)

[Parabola]

Also more scientist disagree with the global warming than agree. There is a report that came out about it (it is very hush hush) stating a small paltry sum of scientist actually agree with it. It was very interesting.


This is false, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is not disputed in the scientific community. There are arguments about some of the details, but there is no disagreement among scientists that it is occurring and that human activity is hastening it.


BTW, please tell me how snow storms in mid-April in Washington show warming?

Snow storms in mid April in Washington is WEATHER. Weather happens and its always going to be variable with an element of unpredictability.
CLIMATE includes weather trends over time. So yes it may have snowed in April in Washington, and that itty bitty piece of weather data will be added to the whole that is CLIMATE, the big picture. The picture that shows that its getting so much warmer overall, the CLIMATE is CHANGING so much, that the POLAR ICE CAPS ARE MELTING AT A RATE THAT INDICATES IN 5 YEARS THEY WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN THE SUMMER. Why does this not scare as many people as it should? Google polar ice caps and see what part they play in things like protecting the earth from the sun's rays and rising sea levels.

One of the reasons some of the points of view displayed here upsets me, and I assume others, is because its like earth had a big party for hundreds of years and made a big thoughtless mess, and now its time to clean up the mess and half the people DON'T EVEN THINK ITS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY even though THEY LIVE HERE TOO.

Thats my point of view, environmental issues are my number one issue, its the first place I look when I'm deciding where to put my vote. Yes I care, a big of fat lot, and yes the number of capital letters in this post is a reflection of that. I'm not yelling at anyone in particular, I'm expressing my own personal felt frustration.

[Phred]

My opinion, which I probably expressed in the other thread, is that it's all globaloney. God's got it all under control, I don't have to worry about it.
This is why I think belief in a deity is dangerous. All summed up neatly in one post.

[Phred]

I am aware. I just don't believe it. And quite frankly, I don't have a problem with you taking it seriously, why do you have such issues with me shrugging it off?
Honestly? Because you think that saying "I don't believe it" is sufficient. It's not. You don't get to not believe it. Especially when the rest of us know you'll be begging to use the lifeboats we'll be working to create. You're right about one thing... the earth will go on. The planet doesn't care about whether it's hot or cold... but we do. The planet can't support our civilization much hotter or colder than where it is.

The planet will be here... we just may not. If the permafrost in Canada and Siberia and Alaska melts... all that frozen vegetation will begin to rot. That means a huge release of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon, into the atmosphere. Then the world warms even faster. Within one year weather goes nuts. Crops can't be raised the way we're used to raising them and food prices go through the roof.

You're in this with us whether you like it or not... so to say that you don't believe it... that's like saying you don't believe in gravity. You're still gonna hit the ground when you fall so don't jump out the window. We're not asking much... recycle... read a little... don't be so smug and sure that your god will save you. You know and I know that's not true. If you jump out that window you're going to hit the ground.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

My daughter read about Cosmas today and his theories. ;)

[Ellie]

a leading, respected scientist testified in the Senate, concluding that the whole concept of "global warming" being caused by humans will just fade away, and Senator Boxer felt compelled to point out that Rush calls this man the "Official Scientist of the EIB Network," *strongly* implying that this negated the man's scholarly research. Whatever.

[Parabola]

Who might this leading, respected scientist be? Who's paying his for his research? Just being curious, a name would be nice.

[cin]

I want to take care of the environment; however, people's needs should come first. I went to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens this month and I was very upset by something. We got a plastic cup that said it was made from 100% corn. How can we be putting corn in our gas tanks and plastic cups when people are starving around the world????? It just seems cruel. I wanted to take it back and ask for something that couldn't have fed a hungry child.

Forgive my forwardness, please. Since I saw those graphs and that cup, I'm a changed woman.

Amy of GA
Darin's wife for 17 years
11yo dd
5yo ds

And heaven help us if we should have a Corn Allergy :tongue_smilie:

[Phred]

a leading, respected scientist testified in the Senate, concluding that the whole concept of "global warming" being caused by humans will just fade away, and Senator Boxer felt compelled to point out that Rush calls this man the "Official Scientist of the EIB Network," *strongly* implying that this negated the man's scholarly research. Whatever.
'"global warming" being caused by humans' He didn't say global warming would go away... just that humans were causing it. That's not comforting. And... seeing as it is in line with what Rush would want to hear it is likely that being the official scientist of the EIB network would tarnish him.

