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.
Okay? Is that supposed to be carte blanche to be bad stewards and imprudent in our dealings with nature? Do you think God gave that command for us to satisfy our every appetite, or to uphold His image as a loving caretaker?
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 2 Peter 3:10
Therefore - we can run in and steal all our neighbour's grain.
Most of that is hyperbolic strawman. Not to mention the usual hypocrisy. You live on stolen land. You drive a fossil fuel burner. You use electricity from dams. You can't get along without it. Neither can most everyone else. Most everyone has no intention of going back to a pre-industrial world, or back to their ancestral homeland, despite all of their soapbox preaching. All they really want is for their side of politics to be in control. The Obama administration and the Biden administration did little to change anything. It's mostly all talk. And exaggeration. People who have great-granchildren now, were being told how horrifyingly bad the environment was going to be for those children over 50 years ago. But everything is the same. Despite all the fear mongering every time the hottest places on earth get hot during the hottest time of summer. They believed everything they were told by a teenager. I don't mean Greta, I mean the one from 1992.
No - it's a moral equivalence argument
Remember what I said? is there something going on with your memory!
Nope. I want a stable climate for my children and (eventual) grandchildren.
Nope! BIDENONICS was a thing.
This tainting the pool or guilt by association sort of article blurs all sorts of lines of rational argumentation into one big fuzzy mess - and scores points for the cheap armchair warrior slapping them down - but is incredibly intellectually lazy.
No it isn't. Global temperatures are right on track - as per the EXXON graph from 40 years ago.
No, it's if I said God said he gives men authority over women, and the reply is something like; "Oh that means it's okay to think of women as second class citizens. Okay to repress them. Okat to enslave them. Okay to mistreat them. Okay to beat them... hyperbolic strawman continues...
One should not benefit from nor participate in what one condemns.
Technological advancement is going to take place without the need for the left being in control.2. But clean energy and clean tech exists to replace 95% of that at costs CHEAPER than today's polluting systems. As we Electrify Everything, we'll do everything we do today on 40% of the primary energy. Understand?
Even smelting metals has alternative tech to coking-coal used in iron smelting. There are alternative chemistries (using renewable hydrogen instead of coking coal as the reductant) or even a completely different way of cooking up the iron ore!
The only tricky one is airlines. Barring some amazing new technology, that one could be more expensive. But we HAVE to address airlines ANYWAY - as oil's going to run out before gas and coal. Got that point yet!
I'll say it again! The oil is going to PEAK soon and then run out! Within a generation or so! Got it this time?
GREEN = discovery.
Dark Red = consumption.
The last time we discovered as much sweet crude as we burned was 1980.
Fortunately our grandparents found some huge reserves - but even they are getting tapped out.
Average it all out - and global peak oil is sometime in the next decade.
View attachment 371830
Nope. I want a stable climate for my children and (eventual) grandchildren.
I'm Australian - and only have an investment in America doing the right thing by the global climate and global geopolitics. (That is - supporting NATO to make us all safer.)
Nope! BIDENONICS was a thing.
It also was bringing clean energy systems and battery manufacturing back to America.
It was all carrot - and no stick to allies.
He was friend-shoring to gradually wean off Chinese rare-earths - without punishing long term allies.
It was this whole gradual process - but it was starting to ramp up and looked like it could create exponential returns to the American economy!
Then Trump got in, tore up America's clean energy future, shouted at allies and started strutting the world stage like a King.
This tainting the pool or guilt by association sort of article blurs all sorts of lines of rational argumentation into one big fuzzy mess - and scores points for the cheap armchair warrior slapping them down - but is incredibly intellectually lazy.
Some environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich DID predict crazy stuff - based on crazy hysterical modelling - based on completely other ideas!
This isn't even a guilt by association - because Paul Ehrlich was not a climatologist. In fact - most models of environmental concern back in the day were about agriculture and pollution and resource concerns. Some of these have gradually been solved through technological improvement. Some of them (like CFC's and the Ozone hole) were solved by BRUTE LEGISLATION!
But here's where tainting the pool can go wrong. Westborough Baptists stand at a gay soldier's funeral and shout "God hates ..... ".
Therefore all Christians are like that!
End-times-table Christians CONSTANTLY make fake predictions about the Lord's return - therefore he's NEVER going to return!
See how bad this line of argument is?
Some environmentalists talking about a completely different subject said completely different things, therefore - the basic backyard physics that even Mythbusters confirmed about how CO2 traps heat is suddenly broken! Yeah, right mate - whatever you reckon!
The earth's temperature has changed many times without Exxon being involved. Climate change is a natural process. The issue isn't that changes are taking place. The doomsday scenario is the issue. We've been told this and that is going to happen by a certain time for at least 50 years, and have seen those times come and go. That's what people my age remember. The weather is the same now as it was then. The only difference is all the exaggerated hyperbole over every hot spell, cold spell, and storm.
It's not hyperbole, but it is different to the more direct actions of deciding to go and harvest your neighbour's grain and steal it. It's not just you - but the entire global fossil-fuel burning civilisation we collectively benefit from. This COLLECTIVE involvement complicates the metaphor. In some situations you can make every effort to try to minimise your own carbon footprint - but as you point out - the civilisation we belong to uses fossil fuels to survive.
I hear your concerns - I do - and I share them. In many areas. I'm interested in your thoughts. You might attempt to just brush these next points off - but I would be interested if you've ever thought about what else happens with the businesses you buy from.
Trump's attacks on renewable energy (and now RFK's on vaccines and medicine) have 75% of scientists about to leave the country for Europe and China - both of whom have amazing money to throw at them.
You've raised this before - and I've answered it before.
Then EXPLAIN IT TO ME! What are these climate forcings you're putting it all down to, how do they work, how strong are they now, what percent is natural and what percent is man made?
