Global warming and the end

[parousia70]

The other 'good news' is that global warming COULD be like lead poisoning, or sewerage in our drinking water, or smallpox. It could be one of those societal dangers that we FIX, and that becomes an issue of the past. It really could.

Remember the Hole in the Ozone?

When it was discovered everyone took it seriously, there were no whackadoodle Ozone hole deniers...we discovered pretty quick that Human beings use of CFC's were causing it and an international treaty was signed and by and large, the WORLD STOPPED PRODUCING THE STUFF, and Viola! the Hole closed.

Yes it can be done, and yes we are charged by our creator to do it.

 

[Interplanner]

About two weeks ago a geologist talked to Limbaugh and said "you have the right conclusions but the wrong reasons. Here's the right reasons. 1, we are still in an ice age. Ice ages have always been defined by caps. There are caps, now. We could stand to warm up. 2, we now know there are 4 kinds of natural gases that produce CO2. Most measurements of the past are therefore way off. The idea that we "know" where we should be at is the most subjective science today.

And then, of course, there is Roger Moore.

 

[7sForDays]

 

[Interplanner]

I reread THE LITTLE ICE AGE recently and there is one point to consider perhaps above others. (The LIA is a history of weather especially of the late medieval centuries but up to the 'year without a summer' in 1815 in N Europe and NE USA.). The clincher point was not a "proof" of either warming or cooling. It was that warming freshens the N. Atlantic and this stops a major cycle of warm water that is pulled north. When that stops the north gets cold, maybe in a decade.

The climate scientists who are aware of this are all anthropogenic warming subscribers but they say no one know what happens next. I listen to honest scientists who say they really don't know rather than these ranters who stay up over night in the US congress.

Well, maybe a clue is this past winter?

 

[Biblewriter]

When will they stop? King Coal now wants to ban your right to hear what environmental effect your super may be having! How brazenly North Korea of them! Please sign this petition if you disagree with King Coal trying to silence climate scientists. And remember:

“But the real extremists are the coal and mining companies that are willing to wreck our country and climate for profit. We think it’s actually pretty reasonable to try and maintain a planet somewhat like the one we were born into.”
​

Please click below and sign the petition:
350.org

It's part of our Christian duty in these Last Days (2000 years and counting) to love our neighbour, even the most vulnerable: those voiceless unborn billions who will inherit the mess we leave them.

This is an outright lie, and its the very opposite of the real facts.

I have yet to run across the very first call from a global warming skeptic to stop alarmists from peddling their nonsense. But I have seen repeated calls from global warming alarmists to use force to silence the skeptics, even to the point of calling for imprisonment and/or fines against all such.

Conservatives never attempt to use force to silence their opposition. But that is a standard tool of the left. This has always been a main difference between the actions of God and Satan. God uses gentle persuasion, inviting men to repent. And Satan always tries to silence his opposition by any means possible.

 

[Interplanner]

Good post, BW

 

[7sForDays]

 

[eclipsenow]

About two weeks ago a geologist talked to Limbaugh and said "you have the right conclusions but the wrong reasons. Here's the right reasons. 1, we are still in an ice age. Ice ages have always been defined by caps. There are caps, now. We could stand to warm up. 2, we now know there are 4 kinds of natural gases that produce CO2. Most measurements of the past are therefore way off. The idea that we "know" where we should be at is the most subjective science today.

And then, of course, there is Roger Moore.

What a surprise: a geologist asserted a bunch of rubbish outside their field of expertise. Next you'll be telling us the sky is blue! Many geologists seem to be denialists, and it is because they have the big view of the earth and think they can therefore also understand the big view of climate. They're very opinionated, and very wrong.

But there are geologists that work with climate scientists in trying to understand climate, and provide necessary information. Yes, technically speaking we are still in an 'ice age' because there is ice on the earth. And if you knew the slightest thing about the climate, that is totally irrelevant to what we are actually discussing: it's a semantic game. But denialists are big on those, and once again you've submitted a post without any links to peer reviewed science.

 

[eclipsenow]

This is the outright truth, and is congruent with the real facts.

I have yet to run across the very first call from a global warming skeptic to stop alarmists from peddling their nonsense. But I have seen repeated calls from global warming alarmists to use force to silence the skeptics, even to the point of calling for imprisonment and/or fines against all such.

• Big coal is trying to have laws passed banning climate scientists and activists from speaking out against companies pushing their deadly product onto the energy market. They're agitating to ban free speech and the ability for people to be informed about what their superannuation is invested in.
• Climate deniers write thousands of death threats a day to climate scientists.
• W.H.O. updated their estimates of coal particulate deaths around the globe, and the world kills 7 million people a year by burning coal! We have a Christian duty to stop burning coal and start burning nuclear waste in clean, safe, modern reactors that would have easily withstood the Fukushima tidal wave and power outages.

