• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

On Language About "Climate Change" and Global Warming" and "Pollution"

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,646
2,403
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟195,222.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If you will look at the graph, the CO2 emissions in China have been dramatically rising for the last 30 years while the US has remained virtually flat. If China was the least interested the stats should show at the very least, a slight increase, not the significant indicated on the charts.
Yeah - and what percentage of American's are still subsistance farming peasants? When did you guys industrialise everyone to live in the first world - just run that buy me again? And what's the Chinese per-capita CO2 rate again? And what's their plan? And what's yours?
Your right and I don't mean to pick on China. Frankly, I can't blame them. But if environmentalists were truly concerned about the environment, they would be protesting those nations whose CO2 emissions are the highest-not the ones where they are flat.
You ignored what we said. Why bother answering you if you are just going to repeat the same objection as if nothing happened? Your 'point' is invalid, has been shot down from 20 different directions - and so you just double down and repeat it. How MAGA.
This seems to be the new derogatory term. "Science denier"-someone who denies science. This is a clever tactic to discredit another's opposing view. I suppose it worked in 1984.
Did you get vaccinated against Covid?
Yes, and shall we discuss how well scientists behaved under Hitler? How about the Covid virus? Antrax? It's a double edge sword.
And Godwin's law. There it is. Game set match. Goodbye.
I really get tired of posting this video of Al Gore.
No you're not - you love it. Except LISTENING TO IT - you're not so good at that bit.

The trouble is that some people here just don't wish to consider opposing views. Hence, they don't even listen to the claims their own people make, marching in lock step to the same drummer.

Except, I'm the one that DID listen to it? You have not demonstrated that YOU did?
 
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
16,722
6,348
✟371,480.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I think I've shared some of this before - so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. Some renewables sceptics like Michael Shellenberger emphasise a few rare stories of renewables going bad. He talks about a solar thermal plant (all those mirrors!) displacing a rare desert turtle habitat. I didn’t know desert turtles were a thing, but if there is ANY endangered species - don’t mess with that habitat for any reason - especially oil or gas or coal or it will REALLY mess it up!
That's ridiculous!

I completely forgot about solar thermal plant with mirrors.

Actually, these might beat wind farms for eco-friendliness with some modifications. Solar thermals also kills birds and insects BUT, it's possible to fully enclose them in a transparent covering like a mylar sheet or polycarbonate panels with some patterns on it (so birds can still see them) supported by lightweight geodesic framework.

SOLAR ON CALM SEAS? (Between equatorial archipelago sites - sheltered by Indonesian and Malaysian islands etc.)
“up to one million TWh per year. That’s about five times more annual energy than is needed for a fully decarbonised global economy supporting 10 billion affluent people.”
Makes a bit of sense since the sea is dark color already so that it won't have local effect on temperatures.

However, it might cause a problem if less or no sunlight reaches the waters beneath covering a significant area.

This dilemma could be solved however by placing each panels apart, not stuck together to allow sunlight to reach the waters below.

Not really - not in the USA anyway. It's largely an enormous administrative blow to your economy that you could do without.

Americans spends over $13,000 per person per year for healthcare. Australia about $7,000. Why? Because our government has largely socialised medicine - covers everyone universally - and so can buy medical goods and services from the market in bulk deals. American states - sometimes even individual health providers or hospitals - try to negotiate their own deals. And SO much American ‘healthcare’ is administrative and legal costs trying to get your insurers to do the right thing? Healthcare in the United States - Wikipedia

Now imagine America doing things the Australian way? $6000 per person times 330m Americans = $1.98 TRILLION a year that could be going into building Ecocities, each with state of the art Metros and subways, beautiful parks, and your own Wind and Solar and EV empires! But hey - gotta pay those legal fees!

"For example, the average cost in the U.S. for an MRI scan was $1,119, compared to $811 in New Zealand, $215 in Australia and $181 in Spain. However, data showed that 95th percentile in the price of this procedure in the U.S. was $3,031, meaning some people are paying nearly $3,000 more for a standard MRI scan in the U.S. than the average person in Australia and Spain." 6 Reasons Healthcare Is So Expensive in the U.S.

VOX explains what went wrong:
Believe it or not, it works for America's version of "free market economy". It's brand name for its real nature - "survival of the fittest" economic system which is mostly dysfunctional (cancerous) in nature.

