Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here are a few key questions that need to be asked regarding the issue of Global Warming. We need to stick with Global Warming instead of the ludicrous Climate Change because the Earth's Climate has Always changed. When we speak of Global Warming we understand that this means human caused warming by use of fossil fuels and expulsion of gases, mainly carbon dioxide (what WE breathe out). I'm not going to post the legion of scientific and political articles both supporting or debunking GW. Rather I will talk in terms of common sense and common speech.
Question 1, Is there warming at all? ANSWER: INDETERMINATE- Both anecdotal and data support both sides.
Question 2, If we are warming, is it primarily caused by human beings, or is it a natural cycle? ANSWER:INDETERMINATE- Is it from the SUN, the CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS, NATURAL GASSES, (volcanos, decaying forests, animal flatulence, etc..) or HUMAN USE OF FOSSIL FUELS
Question 3, If we are warming would that be a bad thing? ANSWER: CERTAINLY NOT IN THE SHORT TERM. Increased growing seasons, much lower use of fuel to cool rather than heat homes and businesses, 20 time lower death rate from heat than cold, much greater human productivity, and let's face it, most people are miserable in the cold.
Question 4, If we are warming, and it is caused by humans, is it reversible? ANSWER: WHO KNOWS? This is an assumption based on the whole house of cards from the previous questions.
Question 5, Who benefits if we continue status quo? ANSWER: EVERYBODY!!!INCLUDING THE TREES! NOTHING has raised the standard of living of ordinary human beings more than fossil fuels. Everything from food to freedom of travel to heating and cooling, to every aspect of commerce is dependent on a cheap, reliable fuel. And NOTHING has the lower BTU cost close to fossil fuels.
Question 6, Who benefits if the draconian measures the warming alarmists gets their way? ANSWER: POLITICIANS, KINGS, THE EXTREME WEALTHY,GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ELITES, SOCIALISTS/COMMUNISTS THE POPE. They want to make energy soooo expensive, that EVERYTHING will be more expensive and YOU will be more and more dependent on THEM and what THEY deem is necessary for YOU.
Question 1, Is there warming at all? ANSWER: INDETERMINATE- Both anecdotal and data support both sides.
Question 2, If we are warming, is it primarily caused by human beings, or is it a natural cycle? ANSWER:INDETERMINATE- Is it from the SUN, the CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS, NATURAL GASSES, (volcanos, decaying forests, animal flatulence, etc..) or HUMAN USE OF FOSSIL FUELS
Question 3, If we are warming would that be a bad thing? ANSWER: CERTAINLY NOT IN THE SHORT TERM. Increased growing seasons, much lower use of fuel to cool rather than heat homes and businesses, 20 time lower death rate from heat than cold, much greater human productivity, and let's face it, most people are miserable in the cold.
Question 4, If we are warming, and it is caused by humans, is it reversible? ANSWER: WHO KNOWS? This is an assumption based on the whole house of cards from the previous questions.
Question 5, Who benefits if we continue status quo? ANSWER: EVERYBODY!!!INCLUDING THE TREES! NOTHING has raised the standard of living of ordinary human beings more than fossil fuels. Everything from food to freedom of travel to heating and cooling, to every aspect of commerce is dependent on a cheap, reliable fuel. And NOTHING has the lower BTU cost close to fossil fuels.
Question 6, Who benefits if the draconian measures the warming alarmists gets their way? ANSWER: POLITICIANS, KINGS, THE EXTREME WEALTHY,GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ELITES, SOCIALISTS/COMMUNISTS THE POPE. They want to make energy soooo expensive, that EVERYTHING will be more expensive and YOU will be more and more dependent on THEM and what THEY deem is necessary for YOU.
V
Here ...
Warmists like to talk about the mean Earth temperature having gone up half a degree in the last 100 years.
1. It isn't that much.
2. It isn't even that much in the last 350 years!
3. Five thousand years ago, it was obviously four degrees warmer than it is now, and they didn't have coal-burning power plants or four billion cars in the world back then!
Anthropomorphic-caused "global warming" is a myth created by political activitists, not serious scientists. In fact, anyone having an "environmental science" degree should have a disclaimer on it that it was primarily awarded by their school's political science department!
Yes, I know it wasn't, but it just as well be. It is politics, not science.
Warmists like to talk about the mean Earth temperature having gone up half a degree in the last 100 years.
1. It isn't that much.
2. It isn't even that much in the last 350 years!
3. Five thousand years ago, it was obviously four degrees warmer than it is now, and they didn't have coal-burning power plants or four billion cars in the world back then!
Anthropomorphic-caused "global warming" is a myth created by political activitists, not serious scientists. In fact, anyone having an "environmental science" degree should have a disclaimer on it that it was primarily awarded by their school's political science department!