The data doesn't lie. People do.

[Laurie in CA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I don't agree with all of the conclusions of this article but it is very interesting and well documented. I like having historical information and coming to my own conclusions. Many things affect climate and anthropogenic (of the human kind) are not the only things affecting earth's climate and some things such as volcanos and sun spots are completely out of our hands. The facts are the climate changes from hot to cold and back again and there are many reasons.

Laurie in CA
dd(14) TOG and other stuff

[Peek a Boo]

This is false, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is not disputed in the scientific community. There are arguments about some of the details, but there is no disagreement among scientists that it is occurring and that human activity is hastening it.

well, actually, there's quite a bit of disagreement as to the significance of man's impact on climate change. I agree that climate changes --it's done that for millions of years. Like w/ evolution and abiogenesis, we are talking about two different things: historical climate change and anthropogenic climate change. For me so far, there are waaaaayyy too many variables to nail this to human activity alone. However, as with my stance on the evolution issue, i am open to either side: God is the Ultimate Scientist and can reveal a lot to us THRU science.

from another site:
Climate historical data (ice cores, tree rings, ocean floor analysis) is all online now, so if you have any doubts about global warming, or would like a more nuanced understanding, see:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html

If you think there is a lack of scientific agreement, you may be suffering from political manipulation. See this eye opening video lecture from a historian of science:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio


The theory that we should be entering another ice age is consistent with subtle long term patterns in orbital dynamics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

However, since the planet is warming instead of cooling, the greenhouse effect is overriding the orbital effects.

The picture that shows that its getting so much warmer overall, the CLIMATE is CHANGING so much, that the POLAR ICE CAPS ARE MELTING AT A RATE THAT INDICATES IN 5 YEARS THEY WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN THE SUMMER. Why does this not scare as many people as it should? Google polar ice caps and see what part they play in things like protecting the earth from the sun's rays and rising sea levels.

The reason that it does not "scare" so many of us is because we disagree on whether we can really effect such a global change. Do I think we can do a better job on environmental stewardship? absolutely! Do I think that even our best job can counter the cycle of climate change? uh, no. The topic doesn't "scare" me anymore than i am "scared" about me and my kids' safety: some things you just can't change, no matter how many reasonable precautions you take.



You don't get to not believe it. Especially when the rest of us know you'll be begging to use the lifeboats we'll be working to create.
---
You're in this with us whether you like it or not... so to say that you don't believe it... that's like saying you don't believe in gravity. You're still gonna hit the ground when you fall so don't jump out the window. We're not asking much... recycle... read a little... don't be so smug and sure that your god will save you.
--
The data doesn't lie. People do.

Phred-- i believe that the climate is changing, but after reading and studying I disagree w/ the extent of y'all's conclusions. And so do others. Don't be so smug that you think you understand what we mean when we say "God will save us" -- You do better when you stick to facts and stop griping about religion. You are right: data doesn't lie, but people have a looong history of misinterpreting data. That we don't believe your conclusion doesn't mean you are the next Noah.... altho i kinda think that would be neat. ;)


One of the reasons some of the points of view displayed here upsets me, and I assume others, is because its like earth had a big party for hundreds of years and made a big thoughtless mess, and now its time to clean up the mess and half the people DON'T EVEN THINK ITS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY even though THEY LIVE HERE TOO.

No --the reason it doesn't bother us is because we acknowledge that climate change happens EVEN WITHOUT some big "party."


Thats my point of view, environmental issues are my number one issue, its the first place I look when I'm deciding where to put my vote. Yes I care, a big of fat lot, and yes the number of capital letters in this post is a reflection of that. I'm not yelling at anyone in particular, I'm expressing my own personal felt frustration.


No problem --everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I can understand frustration :)

and i absolutely agree that "who's funding the study" plays a HUGE part in credibility and bias.

[Laurie in CA]

This is why I think belief in a deity is dangerous. All summed up neatly in one post.

I say better safe than sorry.:)
You are pretty funny Phred.