In USA "survival of the fittest economy", even wasteful / inefficient spending of money creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Unfortunately, the money this cancerous system creates only falls on a small number of individuals / entities. Entities who are unlikely to spend that money on projects that benefit everyone but rather spend them on developing weapons, military hardware, and luxury goods. This is why USA is showing positive economic growth, however, most Americans are seeing a disappointing economy.

Australia's economic model allows for better distribution of wealth and more likely to fall into hands of people who will actually use those funds for everyone's benefit. Good on you!:oldthumbsup:

USA is following a very unenlightened, very barbaric, very unGodly, very evil economic model.

Yeah - those insurers and lawyers hey? Please watch the videos above. I like your vibe - and if you get on board with this you might share some good Aussie common sense with some of those "everything's gotta be private or we'll go Commo!" Americans you must meet.

I don't live in USA. But I do know most Americans have irrational fears of socialization.

They fear higher taxes more far than financial instability / financial insecurity that "hyper capitalism" creates.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,646
2,403
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟195,222.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
However, it might cause a problem if less or no sunlight reaches the waters beneath covering a significant area.
Good point! Apparently we shouldn't cover 100% of a fresh water reservoir if we want the water to stay fresh. Leave - I think from memory - about 30% for normal algae to grow and fish to survive and do their ecological thing.
In USA "survival of the fittest economy"
Yes - a good way to describe it. I'm not disagreeing that certain kinds of spending generate some economic activity - but as you already said - it's about the kind of economic activity that reduces waste and benefits EVERYONE - and even makes room for other, better economic activity. I guess what you're saying is that given the sheer size of the waste in America, there are powerful people interested in keeping it that way. A few hundred billion here and a few hundred billion there - and pretty soon you're talking about real money!
Australia's economic model allows for better distribution of wealth and more likely to fall into hands of people who will actually use those funds for everyone's benefit. Good on you!:oldthumbsup:
We are not perfect! And we're not alone in this model of socialised healthcare. Check it out! But remember - anything on the left half - even left 2/3rds - is probably not due to efficiency but because they just don't have the economy to spend the needed amount on healthcare in the first place!

1728462580619.png


USA is following a very unenlightened, very barbaric, very unGodly, very evil economic model.
Australia certainly has a lot of nasty stuff warping out economy. We have one of the highest gambling habits of any nation on earth! And because our states tax it - they're addicted to it. It REALLY hurts the poor. Check this out! It's been a while since I googled this - and now I feel a bit sick! I had no IDEA it was so much on a per capita basis!

Gambling is an activity undertaken by many Australians. In 2022, 72.8% of Australian adults gambled within the previous 12 months (80.5% for men and 66.2% for women) and 38% of Australian adults gambled at least once per week (48% for men and 28% for women).[1] In 2017, Australians were estimated to lead the world with the highest gambling losses on a per-capita basis.[2] Australians spend more on online gambling than any other country in the world.[3]
On a per-capita basis, Australians placed gambling bets worth AUD$9,885 in financial year 2020-2021, resulting in a loss of AUD$1,200.[4] Australians cumulatively placed bets worth AUD$198 billion in this financial year, resulting in a total loss of AUD$24 billion.[4]

I don't live in USA. But I do know most Americans have irrational fears of socialization.
Ah - my bad - I was rushing and should have checked.

They fear higher taxes more far than financial instability / financial insecurity that "hyper capitalism" creates.
Weirdly Australia's tax per GDP is not THAT much more? If America just nationalised health it might save so much money across the economy and stimulate other things to the point their GDP grew, and their costs reduced, and they didn't need to increase their tax per unit GDP that much? From an OECD PDF.

1728463075622.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: timewerx
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Note that the reason I started this thread, was to note that politicians
often do NOT treat global pollution, and warming, seriously.

This is different from arguing economic models, or tax rates.

Today, in America, we have hurricane Milton approaching the Western
shores of Florida, with HUGE expected storm surges (10-18 feet).

Florida is a strong supporter of Trump, and Trump is one of the politicians
who denies all the scientific evidence for global warming (due to pollution),
and who denies that this global warming will cause horrendous weather
abberations.

America has just suffered hurricane Helene, and heavy rain that destroyed
towns over 5 states (many of these states were heavy supporters of Trump,
and were deniers of climate change).


My point with this thread, is not to argue political models of government,
but to simply note that Americans, and citizens in the rest of the world,
CANNOT continue to live as if the pollution that we have caused, will
not have serious results.

