Greater Threat to Humanity: Abortion or Global Warming

[yugnok]

Go tell that in New Orleans.

I didn’t know that hurricanes were caused by global warming.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I can’t even believe this is an argument. Global warming definately caused by man? This has yet to be proven. Even the scientific community is not wholely on board the train. The Earth has always gone through cycles, why do we assume our age is any different?

Ok, there are cycles.But you look at these cycles.
Take a look at the history of magnetic polar reversals recorded in the midatlantic ridge.
It is more than coincidence that these polar reversals coincide with major changes of climate, that is, ice-ages.
A magnetic field reversal requires a major change to the circulation pattern within the Earth’s core. What could cause such an event, and simultaneously change the climate. A major meteor impact comes to mind. A nuclear winter with a vengeance.
Here pollution with microscopic dust, causing a freeze-up.
Yet you cannot accept that ‘green-house’ gas pollution causes a warm-up.
What happenned 10.000 years ago to end the last ice-age, which in theory, should still be active?
This corresponds nicely to the dawn of farming, and what do the farmers do, why they burn down the forests and plant potatoes.
Burning the forest simultaneously generates huge masses of CO2, and at te same time, removes a major CO2 sink.
We are on a knife edge between the cooker and the freezer.

Too much CO2 and we boil, too little and we freeze.
And you think there is nothing to worry about?
You frighten me.

Be afraid!
Very afraid!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I didn’t know that hurricanes were caused by global warming.

You seem not to know many things, and this seems deliberate.

It was not a hurricane, as an ordinary hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, it was an extra fierce hurricane fullowing closely on the heels of another.

Look at the strength of hurricanes, and their frequency.

The hurricane season was supposed to be finnished when this super-hurricane struck New Orleans.

There are none so blind as them who will not see.

 

[yugnok]

You seem not to know many things, and this seems deliberate.

It was not a hurricane, as an ordinary hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, it was an extra fierce hurricane fullowing closely on the heels of another.

Look at the strength of hurricanes, and their frequency.

The hurricane season was supposed to be finnished when this super-hurricane struck New Orleans.

There are none so blind as them who will not see.

Now you are just being rude.

There have been natural disasters, hurricanes, and freaky unpredictable actions on the part of nature before global warming. Who knows Katrina may have been cause by global warming or the severity may have been caused by it. Or maybe not? The point is its hardly a scientific fact.

From now on, anytime there is a natural disaster are we going to blame it on global warming, when there were always natural disasters before global warming? How convenient.

In Michigan, people are screaming global warming if we have a warm day. Then the month its cold and they are saying so much for global warming. The anecdotal evidence for global warming is not convincing.

There is nothing wrong with having a theory(and I consider it to be a plausible theory) but people need to keep that in perspective and not overreact. A theory needs to be scrutinized and tested, not swallowed hook line and sinker.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Now you are just being rude.

There have been natural disasters, hurricanes, and freaky unpredictable actions on the part of nature before global warming. Who knows Katrina may have been cause by global warming or the severity may have been caused by it. Or maybe not? The point is its hardly a scientific fact.

From now on, anytime there is a natural disaster are we going to blame it on global warming, when there were always natural disasters before global warming? How convenient.

In Michigan, people are screaming global warming if we have a warm day. Then the month its cold and they are saying so much for global warming. The anecdotal evidence for global warming is not convincing.

There is nothing wrong with having a theory(and I consider it to be a plausible theory) but people need to keep that in perspective and not overreact. A theory needs to be scrutinized and tested, not swallowed hook line and sinker.

Ah, you have been sold the lie that global warming means that the planet will just get warmer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Consider a saucepan on a gas ring.
It contains water and ice.
the water is boiling, but you keep on adding ice.
Now what happens if you turn up the gas?
Will the water get hotter?
No.
It cannot get hotter than 212F
So what happens?
Well, there is boiling water in contact with ice, and as long as there is ice in the pan, all that can happen is the water moves more violently.
That is what is happening here.
The weather will get more violent and extreme, but it will not get appreciably hotter, that is, until the ice has gone.
Then it will get very hot indeed.

