Global warming and the end

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,372
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm convinced global warming is a legitimate issue. Of course the Earth will go through cooling trends, global warming doesn't necessarily change the climate patterns, but the intensity and longevity of said patterns. The issue revolving around global warming, as I understand it (and eclipsenow you can correct me if I'm wrong) is the severity of the implications of future climate change.

I think it is outrageously ignorant to think that the rate of population growth on planet Earth over the last century wouldn't have any sort of negative impact on the environment. In the last 86 years, we've passed the milestones for population (in billions) with more and more frequency (see here).

You have developing and developed nations alike with thriving industries that create various pollutants, some with far less stringent regulations to follow than others.

My hope is that the United States and other influential nations begin to ramp up the amount of efforts and resources that are devoted to developing cleaner energy sources and modes of transportation as well as safer manufacturing practices and drastically reduce the level of exploitation we see of the Earth (strip mining, crude and shale oil drilling, etc).

This all matters and ties in very closely to Eschatology, we Christians aren't going anywhere when Christ returns. At his second coming Heaven and Earth will be reunited into one single creation, and as it alludes to in Isaiah we will take part in it's care taking with God. So it's in our best interest to protect, preserve and nurture this place that mankind has been named stewards of since the beginning. Abuse and exploitation of the planet, it's atmosphere and it's natural resources is contrary to Christian living.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm convinced global warming is a legitimate issue. Of course the Earth will go through cooling trends, global warming doesn't necessarily change the climate patterns, but the intensity and longevity of said patterns. The issue revolving around global warming, as I understand it (and eclipsenow you can correct me if I'm wrong) is the severity of the implications of future climate change.

I think I know what you're getting at. There's not much influencing climate apart from ourselves at the moment, so I don't think you're referring to the longer term, larger climactic changes due to natural variation like the 100,000 year Milankovitch ice-age cycle. But there are shorter term, smaller variations like the ENSO cycle (El Nino and La Nina). Think of these as a kid making 'waves' in the 'bathtub' of the climate. Yes, some of these waves can be big, but the sides of the bath are naturally quite high and able to cope. But the problem is someone left the tap on! (Our carbon dioxide and methane emissions).
I think it is outrageously ignorant to think that the rate of population growth on planet Earth over the last century wouldn't have any sort of negative impact on the environment. In the last 86 years, we've passed the milestones for population (in billions) with more and more frequency (see here).
Population is another HUGE issue, and I agree! Nevertheless, I'm an optimist. If we give the poor freshwater, education, and especially education and empowerment for women, population growth stabilises. So who's up for campaigning for education and empowerment for women, and freshwater rights and dignity for the poor? Why, us Christians! So if we do our job effectively enough, we'll solve population growth!


You have developing and developed nations alike with thriving industries that create various pollutants, some with far less stringent regulations to follow than others.
Yes, true.
My hope is that the United States and other influential nations begin to ramp up the amount of efforts and resources that are devoted to developing cleaner energy sources and modes of transportation as well as safer manufacturing practices and drastically reduce the level of exploitation we see of the Earth (strip mining, crude and shale oil drilling, etc).
Wind & solar can only power so much of the grid because storing all that intermittent, unreliable electricity requires ENORMOUS storage if we were to try 100% of the grid. Fortunately, we don't have to. GenIV nukes eat waste and are SAFE and cheap enough to build. We can do this with a mix of maybe 60% nuke to 40% renewables.

This all matters and ties in very closely to Eschatology, we Christians aren't going anywhere when Christ returns. At his second coming Heaven and Earth will be reunited into one single creation, and as it alludes to in Isaiah we will take part in it's care taking with God. So it's in our best interest to protect, preserve and nurture this place that mankind has been named stewards of since the beginning. Abuse and exploitation of the planet, it's atmosphere and it's natural resources is contrary to Christian living.
Exactly. Our godly stewardship of this earth now can only give God the glory for correctly living in His world now. Then, when he returns, we'll get our reward.
 
Upvote 0

Marantha

Newbie
Feb 3, 2013
429
11
✟15,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Who insulted me and called me a scoffer (and is now back in the game of bagging out my Avatar) because I wouldn't believe the HOLY SPIRIT inspired videos about Israel collapsing in natural disaster in March? We know false prophets because the things they rave about don't actually happen. This world is actually warming, there is no actual evidence for the silliest conspiracy theory on the net, 'chemtrails', and you've been pushing false anxiety about falsely predicted abominations and falsely predicted antichrists and now falsely alarming 'chemtrails'? Why should anyone believe anything you say here ever again?