We MUST NOT support politicians who continue to deny the scientific
evidence for global warming, due to air pollution!

The weather disasters that have largely been amplified by air pollution,
WILL NOT BE FIXED BY HOW AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN USES THEIR
INCOME. This pollution is systemic, and must be dealt with systemically
by governments in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eclipsenow
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
By the way, with all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for global warming, and the
mounting piles of evidence that this correlates with damaging weather
events,

should employers be allowed to reject job applications from people
who continue to hold to the conspiracy theories (that burning fossil
fuels do not harm the environment)?

Why should employers NOT see the believing of conspiracy theories,
as a mark that a person does not have CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eclipsenow
Upvote 0

HarleyER

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2024
903
340
74
Toano
✟51,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I get it. Real climate scientists don't say the things you claim they do, so you present Algore as a "climate scientist." What a denier to do?
The US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. After the billions of dollars (possibly trillions) and all the scientific research, what you're saying is that we're no better off (or perhaps worst) than we were 54 years ago.

Normally we would fire people for this type of results. Instead, we just keep re-electing them.
 
Upvote 0

HarleyER

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2024
903
340
74
Toano
✟51,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah - and what percentage of American's are still subsistance farming peasants? When did you guys industrialise everyone to live in the first world - just run that buy me again? And what's the Chinese per-capita CO2 rate again? And what's their plan? And what's yours?

You ignored what we said. Why bother answering you if you are just going to repeat the same objection as if nothing happened? Your 'point' is invalid, has been shot down from 20 different directions - and so you just double down and repeat it. How MAGA.

Did you get vaccinated against Covid?

And Godwin's law. There it is. Game set match. Goodbye.

No you're not - you love it. Except LISTENING TO IT - you're not so good at that bit.


Except, I'm the one that DID listen to it? You have not demonstrated that YOU did?
Forgive me for "ignoring" what we said. While I read long posts, I don't answer every comment. It is too time consuming. So I pick the most important issues.

Yes, I did get one shot for Covid since this is what I was told to do by the government. After I had some friends and heard some reports of negative side effects, I refused to get the booster.

And trust me, the last person (well, almost) I want to listen to is Al Gore.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. After the billions of dollars (possibly trillions) and all the scientific research, what you're saying is that we're no better off (or perhaps worst) than we were 54 years ago.

Normally we would fire people for this type of results. Instead, we just keep re-electing them.


Spending billions of dollars, doesn't mean that America was effectively
addressing the problem of climate change.

I agree that Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

Dealing with red herrings, still is not dealing with the pretty horrendous effects of
air pollution (aka global warming).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
2,092
903
57
Ohio US
✟206,884.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's a good thing to want to take care of the earth but a Christian should never forget God's promises regarding the earth while it remains. We will always have seed time/harvest, hot and cold. He states that will not cease. Anyone that states anything different is in essence stating they don't believe him.

And the hypocrisy at which the higher ups preach is ridiculous. They fly to their speeches, etc leaving a carbon footprint that none of us will even compare in our daily lives let alone our lifetimes. And to really expect the entire world to get in sync over this is pointless. I don't see the entire global infrastructure changing to the point where certain countries move past, coal, oil, etc.

And while I agree air pollution, etc is a horrendous thing, I don't see it going away -the politicians on both sides know it's not going to go away. All the while they sit back and we pay for it in taxes, bills, etc in the end. And everything goes on as much as it always has where the actual climate is concerned.
And I'm old enough to have lived through claims about the climate/earth through the years that have failed. Which makes my faith in God's promises that much stronger. And trust that until Christ returns, etc we will never reach global warming to the extant that they've preached to us before he returns. That's God's promise. It's his creation. If he states hot and cold will remain and seed times remain, I believe him.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It's a good thing to want to take care of the earth but a Christian should never forget God's promises regarding the earth while it remains. We will always have seed time/harvest, hot and cold. He states that will not cease. Anyone that states anything different is in essence stating they don't believe him.

And the hypocrisy at which the higher ups preach is ridiculous. They fly to their speeches, etc leaving a carbon footprint that none of us will even compare in our daily lives let alone our lifetimes. And to really expect the entire world to get in sync over this is pointless. I don't see the entire global infrastructure changing to the point where certain countries move past, coal, oil, etc.