IT IS!
What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know the history of failed greenie predictions as well as I do! There are some!
Again with the (yawn) oh so predictable repetition of vague hunches. You have NO details. I'm not convinced you're even trying.
If you really wanted to have a conversation, you wouldn't keep producing gish gallops. You're trying to win by posting walls of text (a lot of which appears to just be cut and paste) no one would want to deal with. It's an immature tactic.It's not hyperbole, but it is different to the more direct actions of deciding to go and harvest your neighbour's grain and steal it. It's not just you - but the entire global fossil-fuel burning civilisation we collectively benefit from. This COLLECTIVE involvement complicates the metaphor. In some situations you can make every effort to try to minimise your own carbon footprint - but as you point out - the civilisation we belong to uses fossil fuels to survive.
But that is changing. Exponentially. By 2032 solar will dominate EVERY other form of energy generation COMBINED.
Also, it's not as DIRECT. You don't know what your lifestyle will do to your global neighbour, and where.
It's a tough moral landscape to figure out. It's probably more like the abolition of slavery - where some people who were against slavery found themselves using products or eating food grown by slaves.
Until they were not.
I hear your concerns - I do - and I share them. In many areas. I'm interested in your thoughts. You might attempt to just brush these next points off - but I would be interested if you've ever thought about what else happens with the businesses you buy from.
EG: Do you condemn child labour? Slavery? Illegal drug use? Prostitution? Porn?
How many of the businesses that you buy from might have additional income from some of these other industries? Does the gas station where you fill up sell porn? That late night fast food place that you bought a quick meal from also sell illegal drugs on the side?
Sometimes we don't know - and cannot know - these things - but are sort of benefitting from the fact that the business we buy from stays in business because it is also supplemented by other immoral and even illegal activities.
EG: We benefit from cheaper joggers made by child labour and other things we would disagree with.
Sometimes we have to get by, and have a job, and be living in a compromised economy to share the gospel to that country. What answers to you have to these other conundrums - because I'd love to hear them! I genuinely struggle with this stuff.
Also - context matters. At one point coal was a GOOD thing!
If you want a fascinating perspective on the history of energy development - read the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Coal was so energy dense that it allowed European forests to regrow. It kick started the Industrial Revolution (which also had its share of morally ambiguous and dangerous industries and issues to sort.) We owe coal a share of gratitude for the lifestyle we enjoy today.
But I wish global governments had abandoned coal for nuclear in the 1950's. We would all be a lot healthier. And now that renewables are vastly cheaper (and safer) than even nuclear, there could hypothetically in this other timeline have been a few breeder reactors on each continent. These would slowly eat through the nuclear waste and provide useful medical isotopes and other industrial products - while the vast majority of our energy came from the wind and sun.
Trump's attacks on renewable energy (and now RFK's on vaccines and medicine) have 75% of scientists about to leave the country for Europe and China - both of whom have amazing money to throw at them.
How's that working out for ya?
Bidenomics were fantastic for America.
Trump is an unmitigated disaster and embarrassment.
You've raised this before - and I've answered it before.
How many times are you just going to rinse and repeat?
Do you KNOW what causes NATURAL climate change? I do. I can tell you - those climate forcings are NOT that strong now and may NOT be for another 30,000 years! In fact, some studies suggest today's CO2 emissions may have ALREADY CANCELLED the next ice age. (Due in a few tens of thousands of years due to different 'wobbles' in the earth's tilt, precision, and orbit all combining.)
Then EXPLAIN IT TO ME! What are these climate forcings you're putting it all down to, how do they work, how strong are they now, what percent is natural and what percent is man made?
What sources are you reading?
IT IS!
What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know the history of failed greenie predictions as well as I do! There are some!
But because I explained the Ice age myth to you - you're sulking and just repeating the general VIBE of the idea.
Without a single shred of evidence.
Again with the (yawn) oh so predictable repetition of vague hunches. You have NO details. I'm not convinced you're even trying.
Facts to deal with - these predictions are all on track!!!
Exxon. 40 years ago.
James Hansen from the 1980's.
Svante Arrhenius. 1896 = 129 years ago
From his wiki:-
Greenhouse effectIn developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[7][32][33] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[34][35] Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.[36] Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon – by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh – to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan–Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.Here, Arrhenius refers to CO2 as carbonic acid (which refers only to the aqueous form H2CO3 in modern usage). The following formulation of Arrhenius's rule is still in use today:[37]
ΔF=αln(C/C0)where C0is the concentration of CO2 at the beginning (time-zero) of the period being studied (if the same concentration unit is used for both C
and C0
, then it doesn't matter which concentration unit is used); Cis the CO2 concentration at end of the period being studied; ln is the natural logarithm (= log base e (loge)); and ΔFis the augmentation of the temperature, in other words the change in the rate of heating Earth's surface (radiative forcing), which is measured in Watts per square meter.[37] Derivations from atmospheric radiative transfer models have found that α
(alpha) for CO2 is 5.35 (± 10%) W/m2 for Earth's atmosphere.[38]
If 'the left wants the left in charge' is a fib, that would mean the left wants the right in chrage.
No, I said AGW is real, but it doesn't warrant all of the doomsday exaggeration and hyperbole.
Ah, I see. The trouble is, most of that "doomsday exaggeration and hyperbole" is a product of the anti-AGW crowd counter propaganda. For those who regard AGW as a political issue, that kind of thing is understandable and is found on both sides of the issue.
Isn't it more like Trump's conservative base, including those who are Christians? They blame the fearmongering over AGW on the left.
So what fears exactly are they mongering? Are they realistic fears? Are they the actual fears of the left? Or is the "doomsday exaggeration and hyperbole" the product of sensationalist media?