Laurie in CA
dd(14) TOG and other stuff

[Parrothead]

... but there is no disagreement among scientists that it is occurring and that human activity is hastening it.

This one article names three scientists that dispute this statement.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 The below quotes are from the cited article.


R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."



In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.



"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."


That is just one article. I came across hundreds of similar articles by lay persons quoting scientists and by scientists themselves.

So there is a great deal of disagreement.

[Parabola]

I am aware that there is debate over how much humans contribute, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that the scientific community is no longer debating whether it is occurring, there is accord on that. I'm also arguing that there is a strong consensus that humans contribute, to whatever extent.

I will not be providing links. I could go find things to back up what I want, but then so can't we all. If anyone wants to learn more, its on them.


Obviously climate change happens without human influence. The Earth has been around a lot longer than the animals on it and it went through massive climate changes in its evolution to this point. The ****ing factor though is the rate at which the cimate indicators have changed since humans begin spewing pollution, greenhouse gases, etc into our atmosphere. It correlates too much for me to dismiss it as coincidence.
Volcanic emissions, sun spots, changes in the Earth's orbit, ocean currents, glacial movement, etc.....all of these are natural ways the climate changes. These things have been going on since the planet was an infant.
It's only recently that humans have had the power to influence the climate, and to not think that we have that capability is in my mind a bit of denial. We are adding our huge emissions on to that which the earth already has to deal with, and its tipping the balance.

So yes climate change happens without a party, no doubt about it. But there has still been a party, and there is still a mess.

Now, even with the mess, its definitely possible that the earth will eventually balance out the climate to a place that benefits the life upon it. Wonder how long that will take? Wonder if life will be around to enjoy it. The planet doesn't owe us anything. Its at mercy of the forces working upon it. It doesn't care so its not going to be helping us out. Any stabilization (short or long term) will be chance unless we act. We the humans are the only sentient influence upon the climate. It IS our responsibility the same way its YOUR responsibility to keep your own house a clean and healthy place to live.

As of right now, this is the only place in the universe where the human race exists. All of our eggs are in this one basket. For all of our faults, and there are many, I'm still wanting to see what we can do because our potential is great. It would be a sad shame if we brought about our own demise because we were too stupid to keep our nest clean.

[SFP]

Who might this leading, respected scientist be? Who's paying his for his research? Just being curious, a name would be nice.


Roy Spencer (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/#more-567), according to today's Senate web page (http://epw.senate.gov/public/).

[Colleen]

This is why I think belief in a deity is dangerous. All summed up neatly in one post.

That's too simplistic. Faith, trust in God, belief in His omnipotence, is not in conflict with personal responsibility.

[Parabola]

Roy Spencer (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/#more-567), according to today's Senate web page (http://epw.senate.gov/public/).

Thank you. I will read these links because I am interested.


And actually somtimes I provide links myself but I'm too lazy today. So today "its on them" but who know how I'll feel the next time.

[Parrothead]

Wonder how long that will take? Wonder if life will be around to enjoy it.
IF Khabibullo Abdusamatov is correct then things will start changing fairly soon.

I agree that we have made a mess of things, and that needs to be cleaned up. But I want it to be cleaned up voluntarily. I don't agree with the people advocating a carbon tax or death after a certain amount of life usage.

And call me a conspiracy theorist but I find it just a tad convienent that we are having an energy crisis just in time for the global warming crisis.

[Peek a Boo]

I am aware that there is debate over how much humans contribute, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that the scientific community is no longer debating whether it is occurring, there is accord on that. I'm also arguing that there is a strong consensus that humans contribute, to whatever extent.

I will not be providing links. I could go find things to back up what I want, but then so can't we all. If anyone wants to learn more, its on them.


Obviously climate change happens without human influence. The Earth has been around a lot longer than the animals on it and it went through massive climate changes in its evolution to this point. The ****ing factor though is the rate at which the cimate indicators have changed since humans begin spewing pollution, greenhouse gases, etc into our atmosphere. It correlates too much for me to dismiss it as coincidence.
Volcanic emissions, sun spots, changes in the Earth's orbit, ocean currents, glacial movement, etc.....all of these are natural ways the climate changes. These things have been going on since the planet was an infant.
It's only recently that humans have had the power to influence the climate, and to not think that we have that capability is in my mind a bit of denial.
....