And while I agree air pollution, etc is a horrendous thing, I don't see it going away -the politicians on both sides know it's not going to go away. All the while they sit back and we pay for it in taxes, bills, etc in the end. And everything goes on as much as it always has where the actual climate is concerned.
And I'm old enough to have lived through claims about the climate/earth through the years that have failed. Which makes my faith in God's promises that much stronger. And trust that until Christ returns, etc we will never reach global warming to the extant that they've preached to us before he returns. That's God's promise. It's his creation. If he states hot and cold will remain and seed times remain, I believe him.

I think that the language that you refer to, is the rule of thumb of the
normal following of seasons.

There is also biblical language about plagues, and floods, and disasters
in wars, etc.

I would not interpret the text that you refer to, as meaning that we should
not try to effect our world, for the better.
 
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
2,092
903
57
Ohio US
✟206,884.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
as meaning that we should
not try to effect our world, for the better.
I'm just stating God's promise. It needs no interpretation. The world will never achieve global warming to the effect that the seasons and seed time will cease before Christ returns. We will always have hot and cold, summer and winter. And I'm not talking about disasters, etc. or when certain droughts/famines happen. I'm talking about the climate as a whole. We still have the seasons, just as God promised, we still have climate for harvest and so on.

It's good to take care of the earth and as I stated air pollution etc is horrendous yes- but I don't think the climate is going to change to the point where we are in full panic mode as many would preach regardless before he returns.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,646
2,403
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟195,222.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. After the billions of dollars (possibly trillions) and all the scientific research, what you're saying is that we're no better off (or perhaps worst) than we were 54 years ago.
Um - again - look up the source documents please! What were they actually legislating about? What changes did that bring? I think you'll find the clean air act wasn't about climate change, or even the tiny particulates that cause cancer. It was more about limiting acid rain by installing sulfur scrubbers on coal chimneys, and dealing with CFC's. And if you saw the planetary boundaries graphic above - that's one area of environmental legislation that's actually worked! But I'm not sure if it's possible to burn fossil fuels and eliminate the really small stuff that still causes unimaginable damage to American health every year!?

Coal’s health bill costs America $300 billion every year – which is about a third of their military budget. What kind of person claims coal is cheap?

Aside: I hear you on the length of my posts. I'm passionate about this topic. You couldn't tell - right? :oldthumbsup: Soz.​
(At work they jokingly call me 'the enigma' because they NEVER know what I'm feeling about anything!? OK - I'm a little bit heart on sleeve.​
OK - I have all the emotions, leaking out all over the place! I hope I can reign in the attitude a bit.)​

Normally we would fire people for this type of results. Instead, we just keep re-electing them.
Assertions are not evidence. Indignation is not evidence. You clearly have all the emotions of a Denier - but sadly about the same amount of evidence. Try to read the source materials - even the summaries for lay people. Please get back to us when you can quote what Al Gore actually says in your video, when you can disprove the fundamental physics proved by 1856 glass jar tests by Eunice Foote, and when you can explain why you'll mostly accept the benefits of modern science - but just let your political presuppositions run roughshod over your ability to listen to climate science.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,591.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. After the billions of dollars (possibly trillions) and all the scientific research, what you're saying is that we're no better off (or perhaps worst) than we were 54 years ago.

Normally we would fire people for this type of results. Instead, we just keep re-electing them.
Environmentally, we are far better off today than we were 50 years ago. However, we still have more work to do. Drinking water, for example, is far cleaner today than at any point in the past century, here in America, as a product of the clean water act and the resource conservation and recovery act. Carbon dioxide, though it has an impact on the atmosphere, has simply never been regulated as other man-made waste products have.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,646
2,403
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟195,222.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's a good thing to want to take care of the earth but a Christian should never forget God's promises regarding the earth while it remains. We will always have seed time/harvest, hot and cold. He states that will not cease. Anyone that states anything different is in essence stating they don't believe him.
You don't understand either what the climate scientists are saying, nor the context of the theology in the Noah event.
Most climate scenarios do not have seasons or all life on earth totally vanishing.
But the apocalyptic language of Revelation (which describes life generally under natural disasters and tyrants, and is NOT a time-table of the end of the world) more than covers the possible variations in climate science.

I know a few Professors of history & theology who study Genesis. They say the writing in the Noah story is ‘dressed up’ in a highly structured style called chiastic structure. Chiastic structure - Wikipedia Basically think of it as hamburger writing - where the most important bit is the meat pattie in the middle - and the events leading down to the middle are mirrored EXACTLY coming out the other side just like in a good hamburger. Check it out!