The ice sheets are thinning at a measureable rate.
This is extremely worrying.

Precautionary over-reaction is far preferable to overconfident inaction.

 

[Contarini]

I would say humanity is the greatest threat to humanity

Exactly. This is otherwise known as the doctrine of Original Sin!

I also fail to see how it is compatible with a pro-life position to bring babies into a world where, if current trends continue, they will no longer be able to breathe the air, drink the water, or work the land.

Preach it!

Satan laughs when moral imperatives are set over against each other.

Edwin

 

[joeganshert]

Well, the “global cooling” thing (which was the apocalyptic hullabaloo in the 1970s, but we’ve learned so much since then, right?) makes a little sense. What it basically means is that “global warming/cooling” are misnomers; what’s really happening is we’re making the climate more extreme, in both directions.

I don’t buy it, but it’s not as irrational as “Global warming causes global cooling” makes it sound.

I’m not an accredited scientist, but my biochemistry teacher is a friend of the one of the scientists who wrote the paper aboutglobal cooling (the one about how on 911 temperatures increased drastically, in terms of weather anyways, do to grounded air traffic). So, I might have a little more insight the average high schooler. Back on subject, Global warming will, yes will, cause Global cooling. Global warming will (supposedly) cause the ice caps to melt. This influx in cool water ( melted icecaps) will really mess with, if not stop the oceans present currents. So what does this mean? The normally temperate climate of Europe will not be cooled by “lake affects.” For those of you who have a globe or map, look at the latitude of Europe. Then look at the latitude of say Minnesota. This Global Warming/Cooling could also affect the vital monsoon rains that sustain life in Africa.Bottom line, I do not think that any simulator can even get close what could happen.

Back to Abortion vs. Global Warming
If one must choose between a candidate that supports abortion and wants global warming reform, and a candidate who doesn’t like killing “fetuses” (pro choice) but is not tough on global warming, it is more ethical to choose the pro lifer. It doesn’t make sense to me that one would support a candidate who wants to solve a future problem that may not kill anybody. Besides, in my mind, abortion is a legal matter which MUST be taken care of by our politicians, while I have the power to do something about global warming now. Has the OP asked the person who supported the anti-globalwarmingnist and not the pro lifer, what she is doing to stop global warning herself? That is where I would start.
Joe

 

[yugnok]

Ah, you have been sold the lie that global warming means that the planet will just get warmer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Consider a saucepan on a gas ring.
It contains water and ice.
the water is boiling, but you keep on adding ice.
Now what happens if you turn up the gas?
Will the water get hotter?
No.
It cannot get hotter than 212F
So what happens?
Well, there is boiling water in contact with ice, and as long as there is ice in the pan, all that can happen is the water moves more violently.
That is what is happening here.
The weather will get more violent and extreme, but it will not get appreciably hotter, that is, until the ice has gone.
Then it will get very hot indeed.

The ice sheets are thinning at a measureable rate.
This is extremely worrying.

Precautionary over-reaction is far preferable to overconfident inaction.

Thats sort of what I try to explain to my friends in Michigan whenever there is a hot day and they blame it on global warming.

We would have have hot days even if there were no such things as global warming. It would be a gradual warming. We might see some chaotic whether, however. (I really did just have this conversation just two days ago.) As I said, I do consider it a plausible theory. I just object to adhering to it as if it were indubitable. And, I object to labeling every natural disaster–even extraordinary natural disasters-- to global warming. Natural disasters could occur even if there were no such thing as global warming. Global warming and the severity of Katrina may be caused by global warming, but they can hardly be asserted as fact at this point.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Thats sort of what I try to explain to my friends in Michigan whenever there is a hot day and they blame it on global warming.

