B
Brad
Guest
Don’t give them any ideas.
Yes - carbon dioxide - kind of necessary for those all-important plants.
- Status
Yes - carbon dioxide - kind of necessary for those all-important plants.
B
Brad
Guest
B
Brad
Guest
This is just the problem. Secularlists (some are scientists) think we (humans) are the cause of everything, including or beginning and our ending. God’s in charge of those things.
A
aimee
Guest
Here here…my good man…its the conservatives or better yet the consevative americans that are to blame for all ills that befall the earth…didn’t you know…
S
Socrates
Guest
The idea that mankind is changing the climate of the planet is pure modern mythology.
It is impossible for us to gather a statistically significant enough sample of data in order to spot a trend. All we really know is that the climate may gradually cycle over time. All of the so called “proof” of global warming is based on computer models which are only as accurate as the assumptions on which they’re based.
Global warming is the “gospel” of the radical left wing. They can’t accomplish their anti-democracy/anti-capitalism agenda without something to scare people. Ideology alone will not convince anyone, but fear of catastrophe might. Hence we have the public schools indoctrinating the kiddies with myths of global warming, overpopulation, etc.
I am totally in favor of sound environmental protection based on good science. But I am totally opposed to bad policy being implemented because of false alarms.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the same people were predicting that we were headed for a new ice age.
It is impossible for us to gather a statistically significant enough sample of data in order to spot a trend. All we really know is that the climate may gradually cycle over time. All of the so called “proof” of global warming is based on computer models which are only as accurate as the assumptions on which they’re based.
Global warming is the “gospel” of the radical left wing. They can’t accomplish their anti-democracy/anti-capitalism agenda without something to scare people. Ideology alone will not convince anyone, but fear of catastrophe might. Hence we have the public schools indoctrinating the kiddies with myths of global warming, overpopulation, etc.
I am totally in favor of sound environmental protection based on good science. But I am totally opposed to bad policy being implemented because of false alarms.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the same people were predicting that we were headed for a new ice age.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
The really interesting part about all of this is realizing how little we understand about the climate. Scientists are finding more and more things in nature that fall into the realm of “complex systems”, wherein some very non-intuitive things can happen. Sometimes you’ll find that a tiny change or stimulus creates a surprisingly huge reaction (for example, an allergic person’s response to just a few molecules of peanut protein), and in other cases a huge shock to the system causes little or no observable change. Moreover, like the stock market, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Anyway, I think the climate is just about the most complex system we are likely to find on earth, except for the inner workings of living organisms. And as such, all of the pundits on either side saying that man-made global warming is certainly happening, or that man-made global warming is a myth, or that it’s good science or bad science or whatever are simply giving their opinion. And like many other things, people like you and I will tend to agree, for our own non-scientific reasons, with scientists who say one thing or the other, and then we say to each other “a-ha, see, respected scientists say such and such” which in our own minds discounts what other respected scientists may have to say.
I think man-made global warming falls into the realm of a hypothesis that makes a certain amount of intuitive sense (at a high-school chemistry level), but it can’t really be tested, except for by computer models, which at the moment are highly inadequate because the interactions of all the different variables aren’t understood. But such is the way with a lot of science - it only gets you so far, and then it’s up to other people to set policy decisions. For example, medical science can’t tell me conclusively that I have a sinus infection right now - all I have are a few symptoms and a hypothesis, although not everything fits a classic sinus infection. I wish the doctor would give me some antibiotics now so I don’t have to wait until it gets worse, at which point we will know conclusively what it is. But if I really don’t have a sinus infection, then giving me antibiotics needlessly could just add to the number of antibiotic-resistant bugs in my body. Similarly with the two sides of the man-made global warming question.
I think man-made global warming falls into the realm of a hypothesis that makes a certain amount of intuitive sense (at a high-school chemistry level), but it can’t really be tested, except for by computer models, which at the moment are highly inadequate because the interactions of all the different variables aren’t understood. But such is the way with a lot of science - it only gets you so far, and then it’s up to other people to set policy decisions. For example, medical science can’t tell me conclusively that I have a sinus infection right now - all I have are a few symptoms and a hypothesis, although not everything fits a classic sinus infection. I wish the doctor would give me some antibiotics now so I don’t have to wait until it gets worse, at which point we will know conclusively what it is. But if I really don’t have a sinus infection, then giving me antibiotics needlessly could just add to the number of antibiotic-resistant bugs in my body. Similarly with the two sides of the man-made global warming question.