1728503795011.png

Noah is one of the most famous examples of this hamburger writing in literature. Then there’s a few in the Quran, and even Beowulf uses chiastic structure. So what does it mean? I have known a number of professors of Old Testament. They’re convinced that the Noah story is based on something real that happened in Mesopotamian region - and that this legendary flood got ‘dressed up’ by a number of Ancient Middle Eastern religions. Noah is the Hebrew author ‘marking’ the theological claims in the other religions. It’s a polemic against their theological claims. And what it says is that God uncreated the world! That this flood event was a sign that God was ‘starting over’, returning the world to the watery chaos of uncreation in the first chapter. It’s not about science, but theological poetry. It also uses AME cosmology with domes over the earth keeping the heavens up, waters over those domes, and floodgates to let the water through! Needless to say - NASA didn’t find those floodgates when they went to the moon! Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

So at the end of the story, God blesses Noah and the world and says he will never uncreate the world again! That's not a problem for Christians who accept climate science, as the story does not promise that EVERYWHERE on earth will ALWAYS have good grain supply - as only a few chapters later Genesis itself records doughts and famines that were across the 'whole earth' - the whole ancient middle east that they knew of at the time! So you cannot pluck the Noah promise out of context and say "Here's a golden ticket that MY country will always have grain!" because Genesis itself has a NUMBER of horrific famines!


And the hypocrisy at which the higher ups preach is ridiculous. They fly to their speeches, etc leaving a carbon footprint that none of us will even compare in our daily lives let alone our lifetimes. And to really expect the entire world to get in sync over this is pointless. I don't see the entire global infrastructure changing to the point where certain countries move past, coal, oil, etc.
I've covered this above. The IPCC has made great gains on climate negotiations. Given how important fossil fuels are - and that for decades there wasn't an easy drop-in replacement (like there was with CFC's and the Montreal Protocol to stop the Ozone layer being depleted) - it's amazing how much progress the world has made on agreeing to cut CO2 emissions!

But now renewables & EV's are SO cheap that the market is mostly heading in that direction anyway. The subsidies worked! We won decades ago when Germany and then China started to subsidise renewables and their costs started to plummet. They're now cheaper than coal - and cleaner than coal oil and gas. When America finally leaves oil will be when the world market for oil collapses (you guys use 25% of the world's oil yet only have 5% of the global population!) When the world market for oil goes bankrupt, the Middle Eastern and Russian Petro-dictators go bankrupt!

And while I agree air pollution, etc is a horrendous thing, I don't see it going away
I do. Renewables are the sustainable, clean thing to do. So are EV's. They're the patriotic thing to do given we're all propping up Russia every time we fill up our tank!


-the politicians on both sides know it's not going to go away.
No they don't. That's an assertion without evidence.
This is a science forum.
It's different to the eschatology forum.
You need to make assertions with evidence.

All the while they sit back and we pay for it in taxes, bills, etc in the end. And everything goes on as much as it always has where the actual climate is concerned.
I certainly hope not or we'll cook the planet! (Which will probably mean a quarter less grain by 2050 - not NO grain like in Genesis.)

Renewables are growing exponentially. Global solar capacity used to double every 4 years - now it’s every 3. By 2031 there will be more solar than all other power sources combined! The fastest energy change in history still underway EV’s are also growing fast. The IEA says it’s so that demand for ALL fossil fuels will peak around 2030ish - and begin to decline thereafter. Global coal demand expected to decline in coming years - News - IEA Get your supperannuation out of fossil fuels - because there are going to be TRILLIONS in stranded assets when this bubble bursts!


And I'm old enough to have lived through claims about the climate/earth through the years that have failed.
Show us! I think you'll find you're quoting a few well known tropes.

Which makes my faith in God's promises that much stronger.
It's not faith in God - but faith in anti-science tropes.

And trust that until Christ returns, etc we will never reach global warming to the extant that they've preached to us before he returns.
And what extent have Christian climatologists explained the science to you? (Please don't use negative words like 'preached to us' about the science - especially when it sounds like the preaching at your church must be more the gospel of anti-science than the gospel of the Jesus who created this planet and loves it!)


