• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Global Warming and Evolution

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good question.

US Population: 304,066733 (source)
Japan Population: 127,770,000 (source)

Dividing Thaum's consumption numbers by the populations and converting from barrels to gallons (remember, 1 bbl = 42 gal):

US: Each person consumes 2.86 gallons of oil per day
Japan: Each person consumes 1.83 gallons of oil per day

So the average American consumes 56% more oil per day than the average Japanese.

However Americans live in a wider more spread out area. Clearly, the Japanese are packed together and have a mass transit system that is workable. Some of that petroleum is used to make furtilizers and sprays to grow grains which are then shipped to various countries who consume. them. The Japanese eat Flipper if I'm not mistaken....
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You missed the point, I was pointing out (and you'd see if you followed the link) how much we use in comparison to a huge number of countries. Look at how we dwarf China.

Now, imagine if China burned fossil fuels on a per capita basis similar to us? And don't be surprised if they want to have our standard of living.

But further, you skipped over the most shocking part:

US: 5% of the world's population, 25% of the world's petroleum consumed.

Doesn't that bother you just a weeeeeeee, tiny micro-bit?


At least we do not ship child toys to you coated with lead paint. Clearly, the United States has a much higher standard of living. Our rivers are cleaner than they were 40 years ago, and our air polution has been improving. Abortion bothers me, drug use bothers me, smoking and drunkeness bothers me. These are the sorts of things individuals can contribute to make the environment better instead of abusing themselves. The example begins with me and not with governments. Governments create waste because they set blanket standards.
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟36,334.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
However Americans live in a wider more spread out area. Clearly, the Japanese are packed together and have a mass transit system that is workable. Some of that petroleum is used to make furtilizers and sprays to grow grains which are then shipped to various countries who consume. them. The Japanese eat Flipper if I'm not mistaken....

You're absolutely right -- we in the US have done a bad job utilizing our wide-open spaces and rejected mass transit in favor of gas guzzlers. Good thing there are projects in the works that will allow us to balance low population densities and not needing to heavily rely on cars.

As for "eating Flipper" and lead contamination from China, you seem to forget the Biblical concept of complaining about the speck in someone's eye and ignoring the beam in your own. (Matt 7:3-5, Luke 6:41-42) While poisoning people and eating an endangered species is bad, climate change (and our contributions to it) has the potential to harm many more people. Somebody needs to lead by example, so why not the US, which claims to be the leader of the free world?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
At least we do not ship child toys to you coated with lead paint.

And that has exactly what to do with global warming and per capita petroleum consumption?

Honestly, can you stick with the topic at hand or is your only means of debating a technical topic is to run away from the facts on hand to bring in totally unrelated things that makes you angry?

Because if the latter is the case then I suggest you steer quite clear of those of us who can handle data and facts.

Focus.

Clearly, the United States has a much higher standard of living.

And do you see a way that China might achieve that quickly? I do. It involves them ramping up production and starting to consume petroleum at a rate as high as we do and that spells almost certain disaster. It will certainly destroy our economy.

Our rivers are cleaner than they were 40 years ago, and our air polution has been improving. Abortion bothers me, drug use bothers me, smoking and drunkeness bothers me.

Sheesh, why do you bother typing this stuff out? Who gives a hang about abortion and drugs in a discussion about per capita petroleum consumption and global warming?

Focus.

These are the sorts of things individuals can contribute to make the environment better instead of abusing themselves.

But heaven forbid some yahoo cowboy cain't buy himself a Hummer H1 and drive that thing to every mall he can find! That would be responsible.

The example begins with me and not with governments.

I'm OK with people taking on responsibility for their actions. I didn't need the government to tell me to drive a more fuel efficient car. I did it out of common sense.

I don't know what motivates the people driving hummer H2's around.

Governments create waste because they set blanket standards.

Again, you can't seem to focus on the technical details at hand, so I'll just assume you are uninterested in addressing the actual topics of:

1. Global climate change and greenhouse gas chemistry
2. Relative amounts of fossil-fuel-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Relative consumption rates of petroleum
4. The fact that petroleum isn't just used to "drive around".

Or am I mistaken?

Please, do continue, bring up Pb in toys and abortion and people who eat whales.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I just seems funny to me that everything to evolutionists seems to be in 100's of millions of years, and yet the very same people are being shown that reality is so much quicker....

Ha ha, that's funny. Funny because as an evolutionist I can only think in terms of things happening on a time-scale of 100's of thousands of years or even millions of years. When I think of how slowly glaciers move, you can imagine how many people get angry with me as I drive down the highway at a blistering rate of cm/year!