So yes climate change happens without a party, no doubt about it. But there has still been a party, and there is still a mess.

Now, even with the mess, its definitely possible that the earth will eventually balance out the climate to a place that benefits the life upon it. Wonder how long that will take? ..... Any stabilization (short or long term) will be chance unless we act. We the humans are the only sentient influence upon the climate. It IS our responsibility the same way its YOUR responsibility to keep your own house a clean and healthy place to live.

I do agree with much of what you said and your questions, just approached from a different perspective ;).
What keeps me from being on the "high human involvement can stem climate change" side is that we simply can't be SURE that the rate of change NOW is that much more dramatic than at any other time in history. That is conjecture, and the sheer number of ups and downs in the earth's history is too significant for me.


What is "clean" to one person is detestable to another. Whether one's house is clean or not doesn't dictate what will happen naturally on a massive scale. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do w/ the other, though many assume as much and draw what seem to be reasonable conclusions that the two are intertwined. If i keep my house from being a mess and take precautions to stay nice and dry, can i stem the flood that [unbeknownst to me] is coming? Is the global climate so dependent on our actions? i don't think so. There are too many positive and negative variables that continue to affect the studies. But could i be wrong? sure. People are fallible.

When we approach the issue of "is global warming happening" most conservatives I hear are responding to the anthropogenic component --historical climate change is pretty easy to establish, for me anyway. So before we go too far in presenting what people do and do not believe, I would encourage everyone to be very clear on what is being asked. To YOU, one naturally follows another. To OTHERS, they are separate issues.

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

I think we need to be good stewards of what we have but....God did not intend for the earth to last forever.

The Bible says he did. Eccl 1:4 and Ps 104:5.

[jacqui in mo]

is complete enough to know what is really going on in the global climate. The data is really too short for the age of the earth to say we know exactly what is happening. The rate of change doesn't seem to impress him either. He has other well stated arguments that I can't remember them at the moment.

Just to give you some credentials here, when you here or see the UV index being discussed on the weather, that is based directly on research that he did. He did a lot of research on aresals (sp?) from the ocean going into the atmosphere & other really cool stuff like that. Stuff that no one had ever discovered before. My pea brain can't understand half of what it is that he has done. He knows the atmosphere.

My concern about the rush to do something about the atmosphere when we really don't know why it's changing. If man is NOT causing it, all our efforts will be useless & wastes of money.

With any climate change too, I believe most species can and will adapt. It may cause hardships for some, but that's true of everyday life. That's not to say we shouldn't try to help those that need help if we can be effective. I just don't think we can change the whole world's climate.

My 2 cents.
Jacqui

[Caroline]

I think we should take better care of our earth, global warming or not. I don't think lowering our pollution could be a waste of time and money.

[jacqui in mo]

Doing actual things to combat pollution is fine & good. It's the carbon credits stuff & other so called solutions that I consider wastes & money grabs.

[Kathy in MD]

Several people have stated/implied that they aren't willing to take any action because the science isn't all in. Several months ago I posted a pro-con chart about the results of action and inaction on climate change. I think it's worth reposting.


.......Let's look at what happens if we respond as if climate change is man-induced and it's not vs if we don't act and it is man induced. Unfortunately I can't do a formal decision tree here but I can do a pro-con chart.

Act to reduce greenhse but no effect on climate

PRO
walk & bike instead of using car - healthier people, less dependence on foreign oil, less particulate matter to breath in.

develop new industries (solar and wind) - can bring industry and income to less prosperous parts of the country

less money leaving the country for oil

CON
negative affect on auto industry, steel industry, oil industry and parts of the country and world where oil and steel are a large part of the economy

people give up the pleasure of auto travel and big vehicles.


You can add more to each side.

Don't act and human induced climate change is real

PRO

no major economic impact today

people don't need to change their habits today

CON

coastal areas possibly wiped out in the future

possible future problems with finding and developing new agricultural lands.

possible future problems with feeding and housing the world's population

Once again you can add more to each side.