We would have have hot days even if there were no such things as global warming. It would be a gradual warming. We might see some chaotic whether, however. (I really did just have this conversation just two days ago.) As I said, I do consider it a plausible theory. I just object to adhering to it as if it were indubitable. And, I object to labeling every natural disaster–even extraordinary natural disasters-- to global warming. Natural disasters could occur even if there were no such thing as global warming. Global warming and the severity of Katrina may be caused by global warming, but they can hardly be asserted as fact at this point.

OK Yug,
The bottom line is this:
Chaotic and extreme weather will become more common, and the Ice caps will become thinner, and may indeed disappear.
The opening of the ‘North West Passage’ will be a definite warning to us all, and that will prelude major changes in ocean circulation.
This change will be disasterous to Europe, but will probably not freeze America, however, locking up huge amounts of ice in Europe, which belong at the poles may unbalance the earth, and cause the crust to shift on the axis. There is evidence that this has occurred before.
There is also the further worry that removing the ice caps will cause isostatic equilibrium change, causing the polar crust to rise, and consequently the equatorial crust to sink.
This will reduce the equitorial circumference, and dramatically increase activity on the East/West subduction zones, notably San Andreas, and Indonesea. Increased activity there is also a warning.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Thats sort of what I try to explain to my friends in Michigan whenever there is a hot day and they blame it on global warming.

We would have have hot days even if there were no such things as global warming. It would be a gradual warming. We might see some chaotic whether, however. (I really did just have this conversation just two days ago.) As I said, I do consider it a plausible theory. I just object to adhering to it as if it were indubitable. And, I object to labeling every natural disaster–even extraordinary natural disasters-- to global warming. Natural disasters could occur even if there were no such thing as global warming. Global warming and the severity of Katrina may be caused by global warming, but they can hardly be asserted as fact at this point.

How do we know? The computer models tell us so …

:whacky:

 

[Al_Masetti]

OK Yug,
The bottom line is this:
Chaotic and extreme weather will become more common, and the Ice caps will become thinner, and may indeed disappear.
The opening of the ‘North West Passage’ will be a definite warning to us all, and that will prelude major changes in ocean circulation.
This change will be disasterous to Europe, but will probably not freeze America, however, locking up huge amounts of ice in Europe, which belong at the poles may unbalance the earth, and cause the crust to shift on the axis. There is evidence that this has occurred before.
There is also the further worry that removing the ice caps will cause isostatic equilibrium change, causing the polar crust to rise, and consequently the equatorial crust to sink.
This will reduce the equitorial circumference, and dramatically increase activity on the East/West subduction zones, notably San Andreas, and Indonesea. Increased activity there is also a warning.

Keep in mind that the moon’s orbit around the earth is also increasing, that the earth’s rotation is already wobbling, that the earth’s magnetic field has already started to weaken (and is overdue to change polarity) … AND … that the New Jersey glaciers HAVE ALREADY MELTED.

Gibralter may tumble…

The continents may drift oh, my heavens!!!]

The Great Rift Valley may become the Great Rift Sea.

We may discover new life forms at the bottom of the oceans living on hot “stuff” seeping out of the earth’s crust.

The ice caps on Mars may melt.

There is just no telling!

 

[Al_Masetti]

The latest e-newsletter from Dr. S. Fred Singer has arrived.

It can be viewed at www.sepp.org or contact Dr. Singer at info@sepp.org to sign up to receive it by email.

Interesting discussion about Svensmark and the origin of cosmic rays and the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation and climate change. Scroll down toward the bottom.

Svensmark’s new book is “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change”.

Very interesting.

And… the Antarctic is getting colder, confounding the computer modelers.

You can also sign on to www.climatechangedebae.org to read the latest TWTW / SEPP e-newsletter where I posted it.

Sometimes it takes an extra day or two for Dr. Singer to post it to his Web site. www.sepp.org

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

I was recently faced with this thought as I argued with my friend over why I think abortion is worse than the current situation we are in concerning global warming. For this very reason, she is justifying voting for a democrat whose platform will be to fight global warming. Could anybody help me with an arguement?