Conservatives never attempt to use force to silence their opposition.

This is an outright lie.
1. You have no right to equate all deniers with 'Conservatives'. Many Conservatives agree with Christian climate writer, Bill McKibben, when he defines the radicals as those who want to DOUBLE a dangerous portion of the chemical composition of our atmosphere for profit!
2. You have insufficient data of just how big coal and oil are funding climate deniers. Just the quotes below should prove embarrassing enough, but there are many, many moves like it around the world. Money is power: and power corrupts. Some climate deniers become unhinged and start issuing death threats to climate scientists: some of whom are your Christian brothers and sisters! Below is the example I raised above. Don't hate me: it's just the truth.
3. Because we ARE causing climate change and it IS ALREADY hurting a bunch of people and MAY hurt more in the future (if the Lord doesn't return tonight!***) and just the immediate particulate dust from fossil fuels kills 7 million people a year, it's time to move to clean energy!
(***As an Amil I know that he will return like a thief and totally upset everyone's timetables and expectations! But the expectation that the Lord could return any time did not stop the great social justice movements of the past, such as Wilberforce banning slavery and various other mechanisms of protecting the poor by protecting them from industrial pollution etc.)

The powerful mining lobby is considering whether to join the push by resource industries to ban environmental boycott campaigns as it battles an escalating grassroots movement calling for banks, superannuation funds and institutions to ditch fossil fuel investments.

The Minerals Council of Australia, which this week began its own “Australians for Coal” social media and lobbying campaign to argue the benefits of continued coalmining, has previously attacked “green extremists” who “have moved … from genuine protest to dangerous and unlawful civil disobedience”, saying the "extremists" would be facing the full force of the law if they were not exempted from the ban on so-called secondary boycotts under competition laws.

The mining industry has also begun lobbying investor and superannuation funds to provide information to counter the push by organisations including 350.org for them to divest from fossil fuel companies. The higher education superfund Unisuper – which has $40bn in funds under management – has announced it will exclude fossil fuel from its “socially responsible” investment options.

A spokesman for the Minerals Council said the organisation was examining an issues paper from the government’s review of competition law to decide whether it would make a submission, and whether it would argue the divestment campaign could also be considered a secondary boycott.

Other resource industries, including the forestry and resource groups, are arguing that environmental groups should no longer be exempt from Australia’s competition law ban on so-called “secondary boycotts” – actions that try to stop a third person buying goods from another. And it also supports the argument that more safeguards are needed to ensure the “truthfulness” of information supplied during activist campaigns.
In an article for the Guardian, the nobel laureate Desmond Tutu called for an apartheid-style boycott of fossil fuel investments. The 350.org group is leading a worldwide grassroots campaign to push public institutions, super funds, inidivudals and banks to move money away from fossil fuels.
It lists nine US colleges and universities, more than 20 US cities, 26 churches including the Uniting Church of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory and many foundations that have pledged to divest.
The issues paper released by the panel appointed by the Australian government to review competition law specifically includes the possibility of changes to the secondary boycott provisions.
The minister for small business, Bruce Billson, told Guardian Australia the government had “expressly mentioned” secondary boycotts in an issues paper for its review of competition laws because “we want respondents to discuss both the exemptions from secondary boycotts and the broader concept of false and misleading representations”.
But Billson said the issue raised complex legal questions, including “jurisdictional reach” and exactly what conduct constituted a secondary boycott “because you can of course run a direct information scheme, but not a campaign that threatens a business with loss or harm, so it depends on the conduct itself”.
Guardian Australia has reported a push by the forestry industry and some Tasmanian MPs to remove the secondary boycott exemption for environment groups because of the impact of boycott campaigns demanding furniture retailers and overseas customers cease buying timber from unsustainably logged forests.
The parliamentary secretary for agriculture, Richard Colbeck, said the backbench rural committee and “quite a number in the ministry” wanted to use a review of competition laws to remove the exemption and that there was “an appetite in the government for changing these laws”.
Groups including the Australian Forest Products Association and parts of the seafood industry are preparing submissions to the review.
The Guardian has reported Oxford University research that found the fossil fuel divestment campaign that began 18 months ago in the US has grown faster than campaigns that targeted apartheid, tobacco and arms manufacturers.
The research has shown that past divestment campaigns succeeded by stigmatising their targets and exerting financial pressure.
In Britain campaigners are targeting the £5bn of fossil fuels stocks owned by universities. The UK’s most senior doctors have also called for urgent divestment.
The MCA’s Australians for Coal includes TV ads and a social media campaign, which has attracted a backlash on Twitter.
The spokesman said the campaign’s “primary purpose” was not Twitter, which was “a well-established echo chamber”.
The MCA said its campaign was designed to give a voice to the “silent majority” and stop a “small number of noisy extremists from creating the false impression that the community does not support Australia’s second-largest export sector”

Mining lobby may join industry push to ban environmental boycotts | Business | theguardian.com

But that is a standard tool of the left. This has always been a main difference between the actions of God and Satan. God uses gentle persuasion, inviting men to repent. And Satan always tries to silence his opposition by any means possible.

