MormonFreeThinker Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) I have other concerns in my life thank you very much. That is human nature, humans never worry about long term effects. True. AGW does have an hidden agenda. It is to degrade the quality of life for the common people and concentrate more power into the hands of the social engineers. What if you are wrong? Are you open to that possibility? In 1896, Dr. Svante Arrhenius demonstrated CO2 caused global warming to be plausible. In the 1950s, important papers where published "Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate" GN Pass - American Journal of PHysics, 1956""Carbon dioxide exchanged between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades" R Revelle 1957and a lot more Here is a 1958 video about Global Warming Edited March 22, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 That is human nature, humans never worry about long term effects. Self contradictory 1
JLHPROF Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 What if Global Warming is real? Do you have to be 100% certain to be worried? No, you just have to doubt the word of God. I am fully prepared to believe that Global Warming is real. How else is the sea supposed to cross its bounds and destroy cities as prophesied?But God's word will be fullfilled. The earth will be redeemed and celestialized. The Savior will reign for 1000 years. Why should I worry about us causing a "mass extinction".But I suppose if you believe in evolution it would be a real worry. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) No, you just have to doubt the word of God. I am fully prepared to believe that Global Warming is real. How else is the sea supposed to cross its bounds and destroy cities as prophesied?But God's word will be fullfilled. The earth will be redeemed and celestialized. The Savior will reign for 1000 years. Why should I worry about us causing a "mass extinction".But I suppose if you believe in evolution it would be a real worry. The church wants us to be worried about our planet https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng&query=environment Self contradictory most humans Edited March 23, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
JLHPROF Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The church wants us to be worried about our planet https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng&query=environment I think saying the Church wants us to be wise stewards of God's planet is a better way of phrasing it.Worrying about God's planets or his children destroying themselves through pollution and thus rendering his entire work pointless seems like an unlikely scenario. 2
Mormonmaniac Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I think saying the Church wants us to be wise stewards of God's planet is a better way of phrasing it. Worrying about God's planets or his children destroying themselves through pollution and thus rendering his entire work pointless seems like an unlikely scenario. I am pretty confident that man could never destroy the earth and that the earth has its way of balancing climate control regardless of what man does. We may incur the wrath of volcanoes and stuff but to think we as man could really drastically change the climate? Na na.
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I am pretty confident that man could never destroy the earth and that the earth has its way of balancing climate control regardless of what man does. We may incur the wrath of volcanoes and stuff but to think we as man could really drastically change the climate? Na na. Partial correct. We simply don't have the power necessary to destroy this entire planet. The planet has ways of balancing its climate that many species including man do not like. Yes we do have the power to alter the earths climate in unpredictable and dangerous ways to the life on it. We are currently experiencing a mass extinction event caused by man made habitat loss, exotic species introductions, and global warming.SEE http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/SEE Edited March 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint
gclayjr Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I find that people seem to fall into 2 categories. Those who see the Earth as Garden to till and care for and those who see it as a wilderness to either not disturb or to minimize one's footprint. Science has become, not science, but a political tool to be used (most often by leftists who believe that man is the problem, not the solution) to give legitimacy to arguments that the earth is not for man nor man the earth, therefor the final solution to the environment is destruction of man via population control. Climate Change (used to be called Global Warming... but the name was changed since there is no evidence that the globe is actually warming, is a tautology, If it gets colder... Climate Change... If it gets Warmer... Climate Change...If you get a drought... Climate change...If you get floods .. Climate change...More Hurricanes... Climate Change ... Fewer Hurricanes. (Which is recent state)... Climate change... Arctic Ice decreasing... Climate Change.. Antarctic ice increasing ... Climate change and of course all of this climate change is man made and therefore we need to eliminate man and civilization. Regards, George Clay 3
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The global climate is changing. The addition of extra CO2 is changing the temperature average by acting as a blanket to hold in heat. The globe has been warming since the beginnings of the industrial revolution.SEE http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y
ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 because natural climate changes have caused mass extinctions in the past. All the more reason to be skeptical of the mantra that man is the major cause.
