A
Arclight
Guest
I agree, nuclear reactors should be put into commission as rapidly as possible.
- Status
I have observed this as well.
I never hear a moral relativistic argument come from a conservative. There is always a clear cut right and wrong.
However the leftist (liberal) tend to use the concept of ‘for me’ something is right and wrong. The majority I have debated fall back on a moral relativistic approach with no clear cut right and wrong.
R
rpp
Guest
If what you said is correct, then why did a the Northern Irish Environmental Minister, Sammy Wilson, ban British commercials that promoted the idea of man-made global warming. (Related news story.) I mean your IN Northern Ireland. So in light of this, I am surprised at your claim that refusing to agree with the idea of man-made global warning is an American phenomenon. In fact a large percentage of the scientists who have signed the petition opposing, using their words, “alarmist” comments about global warming are NOT American. (Scientists who oppose global warming)
Your use of pejoratives only goes to further erode your credibility.
My opinion on whether man-made global warming is happening is not based on my religious beliefs. It is based on my knowledge of meteorology and my years as an astronomer.
I have said this before. It bears repeating. If you want to convince me that global warming is worth my attention, then you will have to convince me of three things:
*]Global warming is, in fact, occurring.
*]Global warming is a bad thing.
*]Global warming is not the result of natural climate cycles but due to human activity.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yes, the Almighty gave us the earth to manage. But “keep it functional” is an awfully broad definition. Do I think God will intervene or will he let us destroy it? I don’t know.You say that you think global warming is started by people with political ends in mind. But don’t those that say there is no such thing also have political ends in mind? The oil industry certainly has a reason to claim there is no such thing. They make their money off oil.
I’m not sure that is the same thing. What I mean is that in buying into the man-made global warming myth, the answer is never market-driven. The answer always involves government mandated fuel economy and emission standards. It involves smaller, less-safe cars and a tremendous increase in energy costs. It gives government almost limitless power to control our actions.
Want to cut your lawn? Uh-uh. You need to buy an electric mower or a “emissions approved” model. Get out your wallet. Carbon credits=more taxation.
Oil prices are market driven. Otherwise how does one explain that we are able to get gas for less than $2 a gallon now when last summer proved that we’re willing to pay nearly $4 with no reduction in usage.
I’m a bit puzzled by what you mean in the scriptural statement at the beginning. Did not God ask us to be custodians of the earth? Is it not our duty to keep in functional? Do you think God will step in and stop our destruction of it? Or if not, then it is his desire that we be allowed to destroy it? I’m not in any way being critical, I’m just not sure what you mean.
What I meant was that if God chose not to let us destroy the earth, there’s nothing we could do to destroy it. I’m not convinced that the earth doesn’t have this tremendous reserve capacity that we probably never could overcome. We’d kill ourselves off long before killing off the earth, methinks.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
SpiritMeadow, my organization has found that for whatever reason, there is a very strong correlation between (1) rejection of evolution and (2) denial of anthropogenic global warming.
StAnastasia
M
manualman
Guest
Anastasia, I’m not sure what your ‘organization’ is, but I’m a striking example of someone who doesn’t fit your stereotype. (Assuming that ‘evolution’ is properly defined scientifically as a ‘what/how’ question, not philosophically as a ‘who/why’ question.)
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Oh, and I rather doubt Michael Crichton was a creationist either…
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Oh, and I rather doubt Michael Crichton was a creationist either…
Not hard to believe.
Simple questioning of what people are told is the status quo.
I have been told there was a time when questioning the status quo was a good thing.
Of course, that was before the answers to these questions placed doubt upon the status quo.
D
dkdempsey
Guest
This past January in Chicago there were times where the wind chills exceeded -20 degrees. Also there was frost on the INSIDE of my apartment window since it got so cold. Guess global warming is global, except in Chicago.
As a matter of note, I believe in evolution 100%, but I also find it suspicious these claims of “global warming”.
As a matter of note, I believe in evolution 100%, but I also find it suspicious these claims of “global warming”.
0
06convert
Guest
For me personally it’s not really a religious thing or a biblical thing.
If science is going to go on and on about needing scientific proof of the existance of God, then I need scientific proof that global warming is real. Science has just as much difficulty proving global warming as it does God. In fact global warming is kind of like it’s own religion with people like Al Gore as the environmental messiah.
Why is global warming not a fact? Because it’s a theory. Simply put. Is there evidence of a warming trend? Maybe, but the extremists pretending that we are doomed to melting all the ice and flooding islands and shores are speculating, at best.
If science is going to go on and on about needing scientific proof of the existance of God, then I need scientific proof that global warming is real. Science has just as much difficulty proving global warming as it does God. In fact global warming is kind of like it’s own religion with people like Al Gore as the environmental messiah.
Why is global warming not a fact? Because it’s a theory. Simply put. Is there evidence of a warming trend? Maybe, but the extremists pretending that we are doomed to melting all the ice and flooding islands and shores are speculating, at best.
- The hottest recorded temperature on earth is from like 1922 or something. The coldest? 1983. Seems more like a cool down to me.
- The oldest temperatures on record are from like the 17th and 18th century. Forgive me if I’m not too inclined to trust those temperatures if I can’t even trust todays temp driving from one bank’s temperature sign to another.
- Off the coast of…Iceland? Maybe it was Greenland? Since some of the ice has melted in this recent warm cycle we have been going through. They have found old farming equipment where the ice has melted, suggesting what was just ice used to be dry and warm enough for farming. Suggesting the earth was once much warmer than it is now.
- When the temperature rises and melts ice, you get humidity and airborn moisture condensation. Then what happens? It snows and remakes all of that ice that just melted. And it’s all nice and cold again.