That's God's promise. It's his creation. If he states hot and cold will remain and seed times remain, I believe him.
And - there you go again. Reciting anti-science creeds without understanding that if you LITERALLY believe there will NEVER be droughts and famines - Genesis itself is against you! Read Joseph's story. Or did you not think that through when you recited the anti-science myths of your cohort?
 
Upvote 0

HarleyER

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2024
903
340
74
Toano
✟51,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Um - again - look up the source documents please! What were they actually legislating about? What changes did that bring? I think you'll find the clean air act wasn't about climate change, or even the tiny particulates that cause cancer. It was more about limiting acid rain by installing sulfur scrubbers on coal chimneys, and dealing with CFC's. And if you saw the planetary boundaries graphic above - that's one area of environmental legislation that's actually worked! But I'm not sure if it's possible to burn fossil fuels and eliminate the really small stuff that still causes unimaginable damage to American health every year!?

Coal’s health bill costs America $300 billion every year – which is about a third of their military budget. What kind of person claims coal is cheap?

Aside: I hear you on the length of my posts. I'm passionate about this topic. You couldn't tell - right? :oldthumbsup: Soz.​
(At work they jokingly call me 'the enigma' because they NEVER know what I'm feeling about anything!? OK - I'm a little bit heart on sleeve.​
OK - I have all the emotions, leaking out all over the place! I hope I can reign in the attitude a bit.)​


Assertions are not evidence. Indignation is not evidence. You clearly have all the emotions of a Denier - but sadly about the same amount of evidence. Try to read the source materials - even the summaries for lay people. Please get back to us when you can quote what Al Gore actually says in your video, when you can disprove the fundamental physics proved by 1856 glass jar tests by Eunice Foote, and when you can explain why you'll mostly accept the benefits of modern science - but just let your political presuppositions run roughshod over your ability to listen to climate science.
Thanks but we seem to be going around and around on this. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

At the end of the day, this world will be destroyed.
 
Upvote 0

HarleyER

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2024
903
340
74
Toano
✟51,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Environmentally, we are far better off today than we were 50 years ago. However, we still have more work to do. Drinking water, for example, is far cleaner today than at any point in the past century, here in America, as a product of the clean water act and the resource conservation and recovery act. Carbon dioxide, though it has an impact on the atmosphere, has simply never been regulated as other man-made waste products have.
Thanks but we seem to be going around and around on this. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

At the end of the day, this world will be destroyed.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,222
13,036
78
✟434,678.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I get it. Real climate scientists don't say the things you claim they do, so you present Algore as a "climate scientist." What a denier to do?

The US Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970.
What do you think that has to do with climate?
"People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
Everett Dirkson

After the billions of dollars (possibly trillions) and all the scientific research, what you're saying is that we're no better off (or perhaps worst) than we were 54 years ago.
No. The air is cleaner. The rising CO2 levels won't poison us; it just warms up the Earth. Which, as you see in Florida, has other consequences. If you learned more about this, it would probably be easier for you to understand.

Normally we would fire people for this type of results.
In 2020, we did. The guy we had running things thought that windmills cause cancer and that global warming is a hoax. He messed up several ways, and we fired him for gross incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,591.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks but we seem to be going around and around on this. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

At the end of the day, this world will be destroyed.

It's not really a matter of debate or opinion. What I've stated is simply a fact. Do you know what RCRA is?
Consider, the Potomac River for example. If you live near Maryland, you might be familiar with it:

1800s:​

1810 – First sewer system in Washington constructed to convey wastes to nearest stream.

1830s – It was “not uncommon to pull 4,000 shad or 300,000 herring in one seine haul. One haul of 450 rockfish with as average weight of sixty pounds was documented. Hundreds of sturgeon were captured on a single night near the US Arsenal in Washington” (Niles Weekly Register).

1852 – Washington Aqueduct, a division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was established by an Act of Congress. It is the water supplier for the District of Columbia.

1870 – Washington area population reaches 75,000.

1894 – The US Public Health Service, or USPHS, reported “… at certain times of the year the river is so loaded with sediments as to be unfit for bathing as well as for drinking and cooking purposes. It contains fecal bacilli at all times …”

1898First biological survey of Potomac was conducted.

1905 – The US Geological Survey, or USGS, reports turbidity in the Potomac: “3000 ppm during floods, 15-20 during low flow, >1000 ppm 18 days/year, 300-1000 ppm 43 days/year, 50-300 ppm 123 days/year, <50 ppm 181 days/year.” (ppm refers to parts per million)

1911 – Fishery surveys of upper Potomac and tributaries from 1898-1911 find 84 species of fish.