It's pretty insightful to point out how "evolutionists" think in those length scales because it obviously means that we don't understand that anything can happen at a different rate!

I am constantly amazed at how that hour hand just SPINS around on the clock! I can stand in front of a clock and actually FEEL THE BREEZE from the hour hand.

You might not be able to, because, being a Creationist things happen so fast for you, that you can't possibly perceive slow rates!

Good times.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You're absolutely right -- we in the US have done a bad job utilizing our wide-open spaces and rejected mass transit in favor of gas guzzlers. Good thing there are projects in the works that will allow us to balance low population densities and not needing to heavily rely on cars.

As for "eating Flipper" and lead contamination from China, you seem to forget the Biblical concept of complaining about the speck in someone's eye and ignoring the beam in your own. (Matt 7:3-5, Luke 6:41-42) While poisoning people and eating an endangered species is bad, climate change (and our contributions to it) has the potential to harm many more people. Somebody needs to lead by example, so why not the US, which claims to be the leader of the free world?

Well, I'm not the one finding fault with the United States first and formost. If China, Japan, England, Germany, Holland, etc, etc, etc, would pull the beams out of their own eyes, perhaps they would find that the United States has not been a liablility to their existances but a necessity.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And that has exactly what to do with global warming and per capita petroleum consumption?

Honestly, can you stick with the topic at hand or is your only means of debating a technical topic is to run away from the facts on hand to bring in totally unrelated things that makes you angry?

Because if the latter is the case then I suggest you steer quite clear of those of us who can handle data and facts.

Focus.



And do you see a way that China might achieve that quickly? I do. It involves them ramping up production and starting to consume petroleum at a rate as high as we do and that spells almost certain disaster. It will certainly destroy our economy.



Sheesh, why do you bother typing this stuff out? Who gives a hang about abortion and drugs in a discussion about per capita petroleum consumption and global warming?

Focus.



But heaven forbid some yahoo cowboy cain't buy himself a Hummer H1 and drive that thing to every mall he can find! That would be responsible.



I'm OK with people taking on responsibility for their actions. I didn't need the government to tell me to drive a more fuel efficient car. I did it out of common sense.

I don't know what motivates the people driving hummer H2's around.



Again, you can't seem to focus on the technical details at hand, so I'll just assume you are uninterested in addressing the actual topics of:

1. Global climate change and greenhouse gas chemistry
2. Relative amounts of fossil-fuel-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Relative consumption rates of petroleum
4. The fact that petroleum isn't just used to "drive around".

Or am I mistaken?

Please, do continue, bring up Pb in toys and abortion and people who eat whales.

Enamel lead paint is made with oil also.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The study only revealed that the CO2 influx is greatly caused by the burning of fossil fuels (like petroleum and coal).

Sorry to ask you this, I could look it up by myself. But I thought you might give a quicker answer:

How do you tell the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuel and that released by the oxidation of deteriorated organic material? And how much CO2 is contributed by the latter?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry to ask you this, I could look it up by myself. But I thought you might give a quicker answer:

How do you tell the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuel and that released by the oxidation of deteriorated organic material? And how much CO2 is contributed by the latter?

here's part of the explanation:

The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

  • Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
  • Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
  • Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.
One crucial note about the global budget of inputs and outputs that Weart should have stated: Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?

Edouard Bard
Collège de France
Aix-en-Provence (SOURCE)


Now, as to how much is due to the latter, I'm unsure, however there is little reason for this to have changed dramatically in the past 150 years unless owing to human activity, I should think.

And the [sup]14[/sup]C signature also gives some insight.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Enamel lead paint is made with oil also.

Yes, yes it is. Are you now going to try to claim that China uses more paint per capita than the U.S. and that is why the earth is warming up?

Well, guess who buys a huge chunk of that painted material. Just take a gander at our trade deficit with China.

Is this going to turn into a non-stop conceptual "whack-a-mole" or do you actually have a valid point you'd like to pull together into one single post so that your individual points could be addressed?

You know, I bet abortionists use plastic equipment in part! That requires petroleum as well!

Don't forget homosexuals, they often wear fake leather outfits which sometimes are made from plastics. Those require petroleum.

Did I miss anything?
 
Upvote 0

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
“And this says what about the "destruction of ozone by cfc's"? You surely aren't saying CFC's don't destroy ozone, right?”

No, it is established fact that CFC’s contribute to the destruction of ozone. What hasn’t been clearly established is that anthropogenic causes account for the Ozone hole. One reason is the Ozone hole is, and has been, an annual event in the Polar Regions, particularly Antarctica, since before anyone bothered to look for it. It is an artifact of the polar winter.

It also isn’t the entire story to simply say that the Ozone layer protects us from UV rays. It is more the result of regular old oxygen protecting us from UV rays. Quote:

“Ozone in the earth’s stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (02), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken 02 to create ozone, 03. The ozone molecule is also unstable, although, in the stratosphere, long-lived; and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of 02 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere.”

My point is that if there were no UV rays striking the top of the Earth's atmosphere, then there would be little or no ozone. Ozone is very effective at filtering out some wavelengths of UV radiation, and as long as sunlight is hitting the top of the Earth's atmosphere ozone is continuously generated. As stated, ozone will break down more quickly in the presence of CFC's, as well as methane and other gasses; but ozone itself is a very unstable compound, breaking down quickly even without the presence of those gasses. As long as the sun is shining, however, ozone is always being generated.

Even on Earth there are places where the sun doesn’t always shine. When the sun doesn’t shine, the reverse effect is true. The Antarctic ozone hole begins to form in the polar winter and reaches its peak in the polar spring. This corresponds to the time frame of the polar winter, when there is no sunlight hitting the upper atmosphere in the Polar Regions. If no sunlight is hitting the upper atmosphere, no ozone is being generated.

“Each winter, the air around the South Pole cools and begins circulating to the west. This vortex effectively isolates the air over Antarctica…”

You are speaking of another phenomenon of the Polar winter known as the polar vortex. This vortex does lead to a closed atmospheric system which tends to isolate the Polar Regions from atmospheric mixing, as you list. However, the connection I am not sure you are making is this. Since the sun is not generating ozone in the Polar Regions during polar winters and ozone is an unstable compound, a “hole” in the ozone layer forms during polar winter and spring. CFC’s, methane and other anthropogenic gasses do accelerate this process, but when spring returns and the Polar Regions begin to receive direct sunlight again, the Ozone hole begins to shrink. If CFC’s are destroying the Ozone and causing the Ozone hole, why does the ozone return? Because it is generated by sunlight hitting oxygen in the upper atmosphere. Unless the Sun shuts down, it seems we will always have plenty of ozone.

Ozone_Hole.jpg

To summarize, stratospheric ozone is the result of oxygen protecting us from UV rays; the ozone "hole" is the result of polar winters.

I agree that CFC's could have made the ozone hole worse than it naturally would have been, and therefore it is not intrinsically bad that the use of these chemicals was reduced. But again, I see little to no valid evidence that the hole in the Ozone layer was caused by man. It is another assumed cause and effect argument on the part those on the alarmist side of the question.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
46
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

I agree that CFC's could have made the ozone hole worse than it naturally would have been, and therefore it is not intrinsically bad that the use of these chemicals was reduced. But again, I see little to no valid evidence that the hole in the Ozone layer was caused by man. It is another assumed cause and effect argument on the part those on the alarmist side of the question.


:bow:
 
Upvote 0

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, I’m on a roll. At least, I’m not tired enough yet to go to bed (Don’t tell my wife) For those of you who accept the whole global warming agenda, consider this. Below is a recent story which may shed light on the issue at hand.


World needs more CO2, environment confab told.


'There will be significant cooling very soon,' asserts solar scientist.


Posted: April 03, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

“You could have heard a pin drop at the Hong Kong conference designed to persuade the airline industry to cut back on its production of so-called greenhouse gases to fight "global warming."


“The "Greener Skies 2008" conference had just heard from David Archibald, a solar scientist asserting that climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not carbon dioxide levels, as conventional wisdom suggests.”

“Archibald didn't just tell the group not to worry about carbon dioxide emissions. He told those gathered they should figure out ways of increasing CO2 output.”

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century," Archibald warned, according to CargoNews Asia. "There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad – it's wholly beneficial."

“One observer at the February conference said there would have been fewer jaws dropping had Archibald stripped off his clothes before the assembled.”


"Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment," he continued. "In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most."


“But the real shocker was not just his unorthodox view of carbon dioxide. Unlike most of those in the conference, Archibald doesn't see a future threat of global warming, but an imminent and dire future of global cooling.”

"We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming," he said. "It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?''

“After Archibald's speech, Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia, went to the microphone and asked: "Don't you have Al Gore's e-mail address?" "How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?"

Archibald replied: "I am happy to share the science. It's all reputable.”


End Quote.

The story doesn’t say if anyone took him up on his offer.

By the way, thanks Blue. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
"We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming," he said. "It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?''


Blargh.

Does this not even strike you as remotely suspicious? Remind us who funded David Archibald's work? That's right, fossil fuel companies (at the very least, they fund or run the Lavoisier group which represented him, so he makes an appropriate poster boy, whether he's oblivious or really has got a vested interest in climate change denial is something else altogether).

To pull a stunt like this and then claim that it will actually do the third world good, I don't know how he sleeps at night, it's sickening....

You do realise that even a tiny temperature increase (never mind a little, this guy is espousing a LARGE change) is going to have a major knock-on effect in the third world right? More drought, more crop failures, more desertification.

And all the while the first world will be SOOOOOOO magnanimous to give up its extra food, we'll just be indenturing them even more to us, the way we've always done.

I'll make this as simple as I can, two yes/no questions:

1. Do you accept that CO2 traps heat? Yes or no?

2. Do you accept that mankind generates a lot of Co2? Yes or no?

If you answered no to either, try and get a Nobel prize for it. If you answered yes, then why are you quoting a crank who wants to accelerate a potential catastrophe? (Maybe you don't agree with him fully, but even so, this is a terrible source to base an argument on). Not believing in global warming is plain naive, encouraging people to accelerate it is downright evil.

Also, you're quoting from WingNutDaily. And yet you talk about "the green agenda." WND is about as agenda driven as it gets. If it's anti-liberal or anti-Democrat, they'll print it, no matter how retarded the article (cf the "soy turns kids gay" article, although that wasn't really against any group, that was just shooting themselves in the foot of credibility even more than usual)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
here's part of the explanation:

[/I]

Now, as to how much is due to the latter, I'm unsure, however there is little reason for this to have changed dramatically in the past 150 years unless owing to human activity, I should think.

And the [sup]14[/sup]C signature also gives some insight.

OK, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I'm going to suggest that the United States furnishes many other countries with grain which is grown using both fertalizers and insecticides and is reaped and sprayed using various gas powered equipment. This does not even include the tranportation of the afore mentioned. There is also the oil used to fuel planes, warships, etc., to help protect the US from the rest of the world's jealousy and indiscretion. Not being a "Christian" nation, one can hardly expect GOD to protect the US free of charge...
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm going to suggest that the United States furnishes many other countries with grain which is grown using both fertalizers and insecticides and is reaped and sprayed using various gas powered equipment. This does not even include the tranportation of the afore mentioned.

Indeed! We do good things! No question. The key differentiator is that along with all the good we do, we, as all humans must, need to be mindful of our wasteful ways.

We are the richest and most powerful country this planet has ever seen. And, in many ways, we are the most wasteful. Sure we live "spread out", but that doesn't excuse people who simply have to have a vehicle that gets <10mpg and who use it to drive to and from work and the grocery store and the mall.

But in the end, it doesn't matter how many good applications of fossil fuels there are out there, the fact that the application of these fossil fuels is a dangerous game regardless of the good it does or the evil it does, means everyone has to use it carefully.

Here's an example. My old organic geochem teacher used to talk about how they used to clean their hands in benzene back when he was young (about the mid Pliocene). They didn't know it was that bad then. But later information came out it is not only good at cleaning some things, it is also very good at causing cancer. So people stopped using it to wash their hands! There were plenty of other alternatives to be found. Gradually even in the lab, in experiments, unless there was a really compelling need for benzene to be used, alternative solvents could be found.

The difference here with global climate change is that we have now been told that we face a real danger from the overuse of a material. And there are people who still want to keep using it to the extent they always have. They want to keep washing their hands in the bad solvent.

The big difference here is, the changes right now are subtle and may not fully express until many of us over the age of 40 are dead.

So, if you were 80 years old and you knew you'd never have to see your grandkid suffer from the horrors of cancer, would you go right ahead and wash him in benzene?

In this case it is up to us to take responsibility for our current actions and work to ameliorate the problem before it is too late.

That sounds alarmist, I know. But look at what the models say, what the vast majority of scientists who specialize in this field say, and what is at stake if we don't act quickly.

Is there still uncertainty? Oh yeah! No doubt. But again, if it is so hard to take responsibility for our actions (and remember, the only people we can change are ourselves), then what are we doing? What value do we have as the most powerful country on the planet?

I understand the "conservative" point of view on this. It will be expensive and many social and political conservatives love their money too much to part with it for something that they may not see as an immediate benefit. I understand that many conservatives want to get as much as they can as fast as they can and unless the bridge is crumbling under them they will assume "status quo".

This is, however, directly in the quivver of the usual "social conservative" message of personal responsibility. As a nation we have to act. If we want to be that light on a hill, we can't be burning everything in sight just make ourselves brighter. If we want the world to change for its own good, we have to change for our own good.

Who better? We're rich and (with some obvious exceptions) have some of the brightest people on the planet! We have the ability and the "bandwidth" to make the new technologies that will help everyone.


There is also the oil used to fuel planes, warships, etc., to help protect the US from the rest of the world's jealousy and indiscretion.

Maybe, just maybe, (and this is a totally unrelated topic), if we stopped thinking of the rest of the world as always "jealous and indescrete", and rather as our fellow travellers on this planet, our only home, we might not have to "defend" so much.


Not being a "Christian" nation, one can hardly expect GOD to protect the US free of charge...

We aren't a "christian nation". We are a pluralistic nation of many people who get along quite well. That should make us capable of getting along with the rest of the world quite well. It certainly should open our eyes to how the rest of the world sees us.

I'm proud to be an American. I know we are better than we present ourselves. And I know we can be better still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Indeed! We do good things! No question. The key differentiator is that along with all the good we do, we, as all humans must, need to be mindful of our wasteful ways.

We are the richest and most powerful country this planet has ever seen. And, in many ways, we are the most wasteful. Sure we live "spread out", but that doesn't excuse people who simply have to have a vehicle that gets <10mpg and who use it to drive to and from work and the grocery store and the mall.

But in the end, it doesn't matter how many good applications of fossil fuels there are out there, the fact that the application of these fossil fuels is a dangerous game regardless of the good it does or the evil it does, means everyone has to use it carefully.

Here's an example. My old organic geochem teacher used to talk about how they used to clean their hands in benzene back when he was young (about the mid Pliocene). They didn't know it was that bad then. But later information came out it is not only good at cleaning some things, it is also very good at causing cancer. So people stopped using it to wash their hands! There were plenty of other alternatives to be found. Gradually even in the lab, in experiments, unless there was a really compelling need for benzene to be used, alternative solvents could be found.

The difference here with global climate change is that we have now been told that we face a real danger from the overuse of a material. And there are people who still want to keep using it to the extent they always have. They want to keep washing their hands in the bad solvent.

The big difference here is, the changes right now are subtle and may not fully express until many of us over the age of 40 are dead.

So, if you were 80 years old and you knew you'd never have to see your grandkid suffer from the horrors of cancer, would you go right ahead and wash him in benzene?

In this case it is up to us to take responsibility for our current actions and work to ameliorate the problem before it is too late.

That sounds alarmist, I know. But look at what the models say, what the vast majority of scientists who specialize in this field say, and what is at stake if we don't act quickly.

Is there still uncertainty? Oh yeah! No doubt. But again, if it is so hard to take responsibility for our actions (and remember, the only people we can change are ourselves), then what are we doing? What value do we have as the most powerful country on the planet?

I understand the "conservative" point of view on this. It will be expensive and many social and political conservatives love their money too much to part with it for something that they may not see as an immediate benefit. I understand that many conservatives want to get as much as they can as fast as they can and unless the bridge is crumbling under them they will assume "status quo".

This is, however, directly in the quivver of the usual "social conservative" message of personal responsibility. As a nation we have to act. If we want to be that light on a hill, we can't be burning everything in sight just make ourselves brighter. If we want the world to change for its own good, we have to change for our own good.

Who better? We're rich and (with some obvious exceptions) have some of the brightest people on the planet! We have the ability and the "bandwidth" to make the new technologies that will help everyone.




Maybe, just maybe, (and this is a totally unrelated topic), if we stopped thinking of the rest of the world as always "jealous and indescrete", and rather as our fellow travellers on this planet, our only home, we might not have to "defend" so much.




We aren't a "christian nation". We are a pluralistic nation of many people who get along quite well. That should make us capable of getting along with the rest of the world quite well. It certainly should open our eyes to how the rest of the world sees us.

I'm proud to be an American. I know we are better than we present ourselves. And I know we can be better still.

Without GOD we are simply like all the rest. Turpentine is a good cleaner to get oil paint out. It comes from trees. Jets get far less mileage to the gallon and unless you have a truck or a muscle car from the 50/60/70's you will get more than 10 MPG. Conservatives want to give away their money to whom and what they choose and not have it taken and handed out to whomever by the STATE. Your teacher likely didn't get skin cancer of the hands and they smoked more way back when. But who listens to a bunch of conservative christians speaking of coffin (coughin') nails, and one's body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, especially when one needs to look so sophisticated.
 
Upvote 0