Global warming and the end

Status
Not open for further replies.

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
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
From Ben Heard, friend and fellow campaigner with the head of the climate department at Adelaide University, and a pro-nuclear campaigner, Dr Barry Brook.

Serious about emissions? It's time to embrace nuclear

After clear warnings from scientists more than 20 years ago, the issues of human-caused climate change and fossil-fuel-dominated energy should be on the way into the environmental history books. Sadly, they’re not, which is why we need a new global movement of nuclear support.
A bit like the CFC/ozone dilemma, we should by now be enjoying disputes about just how the success came about, and focusing attention on more challenging sources of emissions.
What happened instead? A denial machine that cut its teeth working for the tobacco industry moved on to climate change. Climate change denial took off as the vested interests did what they do best. In this they found a most unexpected ally: environmentalism and the emergent paradigm of sustainability.
 
Last edited:
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
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.


You have not once provided evidence of the map, or shown exactly how this conflicts with climate science.

Do you even read posts that correct your errors? I explicitly told where to find the map and pointed out that it proves that sometime after mankind learned to draw accurate maps, there was no ice cap over Antarctica. If I have to explain what this has to do with global warming, you have no logical powers at all.

Where are we talking about again?


That this equation is correct is obvious. But the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide is relatively insignificant, compared to other known effects.
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.[/quote]

I do not accept any theory that goes contrary to what the scriptures say.we are warned to avoid to "oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6:20) But a literal reading of the scriptures not only allows, but requires, an understanding that the earth was here before God took just six literal days to re-create it and create man and woman to live in it about six thousand years ago.

Anyone who rejects the Genesis account of creation has disqualified himself from any consideration as a reliable teacher of the scriptures, regardless of the scriptural subject involved.
 
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
Do you even read posts that correct your errors? I explicitly told where to find the map and pointed out that it proves that sometime after mankind learned to draw accurate maps, there was no ice cap over Antarctica. If I have to explain what this has to do with global warming, you have no logical powers at all.
No need to be rude. I need evidence instead. Do you have a link? What if I google to the wrong map and debunk that. You'd just turn around and be rude again.

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.[/quote]

I do not accept any theory that goes contrary to what the scriptures say.we are warned to avoid to "oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6:20) But a literal reading of the scriptures not only allows, but requires, an understanding that the earth was here before God took just six literal days to re-create it and create man and woman to live in it about six thousand years ago.
Do you get any kudos with God for reading the Pslam 'the trees of the fields clapped their hands' literally? I think you've simply made a category error of the type of literary device being used.

Genesis 1 and 2 are true, all the way true. But. There's not excuse for bad reading.

Anyone who rejects the Genesis account of creation has disqualified himself from any consideration as a reliable teacher of the scriptures, regardless of the scriptural subject involved.
Err, you messed that sentence up. Let me help you. Anyone who can't recognise the various forms of biblical literature has disqualified himself from any consideration as a reliable teacher of the scriptures, regardless of the scriptural subject involved.
There is so much more, but to really understand it read this article by theologian and Phd in History, my friend, Dr John Dickson.

http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.pdf

PS: I note with interest that you never disproved the Radiative Forcing Equation of Co2 but instead raved about ancient maps. I'm remembering what it was like to engage you... you usually take 5 to 10 'nudges' to try and respond to a particular question. Oh well.


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
 
Last edited:
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
No need to be rude. I need evidence instead. Do you have a link? What if I google to the wrong map and debunk that. You'd just turn around and be rude again.

A link is nothing other than a way to get what someone said on the internet. It is no more "documentation" that reference to a particular book, which is what I gave you. I am not aware that this particular map has ever been posted on the internet. To do so properly would require obtaining permission from the Smithsonian Institute, where Dr. Hapgood found the photographic reproduction of the map or from the museum in Europe where the original is kept.

But since you are wanting to challenge the validity of the map, you can buy it for $12.78 here:
Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age: Charles H. Hapgood: 9780932813428: Amazon.com: Books
 
Upvote 0

Codger

Regular Member
Oct 23, 2003
1,066
144
82
N. E. Ohio
✟1,926.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I had my say on another thread about CO2. What I posted was absolute fact and not some study created to prove the existence of global warming. Here is what I said basically. CO2 levels run between 350-390PPM normally. If the Co2 level were to decline to 200PPM plant growth would cease. So you can see that we are on the lower fringe of Co2 content in the atmosphere. Increasing CO2 levels in enclosed places like greenhouses where you can control the level of CO2 in the air results in a 40 percent increase in production of plants when the CO2 levels are doubled to 700PPM. Plants can utilize up to 5 times as much CO2 in the air which takes us to a maximum of 1,750 PPM.