Popular Post ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2015 The church wants us to be worried about our planet https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng&query=environment most humans Alright here goes THE SKY IS FALLING. THE SKY IS FALLING. 5
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 All the more reason to be skeptical of the mantra that man is the major cause. Then what has been adding in the extra CO2 for the last 250 years or so?SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4BJDwI8zSk#t=13
gclayjr Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Again as I previously stated, Science has become politicized, and you have to be skeptical of sources provided by a politicized sources. I will pose a few questions which if you check, if you are not completely politicized yourself will at least make you pause: 1) what are the most significant green house gasses by effect on environment? 1. Water Vapor 2. Methane Gas 3. CO2 2) What percentage of Greenhouse Gases in Atmosphere can be traced to human activity ? 0.28% if Water Vapor Included or 5.53% if not... that is TOTAL Human activity < 1/3 of 1% of of Green house gases (I wonder what reducing 1/3 of 1% by say 20% would do to Greenhouse gas levels?) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html 3) Why have the computer models, that predict Global warming been spectacularly wrong, and never right? Global warming enthusiasts rarely explain why the models have been spectacularly WRONG!. In fact for the past 15 yeas, contrary to predictions there has been almost no global warming. http://www.thegwpf.org/no-global-warming-for-15-years-2/ 1) do you think that you could get any research money to demonstrate that Man made Global warming has a negligible effect on the climate? I understand why you may be skeptical, because unfortunately the blogo-sphere is crowded with wild crazy conspiracy theorists with all kinds of crazy claims from the CIA bombing the World Trade Center to the Shooter on the knoll who killed Kennedy. I spend a lot of time rebutting these crazy conspiracies. That being said, there truly is a lot of money and political power being used to promote the myth of Man made Global warming, because as I mentioned above, that creates the scientific argument for regulating everything to the point of controlling human activity and in fact justifying population control. Regards, George Clay 4
Mormonmaniac Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I find that people seem to fall into 2 categories. Those who see the Earth as Garden to till and care for and those who see it as a wilderness to either not disturb or to minimize one's footprint. Science has become, not science, but a political tool to be used (most often by leftists who believe that man is the problem, not the solution) to give legitimacy to arguments that the earth is not for man nor man the earth, therefor the final solution to the environment is destruction of man via population control. Climate Change (used to be called Global Warming... but the name was changed since there is no evidence that the globe is actually warming, is a tautology, If it gets colder... Climate Change... If it gets Warmer... Climate Change...If you get a drought... Climate change...If you get floods .. Climate change...More Hurricanes... Climate Change ... Fewer Hurricanes. (Which is recent state)... Climate change... Arctic Ice decreasing... Climate Change.. Antarctic ice increasing ... Climate change and of course all of this climate change is man made and therefore we need to eliminate man and civilization. Regards, George ClayNow we're talking! Can I get an Amen? 2
longview Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Now we're talking! Can I get an Amen? AMEN . . . AMEN . . . AMEN . . . No amount of mendacity by TSS and MFT can overcome George Clay's point # 1 . . . Edited March 23, 2015 by longview
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 All the more reason to be skeptical of the mantra that man is the major cause.I wonder what the normal temperature of earth is supposed to be. Does any one even know. Can anyone even answer that? What is normal? 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Again as I previously stated, Science has become politicized, and you have to be skeptical of sources provided by a politicized sources. I will pose a few questions which if you check, if you are not completely politicized yourself will at least make you pause: 1) what are the most significant green house gasses by effect on environment? 1. Water Vapor 2. Methane Gas 3. CO2 2) What percentage of Greenhouse Gases in Atmosphere can be traced to human activity ? 0.28% if Water Vapor Included or 5.53% if not... that is TOTAL Human activity < 1/3 of 1% of of Green house gases (I wonder what reducing 1/3 of 1% by say 20% would do to Greenhouse gas levels?) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html 3) Why have the computer models, that predict Global warming been spectacularly wrong, and never right? Global warming enthusiasts rarely explain why the models have been spectacularly WRONG!. In fact for the past 15 yeas, contrary to predictions there has been almost no global warming. http://www.thegwpf.org/no-global-warming-for-15-years-2/ 1) do you think that you could get any research money to demonstrate that Man made Global warming has a negligible effect on the climate? I understand why you may be skeptical, because unfortunately the blogo-sphere is crowded with wild crazy conspiracy theorists with all kinds of crazy claims from the CIA bombing the World Trade Center to the Shooter on the knoll who killed Kennedy. I spend a lot of time rebutting these crazy conspiracies. That being said, there truly is a lot of money and political power being used to promote the myth of Man made Global warming, because as I mentioned above, that creates the scientific argument for regulating everything to the point of controlling human activity and in fact justifying population control. Regards, George Clay Climate doesn't care about politics. It is simply the climates' change in response to the natural variation in solar output, earths' rotational angle, additions and subtractions of CO2. For the last 250 years or so man has been adding in more CO2 than natural systems can use. Water vapor is a trailing indicator. Meaning that increased water vapor is a response to added warmth. Prove it yourself, boil a pot of water in your kitchen and watch the humidity(Water vapor level) go up.