Thanks

Phil

If we had good meteorology we could have avoided:

I was recently faced with this thought as I argued with my friend over why I think slavery is worse than the current situation we are in concerning global warming. For this very reason, she is justifying voting for a democrat whose platform will be to fight global warming. Could anybody help me with an arguement?

The Civil War…

I was recently faced with this thought as I argued with my friend over why I think German and Japanese militarism is worse than the current situation we are in concerning global warming. For this very reason, she is justifying voting for a democrat whose platform will be to fight global warming. Could anybody help me with an arguement?

WWII…

I was recently faced with this thought as I argued with my friend over why I think lynching is worse than the current situation we are in concerning global warming. For this very reason, she is justifying voting for a democrat whose platform will be to fight global warming. Could anybody help me with an arguement?

And Race Riots

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

What % of atmosperic CO2 is man made?

What % of all green house gases are man made?

What are the propsals and how much would they decreae CO2 and are other green house gases?

 

[Sandi]

Being a Catholic website, can you support this from the catechism, Church teaching or anything else remotely Catholic?

It’s simple: if we continue polluting our planet with global warming and by other means, abortion will be a moot point because no one will be around.

 

[st_lucy]

Being a Catholic website, can you support this from the catechism, Church teaching or anything else remotely Catholic?

It’s simple: if we continue polluting our planet with global warming and by other means, abortion will be a moot point because no one will be around.

Yes but while it is still around we must fight to save the unborn and anyone else that our society deems unworthy of life.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yes but while it is still around we must fight to save the unborn and anyone else that our society deems unworthy of life.

I once asked a wise man if it was possible to prevent sparrows from dying in winter. He sighed, and told me it was possible.
Shoot them in summer, he said.

You want to prevent the loss of life by abortions, and you are advocating the same remedy.
DESTROY THE EARTH, AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE ABORTIONS.

 

[Redbandito]

I can’t even believe this is an argument. Global warming definately caused by man? This has yet to be proven. Even the scientific community is not wholely on board the train. The Earth has always gone through cycles, why do we assume our age is any different?

The extreme environmental movement has become a religion for people who have none.

I don’t expect “all of this”, the earth, humans, animals, the solar system to exist forever. If you are a christian, which I am, you know that the Lord will come again for the final judgement. That is not to say we should abuse what God has given us. We should be good stewards of the earth, but without the issue of life there can be no other issue.

Some argue for sterilization for population control (China). One could argue that this is better for the whole because there would be less stress on resources. The church, however, takes a very different view.

The same goes for abortion, fewer people, fewer use of resources, fewer cars, less infastructure–this may seem a good argument from the perspective of an athiest, but again, the church would have big problems with this as well.

I wish more people on this planet, were a little more concerned about their souls, and a little less concerned about their SUV’s. Afterall, one thing’s for certain, no matter how it happens, all of us will come to an end, it’s the condition of our souls that matter.

Cheer up, all you global warming junkies! Look at it this way, maybe we’ll luck out and just get hit by a meteor. If it doesn’t destroy all life on earth as we know it, at least it will give us something else to talk about.

Precisely! In fact, in a recent Gallup Poll, I believe it was less than 20% of scientists surveyed believe that humans have any impact on “Global Warming.” And less than 15% believe that it can lead to anything catastrophic. You wouldn’t know it by watching the Communist News Network.

 

[Redbandito]

I once asked a wise man if it was possible to prevent sparrows from dying in winter. He sighed, and told me it was possible.
Shoot them in summer, he said.

You want to prevent the loss of life by abortions, and you are advocating the same remedy.
DESTROY THE EARTH, AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE ABORTIONS.

Well, since the THEORY of Global Warming is still in dispute, and is at the very heart of this question, I am waiting for a scientific proof that is indeed US that are destroying the Earth. Otherwise, your comment is completely irrelevant.

 

[jwedgie09]

ABORTION
Of course. It is the real issue in this world. Global warming is not a threat being that it is not REAL. The earth warms and cools naturally. In the fifties we were faced with global cooling. Face it abortion kills global warming is just a subject Al Gore tries to terrorize the people with.