To this you need to add a sheet on "we act, but it doesn't stop climate change" and "we don't act and the climate doesn't change" To further refine the process you can estimate the % chance of each scenario.

But for me, I look at the potential consequences of not acting if global warming is real vs the consequences of acting and it's not real. I think the potential danger is worth making the changes now. And I know that the some of these changes would benefit me now.

You can also draw an analogy to the Surgeon General's announcement in the 60's that smoking might be hazardous to your health. Many at that time said the science wasn't there yet. But what would happen if someone decided not to smoke because of the possibility and he was wrong? They wouldn't spend money on cigarettes, they wouldn't reek of cigarette smoke, they would reduce the chance of burn holes in their furniture, clothes and homes. The down side was many communities relied on the tobacco industry and state gov'ts relied on the taxes tobacco sales brought in. But if the Surgeon General was right, the non-smoker had also reduced his chances of developing lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses. At the same time, his family and the economy as a whole was saved a lot of money caring for tobacco related illnesses.

Sometimes we need to act before all the data is in. Personally I think that climate change is one of those issues.......

[Peek a Boo]

Several people have stated/implied that they aren't willing to take any action because the science isn't all in. Several months ago I posted a pro-con chart about the results of action and inaction on climate change. I think it's worth reposting.

.....
Sometimes we need to act before all the data is in. Personally I think that climate change is one of those issues.......

the only problem here is that there are WAY more variables to just pros and cons over action/inaction to global warming. i haven't even begun to really think about listing them, but as far the impact, i think it's kinda simplistic to think the cons would be limited to losses of basic wants and luxuries of Big Business. I know I keep coming back to variables, but there are just SO many aspects of life where those unknown variables either skew our perceptions/ data or literally bite us in the butt.

I also don't think the "act now just in case" philosophy is always positive. there are plenty of cases where people have put their trust in the science field only to find out some horrible ramifications [esp the medical field].

Now, a lot of people [self included] have stated that we are absolutely behind being good stewards of the earth --which includes many of the things on your list. We just differ on how globally important those actions are, which in turn leads to differences in how much effort we put into our own local environments.

I might not keep my house as clean as yours, but that doesn't mean my house is overrun w/ rats and roaches and disease and it doesn't mean your house is in any danger of catching any of our uncleanness ;) It just means we each have different comfort levels when it comes to our immediate environments. there are likely some that are on "my" side that are anal about recycling and conserving resources, and some on "your" side that do several things but look lazy in comparison. One's actions in an area does not need to be dependent on agreeing w/ a specific conclusion.

[Momto4kids]

The Bible says he did. Eccl 1:4 and Ps 104:5.

Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13

[PameliaSue]

This link goes to lectures from UC Berkley from a Professor Mullen there. It refers to global warming and climate change.

He instructs and advises presidents and recently met with all the candidates and instructed them on the subjects of global warming and climate change.

I was fascinated on his ability to explain things like one farmer talking to another. From an extremely liberal college from an extremely liberal man ( in my opinion) these things are not what I would expect to hear, WOW.

If you have time sit down and listen and tell me what you get out of it. If you think it is worth while pass it on to your friends so we all can get educated on this subject. This lecture and many others are available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWz_CWel4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWz_CWel4s)

[Peek a Boo]

Originally Posted by Scarlett
The Bible says he did. Eccl 1:4 and Ps 104:5.

Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13

:D
So whoever has the most proof-texts wins? ;)

To perish, or not to perish?

I tend to tie it together in the same vein as "will man live forever?"
No, and yes.

http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/new-heavens.html

the earth will indeed pass away, as will we.
And it will be renewed, as will we.

Are there scriptural directives that point to stewardship of our minds, bodies, and resources? Including the earth?
Even if we ARE gonna die?
yeah.

[Colleen]

II just noticed I'm the only one being reamed for a personal opinion.

You aren't being reamed. Since you and I were two of the first people engaged in this thread, it stands to reason I'd be conversing with you. What I was specifically responding to was the relationship between the opinion you shared (global warming is globaloney) and what I understood to be the basis for that opinion (God being in control). I believe I've been respectful in this discussion as I tried to understand the relationship between God's omnipotence and a lack of concern about global warming.