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm I'm no Global Warming enthusiast. Quite the contrary. I simply accept the science behind it. I've categorically have stated that the models were/are wrong. The earth has been heating FASTER than the models have predicted.SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/ The globe has been warming at a faster rate over the last 16 years.SEE The primary funders of the efforts to deny the science of global warming are the fossil fuels lobby(American Petroleum Institute), the Koch brothers, industry advocates(James "Snowball" Inhofe, Marc Morano) and free market think tanks(Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute). Pollution is just another name for POISON. Can you think of even one reason, other than making more money, for adding POISON into our air? 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 AMEN . . . AMEN . . . AMEN . . . No amount of mendacity by TSS and MFT can overcome George Clay's point # 1 . . . If you want to get into a discussion of my veracity I can go there, but you won't like the results. Water vapor is a trailing indicator.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Popular Post pogi Posted March 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Then what has been adding in the extra CO2 for the last 250 years or so?SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4BJDwI8zSk#t=13 The only thing that ice cores have proven is that temperature changes historically precede C02 changes by about 800 years, not the other way around. You are trying to get us to believe that C02 causes temperature change, when history demonstrates that temperature changes precede or cause C02 changes. This happens because C02 is released from ice and other ways as the temps rise. Scientists say that this leads to "positive feedback" - Where increase in temp leads to increase in C02, which leads to increase in temp, and on and on we go spiraling out of control. But for some reason, we never spiral out of control. Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02). Yet I am supposed to believe that C02 drives temperature change and not the other way around? P.S. Please don't make me watch another video in response. Please put it in your own words and paste the link for reference only. Edited March 23, 2015 by pogi 5
Storm Rider Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I have never quite understood this drive for belief in a static climate environment. It has never existed in the history of this planet if science is to be believed, but now in this day and age we are supposed to become focused on a change in climate?!? How does man create a static climate? Why should I want or desire such a state of affairs rather than just allow the earth to go about doing what it does best. Leave mother earth alone and allow her to control herself. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The only thing that ice cores have proven is that temperature changes historically precede C02 changes by about 800 years, not the other way around. This happens because C02 is released from ice and other ways as the temps rise. Scientists say that this leads to "positive feedback" - Where increase in temp leads to increase in C02, which leads to increase in temp, and on and on we go spiraling out of control. But for some reason, we never spiral out of control. Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02). Yet I am supposed to believe that C02 drives temperature change and not the other way around? SEE
ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I have never quite understood this drive for belief in a static climate environment. It has never existed in the history of this planet if science is to be believed, but now in this day and age we are supposed to become focused on a change in climate?!? How does man create a static climate? Why should I want or desire such a state of affairs rather than just allow the earth to go about doing what it does best. Leave mother earth alone and allow her to control herself. Follow the money my friend. Follow the money. 2
pogi Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 SEE I edited a post script before you posted this. Please take a look. Perhaps I should should start selling my psychic observations, because somehow I just knew this would be your type of response. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I have never quite understood this drive for belief in a static climate environment. It has never existed in the history of this planet if science is to be believed, but now in this day and age we are supposed to become focused on a change in climate?!? How does man create a static climate? Why should I want or desire such a state of affairs rather than just allow the earth to go about doing what it does best. Leave mother earth alone and allow her to control herself. I seriously doubt many would argue for a truly static planet. Mars comes to mind. OTOH we are rapidly changing the earths climate. A few centuries is virtually nothing compared to the 4.5 Billion years this earth has been around.
pogi Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) TSS, out of courtesy an curiosity, I watched your video. It did not address my points at all. In fact, it deceptively made it seem as if C02 has historically preceded climate change (it hasn't). Very misleading! Please, no more videos except as references only. Use your own words. Edited March 23, 2015 by pogi 1
Recommended Posts