- Global warming suggests a less than 1 degree increase of the near surface air over the last 100 years. I’m pretty sure we can handle that, as the temp in my apartment varies more than that just leaving the kitchen.
- I think that the hundreds of volcanoes in the world generate a bit more carbon and heat than humans and their coal plants do.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding what global warming means. But we are not here to debate that. But there is certaintly nothing inconsistent between global warming and intense, unusual cold regions.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Science doesn’t go on and on about needing proof of God. By definition, science doesn’t delve into the metaphysical. As I said, we are not here to discuss how difficult science has with global warming. We are here to discuss the relgious component only, but your claim that science has difficulty with proving God is simply wrong. They don’t begin to try for obvious reasons.
You are not understanding the definition of theory in science. Theory in science is akin to fact. It is not a hypotheses which is the word you should be using. Again, you have made a raw statement without anything to back it up, and we are precisely not discussing the efficacy of global warming.
Again this denotes a misunderstanding of what global warming is.
I’m sure your opinion is valuable to you, but I don’t think we should rely on it do you? Perhaps the experts might know a tad bit more. There is a symbiotic relationship which is worldwide that involves ocean currents. Even minor changes in temperature can affect that and thus change the entire dynamics of weather.
6.
Again, we have strayed from the point, but you continue to make wild allegations anyway without any type of proof. We are talking about a religious component here.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No problem – you haven’t popped my bubble at all.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I am saying that he was not radical in his teaching. But my main point was that he started no radical political movements and espoused no radical political or social causes. He was no liberation theologian.
He was, after all, the Jewish Messiah. He preached only to Jews. His preaching, at the outset, would have made no sense to Gentiles. They were expecting no Messiah. His entire teaching and mission was the fulfillment of the Jewish Old Testament scriptures and traditions, which He quoted extensively in his teaching. He came out of a long tradition going back to Abraham being called as the father of God’s chosen people.
Can’t get much more conservative than that. The fact that he expanded that teaching and perfected it does not mean that he radically changed it. A Jewish convert to Catholicism once said that she felt more ‘at home’ as Jew at a Catholic Mass than at any protestant service, just because her own faith background seemed to be fully incorporated therein.
But this is way off topic.
0
06convert
Guest
Well, maybe it’s my opinion, but I’m sure that soon, they will be talking about the next ice age. 
My post was to point out that there is no doubt we are on a “warming trend” and the “climate change” exists. But the term global warming is overused and misused on both sides of the argument.
There are some scientists that contradict global warming. They have many facts of their own, which I personally believe.
There are many scientists that have been kicked out of their jobs because they disputed global warming. Or offered a contradicting explaination to what their superior felt was right.
Oh, and it may be superficial, but the fact that a loon like Al Gore supports this theory makes it shaky at best, in my opinion.
My post was to point out that there is no doubt we are on a “warming trend” and the “climate change” exists. But the term global warming is overused and misused on both sides of the argument.
There are some scientists that contradict global warming. They have many facts of their own, which I personally believe.
There are many scientists that have been kicked out of their jobs because they disputed global warming. Or offered a contradicting explaination to what their superior felt was right.
Oh, and it may be superficial, but the fact that a loon like Al Gore supports this theory makes it shaky at best, in my opinion.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You need a basic logic class. I know “loons” who support gravity and cell theory, but their loony status doesn’t prompt me to doubt the validity of those theories.Oh, and it may be superficial, but the fact that a loon like Al Gore supports this theory makes it shaky at best, in my opinion.
R
rpp
Guest
Over time, I have come to the conclusion that the whole idea of Global Warming plays into the hope that the rich industrialized world will be able to oppress control third-world countries who will not be able to afford the outrageous expenses involved in dealing with what the Global Warming snake-oil salesmen are telling them they must do. They will simply not be able to bring efficient heavy industry to their countries and their people will continue to live in poverty.
I am having a hard time distinguishing the promotion of anthropogenic global warming with racism.
I am having a hard time distinguishing the promotion of anthropogenic global warming with racism.
F
Feanor
Guest
This denial of global warming usually comes from the recent marrying of some religious with the tenets of the far right. The Christian Coalition really seems to have brought many of these people together and for some reason some Catholics are “buddying up” with those people who have never before been even marginally interested in Catholicism.
THis same dynamic relates to the unconditional defense of the Israeli Government.
It is a dynamic particular to the US.
THis same dynamic relates to the unconditional defense of the Israeli Government.
It is a dynamic particular to the US.
M
manualman
Guest
This may be quibbling, but theory and fact are still vastly different. Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported via at least SOME scientific examination or experimentation. Newtonian physics was considered an iron-clad theory, as close to dead-on fact as you can get in the scientific world. Until Einstein came along and showed it to be an extremely oversimplified explanation of matter and gravity.
AGW is barely past the hypothesis stage. It has SOME supporting evidence in the form of temp records, long term CO2 levels and computer models calibrated to produce trends that match recent history. But far less support than Newtonian physics had.
You can call it a scientific theory and you’d be right - barely. I even respect those who consider it the best available theory to explain recent observations (though I’m not sure that says all that much given the dearth of serious investigations of alternative explanations). But calling it a fact just undercuts your own credibility.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Manualman, you misunderstand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Theories never become facts, because facts lie on an epistemologically lower level than theories. The facts are that global mean temperatures have been increasing for decades, and that arctic sea ice has been melting correspondingly, and that numerous species are forced to migrate or face extinction.
“Theory” lies on a higher level epistemologically – a theory is a proposed explanation for the facts. The undeniable fact of global warming might be explained by anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide levels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Or it might be explained by an increase in solar activity. But in either case, the facts or observations come first, and are the grist for the mill of theory.
StAnastasia
- Status