What is your opinion on Global Warming?
I'll tell you the definition to GLOBAL WARMING...it is a scare or threat for politicians(mainly democrats) to get enough attention to win an election.
God said he was going to destroy the world, and we are not. Humans are not destroying the ozone and the world isn't going to freeze. Or anything like that. I feel that GOD is going to destroy the world with a fervent heat. Post your opinion...THANK YOU
What's Your Opinion on....?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: What's Your Opinion on....?
Post #2Where did God say he was going to destroy the world? Indeed, isn't the rainbow a promise from God not to destroy the worldmineman43 wrote:What is your opinion on Global Warming?
I'll tell you the definition to GLOBAL WARMING...it is a scare or threat for politicians(mainly democrats) to get enough attention to win an election.
God said he was going to destroy the world, and we are not. Humans are not destroying the ozone and the world isn't going to freeze. Or anything like that. I feel that GOD is going to destroy the world with a fervent heat. Post your opinion...THANK YOU
Oh right. you probalby got that from the very much misinterpreted thing known as Revelation'
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: What's Your Opinion on....?
Post #3No point in worrying about the environment or the future as he is going to watch the world anyway, the steward stuff is OT stuff. The world is going to end anyway.goat wrote:Where did God say he was going to destroy the world? Indeed, isn't the rainbow a promise from God not to destroy the worldmineman43 wrote:What is your opinion on Global Warming?
I'll tell you the definition to GLOBAL WARMING...it is a scare or threat for politicians(mainly democrats) to get enough attention to win an election.
God said he was going to destroy the world, and we are not. Humans are not destroying the ozone and the world isn't going to freeze. Or anything like that. I feel that GOD is going to destroy the world with a fervent heat. Post your opinion...THANK YOU
Oh right. you probalby got that from the very much misinterpreted thing known as Revelation'
I have heard that God only promised that he wouldn't destroy all flesh or maybe it was just a flood that is exempt. But fire seem to be the preference.
Post #5
Most recent warming trends (and yes, the earth is warming) can't be attributed to solar irradiation to any large degree. Only increasing greenhouse gas emissions can make up the numbers. If you look at ice core records over the last few hundred thousand years, CO2 seems to hover somewhere around 290-300ppm max (varying in a cyclical fashion from memory). Current CO2 concentrations, which started rising around the 1800s and continue to do so to this day, are around 385ppm.
I think it's obvious. There is a consensus. Global warming is happening and we're partly to blame.
I'll provide sources at request as I have them at hand but couldn't be bothered right now.
I think it's obvious. There is a consensus. Global warming is happening and we're partly to blame.
I'll provide sources at request as I have them at hand but couldn't be bothered right now.
Re: What's Your Opinion on....?
Post #6Sure, as a normal main-sequence G2 star, our Sun is going to bloat into a red-giant reaching out far enough to swallow the inner planets and roast the Earth in around five-billion years. Good guess on behalf of someone there. Still, water had already been used and earth and wind don't sound particularly fearsome, so fire seems like a natural. BTW Global temperature rise is a matter of instrumentation, it's the way we interpret the causes that's in dispute.mineman43 wrote: I feel that GOD is going to destroy the world with a fervent heat.
Post #7
What surprises me is that this has somehow been painted as a Liberal Conspiracy--to get more Democratic votes. Why is it supposed to be "patriotic" to drive a giant gas-hog Hummer or Escalade, but it's part of some weird anti-god, gay agenda to drive a hybrid? Whether global warming is man-made or not, there's still the basic problem of using up the oil. That may be the only thing that stops global warming, in the end...there won't be anything left to burn.
You'd think good Christians would want to save god's creation and keep it healthy, rather than rail against those who do. Actually, I think most good Christians do want to keep the earth healthy; it's just those few fundamentalist activists who don't. But then, that's the way of fundamentalism. It gets so caught up in its own dogma that it misses the bigger picture. It doesn't even seem to matter whether it's Christian, Islamic, or Hindu fundamentalism.
It's probably difficult for some previously-Republican "True Christians" (as I've heard them call themselves) to realize that their stewardship duty is actually quite the opposite of Republican policy. Will they vote for Hillary? Or will they continue to put gay marriage ahead of basic survival? Quite a conundrum.
You'd think good Christians would want to save god's creation and keep it healthy, rather than rail against those who do. Actually, I think most good Christians do want to keep the earth healthy; it's just those few fundamentalist activists who don't. But then, that's the way of fundamentalism. It gets so caught up in its own dogma that it misses the bigger picture. It doesn't even seem to matter whether it's Christian, Islamic, or Hindu fundamentalism.
It's probably difficult for some previously-Republican "True Christians" (as I've heard them call themselves) to realize that their stewardship duty is actually quite the opposite of Republican policy. Will they vote for Hillary? Or will they continue to put gay marriage ahead of basic survival? Quite a conundrum.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #8
Maybe it does when you have problems fuelling Christian Hummers with Islamic oil.Jose wrote:It gets so caught up in its own dogma that it misses the bigger picture. It doesn't even seem to matter whether it's Christian, Islamic, or Hindu fundamentalism.
-
byofrcs
Re: What's Your Opinion on....?
Post #9Utter rubbish. As far back as 2001 in a joint statement issued by a large number of International scientific groups stated that the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science.mineman43 wrote:What is your opinion on Global Warming?
I'll tell you the definition to GLOBAL WARMING...it is a scare or threat for politicians(mainly democrats) to get enough attention to win an election.
God said he was going to destroy the world, and we are not. Humans are not destroying the ozone and the world isn't going to freeze. Or anything like that. I feel that GOD is going to destroy the world with a fervent heat. Post your opinion...THANK YOU
As that letter says, "One hundred and eighty-one governments are Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, demonstrating a global commitment to ‘stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels’. ".
So it is NOT a recent phenomena for this round of electioneering and "International" and "Intergovernmental" are NOT euphemisms for some bizarre parochial US political campaign.
Also the Ozone layer isn't directly related to Global Warming issue but a separate problem.
I'd have to go with the IPCC plus the common sense that says that you only have to look at what happened to with the cyanobacteria so many years ago to see that little changes can trigger spectacular results.
Unless you know exactly what will happen it's safer to try to maintain the status-quo. Once climatic modelling catches up in accuracy and prediction then you can revise that policy.
In that respect there is a "Global Warming" phenomena, though the impact on our human niche may not be as plain to see as the mass media or politicians would have us believe. Given there is a lot more evidence for the human effects on climate than your God (which to date has absolutely no evidence), we should be a lot less willing to push our luck on Planet Earth and more willing to revise our beliefs in Gods.
Evolution and Global Warming are the same!
Post #10This is a break from the usual debates between evolution and creationism. But the situations really are pretty similar.
For both evolution and global warming, there is a strongly held scientific consensus, accepted by the large majority of scientists. Few scientists dissent from the consensus, even fewer who have relevant expertise.
Although the scientific dissent is small, there are large and vocal political movements in opposition to the consensus views. The dissenting scientists are popular in these movements - they get far more attention as deniers than they would as mainstream scientists. (Exactly what have Drs Behe or Dembski done that warrant interest, other than advocating ID?)
In each case, the opposition is fueled by what can generously be called "stray facts," bits and pieces that don't easily fit the consensus view. But these dissenting scientists never address the core evidence at the foundation of the scientific consensus. Deniers of evolution insist that it is absolutely essential that we explain the bacterial flagellum - a structure elucidated rather recently and not fully understood. But they have never explained the broad patterns in the evidence outlined by Darwin back in 1859 - the hierarchical pattern of life, the distribution of life around the world, or the fossil record.
Likewise, global warming deniers piddle around the edge of the science, offering ad hoc alternatives to data or telling us why particular measurements can't be trusted. They accuse others of having political motives, ignoring the obvious prejudices and vested interests in their ranks. But they never address the central evidence - the physics that shows that CO2 retards the flow of infrared radiation into space or the stunning correlations from the past 1000s of years between CO2 levels and temperature.
Contrary to the dim view that some people have of scientists, it is evidence which drives their judgement. Dogmas can set in for a while, but the weight of evidence eventually will tell. To win the debate, all you have to do is provide alternative explanations to the key evidences that caused scientists to accept the consensus in the first place. But denial is all the opponents can offer.
For both evolution and global warming, there is a strongly held scientific consensus, accepted by the large majority of scientists. Few scientists dissent from the consensus, even fewer who have relevant expertise.
Although the scientific dissent is small, there are large and vocal political movements in opposition to the consensus views. The dissenting scientists are popular in these movements - they get far more attention as deniers than they would as mainstream scientists. (Exactly what have Drs Behe or Dembski done that warrant interest, other than advocating ID?)
In each case, the opposition is fueled by what can generously be called "stray facts," bits and pieces that don't easily fit the consensus view. But these dissenting scientists never address the core evidence at the foundation of the scientific consensus. Deniers of evolution insist that it is absolutely essential that we explain the bacterial flagellum - a structure elucidated rather recently and not fully understood. But they have never explained the broad patterns in the evidence outlined by Darwin back in 1859 - the hierarchical pattern of life, the distribution of life around the world, or the fossil record.
Likewise, global warming deniers piddle around the edge of the science, offering ad hoc alternatives to data or telling us why particular measurements can't be trusted. They accuse others of having political motives, ignoring the obvious prejudices and vested interests in their ranks. But they never address the central evidence - the physics that shows that CO2 retards the flow of infrared radiation into space or the stunning correlations from the past 1000s of years between CO2 levels and temperature.
Contrary to the dim view that some people have of scientists, it is evidence which drives their judgement. Dogmas can set in for a while, but the weight of evidence eventually will tell. To win the debate, all you have to do is provide alternative explanations to the key evidences that caused scientists to accept the consensus in the first place. But denial is all the opponents can offer.