On the other hand, global warming is a real problem, with real solutions. We can fix this. We have to. Fossil fuels will run out one day anyway. The sooner we start adjusting to life without them, the better for pollution in our cities, national security not buying oil from people who don't like westerners very much, local energy security and local job security, and the overall health of our citizens: and that's putting ASIDE all the concerns about global warming for the moment!



Blah blah blah. More distractions from the real issues. I stand by what happened on March 22; if you do not believe it, then respectfully disagree and move on. Intimidation will not help you here sir.

Why not be a man that truly represents a Christian mindset?

Attempting to discredit good, credible men in places and positions of incredible responsibility and authority is not going to help your substantiate your position.

Of course, you will not disagree with one word of THE CONTENT of what this man says except for the usual insults........

Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory!!!!

Your insistence on backing up falsehoods shows your agenda.

It's not working; people are thanking me privately, so as to not be heckled and marginalized by you and others here for providing solid, credible examples of the truth. I am honored to take the insults so they do not have to; though no credit is due me. I am simply providing the links to the evidence of what other men worked so hard to do for people.

What I show here has ZERO to do with me or anything I have ever said.
The Truth stands on it's own merit.

Remember, there is NOTHING HIDDEN THAT SHALL NOT BE REVEALED.
And here is the TRUTH.

I even love you Eclipse, because Christ told me to; regardless of your actions.


Former Los Angeles FBI Chief Ted Gunderson, who DIED showing people the truth.


Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped - YouTube


Full documentary done by Scientists and Researchers explaining the whole story here.

Literally millions of people know the truth about this.

Here is the number of thumbs UP for this Documentary................. 1,072,128
pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif
here is the number of thumbs DOWN for this Documentary.................. 9,517
pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif



Obviously Eclipse, along with the evidence put forth by others contrary to what you have stated; this also shows you believe the opposite of what is true.


Why in the World are They Spraying Full Length Documentary HD - YouTube





May God Bless You
Marantha
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,372
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think I know what you're getting at. There's not much influencing climate apart from ourselves at the moment, so I don't think you're referring to the longer term, larger climactic changes due to natural variation like the 100,000 year Milankovitch ice-age cycle. But there are shorter term, smaller variations like the ENSO cycle (El Nino and La Nina). Think of these as a kid making 'waves' in the 'bathtub' of the climate. Yes, some of these waves can be big, but the sides of the bath are naturally quite high and able to cope. But the problem is someone left the tap on! (Our carbon dioxide and methane emissions).

Yeah, the bath analogy works pretty well. I think that some people may falsely conclude that global warming means that the nature of the climate itself changes. Rather, the climate patters stay the same, we will always have violent storms, blistering heat waves, variations in annual precipitation, etc. What global warming is effecting is the magnitude of these things, the heat waves drag on longer than usual, regions that previously saw 36 inches of rain per year now see 24 and regions that averaged 75 degrees throughout the months of April and May now average 79-81 degrees. The CO2 buildup doesn't alter the climate itself, but the intensity and duration of it's behaviors and thus the impact becomes more and more dangerous on civilization itself.

Population is another HUGE issue, and I agree! Nevertheless, I'm an optimist. If we give the poor freshwater, education, and especially education and empowerment for women, population growth stabilises. So who's up for campaigning for education and empowerment for women, and freshwater rights and dignity for the poor? Why, us Christians! So if we do our job effectively enough, we'll solve population growth!

I am optimist as well. I don't know if you have heard of them, but I'm a huge fan of the nonprofit organization called charity:water. Their organization is truly brilliant. The founder/CEO used to be a nightclub promoter until he got burned out and spent a few months working with Mercy Ship. During his time there he realized one of the biggest factors in the poor health of these men, women and children in Africa was the lack of clean drinking water.

So he went back to his former nightclub sponsors and convinced them to sponsor the administration and operations costs of running the NPO, so 100% of the donations from lay people like you and me fund the wells and sustainable water projects around the globe. It's amazing!

They've brought clean, safe drinking water to literally millions of people.

Bringing clean water to developing countries and villages changes the entire infrastructure of the village. The women and children who previously spent 5-6 hours per day fetching disease-riddled water from ponds and water holes now only need a few minutes to fill at the local well. With the extra time they can tend to their kids, go to school, educate themselves, contribute more to their society. Thus their whole culture progresses more rapidly and before we know it, as a planet our culture has progressed to a point where we're all working towards eliminating toxic waste, Co2 emissions, etc.

Wind & solar can only power so much of the grid because storing all that intermittent, unreliable electricity requires ENORMOUS storage if we were to try 100% of the grid. Fortunately, we don't have to. GenIV nukes eat waste and are SAFE and cheap enough to build. We can do this with a mix of maybe 60% nuke to 40% renewables.

