Global Warming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to clear the air here, one could assume that I’m for Global Warming. This is a very fair judgement. However, I am in fact neutral on this issue. You see I’m a simple environmentalist if one could say, I love the beauty of the Earth and it saddens me to see garbage litter along the highways and such and so I pick it up. So if ever I question you practices and I’m seen to side with Global Warming, I’m actually leaning on you because I think you’re one of those lazy people who could put their garbage in a garbage can. And I’m Canadian so we’re used to the cold. I’d love for another ice age. And if Global Warming turns out to be true I’m fine with that because that would make Canada a tropical paradise. Why would I want to prevent that from happening?
 
Gethsemane said:
Just to clear the air here, one could assume that I’m for Global Warming. This is a very fair judgement. However, I am in fact neutral on this issue.
Click to expand...
Are you neutral enough to speak out against those that advocate punitive policies that keep people in poverty in favor of some global warming mythology?

Or is this neutrality the type that only allows you to speak out againt those that believe it to be myth?
 
This neutrality allows me to say that boths sides are wrong. It allows me to objectively point out potential fears and flaws on both sides. What do those against Global Warming really fear? What do those for Global Warming really fear?

It also allows me to point out what both sides a correct on. This essentially allows me to eventially come up with a conclusion that hopefull could unify both sides. Which I know sounds insane but both sides are beneficial to each other. And as I comment I do so with the hopes of porvoking responses on which to pave equal ground on.

If you add fire to fire, the two fires will compete for oxygen and either one fire will go out, or the fires will join together in one massive fire.
 
Gethsemane said:
This neutrality allows me to say that boths sides are wrong. It allows me to objectively point out potential fears and flaws on both sides. What do those against Global Warming really fear? What do those for Global Warming really fear?

It also allows me to point out what both sides a correct on. This essentially allows me to eventially come up with a conclusion that hopefull could unify both sides. Which I know sounds insane but both sides are beneficial to each other. And as I comment I do so with the hopes of porvoking responses on which to pave equal ground on.

If you add fire to fire, the two fires will compete for oxygen and either one fire will go out, or the fires will join together in one massive fire.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with Rev. 3:16?

Neutrality isn’t necessarily a virtue. But that’s another thread in itself.
Y’know, you can sue them for telling you want to think. And they can’t hurt you unless you give them the power to. You give them their power by being fearful and little a little dogs to bark and lash out because you some how feel threatened by them. Look at the monks in Tibet, they’ve endured their hard conditions, peacefully, for over 50 years and have yet to accept what China wants them to. There is never an excuse not to be the bigger man. Because if you truly are correct in your possition, then you will be successful.
Click to expand...
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

I don’t know what you think is going on over in Tibet- but the monks there have not been silent about their opposition to Chinese rule. Why do you think they are routinely jailed, beaten, killed, and why their leader has been in exile for the last 50 years? I think that only the Chinese government would refer to their outcries as that of “fearful little dogs that bark and lash out.”

Speaking out against those who would impose restrictions on freedom does not make one a “fearful little dog that barks and lashes out.”

Environmental fascists want to control the lives of all those around them through political means. Speaking out against doesn’t give them power…that’s why they do everything they can to silence debate by declaring the discussion over and by dismissing their opposition as an isolated minority.
 
Gethsemane said:
This neutrality allows me to say that boths sides are wrong. It allows me to objectively point out potential fears and flaws on both sides. What do those against Global Warming really fear? What do those for Global Warming really fear?
Click to expand...
And yet you have not.
Perhaps I have missed a few of your posts, but it would appear your neutrality is decidedly one-sided.
 
Revelations 3:16 would be appropriate if this topic had anything to do with God. If God said we could do what ever we wanted with the Earth I’d stand by his Word. But he doesn’t say that.

I don’t claim it’s a virtue, my neutrality depends on the topic.

What I was referencing about the monks is their peaceful and non-violent methods.

The comment about the dogs is directed at both parties regarding Global Warming.

Also, I enjoy restrictions. I find that they give me more freedom, and I feel liberated by them. So I’m not about to claim that restrictions are bad.
 
vz71 said:
And yet you have not.
Perhaps I have missed a few of your posts, but it would appear your neutrality is decidedly one-sided.
Click to expand...
Of course I haven’t yet. I’ve only begun breaking down everyone’s arguments. Do you really expect results fresh out of the gate?
 