Any increase in CO2 in the air is met by an increase in Co2 consumption. The great creator has designed this system well and we have a long way to go before we have a real CO2 problem. It is entirely self regulating.

I think Christians who enjoy living with the Secular Humanists had better roll over and turn on the light to see who they are in bed with. It is the political left in this country that is pushing the hoax of global warming in order to advance their agenda, which is being driven by an antichrist spirit. This group has at its core belief system the doctrine of Secular Humanism, which is the spirit of antichrist. This is the destructive agenda that has forced Christianity out of our schools, promoted gay and lesbian rights, and constantly ridicules and attacks Christianity hiding from within the government. This is the same group who forced banks to loan money to people who don't work, can't hold a job, and had no intent of paying for the loan. The antichristian deception here is one of “kindness” and “Compassion,” which sucks Christians into this Secular Humanist trap. Paul said that if you don't work you don't eat – not very Compassionate was he?

As far as a good source of energy is concerned the great creator is providing us soon with a source of cheap energy - in the not too distant future - perhaps not in my lifetime, but in my children's lifetime. People require energy to live and God knows that and the problem is in hand.

Secular Humanists have no God to take care of them so they worry and fret about everything. And of course with all of these supposed disasters coming all the time - it is up to them to deal with these imagined problems. In order for them to deal with these problems we must keep this group in political power and of course give them full access to the public treasury.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: smittymatt
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
A link is nothing other than a way to get what someone said on the internet. It is no more "documentation" that reference to a particular book, which is what I gave you. I am not aware that this particular map has ever been posted on the internet. To do so properly would require obtaining permission from the Smithsonian Institute, where Dr. Hapgood found the photographic reproduction of the map or from the museum in Europe where the original is kept.

But since you are wanting to challenge the validity of the map, you can buy it for $12.78 here:
Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age: Charles H. Hapgood: 9780932813428: Amazon.com: Books

It's not my job to spend money on proving your creationist theories for you. (For all I know this could just be a quaint old map that just reflects seasonal variations of whatever you're talking about). If you have evidence, put it forward. If not, I suggest reading Dr John Dickon on the genre of Genesis, and getting your head around the basic physics of Co2.
 
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 had my say on another thread about CO2. What I posted was absolute fact and not some study created to prove the existence of global warming. Here is what I said basically. CO2 levels run between 350-390PPM normally.
Evidence? It simply doesn't. According to the peer-reviewed science pre industrial Co2 concentrations where far lower than today.

If the Co2 level were to decline to 200PPM plant growth would cease.
This is your mere assertion. You have not provided evidence that this is the case!

So you can see that we are on the lower fringe of Co2 content in the atmosphere.
Incorrect assertion number 3.

Increasing CO2 levels in enclosed places like greenhouses where you can control the level of CO2 in the air results in a 40 percent increase in production of plants when the CO2 levels are doubled to 700PPM.
Irrelevant to climate change, and there are many plant species that DO NOT respond well to higher levels of Co2 at all!
Plants can utilize up to 5 times as much CO2 in the air which takes us to a maximum of 1,750 PPM.
This is a crass generalisation where there are plant species that become too toxic to eat, and others that LOSE their toxicity and become too vulnerable to pests.
The CO2 is Plant Food Crock - YouTube

Any increase in CO2 in the air is met by an increase in Co2 consumption.
So why have levels increased over the last few centuries?
The great creator has designed this system well and we have a long way to go before we have a real CO2 problem. It is entirely self regulating.

It's not, no matter how you bold and decorate your font, or just assert this without proving it.

I think Christians who enjoy living with the Secular Humanists had better roll over and turn on the light to see who they are in bed with.
The physics and chemistry of Co2's heat retaining properties are not political. The physics of greenhouse gases were discovered by Joseph Fourier 30 odd years before Karl Marx ever published his Communist Manifesto.