I think you're right. Perhaps wind and solar aren't feasible to implement at a commercial/industrial level in the sense of replacing existing power facilities. However, if the governments were to make solar power available for individual households at a reduced price or with tax incentives I think that would take a huge strain off of national power grids and perhaps reduce the amount of output required and thus the amount of fuel needed to burn.

It sounds like I need to familiarize myself with Gen IV nuclear power, I don't know much about it but it sounds like a great solution!

Exactly. Our godly stewardship of this earth now can only give God the glory for correctly living in His world now. Then, when he returns, we'll get our reward.

Agreed!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Blah blah blah. More distractions from the real issues. I stand by what happened on March 22; if you do not believe it,
No, I do not believe that Israel collapsed in natural disasters on March 22nd and that millions of Jews fled the country. It simply didn't happen. I do not respect your strategy which reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses reclassifying their 1914 prediction as a 'spiritual' return of Jesus, not a real one. Yeah, pull the other one it plays jingle bells! You push false Abominations, false catastrophes, and now scientifically verifiable false chemtrails. Your appeals to 'Christian mindset' are absurd with such a track record.

Attempting to discredit good, credible men in places and positions of incredible responsibility and authority is not going to help your substantiate your position.
My position is that I don't know why that poor old guy was raving without any evidence.

Of course, you will not disagree with one word of THE CONTENT of what this man says except for the usual insults........
Can you read? Do you actually comprehend what you're reading? OF COURSE I disagreed with the contents of what he said. Why don't you try to go back and re-read what I wrote. I explained that he had not offered any evidence, but for a few 'unmarked jets' in airports, thick clouds of something coming out the back of a plane, and seeing contrails everywhere... lots of contrails everywhere. Which is to be expected in one of the largest airline nations in the country!

Anyway, this is getting boring. Your position is absurd and lacks any credibility, just like March 22nd did not see Israel collapse in mayhem.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
What do you actually think you've proved here? Your appeal to ancient maps (with 'here be dragons' pointing to the end of the world by any chance?) is charming, if a little quaint.

But... the rest of us want to understand what the science says. Not ancient maps.

Actually, science involves everything that is known. If would have been physically impossible for any ancient man to have accurately drawn the entire coast of Antarctica unless at some time within the corporate history of mankind, the ice cap that presently covers this continent was not there.

And no, this ancient map does nor contain any "dragons be here" notes. It is a highly accurate map, showing more detail than the maps possessed by either side a hundred and fifty or so years later at the time of the American Revolution.

A real scientist does not discount any available evidence.

By the way, are you a scientist? I hold a university degree in science and mathematics and am a licensed scientific professional.
 
Upvote 0

SharonL

Senior Veteran
Oct 15, 2005
9,957
1,099
Texas
Visit site
✟23,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When I was young the earth was heading for a new ice age. It was imminent, it was irreversible, it was catastrophic, and it was all our fault.

We were heading for a population bomb, which was going to result in massive starvation and the loss of much of the life on the planet. It was imminent, it was irreversible, it was catastrophic, and it was all our fault.

We were heading for a silent spring where all the birds would be dead; killed by the horrible pesticide DDT. It was imminent, it was irreversible, it was catastrophic, and it was all our fault. Concerned citizens banned the production of DDT, resulting in the death of millions due to malaria.

The hole in the ozone layer was growing. It was going to be completely destroyed because we used anti-perspirant. The result would be extreme temperatures which would fry the earth. It was imminent, it was irreversible, it was catastrophic, and it was all our fault.

Then it was gobal warming. The catalytic convertors in our cars, which we installed to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide were going to kill us because now the carbon dioxide was creating a greenhouse effect. For 10 years the planet warmed, and then it began to cool. Ice caps continued to grow in some places and melt in others. The population of the polar bears doubled, causing them to be nearly extinct. The damage done to the planet cause by us simply being Americans is going to destroy us all. It is imminent, it is irreversible, it is catastrophic, and it is all our fault.

The "scientists" pushing the "climate change" agenda have been caught collaborating to doctor the evidence, and yet people still put credence in their findings because the results fit with their political agenda. Climate change is not science, it's a political campaign put forth by the same anti-capitalist liberal extremists who have been telling us that we're destroying the world since the locomotives stretched across the great plains. You are free to worry and cry about man destroying the planet to your heart's content. Man doesn't have that authority. Using the natural resources that God gave us will not destroy the natural planet that God gave us.

This world will end when He decides. We must be good stewards of our world and try to keep it clean and healthy. That doesn't mean we have to subject our sanity to the claims of proven liars.
Great - best I've seen yet. Cannot believe all the money thrown at this made up falsehood and the people that have gotten rich off of it - government throwing good money after bad with the lies that go with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: smittymatt
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,372
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Great - best I've seen yet. Cannot believe all the money thrown at this made up falsehood and the people that have gotten rich off of it - government throwing good money after bad with the lies that go with it.

So, what? You oppose being a good and proper steward of the Earth?
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
To all Denialists:
When are people posting in this thread going to provide evidence for their claims, and stop just asserting internet conspiracy theory twaddle as 'fact'? Why not back your outrageous, outlandish, unbelievable claims with a little evidence for once!?

1. They're not my conclusions, but those of the entire scientific enterprise worldwide.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

2. Water is a feedback, not a driver. Yes it is a powerful atmospheric gas but as it is constant, it is not responsible for the warming. But Co2 levels are increasing, which is what the Radiative Forcing Equation measures.

3. Your Denialist arguments are so poorly referenced, and so frequently uncited, and so utterly boring and predictable that they're trite!
EG: You got this straight from Tim Ball, a known phoney and impostor who pretends to be a climatologists but isn't. Here's the myth:




And here's the answer.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Is "skeptical science" supposed to be a reliable source of information? They say, with zero documentary proof, that "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."

Tens of thousands of scientists whose papers are systematically suppressed have something to say. But the "97%" not only refuse to listen to them, they even conspire (and yes, we have proof of this) to suppress any paper that challenges their agenda, even to the extent of blacklisting any publication that carries their work.

This is exactly what has been going on for over a hundred years in the evolution debate. Those of us that present scientific evidence challenging the theory are systematically snubbed and blacklisted. I Have even read calls in professional journals to boycott any publisher who does not strongly enough support evolution. And I was personally forced to sign a paper recognizing that I had been warned that I would be fired if I said anything about my views to any employee or customer of my employer.

And by the way, are you a scientist? I hold a university degree in science and am a licensed professional who worked as such for well over twenty years.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
To Eclipse,
the evidence about Russian navigation of the Arctic is in the US Naval Research Journal. I'm not sure why this is not evidence.

BW quoted and sourced the comments on the emails controversy. I'm not sure why this is not evidence.

When NOAA has to change its mind, I don't think there is an absence of peer-review. Maybe peer-review is the problem. That was not reported on Fox, so I guess you're right, Fox is the problem. It was an the ABC affiliate in Seattle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,287
3,674
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟217,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I stand by what happened on March 22
So you've said, and I'm afraid that reduces your credibility to zero. Fact is, nothing at all of any particular importance happened on 22 March, despite all the "undeniable evidence" that your Youtube soothsayer was supposed to have. The notion that something significant really really did happen but that only the Chosen Few know it is a standard butt covering tactic for the purveyors of bogus "prophecies".

Since then you've regaled us with at least two more ridiculous "prophecies" that you assure us are supported by undeniable evidence. One involves flying saucer driving demons trying to delude people into believing that they: A) exist at all, and B) that they're not only really nice guys, but should be embraced as gods. Uh huh. The other involves an all powerful cabal of somebody or the other secretly having pretty much every commercial or military aircraft flying over the US spray some kind of harmful chemicals into the air in order to produce some kind of nefarious result that will further whatever their evil plan is. You apparently believe that we should accept these "revelations" as Absolute Truth, based on the undeniable evidence presented on each one, and your own sterling reputation as touching the prediction of future events.

Well sure! As soon as we all accept the undeniable proof that I am Rightwise Born King of All England, of course.

if you do not believe it
And lest I have been unclear on that point, I most emphatically do not believe it.

Intimidation will not help you here sir.
Have I said anything to skeer you? If so, what was it?

Why not be a man that truly represents a Christian mindset?
If that means one who quietly accepts wholesale distribution of outrageous falsehoods, then I'll have to pass.

Attempting to discredit good, credible men
Sorry, but purveyors of fictitious crud palmed off as truth don't qualify as either credible or good.

Your insistence on backing up falsehoods shows your agenda.
Pardon me, but who still tries to palm off the egregious lie of March 22nd as true?

I am honored to take the insults
Good, then you may thank me for providing you the opportunity to be so honored.

no credit is due me.
On that point we are agreed.

The Truth stands on it's own merit.
And again we are in agreement.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Actually, science involves everything that is known. If would have been physically impossible for any ancient man to have accurately drawn the entire coast of Antarctica unless at some time within the corporate history of mankind, the ice cap that presently covers this continent was not there.
False. That ice is at least 800,000 years old.
And no, this ancient map does nor contain any "dragons be here" notes. It is a highly accurate map, showing more detail than the maps possessed by either side a hundred and fifty or so years later at the time of the American Revolution.
Just keep raving about old maps and ignore the demonstrable physics of today's best science.

A real scientist does not discount any available evidence.
Except there's peer-reviewed, demonstrable evidence from a lab, and your quaint old maps. Hmmm? (Scratches head at self that I'm even engaging a conversation at this level of illogical conspiracy theory! Again!)

I'm not a scientist, but read the summaries. I have tracked down every single Denialist myth I've ever heard to be a bunch of half-truths and lies. If you're a scientist, you have even less excuse than the majority here for disregarding what should be every Christian's social justice concern (after their first love, the Lord Jesus, and sharing the gospel).

But you being a scientist doesn't put you above me not being one on this topic, because I've read many scientists who are not climatologist come out with whacky stuff that even a basic English level of comprehension of what the sciences are saying would show them to be utterly misinformed or downright dishonest.

If you really want to disprove global warming, disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation below, which basically counts:-
1. How Co2 traps heat (basic physics demonstrated in any physics lab on the entire PLANET!)
2. How much Co2 there was before the Industrial Revolution.
3. How much Co2 there is now.
4. How much extra heat is trapped.

Just find a paper that can disprove this following equation, and your work here is done.
4b0d65a3fd906060b878e08d35d0f3c9.png
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the Sun. The sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They cursed God and refused to repent and glorify the one who had control over these plagues."

Agreed! This is from my blog...


There is a power source that is Co2 free and could supply abundant, reliable 'baseload' energy in summer or winter, day or night. But you've probably been emotionally programmed by disinformation to reject it outright. The 3 biggest myths about this power source are that it is dangerous, expensive, and leaves waste FOREVER. Instead it is already one of the SAFEST sources of large scale power in the world, is the only AFFORDABLE way to cut emissions, and the waste is now a FUEL that could run the world FOREVER! I am of course talking about nuclear power, and the fantastic potential of the 'New Nukes' otherwise known as Generation IV reactors coming our way.

1: SAFE

SAFEST YESTERDAY: Even yesteryears's old reactors have *already* demonstrated that nuclear power has the best safety record of any large scale energy system! As George Monbiot says: "Coal kills more people when it goes right than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. In fact coal kills more people every week than nuclear power has in the entire history of its deployment."
George Monbiot – The Heart of the Matter

SAFER TECHNOLOGIES TODAY: Today's Gen3.5 reactors would have *easily* survived the Japanese tsunami that took out their external cooling pumps. They not only have far better cooling systems, but even if all of those are destroyed in some freak accident, the reactor cores themselves have 'passive physics' built in so that they cool themselves down. For example, let's look at Neutron Leak. Neutron Leak turns the reactor fuel rods into a last-ditch safety feature. If ALL the 'external' cooling systems failed (and this would be remarkable!), the fuel rods would normally start to over heat, risking a reaction. But today's fuel rod technology means they can be designed to expand as they over heat. As the metal rods expand they leak the neutrons essential to keeping the reaction going. Neutron Leak means the reaction fizzle's out, and the reactor self cools. Even Homer Simpson couldn't break it!'

SAFER TOMORROW: And as we move into Gen4 reactors there are more safety systems coming. Basically, Corporations realise that a melt down costs a lot of MONEY. They'd rather avoid all that, thank you very much! For more on passive safety systems, please read this.
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SAFER SITES: Nuclear Energy Parks could be cheaply* built out in the Australian outback safely away from any population areas. If some weird disastrous fluke managed to take one of these out, new reactors would be built 500 kilometres upwind and we'd quarantine a tiny fraction of our VAST deserts for a few hundred years. We'd hardly notice it. EG: I haven't been inconvenienced by the Woomera Testing Facility being off-limits, and it is twice the size of Tasmania!
(*Power lines to a desert Nuclear Park would still be vastly cheaper than the power lines for a Renewable grid. Wind and Solar require a continent wide super-grid to bring the power from our coasts and deserts to where we live).

Basically, banning SAFE modern nukes because of Chernobyl or Fukushima is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenburg.

2: AFFORDABLE AND ESSENTIAL
There are only a few places on earth like Greenland and Tasmania with enough geothermal or hydro to run reliable Renewables. The rest of the world has abundant wind and solar Renewables, but these should be called Unreliables because of their daily and seasonal variations. We need reliable base load power generation because *nothing* can store Unreliables cheaply enough!

Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of modern climate science, says nuclear power is the only way we'll solve climate change. He says believing in renewables alone is akin to "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid | BraveNewClimate

If we listen to him on the problem of Global Warming, why not also on the solution?According to his peer-reviewed network 'The Science Council for Global Initiatives' (SCGI) the unreliable nature of renewable technology is not solved by any storage system as they are all far, far too expensive. They are hypothetically possible but economically impossible. Instead of Renewables they should be called Unreliables.
SCGI - James Hansen

Tom Blees (President of the SCGI) has made his book freely available in PDF form.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

IF something better comes along we can shift to it then. But we have to act now to prevent a climate catastrophe. We cannot let wishful thinking daydream our way to disaster. Renewables are too expensive. They're only cheap if ignore the coal-fired grid backing our systems. EG: If you stick some Solar PV on your roof and over 30 years measure the cost / output, it's wonderful. But that ignores the fact that the Solar PV is only giving you a third of your power each day. The rest relies on a coal-fired power grid. Then there's seasonal fluctuations where the solar input is really low on dark wintery days. Read Professor Barry Brook on the cost of trying to make solar and wind 'base load', that is, reliable 24/7. Unreliables might be technically feasible but they are economically impossible. Dreams and good intentions with renewables are not going to solve the Global Warming crisis. Only hard nosed, tried and true engineering solutions can save us.
Renewable Limits | BraveNewClimate


3: FOREVER FUEL
Tomorrows reactor's will eat nuclear waste! Generation IV nukes are based on known physics from over 300 Reactor Years running Breeder Reactors.
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have demonstrated the physics in reactors like the EBR 2. We know the physics and the engineering. We've already done this!
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(The EBR2 was one of the world's first Integral Fast Reactors, see below).

GenIV reactors are slowly being commercialised. The only delays are in commercialising some cheaper systems and materials.
Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Electric's S-PRISM is being designed small and modular so that components can be put on a production line. This will become an assembly line, mass produced nuclear reactor! The components are then be trucked to site for fast assembly. Putting nukes on the production line will raise safety standards and sink costs!
S-PRISM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The S-PRISM is just one example of a whole category of GenIV reactors called the Integral Fast Reactor
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Integral Fast Reactor's convert today's nuclear 'waste' into fuel. Instead of being a problem, nuclear waste is THE solution! Some countries already have enough 'waste' (unused fuel) to run them for 500 years!

Nuclear power AND renewables can do the job. If we let nukes just have the majority of the base load share (say 60% or 70% of the daily requirements of energy on the grid) then renewables can probably handle the rest. Anything higher puts stress on the grid.

Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As mountains rise and continents move the weather grinds uranium dust back down into the ocean faster than we could use it. This is how Gen4 nukes could run the world for a few hundred million years on the uranium in sea-water.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
S You apparently believe that we should accept these "revelations" as Absolute Truth, based on the undeniable evidence presented on each one, and your own sterling reputation as touching the prediction of future events.

Well sure! As soon as we all accept the undeniable proof that I am Rightwise Born King of All England, of course.
Hey dude, back off! I'm sure that's ME! ;)

My family ancestors were probably peasants fighting in the War of the Roses, so I'm probably the 10,000th in line for the throne...;). But somewhere, somehow, maybe I can spray enough Chemtrails in my all-embracing power of evil to become the King of England again... Bruhahahahahah!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
False. That ice is at least 800,000 years old.

In my past years as a scientist, I had cause to investigate the logical bases of the various dating methods used. I found that every one one of them except the one used for dating igneous rocks contained at least one rank assumption. And some of them that were widely used gave results that were demonstrably incorrect, even though they continued to be relied upon after the error had been demonstrated.

Just keep raving about old maps and ignore the demonstrable physics of today's best science.
Again, true science takes all available data into consideration. You can laugh at ancient maps all you wish, and mock them and call them "quaint," but try to come up with a logical explanation how someone, obviously long before the early 1600's drew an accurate map of a coastline that was unknown to modern man before sometime in the mid twentieth century.

Laugh at it all day, but the only logical explanation for the existence of this map is that there was a time within the corporate history of mankind when this cosatline was not covered with ice. This is born out by the fact that core drillings of the seabed reveal alternate layers of glacial type sediment and river born type sediment.

Except there's peer-reviewed, demonstrable evidence from a lab, and your quaint old maps. Hmmm? (Scratches head at self that I'm even engaging a conversation at this level of illogical conspiracy theory! Again!)

I'm not a scientist, but read the summaries. I have tracked down every single Denialist myth I've ever heard to be a bunch of half-truths and lies.
That someone is lying is obvious, but who? I have also read the explanations published by the global warming fanatics, and concluded them to be just highly similar to those used by evolutionists, full of deceptive half truths with a few outright lies.

If you're a scientist, you have even less excuse than the majority here for disregarding what should be every Christian's social justice concern (after their first love, the Lord Jesus, and sharing the gospel).

But you being a scientist doesn't put you above me not being one on this topic, because I've read many scientists who are not climatologist come out with whacky stuff that even a basic English level of comprehension of what the sciences are saying would show them to be utterly misinformed or downright dishonest.

If you really want to disprove global warming, disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation below, which basically counts:-
1. How Co2 traps heat (basic physics demonstrated in any physics lab on the entire PLANET!)
2. How much Co2 there was before the Industrial Revolution.
3. How much Co2 there is now.
4. How much extra heat is trapped.

Just find a paper that can disprove this following equation, and your work here is done.
4b0d65a3fd906060b878e08d35d0f3c9.png
That this equation is correct is obvious. But the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide is relatively insignificant, compared to other known effects.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LeoWyatt

Active Member
Dec 5, 2011
388
24
Behind You
✟622.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Agreed! This is from my blog...


There is a power source that is Co2 free and could supply abundant, reliable 'baseload' energy in summer or winter, day or night. But you've probably been emotionally programmed by disinformation to reject it outright. The 3 biggest myths about this power source are that it is dangerous, expensive, and leaves waste FOREVER. Instead it is already one of the SAFEST sources of large scale power in the world, is the only AFFORDABLE way to cut emissions, and the waste is now a FUEL that could run the world FOREVER! I am of course talking about nuclear power, and the fantastic potential of the 'New Nukes' otherwise known as Generation IV reactors coming our way.

1: SAFE

SAFEST YESTERDAY: Even yesteryears's old reactors have *already* demonstrated that nuclear power has the best safety record of any large scale energy system! As George Monbiot says: "Coal kills more people when it goes right than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. In fact coal kills more people every week than nuclear power has in the entire history of its deployment."
George Monbiot – The Heart of the Matter

SAFER TECHNOLOGIES TODAY: Today's Gen3.5 reactors would have *easily* survived the Japanese tsunami that took out their external cooling pumps. They not only have far better cooling systems, but even if all of those are destroyed in some freak accident, the reactor cores themselves have 'passive physics' built in so that they cool themselves down. For example, let's look at Neutron Leak. Neutron Leak turns the reactor fuel rods into a last-ditch safety feature. If ALL the 'external' cooling systems failed (and this would be remarkable!), the fuel rods would normally start to over heat, risking a reaction. But today's fuel rod technology means they can be designed to expand as they over heat. As the metal rods expand they leak the neutrons essential to keeping the reaction going. Neutron Leak means the reaction fizzle's out, and the reactor self cools. Even Homer Simpson couldn't break it!'

SAFER TOMORROW: And as we move into Gen4 reactors there are more safety systems coming. Basically, Corporations realise that a melt down costs a lot of MONEY. They'd rather avoid all that, thank you very much! For more on passive safety systems, please read this.
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SAFER SITES: Nuclear Energy Parks could be cheaply* built out in the Australian outback safely away from any population areas. If some weird disastrous fluke managed to take one of these out, new reactors would be built 500 kilometres upwind and we'd quarantine a tiny fraction of our VAST deserts for a few hundred years. We'd hardly notice it. EG: I haven't been inconvenienced by the Woomera Testing Facility being off-limits, and it is twice the size of Tasmania!
(*Power lines to a desert Nuclear Park would still be vastly cheaper than the power lines for a Renewable grid. Wind and Solar require a continent wide super-grid to bring the power from our coasts and deserts to where we live).

Basically, banning SAFE modern nukes because of Chernobyl or Fukushima is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenburg.

2: AFFORDABLE AND ESSENTIAL
There are only a few places on earth like Greenland and Tasmania with enough geothermal or hydro to run reliable Renewables. The rest of the world has abundant wind and solar Renewables, but these should be called Unreliables because of their daily and seasonal variations. We need reliable base load power generation because *nothing* can store Unreliables cheaply enough!

Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of modern climate science, says nuclear power is the only way we'll solve climate change. He says believing in renewables alone is akin to "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid | BraveNewClimate

If we listen to him on the problem of Global Warming, why not also on the solution?According to his peer-reviewed network 'The Science Council for Global Initiatives' (SCGI) the unreliable nature of renewable technology is not solved by any storage system as they are all far, far too expensive. They are hypothetically possible but economically impossible. Instead of Renewables they should be called Unreliables.
SCGI - James Hansen

Tom Blees (President of the SCGI) has made his book freely available in PDF form.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

IF something better comes along we can shift to it then. But we have to act now to prevent a climate catastrophe. We cannot let wishful thinking daydream our way to disaster. Renewables are too expensive. They're only cheap if ignore the coal-fired grid backing our systems. EG: If you stick some Solar PV on your roof and over 30 years measure the cost / output, it's wonderful. But that ignores the fact that the Solar PV is only giving you a third of your power each day. The rest relies on a coal-fired power grid. Then there's seasonal fluctuations where the solar input is really low on dark wintery days. Read Professor Barry Brook on the cost of trying to make solar and wind 'base load', that is, reliable 24/7. Unreliables might be technically feasible but they are economically impossible. Dreams and good intentions with renewables are not going to solve the Global Warming crisis. Only hard nosed, tried and true engineering solutions can save us.
Renewable Limits | BraveNewClimate


3: FOREVER FUEL
Tomorrows reactor's will eat nuclear waste! Generation IV nukes are based on known physics from over 300 Reactor Years running Breeder Reactors.
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have demonstrated the physics in reactors like the EBR 2. We know the physics and the engineering. We've already done this!
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(The EBR2 was one of the world's first Integral Fast Reactors, see below).

GenIV reactors are slowly being commercialised. The only delays are in commercialising some cheaper systems and materials.
Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Electric's S-PRISM is being designed small and modular so that components can be put on a production line. This will become an assembly line, mass produced nuclear reactor! The components are then be trucked to site for fast assembly. Putting nukes on the production line will raise safety standards and sink costs!
S-PRISM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The S-PRISM is just one example of a whole category of GenIV reactors called the Integral Fast Reactor
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Integral Fast Reactor's convert today's nuclear 'waste' into fuel. Instead of being a problem, nuclear waste is THE solution! Some countries already have enough 'waste' (unused fuel) to run them for 500 years!

Nuclear power AND renewables can do the job. If we let nukes just have the majority of the base load share (say 60% or 70% of the daily requirements of energy on the grid) then renewables can probably handle the rest. Anything higher puts stress on the grid.

Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As mountains rise and continents move the weather grinds uranium dust back down into the ocean faster than we could use it. This is how Gen4 nukes could run the world for a few hundred million years on the uranium in sea-water.

A man after my own heart except for your criticism of sustainable energy.
I just skimmed over your post and did not see anything about the WAMSR.

The WAMSR:
TEDxNewEngland | 11/01/11 | The Future of Nuclear Power: Getting Rid of Nuclear Waste - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This thread is interesting, and I'm following it. However I jump in here to assert that we KNOW dating methods are quite imprecise...so why even accept them as factual??

Actually there is one more dating system that I did not mention that is logically sound. But it can only be used over a limited area, and only goes back a few thousand years at best. That is tree ring dating, which is what demonstrated that carbon 14 dates begin to err at only a few hundred years old.

The reason I brought this up is because we have no way of determining whether or not the antarctic ice cap is actually as old as they think it is, if we use only human logic. But the map conclusively proves one of two things. Either ancient technology had some means of locating the shorelines while they were covered with ice, or sometime while humans have been on the earth, the ice was not there. Since the first choice seems irrational, we are left with the second choice, that is, that the ice cap was not there at some unknown time after humans first learned to draw accurate maps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In my past years as a scientist, I had cause to investigate the logical bases of the various dating methods used. I found that every one one of them except the one used for dating igneous rocks contained at least one rank assumption. And some of them that were widely used gave results that were demonstrably incorrect, even though they continued to be relied upon after the error had been demonstrated.
So you don't like the fact that the Co2 levels roughly match the ice ages over the last 800,000 years which also matches the physics of the Milankovitch 'wobbles' in the earth's orbit and pitch and tilt? Interesting.

Again, true science takes all available data into consideration. You can laugh at ancient maps all you wish, and mock them and call them "quaint," but try to come up with a logical explanation how someone, obviously long before the early 1600's drew an accurate map of a coastline that was unknown to modern man before sometime in the mid twentieth century.
You have not once provided evidence of the map, or shown exactly how this conflicts with climate science.

Laugh at it all day, but the only logical explanation for the existence of this map is that there was a time within the corporate history of mankind when this cosatline was not covered with ice. This is born out by the fact that core drillings of the seabed reveal alternate layers of glacial type sediment and river born type sediment.
Where are we talking about again?

That someone is lying is obvious, but who? I have also read the explanations published by the global warming fanatics, and concluded them to be just highly similar to those used by evolutionists, full of deceptive half truths with a few outright lies.
That this equation is correct is obvious. But the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide is relatively insignificant, compared to other known effects.[/quote]

Ahah! Now I see the problem. You're YEC? :doh:No wonder you can't accept climate science and are going on about old maps: you can't accept any old earth theory. I'm simply not going to debate someone with an ancient, ingrained religious presupposition against climate science: there's no point.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.