Before responding, I just need to say that this is possibly the most non sequitur post I have ever read.
Gethsemane said:
Revelations 3:16 would be appropriate if this topic had anything to do with God. If God said we could do what ever we wanted with the Earth I’d stand by his Word. But he doesn’t say that.
Click to expand...
Have you read Rev 3:16?
I don’t think you have- because you clearly don’t understand how it relates to your comments.
I don’t claim it’s a virtue, my neutrality depends on the topic.
Click to expand...
Again, you clearly don’t understand what I was getting at.
What I was referencing about the monks is their peaceful and non-violent methods.
Click to expand...
Wow- then it is really bizarre that brought them up in response to my post- as my biggest concern is that the environmentalists want to use aggression and force vis a vis government intervention in order to achieve their ends.

I have not advocated the use of force to stop these people- so I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.
The comment about the dogs is directed at both parties regarding Global Warming.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. You were responding to my post.
Also, I enjoy restrictions. I find that they give me more freedom, and I feel liberated by them. So I’m not about to claim that restrictions are bad.
Click to expand...
Of course, living in society with other people, or developing ourselves as human beings, there are occasions when we concede to limit our freedoms in order to function more efficiently in concert as part of the group.

But I’m sure you have felt, at some time in your life, that a particular restriction or limitation on your freedom was unjust or undesired.

It may be that, in retrospect, at least a few of these restrictions on your freedom did indeed prove to be unhelpful or even harmful.

Or it may simply be that you haven’t yet had your freedoms restricted to the point that you feel the need to resist those restrictions.

Or it may be that you crave restrictions because yo lack confidence in your own potential as a human person.

Or it may be that you crave restrictions because you fear what other people might do to you if they are allowed to live freely alongside you.

In any event, whatever your reason for enjoying your restrictions, you don’t have the right to inflict restrictions on others.

I really like chocolate- but you don’t see me force feeding it to people.
 
sodak said:
That ain’t rhetoric, it’s a fact. There are many “green” laws being passed and being submitted at the state and federal level, that have no basis in reality, but will significantly damage our economy, and the people in it. The Kyoto Protocol comes immediately to mind. Carbon credits, aka cap and trade, come to mind also.

As was previously stated, I would have no problem with global warming zealots if they would live their lives accordingly, and leave the rest of us alone, but they want to force their thinking and delusions upon us, and I find that intolerable.
Click to expand...
What they are doing now with climate what they have already done with everything else,they propose a conclusion such as CO2 is causing global warming,and it very well may be a big influence,but they go about modeling the data to suit their conclusion without consideration of anything else.They pay lip service to any astronomical or other functions and concentrate solely on carbon dioxide as a cause and that is where it becomes profitable for some and dangerous for humanity as policy is centered around the conclusion.It gets worse from here.

They take a huge shortcut by trying to make climate look like weather and then try to model climate like they do short term weather patterns with catastrophic results.These things really are technical astronomical details because global background temperature conditions are set by the Sun and our distance from it with the motions of the Earth generating the weather patterns we call the seasons.

There is a huge technical difference between weather and climate but the scientists just do not want to know about it as they are occupied with carbon dioxide levels and its presumed influence on climate.How bad is it ? - the answer is that scientists do not know how to explain the seasons correctly never mind long term climate cycles and I mean that.In case you did not hear it the first time -

Scientists cannot explain correctly what causes the seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and subsequently the seasonal weather patterns.It is a 100% observational and geometric certainty.The price of not knowing the difference between empiricism and genuine science shows up in these matters and if not by ability then for concern for future generations that this gets sorted out very soon.
 
Oscarthecat,

I read Revelations 3:16 carefully before responding to that specific comment. I’m assuming that you’re trying to make this a moral issue when in fact it is not. Instead of recyling an arguement that has already happened in this thread I reccomend that you read the first three pages of this thread for that arguement.

Let me be absolutely clear as to why I choose to be neutral on this topic.There are things I agree with on both sides. There are things I disagree with on both sides.I’m not about to pick a side just because it’s demanded of me, I’m going to pick a side when a side presents enough evidence to me to do so.

