Global Warming

---

It shouldn't and that's the point. One field should be based on measured observation and the other on faith. What one has to do with the other I really don't get, maybe it's just my generation or something. There is no denying that the ice shelfs are shrinking. There is no denying that the northern latitudes are seeing more and more warmer days and that is causing the permafrost to melt. There is no denying that the spread of seasonal disease (such as West Nile or Lyme's) is increasing do to longer warm periods. There is no denying increasing crop failures in marginal agricultural area's do to more intense heat in the summer and the greater insect infestation that mild winters cause. There is no denying any of these things and the science behind the explanation of these events is, or seems to me, rational and well founded. While the science of meteorology is a very complex science, the science behind global warming, do to increased greenhouse gasses is not, it's very simple and well understood and was well understood before global warming was even a terrestrial issue. To me, there is really very little that one can even argue about. It's far more so, than not, settled and established science.The only dissension about global warming is coming from political pundits, scientist who work for interested companies that have a monetary stake in the issue and, for some inexplicable reason (at least to me, by my observation), the community of the faithful. Now that's not to say that every person or even community of faith denies this, it's just and overall observation.By the way global warming is about seasonal temperatures not a record high or record low. The fact that is was 106 here when I went out to the car yesterday is of no significance neither is the fact that it was 17 below last winter. What is of significance is that there are more warmer days and fewer cold days overall.BlackManOnCampus, what are you talking about receding sun. Where is it receding to?

Quote:BlackManOnCampus, what are you talking about receding sun. Where is it receding to? He said residing, not receding.

Quite right, so he did.Never mind BMOC.

Don't let it happen again!

Quote:Damien, JapanFan, AW, Nny - Lovely Christian folk, refuse to believe that there is a problem. None of us denied that we need to take better care of the planet and the piss poor way we quite literally shit all over the planet is infact a problem.Also no offence to any of the other christians on the board. However, bob I think you should probably NEVER lump me in with other christians in general =/I was told I was going to hell on a daily basis just last year. I never denied being a christian however, they simply assumed I wasn't and said "oh your going to hell" or "oh your on drugs" or some other bullshit day in. day out. I don't hate athiest or christians. I can't stand any assholes involved.

I'm sorry, in future I shall try not to lump you into things.

Well I'm not going to get into it because I know what will happen and I don't have time for that lol but I do notice what's going on in the world and yes it SUCKS. However , it's just interesting. People are so deep into "Global Warming the world will flood" and they don't even realize it's probably a distraction from something even worse. So sad.....good thing I won't be here!

But I still clean up my planet mostly through this program called Habitat for Humanity. So much fun. But some people are just too stubborn and they need to be slapped into human decency. If you were at home would you be throwing stuff around like it didn't matter? No you'd make sure your home was clean. yet people seem to forget earth is your home. flippin take care of it ya lazy bums.

Well, I'll refer back to exodus when the jews were exiling themselves from the tyranny of the pharaoh. River running blood-red (since forensics was not around they could have been simply using what they knew to be red at the time), could've been Karenia brevis, an algae, which is toxic--that may have sparked the amphibians (frogs) to come onto land...Also the parting of the sea of reeds, could be scientifically explained as the natural occurrence that happens right before a tidal wave hits. The water recedes towards the ocean or large body of water as it swells. Thus creating an extended shoreline out to sea. this is sorta what I'm referring to

There are a small group of Christians who subscribe to the "Prosperity Gospel" who find the global warming idea a threat, because they believe a modern affluent American lifestyle is a gift from God, and the idea that the planet cannot support this contradicts that belief. However, although there are areas in the US where such people are numerous, it does not reflect mainstream Christian belief.

Remember that ProNatalist guy who espoused the idea that we should breed and multiply and fill the earth with people because God wanted it that way? He claimed that there was plenty of land where we could spread. He didn't really explain how food, water, energy and jobs would come into play. He must have been part of that group.

I've heard about this group. However, I didn't know they were opposed to global warming.I have heard of some Evangelical Christians beginning to fight global warming, though.

Originally Posted By: sdp

_I don't believe the reports about the ice caps are true. _

So the pictures are BS? So the disappearing glaciers are BS?

A couple of pictures of collapsing glaciers don't prove a world-wide global warming. I think anyone whose willing to be intellectually honest would hesitate to state otherwise. While it's true that a small region of the Antarctic has been warming and losing ice, scientist studying that region are actually showing that the vast majority of the area is actually cooling and gaining ice.

Al Bore and his cronies have made claims that the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is collapsing, when the truth (once again...as shown by real scientists) is that the region is cooling and researchers are blaming the collapsing on local land use practices.

Alarmists are touting the retreat of the Peruvian glaciers and falsely implying it is due to global warming. The fact (once again...according to real science) is that region has been consistently cooling since the 1960's and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

Alarmists are claiming that polar bears are dying due to melting ice, when in fact (once again...science and real research) the polar bear population is thriving.

So no, the "disappearing glaciers" in your videos aren't BS. But it is a huge stretch and a fundamental error to use them as some sort of proof of worldwide - or even region wide - global warming.

I was looking at some news reports from Time Magazine and other sources about "scientists" who were harping about warming temperatures, about 40 years before the same scientists and same sources were harping about the "coming ice age" which was about 30 years before a bunch of new knuckleheads in the same places started...you know...

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThis is not the only place I've noticed this but I have noticed a corolation between relgious views and views on climate change. It seems the stronger the religious beliefs the less likely the person is to acsept global warming evidence and the converse also seems to be true as well. Just an observation.I was thinking about that same correlation this morning. Actually, I was thinking about similar correlations around politics.BUT...it is, once again, extremely short sighted and frankly, it pisses the hell out of me, to see folks here jump at the chance to imply that us ignorant Christians are denying global warming because we hate science. That's f-ing bull. You better be really careful before you start confusing correlation with causality. There is a correlation, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the correlation has little to do with the acceptance or denial of science (hell, I just spouted a butt-load of real scientific/research mumbo-jumbo to counter your side's science of "I saw it on you-tube"), and has a lot more to do with who we are willing to recognize as legitimate sources of information and who is full of hot air. Christians and conservatives don't tend to think that Al Gore and Leo DiCrap are authoritative sources of information. Maybe we are so onto these folks and their political agendas, that we have learned the value in being skeptical when they talk.The problem is, all of this is such a forgone conclusion with you guys (gee...ain't that real scientific) that any science or proof or research that we can offer up pretty much gets slapped aside so you can all maintain your "aww-look-at-those-poor-ignorant-Christians-who-hate-science" posture.Honestly, why in the world would in threaten a Christian to believe that there's anything to this global warming hype? It wouldn't. There is nowhere in the entire discussion any inch of territory that I can see that intersects with Christianity or spirituality or religion or anything. Why exactly do you think Christians would have some agenda of denying global warming, other than possibly not believing the word of politicians/activists/entertainers over real science?

Quote:Christians and conservativesIt's interesting that in the US the churches are mainly on the right politically. Here, Christians tend to be on the left. Jesus wasn't very conservative.damien, I have no problem with your taking your information from science rather than politics. However, that's not quite the same as taking it from scientists rather than politicians. And it's certainly not the same as taking it from articles and videos that quote scientists. They are selective, and edited, and there have been some very angry scientists alleging misquoting and false light. To get the science, you need to go to the climatology journals.If you want something that's a little more accessible, there's an interesting recent article on the interaction between anthropogenic and natural effects in Science: Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy, "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model", Science 10 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799. Science is a serious but more "popular" journal, and you should be able to get hard-copy or electronic access through any college library or reasonable public library. There is a brief commentary by the editors on pp 746-7 in the same issue that also may be of interest. Abstract: "Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record."

Hold on there, don't get your panties in knot, damien. I simply made a casual observation and no where did I draw any conclusion form it. All I did is question what I witness. Any conclusion made was drawn by you, not be me.>>>"Christians and conservatives don't tend to think that Al Gore and Leo DiCrap are authoritative sources of information." Review and listen to the science, not the talking heads. As for listening to Al all he's good for is putting me to sleep. With regard to Leo, I've never heard him say shit about the environment, that's how much attention I pay to celebrity.>>>"Maybe we are so onto these folks and their political agendas, that we have learned the value in being skeptical when they talk."I'm curious how much of that skepticism do most, who deny global warming, apply to Sean Hanity, Bill O'Riely, Gordan Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Oral Robertson Jr. or Pat Robertson. From my casual observation around here, not to damn much. Are those guys just straight shooters who tell it like it is.>>>"The problem is, all of this is such a forgone conclusion..."That's true. Global warming is settled science, as settled as science gets anyway. There is practically no debate about it in the scientific community.>>>"...any science or proof or research that we can offer up pretty much gets slapped aside..."That's generally because most of the research done is flawed from the start. The researcher has drawn a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it rather than looking at the evidence to develop a theory. That gets done on both sides of argument but is dismissed or rejected by most researchers.>>>"...why in the world would in threaten a Christian to believe that there's anything to this global warming hype? It wouldn't. There is nowhere in the entire discussion any inch of territory that I can see that intersects with Christianity or spirituality or religion or anything."I already stated that, one has to do with science the other with faith. I see no reason the two should be concerned with each other. All I did was question a casual observation I had made.>>>"other than possibly not believing the word of politicians/activists/entertainers over real science?"Could you please direct us to this "real" science.

damn thriving polar bears such a pest of a species

Ahhh.. That's all liberal propoganda!!!!

well I guess that's the reputation National Geographic must endure :wink:

Originally Posted By: OldFolks

Hold on there, don't get your panties in knot, damien. I simply made a casual observation and no where did I draw any conclusion form it. All I did is question what I witness. Any conclusion made was drawn by you, not be me.

Sorry. I know your post wasn't drawing any conclusions. But it was obvious that folks following up/agreeing with your post were heading that way. So I made the mistake of responding to the original post.

Quote:

That's true. Global warming is settled science, as settled as science gets anyway. There is practically no debate about it in the scientific community.

If you're talking about an undeniable warming trend, you are correct. If you are talking about a "climate crisis" and/or human culpability in that warming trend, it is not settled and there is plenty of debate in the scientific community. And, despite what others have insinuated about me, by "scientific community" I mean real science. Real journals. Real research. Not Time Magazine or what-not.

"And, despite what others have insinuated about me, by "scientific community" I mean real science. Real journals. Real research. Not Time Magazine or what-not."Would you mind pointing us to these journals and articles, that you've read?