Do you believe in global warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
Not sure what you mean? What is the Back Fence for that makes our comments more appropriate there?

I know it gets very tedious discussing why one does or does not accept anthropogenic global warming among us who have strong opinions based extensive research and knowledge ā€“ but that IS one of the questions raised, so it is not exactly off-topic.

And it relates to what to think about a romantic partner who does not believe in AGW, what is says about that person, etc., and perhaps what to do ā€“ continue or discontinue the relationship.

So those who buy into the climate denialist industry ā€œfake-scienceā€ will think it wonderful and certainly okay the romantic partner is a skeptic or denialist; while those following the actual climate science will think it just terrible.

Ultimately it depends on the OP person asking the questions, what he/she accepts or rejects, how strongly, and how important it is.

Just to be sensitive about this ā€“ it could be a person is bowled over infatuated by another person who has an opposing view, and they want to know what to do about it. That is a perfectly legitimate question. But the person would have to know enough about the AGW subject to make an informed decision about the romantic interest, esp if it entails a marriage prospect, bec thatā€™s for life.

Maybe he/she is testing the waters to see what others think and say, perhaps hoping the skeptics are right so that having a skeptic romantic interest or spouse will not be so bad. Those following the real climate science, however, cannot let that stand, bec the problem is just going to get worse and worse on the whole over the course of a long many-decade marriage. And if one spouse wants to mitigate, but the other is dead set against it, it could be big trouble for the marriage.
Click to expand...
excerpts From a Forum Moderator Sticky titled ā€œChoosing Your Forum Wiselyā€ imply that the family forum isnā€™t really where weā€™d hash out scientific arguments:

Please review the forum descriptions before deciding in which to begin your thread

Family Life - talk with peers about marriage, educational concerns, interpersonal relationships, family planning, other aspects of daily family life

Social Justice - dialogue about Church teaching with societal implications, pro-life/pro-choice issues, just war doctrine, human rights

Secular News - share perspectives and analyses of current events in our country and the world

If your topic doesnā€™t fit criteria for any forum, try the Back Fence - a mix of the ridiculous and sublime, or The Clubhouse - chat there is light, but can be educational
 
EasterJoy said:
excerpts From a Forum Moderator Sticky titled ā€œChoosing Your Forum Wiselyā€ imply that the family forum isnā€™t really where weā€™d hash out scientific arguments:

Please review the forum descriptions before deciding in which to begin your thread

Family Life - talk with peers about marriage, educational concerns, interpersonal relationships, family planning, other aspects of daily family life

Social Justice - dialogue about Church teaching with societal implications, pro-life/pro-choice issues, just war doctrine, human rights

Secular News - share perspectives and analyses of current events in our country and the world

If your topic doesnā€™t fit criteria for any forum, try the Back Fence - a mix of the ridiculous and sublime, or The Clubhouse - chat there is light, but can be educational
Click to expand...
So in that case this thread belongs in ā€œfamily lifeā€ in that it has to do with dealing with and selecting romantic partners perhaps leading to marriage.

Science is probably appropriate for nearly all fora in some contexts or other. For instance, someone on ā€œfamily lifeā€ might want to know more about scientific angles of family planning, or whatā€™s being taught in science classes their kids attend and what to do about it, etc.

In this thread the OP seems to be concerned about whether or not to date and perhaps marry someone who does not share his/her concern about anthropogenic global warming (tho it is unclear if he/she has such a concern, and if so whether it is important to him/her ā€“ weā€™ve been assuming this simply bec he/she raised the questions).

Seems to me compatibility on this issue is nearly as important as Catholics selecting a good Catholic spouse in good moral standing, and will become ever more important as the problem increases and accelerates over the many decades of a marriage.

It says something about the personā€™s morality and concern about others, and whether they stand for prudence in making decisions, striving to avoid false negatives, to avoid unnecessary risk-taking when extremely serious consequences are likely or probable/possible even at a low level. That is very much a family life issue.
 
lynnvinc said:
So in that case this thread belongs in ā€œfamily lifeā€ in that it has to do with dealing with and selecting romantic partners perhaps leading to marriage.
Click to expand...
The posts about romantic partners do belong here. There are, however, many posts that have practically nothing to do with the OPā€™s questions or family life.
 
lynnvinc said:
So in that case this thread belongs in ā€œfamily lifeā€ in that it has to do with dealing with and selecting romantic partners perhaps leading to marriage.

Science is probably appropriate for nearly all fora in some contexts or other. For instance, someone on ā€œfamily lifeā€ might want to know more about scientific angles of family planning, or whatā€™s being taught in science classes their kids attend and what to do about it, etc.

In this thread the OP seems to be concerned about whether or not to date and perhaps marry someone who does not share his/her concern about anthropogenic global warming (tho it is unclear if he/she has such a concern, and if so whether it is important to him/her ā€“ weā€™ve been assuming this simply bec he/she raised the questions).