Big coal are not very godly then!

 

[eclipsenow]

7S, you've been taken in by a denialist meme. Please read a little bit more about this complex topic, and stop spreading big coal's lies for them: the coal & oil particulates kill 7 million people a year, and are messing up the climate so bad that this number will soon go much, much higher.

Here is the myth you just quoted: and the answer!

It's .... cold!
"Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains. Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change." (Mail Online)

ANSWER!

Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century.

Does cold weather disprove global warming?

 

[Biblewriter]

What a surprise: a geologist asserted a bunch of rubbish outside their field of expertise. Next you'll be telling us the sky is blue! Many geologists seem to be denialists, and it is because they have the big view of the earth and think they can therefore also understand the big view of climate. They're very opinionated, and very wrong.

But there are geologists that work with climate scientists in trying to understand climate, and provide necessary information. Yes, technically speaking we are still in an 'ice age' because there is ice on the earth. And if you knew the slightest thing about the climate, that is totally irrelevant to what we are actually discussing: it's a semantic game. But denialists are big on those, and once again you've submitted a post without any links to peer reviewed science.

You are forgetting that most of the "scientists" who signed the bog global warming alarmist statement were not experts in any related field. But all the five thousand plus that signed the anti-global warming petition were actually certified to be experts in related fields.

 

[7sForDays]

 

[Biblewriter]

7S, you've been taken in by a denialist meme. Please read a little bit more about this complex topic, and stop spreading big coal's lies for them: the coal & oil particulates kill 7 million people a year, and are messing up the climate so bad that this number will soon go much, much higher.
"Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century."

That has been totally disproved. Everyone familiar with the actual data knows that global temperatures have stabalized. Even the leaked e-mails discussed how to hide this "inconvenient truth."

 

[eclipsenow]

You are forgetting that most of the "scientists" who signed the bog global warming alarmist statement were not experts in any related field. But all the five thousand plus that signed the anti-global warming petition were actually certified to be experts in related fields.

You're forgetting that the IPCC members were (mostly) experts in their various fields, and that the 'petition' you're talking about was a farcical joke that did not verify WHO was signing or what they were actually qualified in. Mickey Mouse? Luke Skywalker? Are you serious? Please grow up a bit!

 

[7sForDays]

Can we talk about the Global Cooling epidemic??

 

[eclipsenow]

That has been totally disproved. Everyone familiar with the actual data knows that global temperatures have stabalized. Even the leaked e-mails discussed how to hide this "inconvenient truth."

This has not been totally disproved. Everyone familiar with the actual data knows that global temperatures have continued to increase despite the oceans taking up enormous amounts of heat. The leaked emails do not undermine the science, as found by countless investigations and committees, and are only harped on about by sad old armchair conspiracy theorists who don't have anything better to do with their time.

 

[eclipsenow]

Wow, somebody cut and paste a picture of Al Gore and put funny writing under it. Gee, this whole global warming thing must be a sham and the science debunked because someone ran a b-grade photoshop job. I'm devastated. No really.

 

[Interplanner]

Gore has made tons of money on his nonsense. That's why he's in it. Not because it's true.

The scientists who say this winter is a clue to what can happen with the stoppage of the Atlantic circulation are all MIT / Woods Hole / whateverpeeryouneed. they all believe in anthropogenic warming, as far as that goes. But they are all honest and say they don't know what will happen when the Atlantic is too fresh, nor why it could not repeat all the phenomenon of the last stoppage.

 

[eclipsenow]

Can we talk about the Global Cooling epidemic??

You're now trolling and this is against forum policy. Please try to say something substantive, or just don't comment at all. Your behaviour so far has just been to blow raspberries: try to act like an adult, thanks.

 

[eclipsenow]

Gore has made tons of money on his nonsense. That's why he's in it. Not because it's true.

The scientists who say this winter is a clue to what can happen with the stoppage of the Atlantic circulation are all MIT / Woods Hole / whateverpeeryouneed. they all believe in anthropogenic warming, as far as that goes. But they are all honest and say they don't know what will happen when the Atlantic is too fresh, nor why it could not repeat all the phenomenon of the last stoppage.

Your ability to actually LINK to peer-reviewed scientific sources is amazing. Want to try again?