Yes, I know it wasn't, but it just as well be. It is politics, not science.
Last edited:
A race for resources that we did not even showup for.
I see other countrys , like Russia leading in putting money in expanding there,
Obama is racing to open the front door, don't think he cares to protect the back one.
Nations Jockey for Arctic Position, US Not in Lead
Nations Jockey for Arctic Position, US Not in Lead | Military.com
"A half-century after racing the Russians to the moon, the U.S. is barely suiting up in the international race to secure interests in the Arctic. Russia, Canada and other nations are investing heavily," Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., wrote in an op-ed published earlier this month.
"We are behind and falling farther back."
In the Race to Control the Arctic, the U.S. Lags Behind
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/17/cold-cold-war-349973.html
It’s a new kind of geopolitical cold war, and the U.S. is in danger of losing.
“We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now,”
Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft says.
“We’re not playing in this game at all.” The U.S. has only two, both old and “there’s no money
for new icebreakers,” reports Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
Ulmer says an icebreaker can cost up to a billion dollars, and “it takes years to get one built.”
Russia operates 27 icebreakers, and China, which is not an Arctic nation but has aspirations in the area,
will have two by next year.
We all have to remember no matter what man does, God controls the weather.
and He uses it aka [mother nature] to punish nations,
or can bless and do proper amounts in there proper seasons.
the earth has been going through warm and colder phases for long time .
I see other countrys , like Russia leading in putting money in expanding there,
Obama is racing to open the front door, don't think he cares to protect the back one.
Nations Jockey for Arctic Position, US Not in Lead
Nations Jockey for Arctic Position, US Not in Lead | Military.com
"A half-century after racing the Russians to the moon, the U.S. is barely suiting up in the international race to secure interests in the Arctic. Russia, Canada and other nations are investing heavily," Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., wrote in an op-ed published earlier this month.
"We are behind and falling farther back."
In the Race to Control the Arctic, the U.S. Lags Behind
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/17/cold-cold-war-349973.html
It’s a new kind of geopolitical cold war, and the U.S. is in danger of losing.
“We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now,”
Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft says.
“We’re not playing in this game at all.” The U.S. has only two, both old and “there’s no money
for new icebreakers,” reports Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
Ulmer says an icebreaker can cost up to a billion dollars, and “it takes years to get one built.”
Russia operates 27 icebreakers, and China, which is not an Arctic nation but has aspirations in the area,
will have two by next year.
We all have to remember no matter what man does, God controls the weather.
and He uses it aka [mother nature] to punish nations,
or can bless and do proper amounts in there proper seasons.
the earth has been going through warm and colder phases for long time .
Last edited:
you're right, in a way. sorry.
the NSDIC is an independent lab that is partially funded by NASA contracts. one of those is a NASA grant to archive all of the NSDIC data -- so NASA has a 'stake' in the DAAC, even though the data itself doesn't originate from NASA.
in my head i still think of NASA as the 'spaceflight people' and forget that they help fund research in many independent labs, so those labs are in a certain sense 'NASA' labs as well, even though they are not technically part of NASA proper.
like this one?
source: http://frontierscientists.com/2013/12/alaska-in-the-2013-arctic-turmoil/
the article in the link got their data from - guess who - the NSIDC.
but don't worry guys, they didn't get any NASA contracts to archive their data until 1993.
if you want to do your own data analysis, you can get it all right here:
http://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=sea+ice/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25
source: http://frontierscientists.com/2013/12/alaska-in-the-2013-arctic-turmoil/
the article in the link got their data from - guess who - the NSIDC.
but don't worry guys, they didn't get any NASA contracts to archive their data until 1993.
if you want to do your own data analysis, you can get it all right here:
http://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=sea+ice/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25
The 36 year graph shows a dramatic melting trend. That's hardly useless. As for your graph, I google searched it and came up with a lot of half-hearted blogs and phony news sites. Nothing legitimate.
Pick your poison, and scrub up:
Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
Pick your poison, and scrub up:
Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
V
That is not what it shows at all, and nothing about it is "dramatic." What is shows, in the context of the article, is the ice fluctuating with "Arctic temperature anomalies" since 1900, which shows a "massive variation" <--[Note: tongue firmly in cheek] of eight freakin' degrees outside the norms, which is well inside worldwide expected so-called anomalies. That is, the Arctic weather extremes are much less than the rest of the world.
All it proves is that the Arctic Ocean is just as susceptible to freak weather events as is the rest of the world, but not to the greater extent as the rest ofthe world. Yeah, I read the article, which apparently you and Posthuman failed to do.
I guess you missed the fact the source was actually printed on the graph itself. No need to "search the internet," just type in the info from the chart and BOOM! there it is.