1914 – District of Columbia (DC) sewer system carries wastes from 340,000 people to the Potomac. USPHS study of pollution in the Potomac finds river in “generally good condition” with “ample oxygen.”

1916 – Potomac Estuary survey notes that submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) covers the Potomac, except for the central channel, along both banks. Various reports indicate that extensive beds of SAV were the “natural” condition of the Potomac in the nineteenth century.

1930 – Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC, Prince George’s and Montgomery counties) connects its sewer system to DC’s.

1932 – Untreated wastes from metropolitan area population of 575,000 are flowing into the Potomac. Bacterial contamination forces closing river for swimming from Three Sisters Island to Fort Washington. Low dissolved oxygen levels between Geisboro Point and Fort Foote endanger fishery.

1938 – Blue Plains waste water treatment plant (WWTP) is completed, with a capacity of 130 million gallons per day (mgd) – primary treatment.

1940s:​

Signing of the Compact that formed the ICPRB



1940 – Congress gives its consent to the states of Maryland and West Virginia, the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia to enter into a Compact providing for the creation of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) and the Potomac Valley Conservancy District.

1943 – The Commission publishes its first report on the condition of basin waters.

1945 – ICPRB adopts a pollution abatement program, and publishes the first edition of its News Letter. • Pennsylvania passes the nation’s first law that puts limits on acid mine drainage pollution to streams.

1946 – ICPRB defines a set of “Minimum Water Quality Criteria” by which means Potomac streams and waterways may be judged suitable or unsuitable for several principal water uses. • Virginia creates a State Water Control Board. • The Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce forms a Stream Pollution Abatement Committee, and the state begins the planning phase of sewerage construction. • ICPRB completes an intensive survey of industrial pollution.

1947 – Maryland’s Water Pollution Control Commission is created.

1948 – The Congress enacts the first Federal Water Pollution Control Act. • ICPRB initiates a continuous water-quality sampling program in the basin. • Industrial wastes have made the Shenandoah River below Front Royal a “biological desert.”

1949 – Conditions on the Shenandoah have “radically” improved since a year ago; credit is given ICPRB for its coordination with local authorities. The WV Board of Health is created with responsibilities for sewage disposal.


This is just one example. But historically, people used to take all chemical waste, and used to simply dump it on the ground or in rivers. Wildlife has in many areas, largely been wiped out. But only in this past century have we begun repairing our damages. Though this is a long process.

CO2 emissions are one form of waste that we have yet to get under control.

States uses to sue each other because of how much contamination originated upstream. People in southern states would get sick from fecal coliform upstream. Rivers would catch on fire due to high concentrations of flammable liquids in them. Cases of cryptosporidium and giardia historically were sky high, and associated deaths.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,646
2,403
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟195,222.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Thanks but we seem to be going around and around on this. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

At the end of the day, this world will be destroyed.
What you are saying is "I'm not going to be honest about the documents and science I'm attacking, and you're not going to make me."
 
Upvote 0

HarleyER

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2024
903
340
74
Toano
✟51,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
What you are saying is "I'm not going to be honest about the documents and science I'm attacking, and you're not going to make me."
No, what I'm saying is that you and I have legitimate different views on the matters. People point to scientists and data. I've worked with statistics and know how they can be manipulated to suit goals and objectives. I also know how government and industry works. Instead of the great trust you seem to have in scientists, I see an orcahstrated attempt by very powerful people to manipulate the masses. Call me a conspiracy nut, but this isn't unlike Orson Well's 1984.

From a Christian perspective, we are told that this world is going to be destroyed. One of the things we are told in Revelation that is a sign towards the return of Christ will be the destructioin of the eco system. You think we can save this planet and so you put your trust in men to solve the problem. I think man is corrupt and this is all part of the beginning of the end as foretold in Revelation.

No matter how much we spend, no matter how many scientists throw their calculataions into the pot, we will not save this planet. This planet will be destroyed and Christ will return. That is a fact.

BTW-We are on the brink of nuclear war (Russian and Iran have said as much) given all the conficts in the world with Russia/Ukraine, Israel and the Arabs, not to mention all the conflicts in other places. And what people are worried about is CO2 emissions?!? This is so surreal. I wonder if the scientists have calculated how the atmosphere will handle all the radiation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0