Climate change fears

[Al_Masetti]

Zerith:

Yes, I agree.

As I said before, does it matter if Global Warming might not be correct?

I’d love to see anti-Kyoto Agreement people before God: “And when people became concerned for the home I built for you, over developments at that time, why did you seek to ignore and disprove in the name of saving your precious “Industry”?” or the exact same, except add on the end: “Resulting in the degredation of the worlds climate, dooming millions, and making life harsh for the years to come”.

Please continue to read and research about global warming.

Keep in mind that “global warming” means MAN-MADE causes of global warming. And all the evidence of the MAN-MADE part is based on computer models that suggest about a one degree increase per CENTURY.

And the models all have huge disclaimers on them.

And there is a huge amount of evidence that radical and rapid climate change has happened numerous times before… even when there weren’t people around to drive SUVs and create greenhouse gases.

Because of the cyclicality of the various changes to the Earth’s environment, there is strong evidence of outside forces (cosmic rays, solar wind, solar corpuscular emissions, etc.).

There is strong disagreement about the effect of man’s influence on climate.

There is no great loss to wait a while to gather more data.

Strongly suggest you read and study the resources that have been linked in this and similar threads here on the CA forums. Do a search for global warming on these CA forums. And then visit the places suggested and read.

Just grabbing onto someone who says the end is coming isn’t good enough when there is good and reasonable scholarship that concerned and thoughtful people neede to read, contrast and compare. This is not something that merits a quick decision.

So, do the homework. And then get back to us.

Just as a summary:

www.albertmasetti.com click on links; click on Gerson report

www.albertmasetti.com click on newsletters; click on most recent newsletter

www.sepp.org and read the weekly newsletters

www.oism.org and read the petition project and also read the Access to Energy newsletters.

You can subscribe for free to the www.sepp.org weekly e-newsletter.

The Access to Energy newsletter is a monthly hard copy and has a nominal subscription fee.

Read.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Zerith:

Yes, I agree.

I’d love to see anti-Kyoto Agreement people before God: “And when people became concerned for the home I built for you, over developments at that time, why did you seek to ignore and disprove in the name of saving your precious “Industry”?” or the exact same, except add on the end: “Resulting in the degredation of the worlds climate, dooming millions, and making life harsh for the years to come”.
.

One of the issues that needs to be faced is that decisions on, for example, the environment are not free. There is a cost associated with them.

Shutting down “industry” means massive unemployment. It also means that some essential products and services would no longer be available. These may include things that we all take for granted. For example, would you shut down the industry that manufactures chlorine gas (or related chemicals). If the answer is yes, then you must then ask the question: “how will you treat your drinking water?”. Without treatment, drinking water would not be pure and there would be outbreaks of cholera. This is not speculation or guesswork. It used to happen; chlorination was instituted and the cholera stopped. Just a few years ago, recently, the government of Peru bought into the evils of chlorine and thousands of people died.

Another example. Rachel Carson wrote a book: “Silent Spring”. As a result, DDT was banned and MILLIONS of people died from a resurgence of malaria. Research this issue. Visit, for openers, www.junkscience.com

So, when Rachel Carson and a few others reach their judgment day, what will God ask those people? Who have you helped? Who have you harmed? What will the people who banned DDT have to offer?

 

[Matt25]

Since even the Bush administration admits that human activity contributes to global warming it is only the hard core of those greedy form material goods over their responsibility as stewards of God’s creation that keep up the clamour that climate change is junk science.

scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierReadItem&type=1&itemid=2215&language=1&dossier=4

The leaders of the ‘G8’, including US president George W. Bush, have signed a communiqué agreeing that human activity is causing climate change…Until now, the United States also disagreed with the scientific consensus that climate change exists, and is being caused by human activity. In this respect, the summit has delivered a breakthrough.

See also pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html

THE ECONOMIST suggested in their pages that the U.S. and the world take a lesson from battle against the hole in the ozone layer which resulted in Montreal Protocol of 1987 restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). That deal has proved surprisingly successful. The manufacture of CFCs is nearly phased out, and there are already signs that the ozone layer is on the way to recovery. …This story holds several lessons for the admittedly far more complex climate problem. First, it is the rich world which has caused the problem and which must lead the way in solving it. Second, the poor world must agree to help, but is right to insist on being given time—as well as money and technology—to help it adjust. Third, industry holds the key: in the ozone-depletion story, it was only after DuPont and ICI broke ranks with the rest of the CFC manufacturers that a deal became possible. On the climate issue, BP and Shell have similarly broken ranks with Big Oil, but the American energy industry—especially the coal sector—remains hostile. Some U.S. companies are tackling greenhouse gas emissions even without the impetus of the Kyoto Protocol. Cinergy, which was one of the companies sued by several states in 2004 over carbon dioxide emissions, has recently come out in favor of a “cap in trade” program, stating “We are planning the future of our company around our belief that we will eventually be required to operate in a carbon-constrained world.” The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and The U.K.'s Carbon Trust both maintain lists of companies voluntarily reducing greenhouse gases.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Matt25:

Since even the Bush administration admits that human activity contributes to global warming it is only the hard core of those greedy form material goods over their responsibility as stewards of God’s creation that keep up the clamour that climate change is junk science.

scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierReadItem&type=1&itemid=2215&language=1&dossier=4

The leaders of the ‘G8’, including US president George W. Bush, have signed a communiqué agreeing that human activity is causing climate change…Until now, the United States also disagreed with the scientific consensus that climate change exists, and is being caused by human activity. In this respect, the summit has delivered a breakthrough.

See also pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html

THE ECONOMIST suggested in their pages that the U.S. and the world take a lesson from battle against the hole in the ozone layer which resulted in Montreal Protocol of 1987 restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). That deal has proved surprisingly successful. The manufacture of CFCs is nearly phased out, and there are already signs that the ozone layer is on the way to recovery. …This story holds several lessons for the admittedly far more complex climate problem. First, it is the rich world which has caused the problem and which must lead the way in solving it. Second, the poor world must agree to help, but is right to insist on being given time—as well as money and technology—to help it adjust. Third, industry holds the key: in the ozone-depletion story, it was only after DuPont and ICI broke ranks with the rest of the CFC manufacturers that a deal became possible. On the climate issue, BP and Shell have similarly broken ranks with Big Oil, but the American energy industry—especially the coal sector—remains hostile. Some U.S. companies are tackling greenhouse gas emissions even without the impetus of the Kyoto Protocol. Cinergy, which was one of the companies sued by several states in 2004 over carbon dioxide emissions, has recently come out in favor of a “cap in trade” program, stating “We are planning the future of our company around our belief that we will eventually be required to operate in a carbon-constrained world.” The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and The U.K.'s Carbon Trust both maintain lists of companies voluntarily reducing greenhouse gases.

Would you be so kind as to quantify the word “contribute”?