You can join the rest of the peer-reviewed scientific community any time you want with a clear Christian conscience. There are plenty of Christian climatologists. Come on over, the water's fine. (If a little warmer these days).


As far as a good source of energy is concerned the great creator is providing us soon with a source of cheap energy - in the not too distant future - perhaps not in my lifetime, but in my children's lifetime. People require energy to live and God knows that and the problem is in hand.
We already have energy sources that can completely replace oil, gas, and coal. Integral Fast Reactors are coming online which will eat old nuclear waste. America has 1000 years of energy stored in your depleted uranium 'waste', and yet you guys want to bury this stuff at Yucca? Insanity. GenIV reactors can supply the reliable, baseload energy you need to generate hydrogen and other synthetic fuels to replace some oil. Other people can move to electric vehicles. We can do this, once we get past the silly evidence-free paranoid conspiracy theories!

Secular Humanists have no God to take care of them so they worry and fret about everything.
That's like saying Christian's shouldn't have worried about slavery, or the poor, or starvation. But instead of some atheistic conspiracy, what we find is that the previous head of the IPCC, in charge of the first 3 reports, is a Christian!

John T. Houghton
Sir John Houghton speaking at a climate change conference in 2005Born30 December 1931
DyserthNationalityUnited KingdomFieldsatmospheric physicsInstitutionsUniversity of OxfordSir John Theodore Houghton CBE FLSW FRS (born 1931) is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
He is the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation "connecting Environment, Science and Christianity",[1] where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.[2] He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also the current president of the Victoria Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
 
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

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
I have noticed several times that you have bought into the lie of peer-reviewed science. This phrase, which is widely used by climate alarmists, is actually only an attempt to discredit all scientific arguments that do not agree with their agenda. the leaked e-mails revealed how they conspired to dominate the "peer-review" process to block the acceptance of any and all competing ideas.

A consensus reached by silencing opposing voices is not a scientific consensus.
 
Upvote 0

Codger

Regular Member
Oct 23, 2003
1,066
144
82
N. E. Ohio
✟1,926.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've done engineering work throughout most of my career maybe that is why I have been following nuclear power for about the last 30 years. I have always believed that this was the source of power for the future. Specifically, FUSION atomic power. Other forms are just too dangerous and expensive to use.

Fusion power has been in the lab for about 60 years now ; and under the last Republican administration president George Bush signed on to help finance the world's first thermonuclear FUSION full scale generating plant. This was the first significant effort to produce a realistic source of safe, stable, dependable, and cheap electrical power. The cost is being carried by less than a dozen countries (including the EU) the cost is 13 billion euros in total.

This project began in southern France in 2008 and it is still on schedule as far as I know. The reactor is a Tokamac magnetic containment plasma type and it operates (once started) entirely on heavy water – Deuterium. The major cost of this heavy water is the separation of the Deuterium (H3O) from ordinary water (H20). The supply of Deuterium in the oceans is inexhaustible. The reaction that takes place is between Tritium and Deuterium. Once the plasma has been ignited the reactor is designed to produce its own Tritium. Tritium is radioactive but not nearly as dangerous as Plutonium; and the present fuels used in conventional FISSION reactors. Plasma temperatures operate at about 10 times that of the sun.

The advantages are...
cheap non toxic fuel.
No dangerous by products – the only by product of this process is helium.
No possibility of melt downs – just shut off the flow of Deuterium and the plasma dies out.
Not nearly as dangerous as FISSION reactors. And you can read for yourselves more of the details on their website.

The reactor itself is presently being built and it is scheduled to be assembled in 2015. In 2018 the first plasma stream will be ignited. Next comes experimentation to determine the best fuel combination for the process.

Recently one prophetic person stated that there was soon coming a very cheap source of electrical energy. He didn't know what or where but I did. God is going to take care of us so don't buy in to all this “the sky is falling” doom and gloom "global warming" stuff. The main theme of the book of Revelation to the first century Christians was “No matter how bad things seem to be - God is still in control.” That's for us today as well.

Because I have followed the development of FUSION power all these years I was aware of this project in southern France since 2008. During these last five or so years I have not seen one item of news on this project in any of our media. To me this is such an important project you would think that the environmentalists would be waving flags. The silence of the media is suspect. I think they will try to destroy the credibility of this endeavor because it does not fit their agenda of control by fear and dread. We will see won't we. Maybe EN's response will be an indicator of how they are going to discredit and negate the positive attributes of this process.