P
pnewton
Guest
You are correct, historically speaking.
Code:
Man wiped out by sin - 1Speaking of man wiped out by sin, and for those who think we can destroy ourselves, have you ever seen a rainbow?
N
Norwich
Guest
Not recently, must be all the polution!!!
M
Matt25
Guest
The USA has 5% of the worlds population and consumes 25% of resources used in any calendar year. If the Climate Change hypothesis was true then more than any other country in the world the United States would have to undergo radical lifestyle changes. Given these facts it is no surprise that so many Americans are resistant to the hypotheses. It is a resistance based not on science but on a reluctance to change.
Even if the hypotheses were untrue would we not anyway be under an obligation to steward the earth’s resources wisely. Oil, gas and coal will eventually run out and emissions produced by their use are certainly harmful. For the sake of future generations should we not scale down our use of them and explore renewable energy resources and energy conservation through simple things like increased insulation?
Even if the hypotheses were untrue would we not anyway be under an obligation to steward the earth’s resources wisely. Oil, gas and coal will eventually run out and emissions produced by their use are certainly harmful. For the sake of future generations should we not scale down our use of them and explore renewable energy resources and energy conservation through simple things like increased insulation?
B
Brad
Guest
Sure. And there may be intelligent life on another planet that is formulating a plan to orbit a satellite that is 1/8 the size of the Earth and that will strike the Earth directly in 15 years to eliminate the perceived threat that we are to them.
I don’t believe that is true - if I’m right, no problem - if I’m wrong, oblivion.
B
Brad
Guest
Bobby Jim:
Some very good analysis. Seems like you’ve made a good case for relying on God, trusting in His providence, and leaving to Him what we cannot control or do not understand - all the while acting on what we do know for sure to protect ourselves from harm - many of these things we know to be true being moral truths - too largely ignored in the name of trumping them with science. This is often the reason for so much head scratching.
N
Norwich
Guest
There has to be because there ain’t much on this one!!!
B
Brad
Guest
If the US did not consume these resources, then we would be unable to give more world aid in a year than all other countries combined.
If the US did not consume these resources, then we would be unable to act as a deterrant to ambitious dictators that want to rule the world (see Hitler, Hussein, Soviet Union etc.)
If the US did not consume these resources, then we would be unable to create products and discover innovations that have lead to such things as the Internet (which persecuted people in China use to communicate and provides unlimited resources to people with disease and limited other means of research and communication), international travel via airlines (which allow people to communicate face-to-face to break down barriers of prejudice that are constructed through ignorance), and medical discoveries (from curing cancer to minimizing the effects of AIDS).
If these resources were not meant to be consumed, then God would not have given them to us. The question is not how much resources to stop consuming - the question is how to better utilize our resources to cause less negative effect from the waste byproducts of such utilization.
Under Kyoto, the US stood to pay extemely high penalties to other countries that have not entered the world of free econmics and captitalism. Most of this is due to these countires unwillingness to have free and open economies, as their leadership would rather maintain strict control, even if that means starving their populations. This would result in the US paying a giant welfare check to poorly run countries in perpetuity based on unproven science.
Americans are the most willing country to accept change of any in the world. This country was built on a willingness to change and we are a world leader because we have changed when it has been necessary. Global warming solutions, as they are currently espoused, are only issues of change to the United States from the persective that implementing bad policies would lead to the opposite of progress. The US is pursuing real solutions of changes, such as alternate energy sources, that are real change to solve real problems. The UN doesn’t like these solutions because it is less money in their pocket. The UN does not produce anything - so it can only generate money through programs that it implement to suck money from one country to another country with no positive result. The fact that their solutions are based on weak to zero science further demonstrates their motivation. The fact that UN “peacekeepers” in the Sudan used starving girls as their play toys shows this organization does not have the best interests of the world in their heart and mind.
Yes we should and we are. This takes time and it takes less restrictions both from oil companies and radical anti-capitalists to get this job done. We should all rally around more efficient and less polluting energy sources.
B
Brad
Guest
I don’t know. I heard there were some intelligent birds, donkeys, and apes, but not much about intelligent humans. Perhaps we should ask the Koala bear what he thinks - AFTER we ask him if we may have a sniff of his oxygen and a bite of his tree leaves.
N
Norwich
Guest
Er, Hello!!! I only got part way through a list of American firsts, up to the bit about the internet. It was thought up and developed by a Fin. Thats from FINLAND, which to my knowledge ain’t part of America yet.
Now excuse me whilst I go back to the rest of the justification for America polluting the world
Now excuse me whilst I go back to the rest of the justification for America polluting the world
N
Norwich
Guest
I don’t think I’ll bother. Anyone that can believe this load of claptrap has to be beyong logical argument or redemption.
ps. If your so good why can’t the African countries afford your AIDS medicines.? (and thats only one little question)
A
aimee
Guest
Hey Norwich,
What time is it where you are?
Seems your feeling better…plenty of tea and chicken soup will do a lot of good 
Play nice and oh yes do get your rest
What time is it where you are?
Seems your feeling better…plenty of tea and chicken soup will do a lot of good Play nice and oh yes do get your rest
P
pnewton
Guest
Mixing anti-Americanism in does not help your credibility, or do you really think that only American pollution affects the global climate?
N
Norwich
Guest
Of course I don’t but, I’m not the one telling everyone how wonderful the UK is or how Europe is always right, or how we invented everything. If your going to set yourselves up as the Cowboy in the White Hat and to tell everyone how you are going to save the world by using all the recources then you had better make sure you are damn right. One of the greatest gifts man has is humility and the ability to see, acknowledge and try to correct his own faults. All I, and most of the rest of the world hear from yourselves is how wonderful you all are and how your going to save the world.
I have worked with and alongside Americans for many many years and they are some of the greatest people I know. Those who have had the courage to go out and face the rest of the world, not as tourists but to live and work in other countries. They also had the courage to admit faults and to try, in their own way, to allay others fears. They didn’t go around patting each other on the back and telling everybody how wonderful they were, they were realistic enougn to recognise that they are only part of this world, not all of it. They were also willing to accept that the Administartion in America AS WITH ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WORLD WIDE had its own axe to grind and was anything but perfect. That its actions were more for the individuals of the country and not necessarily taken from a world perspective.
Let me relate a true story. A friend many years ago went on holiday in Europe from the Middle East. He came originally from Origan (if my memory serves) and he travelled from house to house throughout Europe. He had been invited to stay with families of people he worked with in the Middle East. When he got back we asked how he had enjoyed himself, he said he had had a fantastic time. His only complaint was a moment of extreme embarrasment.
He was in Edinburough, on Queens Street actually and a man and his wife had walked into a “Tartan” shop. He was wearing Chequed pants, a dazzling Hawain shirt, she weighed over 16 stone (14 pounds to the stone for those that don’t know) and had a voice like a foghorn and they both made very loud, arrogant and stupid comments that were totally inapropriate to either the place or occasion.
They were Americans on a two week tour of Europe. Over here we joke, “is this London? it must be Tuesday!!”
Now, I do NOT say these are typical Americans, I know they are not but, they are an image that is held in a lot of peoples minds and when you display the arrogance that is sometimes seen, this is the image people conjure up.
Another true story for you. One of the nicest, kindest mildest man I knew was a Swede called Bengt, I won’t bother with his second name, I don’t think I can remeber how to spell it. He weighed in at 25 stone, he was 6’10" tall and had to turn sideways to get through a standard door. In the UK we would say he was built like a brick **** house. He used to carry my two oldest kids around hanging on his wrists with his arms outstretched. they were 8 and 10 at that time and fairly heafty lads themselves. Bengt was so big HE HAD NOTHING TO PROVE so he didn’t throw his weight around he didn’t threaten, he didn’t have to prove himself to anyone, he just was. Wonderful role model. You can figure out what I am saying from there.
Do not assume that because someone criticises they do not like you, more often than not criticism comes from friends because they like you and do not want to watch you make a fool of yourselves, and good friends will listen. Unfortunately that a lesson Tony Blair has yet to learn.
M
Matt25
Guest
Should that not be Princes St? Sorry to be picky but Queen St is in Glasgow and I’d rather not be confused with that sort of city.
- Status