Allow me to explain the comment with the monks in Tibet. Repeating what I has said in earlier posts, I was asking that the environmentalist for Global Warming, to stand down and act peacefully. Just as I was asking those who are sick and tired of Global Warming to resist the urge to yell and scream and kick. That’s essentialy what I was trying to get across and I appologise for poorly choosing and failing to explain my metaphor.

With regards to referencing the dogs. I was not aware that I have to clearly assign those comments to the sidewhich I intended and I thank you for pointing that out. I will take care in the future to clearly assign my remarks.

The comment regarding that I like restrictions I’m going to drop because to discuss that point further will result in things getting personal.
 
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) – A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
Click to expand...
Now to be fair, the scientists are still claiming that the ice is in retreat.
However, a California sized error is pretty big. And while they can claim the ice is still in retreat, one has to wonder how much else that has been claimed is in error.
 
Gethsemane said:
So you might lose some money. What are you so afraid of, don’t you know that God will take care of what you will eat and what you will wear. You know it’s easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
Click to expand...
Of course God doesn’t ask us to sit back with naivete and let what happens, happen. He requires us to put forth our own efforts such that they conform with His will.
I understand that you worry for your family in the economic recession, and there is a recession happening. But you need to let go of the worry and your money.
Click to expand...
We have an obligation to do what we can to support our families and to not be irresponsible with the gifts and talents God has given us. Above all, charity is required of us.
If you’re so concerned about how you’re going to pay for this height in taxes then sell your car if you are abled, and use public transportation or walk. This allows you to have more than enough money to pay for your taxes plus you’ll have pleanty left over. You should be glad to be given the opertunity to get rid of all your luxuries and live the simple, narrow life. It’s not like you can take it all with you.
Click to expand...
How wonderful of the government to be helping us get to heaven. Never knew it was so benevolent. Why not just write Uncle Sam a disbursement of all our possessions and then we should have no earthly matter to worry about.
 
vz71 said:
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Now to be fair, the scientists are still claiming that the ice is in retreat.
However, a California sized error is pretty big. And while they can claim the ice is still in retreat, one has to wonder how much else that has been claimed is in error.
Click to expand...
Can this receding ice boundary be definitively pinned by the supposed global warming threat? Is there an accurate range established for natural variation in the ice border over a period of time? It would be interesting to know what kind of tolerance level there is for the accuracy of such measurements, especially in light of California sized blunder.
 
mapleoak said:
Can this receding ice boundary be definitively pinned by the supposed global warming threat?
Click to expand...
I doubt anything directly attributable to Global Warming.
mapleoak said:
Is there an accurate range established for natural variation in the ice border over a period of time?
Click to expand...
How could that be established previous to satellite observation?
I suppose there could be an average after satellites and GPS, but before then it would be unlikely that any reliable data on the growth or recession of the ice shelf could be obtained.
mapleoak said:
It would be interesting to know what kind of tolerance level there is for the accuracy of such measurements, especially in light of California sized blunder.
Click to expand...
There is no hole so big that faith cannot fill it.
 
Valke2 said:
A new international study has warned that millions of people dependent on fisheries in Africa, Asia and South America could face unprecedented hardship as a consequence of climate change.
enn.com/ecosystems/article/39359
Click to expand...
An upcoming study is sure to applaud the efforts of darwinian evolution theory as it kicks into gear in these areas- resulting in brand new species of freshly adapted fish ready to take on the challenges of global warming.

And another upcoming study is sure to predict a reduction in deaths related to eating fish with high mercury levels.

And another upcoming study is sure to celebrate economic boosts in traditionally less successful fisheries around the world which, until recently, were unable to compete with the fisheries in Africa, Asia, and South America.

And, finally, another study will investigate why the sale of carbon credits by fisheries in Africa, Asia, and South America did nothing to actually restore the climate to its previous condition.
 
esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real

Most people do not understand how science works. This has nothing to do with Al Gore. People confuse the weather with climate.

from the end of the article:

"Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

Besides, humans are much happier on bikes then in cars stuck in traffic 😉 .

oh, and for good information (not a Michael Crichton book that uses data that is over 10 years-old) check out science blogs

scienceblogs.com/channel/environment/

initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/02/will-progress-in-climatology-affect.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top