And finally this cheap electrical power will be the catalyst that will bring in the day of the electric car - which is the car of the future. When people have to decide whether to buy a $200 tank of gas or charge their battery in the car for $6 - it will not be any decision at all. The present front runner is the Tesla - this is the new "Apple corporation." They seem to be doing everything right and have a great car. They also have a backup of sales of one year - last I checked. These cars will become cheaper as more of them are manufactured - the battery of course is the greatest problem with the electric car.

Larry

ITER - the way to new energy pronounced eeter
www.iter.org/mach
 
Last edited:
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
I've done engineering work throughout most of my career maybe that is why I have been following nuclear power for about the last 30 years. I have always believed that this was the source of power for the future. Specifically, FUSION atomic power. Other forms are just too dangerous and expensive to use.

Fusion power has been in the lab for about 60 years now ; and under the last Republican administration president George Bush signed on to help finance the world's first thermonuclear FUSION full scale generating plant. This was the first significant effort to produce a realistic source of safe, stable, dependable, and cheap electrical power. The cost is being carried by less than a dozen countries (including the EU) the cost is 13 billion euros in total.

This project began in southern France in 2008 and it is still on schedule as far as I know. The reactor is a Tokamac magnetic containment plasma type and it operates (once started) entirely on heavy water – Deuterium. The major cost of this heavy water is the separation of the Deuterium (H3O) from ordinary water (H20). The supply of Deuterium in the oceans is inexhaustible. The reaction that takes place is between Tritium and Deuterium. Once the plasma has been ignited the reactor is designed to produce its own Tritium. Tritium is radioactive but not nearly as dangerous as Plutonium; and the present fuels used in conventional FISSION reactors. Plasma temperatures operate at about 10 times that of the sun.

The advantages are...
cheap non toxic fuel.
No dangerous by products – the only by product of this process is helium.
No possibility of melt downs – just shut off the flow of Deuterium and the plasma dies out.
Not nearly as dangerous as FISSION reactors. And you can read for yourselves more of the details on their website.

The reactor itself is presently being built and it is scheduled to be assembled in 2015. In 2018 the first plasma stream will be ignited. Next comes experimentation to determine the best fuel combination for the process.

Recently one prophetic person stated that there was soon coming a very cheap source of electrical energy. He didn't know what or where but I did. God is going to take care of us so don't buy in to all this “the sky is falling” doom and gloom "global warming" stuff. The main theme of the book of Revelation to the first century Christians was “No matter how bad things seem to be - God is still in control.” That's for us today as well.

Because I have followed the development of FUSION power all these years I was aware of this project in southern France since 2008. During these last five or so years I have not seen one item of news on this project in any of our media. To me this is such an important project you would think that the environmentalists would be waving flags. The silence of the media is suspect. I think they will try to destroy the credibility of this endeavor because it does not fit their agenda of control by fear and dread. We will see won't we. Maybe EN's response will be an indicator of how they are going to discredit and negate the positive attributes of this process.

And finally this cheap electrical power will be the catalyst that will bring in the day of the electric car - which is the car of the future. When people have to decide whether to buy a $200 tank of gas or charge their battery in the car for $6 - it will not be any decision at all. The present front runner is the Tesla - this is the new "Apple corporation." They seem to be doing everything right and have a great car. They also have a backup of sales of one year - last I checked. These cars will become cheaper as more of them are manufactured - the battery of course is the greatest problem with the electric car.

Larry

ITER - the way to new energy pronounced eeter
www.iter.org/mach

:thumbsup:
 
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

prewrathrap

Newbie
Jan 24, 2010
108
4
✟15,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many Christians who bother to read about the actual science of climate change (and don't just get their science from politically distorted opinions on Fox News) sometimes wonder how it all fits into the 'End times' or Last Days? I have a theologian friend who is doing this very subject as their Phd. He concludes that there is a place for mourning the wholesale destruction of God's world that God made and cares about. He thinks that the church has a large role to play in leading a movement towards caring about and solving climate change. Sure a lot of this could just be selfish self-preservation. I don't want to live in a world striving through fresh water wars and climate disrupted famines. I don't want to see more species going extinct, as I like animals. But I should probably care more than I do just from selfish reasons. I should care because God, my Father in Heaven, made this world. He fashioned it out of billions of years of evolution, and then had the early Hebrews write a poem about how orderly it all is. He woke up the first humans and gave them sentience. He gave us some means of living forever, but then we turned our back on him and we died. He gave us a nice climate to have civilisation evolve in, but then we trashed that too. As Christians, we should care about this stuff, and try to honour God in these Last Days with our lives, our money, our relationships, and our energy sources... and the letters we write to government about cleaning those energy sources up.

And we should be careful we're not conned by the greed of fossil fuel corporations.

A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

If you know anything about thermodynamics you can clearly see the issue with CO2 global warming taught by many is totally bogus. The heat engine that drives earth's climate is the sun. Without the heat engine of the sun we would not exist. Without CO2 we would die as there would be no plants and no conversion of CO2 to oxygen and without animals and fires there would be no CO2. God provided the balance between all things for life to exist. In my opinion take your humanistic view elsewhere.

If you know anything we are headed for a Dalton type minimum of sun with peak of 1st of two low sunspot cycles occurring now through the around 2030 and if it is more like a Maunder Minimum it will be longer time period than approximately 25 years. Earth follows the sun. Food output will decrease over next 15 years and will cause problems all over the world as foretold by Jesus in Matt 7 " For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Shalom
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Codger

Regular Member
Oct 23, 2003
1,066
144
82
N. E. Ohio
✟1,926.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
While we are on the subject of global warming – I have also been loosely following the work of one Professor J. Marvin Herndon for the last decade who has been working on the theory that the earth contains a Geo-reactor at its core.


His research began in quest of the answers to several questions. The main ones are – why do the larger planets (Jupiter, Saturn) radiate twice as much energy into space than they receive from the sun? What causes the earth's magnetic field? How is the earth's core temperature maintained?


It has been known since the 1960's that these planets radiate double the energy back into space that they absorb from the sun. Herndon says that this is because of a collected mass of fissionable material at the core which heats the planets internally.

The earth existed even before the Genesis account of creation. He says that the earth is heated by a five mile diameter of fissionable material. Makes sense to me because there is no such thing as perpetual motion. In time the earth would cool to a solid mass. One proof of this is that there has been a particle found in magma that can only be produced in an fission reactor – and the research continues.


Also there is no solid science that explains the earth's magnetic field or the reason that it reverses on occasion – a big mystery. Herndon says that this Geo-reactor could produce the magnetic field. The composition of magma is mostly iron but it is not magnetic at these elevated temperatures. Since this reactor is fluidized that would mean to me that the magnetic field of the earth could shift. You may get up one morning and discover that north is now located in Bangor, Maine or Trenton, New Jersey. I think he is right - the earth has to be heated internally.


So we have three massive, massive systems that control the temperature of this planet. The most important source is the sun with its fluctuations in output. The weather system is second with all of its variations. And the Geo-reactor in the center of the earth is probably the smallest contributor (I'm guessing) to temperature variations. I am astounded that with all the variations among these three massive systems - how can the temperature variations be less than one degree? Absolutely miraculous engineering.


Then there is the mars problem. Why is Mars also heating up commensurately with the earth? Do you think this could be because of all of the cars and factories up there?


Is Dr. Herndon's research accepted in the “Consensus” “peer reviewed” scientific community? What would you guess since it does not support Global warming? Right – totally rejected – what a shock and surprise.

See what you think.

www.nuclearplanet.com

 
Upvote 0

Codger

Regular Member
Oct 23, 2003
1,066
144
82
N. E. Ohio
✟1,926.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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
I have noticed several times that you have bought into the lie of peer-reviewed science. This phrase, which is widely used by climate alarmists, is actually only an attempt to discredit all scientific arguments that do not agree with their agenda. the leaked e-mails revealed how they conspired to dominate the "peer-review" process to block the acceptance of any and all competing ideas.

A consensus reached by silencing opposing voices is not a scientific consensus.

I read through the main allegations from those emails, the much trumpeted 'hide the decline' and other silliness. ALl out of context, all easily explained.


House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[85] The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[86] An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[87]
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[88]
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, you forgot to disprove the established Radiative Forcing Equation and show how Co2 doesn't do what we've known it does for about 200 years now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.