A
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That was outlawed when the British took over. BTW I have several urban (or jungle) legends. One was that a Rockerfeller, who was an anthropologist, went to study the cannibals there and never came back.
Another is that the Catholics came to missionize them, and strictly forbade their eating of human flesh, which they accepted. Then when the missionaries went on to explain about the Eucharist, that it is the true body and blood of Christ, the natives were flabberghasted – you want us not to eat other people, but you say we should eat God?
Then (this is true) there is a tribe, the Fore, who had the custom of eating their dead relatives’ brains. Well there was a high incidence of mad cow disease (kuru disease) from that custom, but the people never figured it out, since it takes so long to manifest.
Then there are the Tsembaga Maring of highlands NG, studied by anthrop Roy Rappaport, who found they were able thru their beliefs and customs to maintain an undegraded environment. More about Rappaport’s writings later…
Then another true story, when the British gave them independence some years back, the tribes in the highlands didn’t celebrate for another month. They were afraid the rumor of independence might not be true, and they didn’t want to draw the revenge of the British upon them.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Have you perchance studied anything about radiative energy and the natural greenhouse effect, and do you have some other explanations why venus is so much warmer than earth (which cannot be explained solely on it being closer to the sun) or why mars is so much colder (which cannot be explained solely on it being farther from the sun)?
Here is something that might help other readers (bec I’m sure you do know about all this): stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/climate-change/3-The-natural-greenhouse-effect.html
I’m trying to remember where I learned about the greenhouse effect, and I’m thinking it might be from Victor Weisskopf’s Knowledge and Wonder, which I read back in 1965; he is a well-known physicist who was the prof for some post-doc plasma physics students I knew back then. (Too bad they never came up with feasible fusion…)
see - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frederick_Weisskopf
What can I say, the greenhouse effect theory is well accepted in science, and make a lot of sense and solves a lot of mysteries. Furthermore, re our past great warmings – even the ones in which something else (orbit, wobble, etc) triggered the intial warming; they can’t explain the magnitude of those warming without factoring in the GHGs that were released (e.g., melting permafrost & hydrates, etc) into the atmosphere magnifying the warming. If you and your friend have a better explanation, I’m sure paleoclimatologists would be glad to hear it.
RE biologists finding AGW “fingerprints,” here’s a Google Scholar search on the works of Camile Parmesan for starters - scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=camille%20parmesan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
RE that famous 1995 Science article, see: Kerr, R. A. 1995. “Studies Say -Tentatively -That Greenhouse Warming is Here.” Science 268.5217: 1567-8. See: sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/268/5217/1567
There is also much proxy evidence – not just tree rings (which denialists despise), but stalactite/stalagmite and foraminfera, glacial length retreat, etc.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Quick! Someone apply for a federal grant before we’re all in the dark!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
On second thought, I guess AGW is a hoax – see sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/18/notes081810.DTL
But I’m still going to mitigate it, bec I know good economic & healthy things when I experience them
But I’m still going to mitigate it, bec I know good economic & healthy things when I experience them
K
kimmielittle
Guest
As a Christian, you sure seem to have strange heroes.
The author of your article linked above
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually I’d check my understanding of The Second Law of Thermodynamics…and Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the AGW …Man Made Global Warming theory…It was long ago debunked. As a matter of fact: NASA debunked it nearly 40 years ago during Apollo
K
kimmielittle
Guest
T
Tigg
Guest
I’ve been lurking and think this is an absolutely A-1 thread and I rated it as such; my hat is off to the debaters. I’m getting a little embarrassed because I must simply keep praising Kimmie for her unabated logic and common sense. Wherever do you get those marvelous quotes and would you be willing to share?
I’m not much into the actual science, but have been educated, nonetheless, by the lies and deception of the AGW crowd and how this all plays into the hands of a government wanting to control the populace and use this, not because it is true, but because it will serve their own means to impose outrageous taxes on us. I am further very much concerned that as Catholics we have become a people who praises creation and Mother Earth far more readily than we praise the Creator Himself or bow to His eternal truth.
I’m not much into the actual science, but have been educated, nonetheless, by the lies and deception of the AGW crowd and how this all plays into the hands of a government wanting to control the populace and use this, not because it is true, but because it will serve their own means to impose outrageous taxes on us. I am further very much concerned that as Catholics we have become a people who praises creation and Mother Earth far more readily than we praise the Creator Himself or bow to His eternal truth.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually, as a Christian, I’m embarrassed and ashamed so many of my Christian brethren believe AGW and evolution are hoaxes. God is truth, and denying scientific “truths” or findings is bad, provisional & changeable and based on the best theories & evidence to date tho they be.As a Christian, you sure seem to have strange heroes.
The author of your article linked above
Which is why this thread was started – the atheist friend of the person who started it is wondering about why Christians can’t accept science. Luckily, as I’ve pointed out the Catholic Church hierarchy, if not priests and parishioners and Cardinal Pell, do take AGW seriously and have made some wonderful statements about how it is everone’s responsiblity to mitigate.
The Protestant churches have sort of cut themselves adrift so they can say whatever comes into their heads, depending on how they feel about it. And, of course, it doesn’t feel good to take AGW seriously. No one likes to face it. It takes courage to face something that unpleasant. Something that seems to contradict our wealthy way of life, our view of the world, our sense of self-righteousness. It downright hurts, in fact. I cried some 20 years ago when it hit me that AGW was real, and I was a perpetrator. Good bye, goody-two shoes me.
C
Calliso
Guest
Yeah no one wants AGW to be true. But unfortunately closing our eyes and covering our ears and going its all a hoax all a hoax isnlt going to make it go away.