Seems to me compatibility on this issue is nearly as important as Catholics selecting a good Catholic spouse in good moral standing, and will become ever more important as the problem increases and accelerates over the many decades of a marriage.

It says something about the personā€™s morality and concern about others, and whether they stand for prudence in making decisions, striving to avoid false negatives, to avoid unnecessary risk-taking when extremely serious consequences are likely or probable/possible even at a low level. That is very much a family life issue.
Click to expand...
The suggestion that the thread was getting so that it was out of the purview of Family forum wasnā€™t about whether or not the topic of global warming is relevant when choosing a spouse, and there isnā€™t any problem with this poster or that saying what they think about the topic. The point, rather, was that if the thread becomes an argument ping-ponging back and forth between the various posters about whether or not the planet is warming up or whether or not scientists can be trusted or the role of politics in science or whether or not meteorology is even a ā€œreal scienceā€, then it is getting away from the focus of the family forum. At that point, the conversation has wandered off to the Back Fence.
 
The OP contains FOUR questions.

Each question is integral to the discussion ā€¦ and leads up to the biggie relationship question.
 
AllSeasons said:
I suppose this is really a four-part question.

  1. *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
    *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
    *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
    *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

    Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

  1. Hey AllSeasons, you want to come back to this thread and explain why you asked these questions in the first place? Weā€™re on response #208 now and no sign of you!

    šŸ‘‹:hmmm:
 
Monte_RCMS said:
finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/04/20/celebrate-earth-day-by-expanding-our-carbon-footprint-n1573512/page/full/

/celebrate-earth-day-by-expanding-our-carbon-footprint-n1573512/page/full/
Click to expand...
What about Al Goreā€™s carbon footprint? Iā€™ve heard his residence consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire yearā€¦talk about
hypocrisy! What a joke. Then he wins an Oscar for his goofy documentary. :rolleyes:

Peace , Mark
 
Mark121359 said:
What about Al Goreā€™s carbon footprint? Iā€™ve heard his residence consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire yearā€¦talk about
hypocrisy! What a joke. Then he wins an Oscar for his goofy documentary. :rolleyes:

Peace , Mark
Click to expand...
OK, but is anybody posting here remotely likely to marry Al Gore? :rolleyes:
 
aspirant said:
The posts about romantic partners do belong here. There are, however, many posts that have practically nothing to do with the OPā€™s questions or family life.
Click to expand...
Well, in a way they do, bec if a person is going to discuss the topic with a potential spouse, then they need the correct information about it. Itā€™s just that the global warming skeptics have a different view of what is correct information than the AGW realists. And this back-and-forth is actually good for someone discussing AGW with a potential spouse, bec they might run into the same arguments and misconceptions. If they can counter them intelligently with good facts, reasoning, and moral reasoning, and the person is still skeptical, indicating the person of romantic interest is perhaps a denialist who will never accept AGW no matter how strong and dangerous the evidence becomes, this could indicate a marriage between the 2 may be headed for very dangerous times as well ā€“ especially in the context of so many assaults on world civilization to come with all sorts of more harmful ramifications (spousal abuse, crime, wars & conflict, etc)* that put even further problems on the marriage.

This sort of brings me to a related question for the posters here. Who is married to or in a romantic relationship with someone who agrees with them about AGW? And who is married to or in a romantic relationship with someone who disagrees with them about AGW? Iā€™m thinking right now this may not be a huge issue or source of stress, but will be more and more so into the future.

You probably know by now that I accept AGW science; I have made it my personal apostolate to inform people about it and about the Little Way of Environmental Healing to mitigate it thru prayer and small (some large) deeds offer in love to God. Itā€™s been like banging my head against a brick wall for 23 years, but Iā€™m offering it all to God, so Iā€™m not counting it in terms of worldly success.

My husband is not very engaged with the issue, but accepts what I say and has gone along with me in mitigation measures large and small for over 23 years. It has helped our marriage financially a lot from all the savings, and discussing it has not put too much stress on our relationship ā€“ because Iā€™ve learned not to talk about it too much with him. He doesnā€™t really know about the high level of denialism out there and doesnā€™t want to hear about it (32% of Catholics and 38% of non-Catholics in America), and thinks those who do not accept it will be coming around soon. Since we donā€™t have children, he makes comments like, oh well the world has to end sometime anyway ā€“ to which I respond if God wants to send cataclysms, thatā€™s His business, but we should not be doing the harm and harming and killing people; it harms our souls and theirs.

So what about the rest of you? Is AGW an issue in your relationships, or not discussed much or at all and has no impact?

This might be a better line of discussion that could be of help to the OP.
*Sandra Wachholz (2007) ā€˜At riskā€™: Climate change and its bearing on womenā€™s vulnerability to male violence. In: Beirne P and South N (eds) Issues in Green Criminology. Devon, England:Willan, 161ā€“185.

Robert Agnew (2012) Dire forecast: A theoretical model of the impact of climate change on crime. Theoretical Criminology. 16(1):21-42.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/04/20/celebrate-earth-day-by-expanding-our-carbon-footprint-n1573512/page/full/

/celebrate-earth-day-by-expanding-our-carbon-footprint-n1573512/page/full/
Click to expand...
That is a very mean-spirited article and full of false claims. The author seems to have no morality or concern for others, but just wants to hurt people.

Why not read the Bible instead? Or the works of saints. That would help rather than hurt a relationship.
 
lynnvinc said:
That is a very mean-spirited article and full of false claims. The author seems to have no morality or concern for others, but just wants to hurt people.

Why not read the Bible instead? Or the works of saints. That would help rather than hurt a relationship.
Click to expand...
:crying::crying:

No more mean-spirited than your condescending labeling of others as ā€œdenialists,ā€ as if your point is absolutely true and that others are STUPID for believing anything else.

Get off your high horse and stop calling others names yourself.
 
Mark121359 said:
What about Al Goreā€™s carbon footprint? Iā€™ve heard his residence consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire yearā€¦talk about
hypocrisy! What a joke. Then he wins an Oscar for his goofy documentary. :rolleyes:

Peace , Mark
Click to expand...
Al Gore and his politically correct polar bear stories.

Isnā€™t it a sin to be politically correct? I mean ā€¦ making stuff up ā€¦ which commandment prohibits lying?

I went on to YouTube and they had a video of Al Gore getting off of a Gulfstream jet and into a Lincoln Town Car.

So ā€¦ what is that called?

[Not going to point fingers ā€¦ but he does sort of hold himself out as an exemplar of something good.]

Since Al Gore is no longer an elected official and is not running for office, then we cannot be considered to be discussing politics ā€¦ so what exactly is Mr. Gore ā€¦ ā€œworking atā€?
 
Calliso said:
Another thing to note about volcanoes is that while they do put out a large amount of co2 per eruption it is nothing compared to what humans put out.

** Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energyā€™s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (cdiac.ornl.gov/**) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. source: hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
Click to expand...
A discussion from Dr, S. Fred Singer who practically pretty-much invented satellite climatology:

americanthinker.com/2013/04/climate_change_conversation_aborted.html

climate_change_conversation_aborted.html

Not surprised that Science refused to publish his rebuttal letter, but he could add an online comment to the op-ed in question.

That China may be taking the NIPCC reports seriously is good news.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
:crying::crying:

No more mean-spirited than your condescending labeling of others as ā€œdenialists,ā€ as if your point is absolutely true and that others are STUPID for believing anything else.

Get off your high horse and stop calling others names yourself.
Click to expand...
On the other hand:

*As an example of ongoing debate: Is the climate really warming, as claimed in the editorial? Hard to tell unless one specifies the time interval. Nearly everyone agrees that the climate is warmer now than during the Little Ice Age (as recently as 200 years ago).

**Some believe that most of the warming occurred before 1940. **

Increasingly, many accept that there has been no observed warming for at least the past decade. The situation between 1940 and 2000 is somewhat murky; it all depends on which data set one accepts as truly representing global climate. The ongoing debate on this issue will determine the answer to the key question: How important is the human contribution to climate change?

Many of us find evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) unconvincing.

The report of the UN science panel [IPCC 2007] bases it mainly on **comparing a single (uncertain) observed temperature set with one calculated from (incomplete and non-validated) climate models **driven by (anthropogenic) increases in greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide.

**Even less convincing **are earlier IPCC [2001] claims that the 20th century has experienced unusual warming compared to preceding centuries (the so-called ā€˜Hockeystickā€™ curve). A recent paper in Science (8 March 2013) has tried to resurrect this particular bit of fiction. [See Another Hockeystick?] But with intense scrutiny after its publication (following the obligatory peer review), **the authors now admit that this result is no longer ā€œrobust.ā€ **

There have been many such papers published in prestigious journals in the past 25 years that have all claimed sure proof of AGW ā€“ or implied it;** it would be good to see them corrected or formally withdrawn.
**
*
Read more: americanthinker.com/2013/04/climate_change_conversation_aborted.html#ixzz2R7rfU0Uq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Mark121359 said:
What about Al Goreā€™s carbon footprint? Iā€™ve heard his residence consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire yearā€¦talk about
hypocrisy! What a joke. Then he wins an Oscar for his goofy documentary. :rolleyes:

Peace , Mark
Click to expand...
I think he lives in California now, in an eco friendly house (if an $9 million house can be such).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top