[Momto4kids]

Originally Posted by Scarlett
The Bible says he did. Eccl 1:4 and Ps 104:5.



:D
So whoever has the most proof-texts wins? ;)

To perish, or not to perish?

I tend to tie it together in the same vein as "will man live forever?"
No, and yes.

http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/new-heavens.html

the earth will indeed pass away, as will we.
And it will be renewed, as will we.

Are there scriptural directives that point to stewardship of our minds, bodies, and resources? Including the earth?
Even if we ARE gonna die?
yeah.

Right and like I said earlier I think that we need to be good stewards of what we have but IMO the earth is not meant to last forever. Like all things that age, it starts to detiriorate.

[Kathy in MD]

the only problem here is that there are WAY more variables to just pros and cons over action/inaction to global warming. i haven't even begun to really think about listing them, but as far the impact, i think it's kinda simplistic to think the cons would be limited to losses of basic wants and luxuries of Big Business. I know I keep coming back to variables, but there are just SO many aspects of life where those unknown variables either skew our perceptions/ data or literally bite us in the butt.

I also don't think the "act now just in case" philosophy is always positive. there are plenty of cases where people have put their trust in the science field only to find out some horrible ramifications [esp the medical field].



You're absolutely right, the situation is extremely complex. But by doing this excercise, you start to get a better handle on the complexities. All I've done in my pro-con list is get things started. You and others need to add you own observations, thoughts and research. My actual list is much longer! As you work on your list you'll come up with effects that you hadn't thought of when you started.

This, like the decision tree I also mentioned, is an analysis tool. Think of it as the list of generic literature questions in TWTM for analysing literature. Or the steps to break down a complex math problem. This is just a method to help you get a handle on the difficult - and it can be applied to any problem, no matter how complex. That's not to say there aren't other analysis tools that may be better suited the subject, but this tool is one that most people can do that will help them get a BETTER grasp than they had before.

Now if you advanced to the decision tree, you'd assign a % representing the chances of each scenario occurring. Yes, the % assigned is not perfect, judgement comes into play, but it helps you develop a rough idea of the most likely outcomes. (It's more complex than I've mentioned)If a particular outcome is particularly bad, you may decide it's not worth worrying about if there's only a 1% chance of occurance. But it may affect your actions if there is a 30% chance of occurance.

You also mention that sometimes it's wrong to take action because the science is wrong. Man's influence on climate change is not a new idea. It's been studied and the ideas and projects have been refined for at least 2-3 decades. It takes much less time than than 30 years for researchers to decide whether a drug is effacious or not. Even radical ideas in medicine are often applied in general practice in less time than that. So I think it's fair in your analysis to say there is a good *chance* that man does affect the climate, and therefore it's worth considering what would happen if it's true. You may consider that it's chances are less than 50%, but a 30% chance still rates consideration.

The decision tree I've described briefly is a tool used by people and professions that can't afford to wait for all the "facts" to come in. In fact, never will anyone know all the facts needed to make a good decision. Businessmen would never decide to invest in a new project or expand their company if they waited for all the info. Doctors would never prescribe medicines, because each individual *might* react differently from the norm. Sometimes you have to take the info available, do a risk-benefit analysis and then make a decision.

[Dot]

Thanks, Kathy. Great explanation.

[Phred]

Soooo... Peek? In light of what Kathy has thoughtfully posted, are you saying we should just keep on keeping on? Ignore the possible outcomes and just keep burning oil and coal until it's gone? Compete with India and China to see who can spew the most pollution into the sky?

Is that what you're saying?

[Laurie in CA]

This link goes to lectures from UC Berkley from a Professor Mullen there. It refers to global warming and climate change.

He instructs and advises presidents and recently met with all the candidates and instructed them on the subjects of global warming and climate change.

I was fascinated on his ability to explain things like one farmer talking to another. From an extremely liberal college from an extremely liberal man ( in my opinion) these things are not what I would expect to hear, WOW.

If you have time sit down and listen and tell me what you get out of it. If you think it is worth while pass it on to your friends so we all can get educated on this subject. This lecture and many others are available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWz_CWel4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWz_CWel4s)

Pamelia,
Thanks for this link. It was quite informative. I also watched a couple of clips after this one. When I first started watching and looked at the "dramatic" increase in temperature on the graph, I paused the clip and looked at the scale on the graph. Yep, it was measured in tenths of a degree C. So any increase or decrease looked dramatic. I was glad that Prof. Mullen was honest and pointed out what may not be obvious to someone casually looking at the graph.

Laurie in CA
dd(14) TOG and other stuff

[Mekanamom]

Doing actual things to combat pollution is fine & good. It's the carbon credits stuff & other so called solutions that I consider wastes & money grabs.

Absolutely. They are trying to pass carbon taxes here. This could put some companies, depending on their "carbon emissions" right out of business. (I don't have the articles to send, but I've read over them.)

My FIL, who is a scientist, also believes that man-made global warming is pretty much a political scam. At this point, anyway. He thinks the data has been skewed.

I am NOT a scientist, so since I know and respect my FIL, I'm trusting his opinion on this.

He is not against responsible conservation in any way. He thinks a lot of what people in general do is wasteful, and we could be much more responsible with our use of resources.

I think I'm pretty "green" with my personal choices. But it isn't due to the man-made global warming hype. ;) I basically do what Remudamom does and take care of my personal environment in the best way I can. I don't think that means that we're shirking any kind of environmental responsibility.

[PameliaSue]

I really respect Prof. Mullen's battle against the fear factor.... Motivation by fear is something to be leery of!

[Kathy in MD]

I really respect Prof. Mullen's battle against the fear factor.... Motivation by fear is something to be leery of!

This may sound strange coming from me on this thread, but I totally agree that motivation by fear is something to be leery of.

Understand the situation to the best of your ability and time constraints and then analyse the possible benefit-risks of action and inaction. And then be willing to reevaluate as new research and models becomes available.

[Peek a Boo]

Soooo... Peek? In light of what Kathy has thoughtfully posted, are you saying we should just keep on keeping on? Ignore the possible outcomes and just keep burning oil and coal until it's gone? Compete with India and China to see who can spew the most pollution into the sky?

Is that what you're saying?

now you are ignoring what I already said :)

Now, a lot of people [self included] have stated that we are absolutely behind being good stewards of the earth --which includes many of the things on your list. We just differ on how globally important those actions are, which in turn leads to differences in how much effort we put into our own local environments.


ets: maybe I should restate that as "we are absolutely supportive of being good stewards..." :)
so how are you interpreting "what I'm saying" to be "just keep on keeping on with no effort to change anything"??

I can appreciate Kathy's concern and her analysis of the chances, I simply don't agree with them. i don't fault another for wanting to go above and beyond what I might consider the "call of duty" when it comes to responsible stewardship of our environment, but neither do i believe that another has the right to project those concerns onto another and force specific actions.

Phred -- in light of what PameliaSue has thoughtfully posted, are you saying we should keep ourselves and others hostage to another's concerns? I would be interested in hearing y'all's analysis of the link she shared:

This link goes to lectures from UC Berkley from a Professor Mullen there. It refers to global warming and climate change.

He instructs and advises presidents and recently met with all the candidates and instructed them on the subjects of global warming and climate change.

I was fascinated on his ability to explain things like one farmer talking to another. From an extremely liberal college from an extremely liberal man ( in my opinion) these things are not what I would expect to hear, WOW.

If you have time sit down and listen and tell me what you get out of it. If you think it is worth while pass it on to your friends so we all can get educated on this subject. This lecture and many others are available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWz_CWel4s

[Peek a Boo]

Sometimes you have to take the info available, do a risk-benefit analysis and then make a decision.


there are quite a few people more knowledgeable than i that hAVE done just that: the risk-benefit analysis of man-made global warming.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e9df7200-19c7-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1148

i don't add that just to start a "who has more links on their side" type of thing, but to let those reading the thread know I understand that what you speak of is a legitimate issue and I --and others--have taken it into account :)

[Peek a Boo]

This may sound strange coming from me on this thread, but I totally agree that motivation by fear is something to be leery of.


...and I will add that i don't believe EVERY person who supports man-made global warming is being driven by fear, just as not EVERY person who comes to a different conclusion over man-made global warming is driven by a lack of responsibility or intelligence ;)