Climate Change

[KWCrazy]

Do you just repeat everything verbatim from a a Glenn Beck or Mark Levine broadcast.

I don't listen to either.

You can't base a scientific argument on resources from the fringes of sanity.

How about based on fraud, panic inspiring extremism and junk science? How about basing end of the world scenarios on models that fail every time for the express intent of gaining funding for research?

The real "extremists" are the energy companies and elite wealthy

Yep! Right out of the liberal play book. Attack the big bad energy companies who make their living powering the industrial age. I'll bet in your hypocrisy that you AREN'T using 100% solar energy to power your computer. Maybe you support wind energy that chops up rare birds and thus alters the balance of nature.

The global warming alarmists who propagate this pseudo-science BS for the internet gullible to spread around like fertilizer hope that their disinformation will grow confusion in the public. You are a puppet in that game. You parrot junk science because it furthers your hatred of capitalism in general and people with more wealth than you in particular. It's a sad day when proven lies pass for proven science.

 

[KWCrazy]

I suspect humans impact many things, including the climate.

Changes in climate are linked almost perfectly to solar activity. Yes, there are more people in the world. The population bomb was supposed to make us all die of starvation, remember? DDT was going to kill all the birds. These were junk science models long ago exposed and currently still reviewed with awe and respect each earth day. Frauds and criminals become revered because they preach the doctrine of anti-capitalism. Science and truth have nothing to do with it, sadly.

Since I was born back in the 1950's, the population of the planet has doubled.

And yet, we can still breathe, we still have plenty to eat, and the known oil and gas reserves can support us for centuries even at this rate of growth. Our Lord has provided well for us.

I read a study the other day that said farmers were going to have to produce 40% more food than they do now to feed everyone by the year 2050.

So many new opportunities for farmers in the third world to become wealthy by providing for their neighbors.

There is an island of trash as big as a good size state floating around the Pacific Ocean. That's new.

Thanks to a tidal wave, yes. It's a drop in a bucket compared to the size of the ocean, but we'll deal with it as the need arises.

You tried to buy fuel, or lumber, or food recently.

High prices are the natural result of the left's war on energy. The dollar doesn't buy as much because the criminals in Washington are just printing money with nothing to back it and devaluing the currency. If we allowed logging in the old growth forests we would have fewer fires, cleaner air and more wood than we could use.

I live near a town of about 1500. Last week 56 folks were arrested for making meth.

Disgusting, isn't it? Combine the lust for cash with a poor work ethic and you get people resorting to crime for their livelihood.

Would God allow man to throw enough carbon in the atmosphere to mess it up....

No. We're made out of carbon. Greenhouse gasses are 92% water vapor. Without them we'd incinerate. Remember when they said carbon dioxide was perfectly harmless so we all had to put catalytic convertors on our cars?

Might this cause climate change?

No. Climate change is the result of solar activity and geothermal currents in the ocean. Think about it. With all the bombs we exploded during WWII, why did we not have a "nuclear winter?"

The flights of all the folks who flew there left a larger carbon footprint than the policies they enacted would solve.

Absolutely. Scaring the public is big money, and AGW is a cash cow for them.

Ultimately, I will say this with the most humble heart possible. Only Christ can allow us to become good stewards. His Grace alone. You wanna "save the planet?" Accept him. Become a steward of his world. Christ teaches us to say ENOUGH!

That's the absolute truth there, my brother!

 

[oldandslow]

KW-

I certainly am not as certain as you about the subject of climate change but I do know there is plenty of money flowing on both sides.

Forgive me if I project, but you seem to trust the conservative party and distrust the liberal. I trust neither. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both out and out atheists, so why should I trust either?

My goal is to live my life as a follower of Christ. Conservative and liberal economic proponents both have agendas that, imo, run counter to that goal.

I appreciate you as a fellow Christian. We are just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to political solutions for problems that I believe can only be solved spiritually.

I do not mean to offend...I just see things a bit differently than you do.

 

[alien444]

KW-

I certainly am not as certain as you about the subject of climate change but I do know there is plenty of money flowing on both sides.

Forgive me if I project, but you seem to trust the conservative party and distrust the liberal. I trust neither. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both out and out atheists, so why should I trust either?

My goal is to live my life as a follower of Christ. Conservative and liberal economic proponents both have agendas that, imo, run counter to that goal.

I appreciate you as a fellow Christian. We are just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to political solutions for problems that I believe can only be solved spiritually.

I do not mean to offend...I just see things a bit differently than you do.

Surely you can trust people that don't agree with your religious beliefs. I am as secure in my non-belief as you are in your belief, but I don't automatically distrust Christians or other believers in God. If I did, I would miss out on a lot of historical knowledge. In the modern world, the majority of scientists are agnostic or atheist and to mistrust them all would seriously interfere with your daily life (unless your Amish-which obviously you're not).

 

[DennisTate]

Surely you can trust people that don't agree with your religious beliefs. I am as secure in my non-belief as you are in your belief, but I don't automatically distrust Christians or other believers in God. If I did, I would miss out on a lot of historical knowledge. In the modern world, the majority of scientists are agnostic or atheist and to mistrust them all would seriously interfere with your daily life (unless your Amish-which obviously you're not).

The ability to look past disagreement in religious belief is a positive characteristic that historical King Cyrus of Persia had a great deal of.

He came to be regarded as a Messianic person by the Jewish people:

BLB - Isa 45: The Major Prophet Isaiah 45 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Isa 45:1
¶Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
....
Isa 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.


Speaking of ancient King Cyrus.... I am of the opinion that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple complex can play a significant role in stabilization of the climate.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806693/


Will rebuilding of Jerusalem Third Temple help stabilize the climate? Zechariah 14:16 ¶

"And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain."
​

This seems to imply that if, for example the nation of Jordan would allow Jews, Noahides and Messianic believers to travel to Jerusalem to observe Tabernacles freely, there is a promise they would be given rain in due season which could soon result in much of their desert areas being turned green.

 

[Ecowolf]

Polluting is a sin, Why?

Pollution provides zero benefits. It only causes harm. A sin can only do harm, no good can come of it.

 

[Ecowolf]

. With all the bombs we exploded during WWII, why did we not have a "nuclear winter?"

Absolutely. Scaring the public is big money, and AGW is a cash cow for them.

That's the absolute truth there, my brother!

That would be two. Together even they could not have begun a nuclear winter.

Weather dissipates the cloud more quickly that first theorized. The altitudes it reaches subjects it to different air currents that shear the cloud in different directs.

Nuclear winter refers to the "assured destruction" theory. Multiple launches simultaneously, with a faildeadly system to assure the destruction of the oppose.

This assume a great deal of material is ejected during a ground impact or detonation of a device.

Both bombs used in combat were airbust detonation. This improves blast effect and prevents ground ejecta.

 

[Leah71]

.

 

[Ecowolf]

lets, I just a good woodland fire!

Burn, baby burn

 

[KWCrazy]

That would be two. Together even they could not have begun a nuclear winter.

We only dropped two bombs during World War II? Seriously?
Our side alone dropped over 3.4 million tons of explosives. Think about that for a moment.

Before we bombed Hiroshima we firebombed Tokyo in a firestorm that devastated the city. On March 9-10, 1945, "a force of 334 B-29s was unleashed - each plane stripped of ammunition for its machine guns to allow it to carry more fire-bombs. The lead attackers arrived over the city just after dark and were followed by a procession of death that lasted until dawn. The fires started by the initial raiders could be seen from 150 miles away. The results were devastating: almost 17 square miles of the city were reduced to ashes. Estimates of the number killed range between 80,000 and 200,000, a higher death toll than that produced by the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki six months later."
source

If the second world war didn't cause global warming, I seriously doubt cow flatulence will. You're being lied to by people who want to control you and get rich in the process. AGW is a proven hoax. Why would anyone still believe it?

Nuclear winter refers to the "assured destruction" theory. Multiple launches simultaneously, with a faildeadly system to assure the destruction of the oppose.

However, all the pollutants in the air during WWII should have had at least a short term effect of dropping the temperature of the climate for a couple of years. The world didn't end then. All your "experts" have increased steadily rising temperatures and yet global temperatures have been cooler for the last 17 years. There is no science behind AGW. It's a political movement fueled by junk science and promulgated by people who don't seem to care their heroes were caught red handed lying to them.

 

[oi_antz]

Thanks to a tidal wave, yes. It's a drop in a bucket compared to the size of the ocean, but we'll deal with it as the need arises.

Do you mean, when someone is impacted enough to make a stand and succeed?

Edit: found this to help you realize how small and vast those droplets in the bucket actually are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVoFeELi_vQ

Edit 2: Another interesting link I found (read the numbers):

Solar Roadways - The Numbers