C
Calliso
Guest
Often we hear the claim that the scientists are all in it for the money with AGW. While reading the comments of this post realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/#more-4431 which I recommend reading as the hockey stick is often attacked. I found this comment. **SecularAnimist – I did some research into grants for climate science vs. revenues for fossil fuel-related industries and found that in 2008 (the latest year for which all the data I needed was available), globally governments spent about $3.8 billion on researching climate science (and that’s a high estimate, given how much of that money goes to multi-purpose satellites) while the fossil fuel-related industries I could track had revenues of about $9 trillion, or 15% of the entire global economy. And that number was a minimum, not a max, given the way I did my analysis.
And yet Montford et al still claim that climate scientists are all in it for the grant money. If that were the case, they’d be far more likely to perform research for a corporate employer instead of working for government labs or in academia, given that there’s about 2400x more money available than there is in government or academia.** and the response by Gavin. Indeed. It’s worth emphasising that the vast bulk of the climate science money goes on observing platforms like satellites. For instance, NASA’s budget for Earth Science is around $2 billion dollars, and GISS accounts for about 0.5% of that
Long story short these people aren;t getting rich off climate science.
And yet Montford et al still claim that climate scientists are all in it for the grant money. If that were the case, they’d be far more likely to perform research for a corporate employer instead of working for government labs or in academia, given that there’s about 2400x more money available than there is in government or academia.** and the response by Gavin. Indeed. It’s worth emphasising that the vast bulk of the climate science money goes on observing platforms like satellites. For instance, NASA’s budget for Earth Science is around $2 billion dollars, and GISS accounts for about 0.5% of that
Long story short these people aren;t getting rich off climate science.
A
Anselm33
Guest
A
Anselm33
Guest
If it isn’t there it doesn’t have to go away!!! and the frauds involved in Climategate haven’t shown “it”'s there.
A
Anselm33
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
AHhhhhh Has Mr Schmidt been able to explain this
We KNOW that this is proof of the contradicts the laws of physics. Gases do not radiate “up and down”- their radiation is isotropic. Meaning the intensity is equal in all directions-not just ‘up and down’ as Schmidt describes.
Thus multiplying CO2 by a factor of two is, at VERY best, fraudulent science. He just increased by two, CO2.
I would also ask , since you brought up Mr Manns Hockey Schek , what defense to a new study of it, could be
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/ I mean not just wave it off - explain it That is if Mr Schmidt has time from answering new allegations at NASA.
** Your friend might or might not be right - however, he is baised in his assumptions. 1st he assumes oil companies are financing anti-AGWers…In fact, Most of that money is going to AGWer’s
and the response by Gavin. Indeed. It’s worth emphasising that the vast bulk of the climate science money goes on observing platforms like satellites. For instance, NASA’s budget for Earth Science is around $2 billion dollars, and GISS accounts for about 0.5% of that
Long story short these people aren;t getting rich off climate science.** Let’s see…detailing research into funding, even using sources such as the BBC and Guardian and it shows that the big money these days is invested in the AGW theory because of the huge potential for making a lot of money out of AGW. EG carbon trading, renewable energy, taxation, carbon capture. Governments, oil companies and power companies stand to make a fortune out of the above and that is why they are supporting AGW. Because there is far more money to be made out of supporting AGW than disproving it the big money is behind the alarmists and not the realists.
ronically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan4 and Associates (who are paid to promote clients5 like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace6 (who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving).
How about the Pension Funds?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Would you say this is a Truth? An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs??
J
jkallara
Guest
I must add that whatever be the scientific facts about climate change, the Catholic Church has always promoted an ascetic way of life. In secular terminology, we call it the change in lifestyle. Isn’t this the advice of all environmentalists? Look at the saints of the Church. They have invariably lead a simple way of life. We should know that it is this simplicity that will solve all environmental problems, whether it is climate change or other global changes. St. Francis of Assisi remains as an example to the entire world.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I’ll take ALL the Thumbs up I can get 
It gets lonely out here sometimes. I will collect them ALL quotes ] and get you to send me an email on here - and I will send you them.You really don’t need much science to spot flawed logic
Logic has to work both forward and backward - In other words like this claim - Thousands die because of AGW - Well, Thousands don’t die because of warming frigged cold spells …A fact AGWers won’t tell you.Just remember, AGW is a hypothesis BASED ONLY on modeled subjective (name removed by moderator)ut. AND more and more, we are finding the (name removed by moderator)ut flawed, and most times on purpose.
A new allegation
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6151&linkbox=true&position=6
And new NOAA allegations
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6164&linkbox=true&position=2
The basic fact remains - there is no need to fabricate / hide / destroy TRUTHFUL data
I believe, there is much more evidence of our Oceans being the heat sink - And on release - the driver of climate. The Green House effect doesn’t follow physics.
Let me try to explain simply.
Put a heater in your bathroom - fill your tub with cool water. Will the heater heat the water to mist the walls? Maybe, in thousands of years. It’s radiated heat. BUT what? The amount of volume isn’t conducive enough to heat the water to the “release point” to cause your bathroom atmosphere to go from dry heat to moist heat.
Put Hot water in your bathtub - what happens to your walls if the door is closed? Has the heat from the water created atmosphere in your bathroom?
This is The Second Law Of Thermodynamics at work.
Disclaimer; I didn’t have to fudge / delete any data in the above example
K
kimmielittle
Guest
This is interesting maybe for you, and others
A poll was recently taken from skeptics of AGW. It asked. " If AGW was proven a Hoax, would you still continue your conservation contributions and efforts?" Over 90% said yes.
- Status