Greenland temperatures: Cooling for 3,000 years
Yeah, that would be poison, since it is the U.N.'s politicized, edited, and outright fabricated "report" on AGW, geared to force industrialized countries to de-industrialize so they can let the Third World pollute the planet as much as they want with impunity, so the Third World can become the new industrialized nations of the world.
All it proves is that the Arctic Ocean is just as susceptible to freak weather events as is the rest of the world, but not to the greater extent as the rest ofthe world. Yeah, I read the article, which apparently you and Posthuman failed to do.
I guess you missed the fact the source was actually printed on the graph itself. No need to "search the internet," just type in the info from the chart and BOOM! there it is.
Greenland temperatures: Cooling for 3,000 years
Yeah, that would be poison, since it is the U.N.'s politicized, edited, and outright fabricated "report" on AGW, geared to force industrialized countries to de-industrialize so they can let the Third World pollute the planet as much as they want with impunity, so the Third World can become the new industrialized nations of the world.
Your definition of "fact" seems to leave out the fact that the ISPCC is the most comprehensive of all reports on climate change, one of the vastest and most widely validated scientific theories in human history, alongside my personal favourite -- evolution by natural selection. The fact that you dismiss that fact, means you clearly don't know what a "fact" is.
V
Just in case you missed Mitspa's point, I'll explain it outright for you.
Darwinism was swiftly adopted by the scientific community for the very reason it established in the minds of those "intellectuals" of the 19th century that the white "race" was, in fact, superior. There are countless "studies" available online and in libraries everywhere that "prove" why the white "race" is "superior" to the "colored races" as these "intellectuals" called them.
Brilliant scholarship, don't you think? That's the crap you're "believing" when you endorse Darwin's estimation of natural selection. Not that there isn't "survivial of the fittest," but not in the way Darwin postulated so as to make whites better than anyone else.
[/rant]
Darwinism was swiftly adopted by the scientific community for the very reason it established in the minds of those "intellectuals" of the 19th century that the white "race" was, in fact, superior. There are countless "studies" available online and in libraries everywhere that "prove" why the white "race" is "superior" to the "colored races" as these "intellectuals" called them.
Brilliant scholarship, don't you think? That's the crap you're "believing" when you endorse Darwin's estimation of natural selection. Not that there isn't "survivial of the fittest," but not in the way Darwin postulated so as to make whites better than anyone else.
[/rant]
Just in case you missed Mitspa's point, I'll explain it outright for you.
Darwinism was swiftly adopted by the scientific community for the very reason it established in the minds of those "intellectuals" of the 19th century that the white "race" was, in fact, superior. There are countless "studies" available online and in libraries everywhere that "prove" why the white "race" is "superior" to the "colored races" as these "intellectuals" called them.
Brilliant scholarship, don't you think? That's the crap you're "believing" when you endorse Darwin's estimation of natural selection. Not that there isn't "survivial of the fittest," but not in the way Darwin postulated so as to make whites better than anyone else.
[/rant]
Darwinism was swiftly adopted by the scientific community for the very reason it established in the minds of those "intellectuals" of the 19th century that the white "race" was, in fact, superior. There are countless "studies" available online and in libraries everywhere that "prove" why the white "race" is "superior" to the "colored races" as these "intellectuals" called them.
Brilliant scholarship, don't you think? That's the crap you're "believing" when you endorse Darwin's estimation of natural selection. Not that there isn't "survivial of the fittest," but not in the way Darwin postulated so as to make whites better than anyone else.
[/rant]
Read about Charles Darwin's beagle voyage, and Janet Brown's biography of the man, "The Power of Place". It's no secret that Darwin's opposition to slavery was open and vehement. He clearly used the vernacular of the time, referring for instance to the Australian aborigines as "savages", and he spoke of the Caucasian race as being the most civilized, but this wasn't anything out of the ordinary for the time in which he lived.
It's absolutely intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists only took up Darwin's theories as a tool for white supremacism. In fact, if you read current evolutionary studies, it's quite clear that black people are at many distinct evolutionary advantages when compared to whites; their bone structure is tougher, they have more melanin in their skin and their immune systems seem to be able to withstand more punishment than most Caucasians' do. The best Olympic athletes are usually black, while the "smartest" people (Stephen Hawking, Christopher Langan, Judit Polgar, Manahel Thabet) tend more often than not to be white than any other race. Why do you think that is?
Even if Darwin did staunchly believe that Caucasians were superior in terms of being civilized (which itself is arbitrary), it wasn't for genetic or evolutionary reasons, it was for social ones. That the mans' character might have been flawed, doesn't remove from his scientific theories -- social Darwinism is not the same as his theory of evolution by natural selection, and anyone who conflates the two as you've done clearly doesn't properly understand either.
Last edited: