Global warming and the end

[Biblewriter]

Thank you.


Fail! The mountains are wrong, the size is way wrong, and none of your explanations explain how they got Europe and America so right compared to getting 'Antarctica' so wrong.

You stubbornly deny that some of the mountains shown on the map were actually there, even though I have repeatedly demonstrated that there were actually mountains in those locations.

But leaving that aside, you are stubbornly ignoring that many of the mountains shown on the map are in locations where there is no way to declare that they are correctly located.

That's just laughably absurd. If they people had been there, they would have got the scale and Peninsula roughly correct. Stop grasping and admit the fact!

You lost me here. Exactly what is absurd about assuming that at some unknown time in history, a man copied a very old map, but made an incorrect assumption about its scale when he copied it. Fine, as you choose to call him, was obviously not the one who made this mistake, for it pops up in all the maps made at that time.

As many of the historians I quote say:

"Fine put the reports together to produce a half real, half guessed, map."
Jave la Grande - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are stubbornly omitting the fact that these same "historians," as you choose to call them, admitted that they were themselves "guessing" in their attempts to explain the map.

Also, you never cared to explain why Fine himself called part of the Great Southern Land "BRASIELIE REGIO" and the other part "REGIO PATALIS"? Probably because it's devastating to your presuppositions?

Please explain exactly what it is about these labels that is "devastatiog" to my "presuppositions".

Apart from getting the scale totally wrong, missing the Peninsula, missing all the ICE, and putting mountains in the wrong place... yeah sure! But if we're just going to tweak all those 'minor details' (like making their hypothetical Terra Australis larger than Antarctica and Australia combined!), then as I said above, we could just 'tweak' a photo of you and you'd look just like Elvis. Just change the colour of your hair and suit, and we're done! That's only a few changes. To make Terra Australis look like Antarctica you're willing to cut the scale in half, move mountain ranges, move the South Pole, add a Peninsula, move the Island in the Ross Sea, change the shape of the Ross Sea, and get rid of kilometres of ice sheet that's been there a million years.

But hey, otherwise they're identical!

The cartographers and archaeologists I've quoted laugh at Hapgood. You venerate him because he would appear to agree with some of your wilder presuppositions. Oh well, I can't do anything about that.


It's so obvious that archaeologists and cartographers laugh at Hapgood. Just because you were hoodwinked.


I'm actually more open to that idea as there may have been earlier exploration of those areas.

I'm glad to hear you're an old earth scientist, and I'm not going to debate Carbon 14 with you because I'd just be quoting peer-reviewed science at you that you already have, for whatever reason, decided to disagree with.

I reject the "peer review" process because it allows people that "toe the line" in regard to current "scientific" thought to pretend that information disproving these theories is not worthy of consideration.

This prejudical system is not new to global warmng. It has been used for many years in an attempt to silence those of us who have pointed out many flaws in the theory of evolution.

 

[interpreter]

It probably is a scientific fact as the global averages have been going up for decades.



As you know, I'm convinced Revelation is not a timetable for the future but generalised gospel sermons illustrating man's alienation from God, alienation from each other, and even alienation from nature in chaos. This is God's judgement against us, handing us over to the consequences of our actions. Just as He doesn't jump in and rescue human beings from criminal knives and bullets, so He doesn't jump in and rescue us from pollution, lead poisoning, deforestation, and climate change. We get what we deserve.

Exactly. Most, if not all, of the 7 last plagues are man-made including global warming, meaning we get what we deserve.

 

[eclipsenow]

As to the falsification of global temperature data, I posted proof in posts number 118 and 119. This manipulation was admitted on the climategate e-mails.

Undeniable proof just like the 'Ross Sea' on your old map that looks more like the top of Australia? An unverifiable claim about an old map that sounds just like your proof where you show a series of numbers from another unverifiable source?

These are great proofs!

Source of climategate proofs?

As to the errors in measurements taken by the US government, I posted proof in post number 107.

Fail.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Considering the state of world economics; the idea that man is causing climate change (global warming) and that man can fix it, has spawned a whole bunch of "green" industries and enterprises.

While these green endeavours have stimulated some jobs and the green sector has experienced greater economic growth than most other; it has also been a negative factor on the economy.

Green sector industries have lobbied the government to change laws, some of these laws are good, many add extra layers of compliance to industries that are already on the ropes due to the economy.

We can whine about job loss and industry moving to cheaper developing countries, but it's our own fault. We elect governments, which implement these rules, which render us unable to compete. Businesses then relocate to places which have fewer rules, it saves them a crap-load of money, but we cant buy the products, because we have no jobs.

A good example of this is the recycling of e-waste. We do a good job recycling what we do here in Canada; but it's revenue negative (government subsidizes it because the end products are worth less than the processing cost). We can't handle it all that we produce either, so it, and a bunch of other stuff is shipped off to countries with no regulations where it's plastic/composite components are burnt off by children (who get sick and die young) sorted and returned to manufactures for re-use.

Here in Canada, scrap metal dealers are not allowed to accept copper wire which has had the insulation burnt off (very toxic to burn it off). They do buy it either stripped or with the insulation on (at a much reduced rate); they strip what's easy, ship the rest oversees where it's burn off, melted, poured into ingots, and buy it back.

Yes, it's good to put that plastic bag in the blue bin; but if we thing we are really helping the world; we are mistaken.

 

[eclipsenow]

Considering the state of world economics; the idea that man is causing climate change (global warming) and that man can fix it, has spawned a whole bunch of "green" industries and enterprises.

While these green endeavours have stimulated some jobs and the green sector has experienced greater economic growth than most other; it has also been a negative factor on the economy.

Green sector industries have lobbied the government to change laws, some of these laws are good, many add extra layers of compliance to industries that are already on the ropes due to the economy.

We can whine about job loss and industry moving to cheaper developing countries, but it's our own fault. We elect governments, which implement these rules, which render us unable to compete. Businesses then relocate to places which have fewer rules, it saves them a crap-load of money, but we cant buy the products, because we have no jobs.

A good example of this is the recycling of e-waste. We do a good job recycling what we do here in Canada; but it's revenue negative (government subsidizes it because the end products are worth less than the processing cost). We can't handle it all that we produce either, so it, and a bunch of other stuff is shipped off to countries with no regulations where it's plastic/composite components are burnt off by children (who get sick and die young) sorted and returned to manufactures for re-use.

Here in Canada, scrap metal dealers are not allowed to accept copper wire which has had the insulation burnt off (very toxic to burn it off). They do buy it either stripped or with the insulation on (at a much reduced rate); they strip what's easy, ship the rest oversees where it's burn off, melted, poured into ingots, and buy it back.

Yes, it's good to put that plastic bag in the blue bin; but if we thing we are really helping the world; we are mistaken.

I think you've only just scratched the most superficial layers of what really needs to change to make us 'sustainable' for the long term. That's your real problem. Short term gain... for what? This generation to behave like spoilt brats? The Stern and Garnaut reports both put economists in the room with climatologists, and they costed climate change. The reality is it would cost quite a bit of money to fix it now, but 20 times that much if we leave our children to clean up the mess that we should have prevented. We're selfish mongrels when we whine about a little bit of pain now. Just unbelievably selfish. We've got to ENTIRELY replace our energy and transport infrastructure, completely reform agriculture, save biodiversity, reverse deforestation to reforestation and even aforestation, and you're having a go at petty little rules about plastic and e-waste and copper recycling? Unbelievable.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think you've only just scratched the most superficial layers of what really needs to change to make us 'sustainable' for the long term. That's your real problem. Short term gain... for what? This generation to behave like spoilt brats? The Stern and Garnaut reports both put economists in the room with climatologists, and they costed climate change. The reality is it would cost quite a bit of money to fix it now, but 20 times that much if we leave our children to clean up the mess that we should have prevented. We're selfish mongrels when we whine about a little bit of pain now. Just unbelievably selfish. We've got to ENTIRELY replace our energy and transport infrastructure, completely reform agriculture, save biodiversity, reverse deforestation to reforestation and even aforestation, and you're having a go at petty little rules about plastic and e-waste and copper recycling? Unbelievable.

You missed my point yet again. The point I'm trying to make is no one really cares; but they want to appear to care. If we can fix it with money, no one wants to spend it. If it does cost 20 X as much for our kids, I'm darned sure that they don't have the money, and are sure not to spend it.

If your scenario is correct, humanity is toast. If the Bible is right (which I believe it is) humanity is toast.

I don't know why I wasted my time on this thread; I do not believe your POV; and if you want to spend your time working your self up, and trying to work others up about stuff that you (we) not only have no control over, nor have any hope of ever controlling; knock your self out; I'm past caring.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't know why I wasted my time on this thread; I do not believe your POV; and if you want to spend your time working your self up, and trying to work others up about stuff that you (we) not only have no control over, nor have any hope of ever controlling; knock your self out; I'm past caring.

That's appalling because:-
1. It's your Christian responsibility to love your neighbour and do what you can to help fix this and,
2. You're basing your apathy on the myth that we didn't do it or can't fix it.
2. We CAN fix this, we have the technology, we just have to stand up to the greedy fossil fuel companies.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That's appalling because:-
1. It's your Christian responsibility to love your neighbour and do what you can to help fix this and,
2. You're basing your apathy on the myth that we didn't do it or can't fix it.
2. We CAN fix this, we have the technology, we just have to stand up to the greedy fossil fuel companies.

I do what I can, to the best of my ability; if you are implying that I don't do what I can, regarding things like feeding the hungry, healing the sick, spreading the Gospel to the un-churched you are as deluded and the premise that you present in this thread. The earth will not be much good if everyone starves, and no one believes.

As I said, knock yourself out.

 

[eclipsenow]

I do what I can, to the best of my ability; if you are implying that I don't do what I can, regarding things like feeding the hungry, healing the sick, spreading the Gospel to the un-churched you are as deluded and the premise that you present in this thread. The earth will not be much good if everyone starves, and no one believes.

As I said, knock yourself out.

You have presented a false dichotomy between our gospel work and social obligations. Global warming will make ALL those social concerns you're talking about far, far more desperate. We need to do both.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This thread makes me wonder just what share you have in this: ** (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering)???

 

[eclipsenow]

This thread makes me wonder just what share you have in this: ** (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering)???

None. I want to prevent it. Didn't that come through in the tone of my sig?

 

[interpreter]

That's appalling because:-
1. It's your Christian responsibility to love your neighbour and do what you can to help fix this and,
2. You're basing your apathy on the myth that we didn't do it or can't fix it.
2. We CAN fix this, we have the technology, we just have to stand up to the greedy fossil fuel companies.

Well said. The last plagues are man-made and it is up to the followers of Jesus to end them.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well said. The last plagues are man-made and it is up to the followers of Jesus to reverse them.

Although I do not agree with your interpretation, I have to ask, just how do you propose to reverse anything God ever said would happen?

The only way you could do that is if you were more powerful than God.

 

[Aijalon]

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!

The earth is not billions of years old. The dating of the geological record is based entirely on the assumptions of physicists about the isotope content of the universe at its creation, LOL. Since no one was there to observe the real ratio of these original rocks, we can't know how old the universe is.

Climate change has little to do with mankind, and much more to do with the onset of the end times as prophecied. Pollution and exitinction and ecoystem damage are one thing, global climate change entirely another.

The Death Spiral of the Arctic ice cap is one example.

Data shows that the ice cap is on pace to melt completely in the summer months by a few years from now. This is much faster than the doomsday climatologists have predicted.

CHART HERE:
Video: Climate, Arctic Death Spiral and Weather Whiplash | ThinkProgress

yet the oceans are not rising and the world is not much different asside from a few troubling sings of, oh, global earthquake pandemic....

Climatologists have no idea what they are doing. We can observe but not preduct much of anything accurately. We don't even understand how the core of the earth relates to its crust yet. Much less do we know about the geomagnetic and gravitational relationship between the earth and moon and the rest of the solar system.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere, this is a fact. It is fraction of a tenth of a percent. Less then 375 parts per million

The goal of the carbon credit concept is to track everything that you do and every dime you spend, and every place you go. The same reason behind the idea to tax people using GPS tracking for the miles they drive and not hte fuel they consume. The effort to stop carbon credits and global warming nonsense has two sources.

1. Common sense. Since we are not the cause of global warming.
2. Economics and energy costs. Mandated reduction in energy consumption will affect jobs and the overall economy.

I am no fan of large corporations pulling strings and lobbying for their interestes any more than you, but your post just has a rediculous tone of liberal wako whining.

 

[eclipsenow]

The earth is not billions of years old. The dating of the geological record is based entirely on the assumptions of physicists about the isotope content of the universe at its creation, LOL. Since no one was there to observe the real ratio of these original rocks, we can't know how old the universe is.

I'm simply not going to bother debating science with a creationist. I'd rather look at Genesis 1 and 2 with you in some other thread, but I'm not going over creationist anti-science myths with you.

Climate change has little to do with mankind,

Incorrect: the Radiative Forcing of Co2 is clear and the fact that it is OUR Co2 that's doing this is clear.

and much more to do with the onset of the end times as prophecied.

We've been in the Last Days for 2000 years, since Acts 2.

Pollution and exitinction and ecoystem damage are one thing, global climate change entirely another.

Agreed: Global Warming (which IS our responsibility) is something that could magnify the negative effects of all the others!

The Death Spiral of the Arctic ice cap is one example.

Data shows that the ice cap is on pace to melt completely in the summer months by a few years from now. This is much faster than the doomsday climatologists have predicted.

CHART HERE:
Video: Climate, Arctic Death Spiral and Weather Whiplash | ThinkProgress

Correct

yet the oceans are not rising and the world is not much different asside from a few troubling sings of, oh, global earthquake pandemic....

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climatologists have no idea what they are doing.

Evidence?

We can observe but not preduct much of anything accurately.

Evidence?

We don't even understand how the core of the earth relates to its crust yet. Much less do we know about the geomagnetic and gravitational relationship between the earth and moon and the rest of the solar system.

Not really the case, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere, this is a fact. It is fraction of a tenth of a percent. Less then 375 parts per million

400ppm, but we KNOW how the Radiative Forcing Properties of CO2 works, and YES even this small amount of gas has the power to trap heat, just as a very small amount of a virus or cyanide has the power to kill you.

The goal of the carbon credit concept is to track everything that you do and every dime you spend, and every place you go.

Paranoid rubbish.

The same reason behind the idea to tax people using GPS tracking for the miles they drive and not hte fuel they consume. The effort to stop carbon credits and global warming nonsense has two sources.

1. Common sense. Since we are not the cause of global warming.

Ill informed nonsense, and discompassionate as well. Christians should be concerned about the very real harm we are doing to our neighbours.

2. Economics and energy costs. Mandated reduction in energy consumption will affect jobs and the overall economy.

So what do you do about the fact that we are near the peak of all the best oil, and some countries are already past peak coal? What about the fact that coal dust kills 10's of thousands of people a year? What about the fact that one day it will run out?

What about the Stern and Garnaut reports, both of which concluded it is 20 times cheaper to prevent global warming than it is to try and solve it (or adapt to it) later?

I am no fan of large corporations pulling strings and lobbying for their interestes any more than you, but your post just has a rediculous tone of liberal wako whining.

And yours has the credibility of the 'Moon Landing was faked' crowd, and "That their guv-ern-maynt are keeping ALIENS in Area 51" crowd.

 

[Aijalon]

You asked for evidence, but you didn't provide any evidence of your assumption that anthropomorphic C02 is the cause of CO2 rising, or that C02 is even the cause.

the Radiative Forcing of Co2 is clear and the fact that it is OUR Co2 that's doing this is clear.

Go ahead and cite some evidence for this? Clear to whom? People with fancy climate models? Because the used a graph of co2 levels which is grossly misrepresented along side a graph of temperatures? Is Radiative Forcing a scientific phrase or did you make that up? Do you know what a Joule is?

C02 as a percent of atmospheric greenhouse gas (including water vapour) is a small fraction.

In addition to this, it is well known that the percent of C02 which is produced by humans is also a fraction of that fraction.

When I studied this issue it was a few years back, so yes, the content has risen to 400 ppm you are right on that.

Here is the Mauna Loa data
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

The funny thing is that in a century humans have produced only a few thousand gigatons of C02 through fossil fuels, but the atmosphere has hundreds of billions of tons of C02, so any mathematical equation is doomed to proove that the fossil fuel effect is extreemly small.

If there is any human contribution to the dramatic rise in C02, it is much more likely due to modern agriculture and destruction of plant life than to the addition by fossil fuels.

I find it funny that in the age when the government is now prooven to be tracking everyone's emails that you think it is paranoid to believe carbon credits are a means of control. You are so easily fooled by politicians, I am amused by you.

 

[eclipsenow]

You asked for evidence, but you didn't provide any evidence of your assumption that anthropomorphic C02 is the cause of CO2 rising, or that C02 is even the cause.

What... you can't google or use wikipedia?

Try this ... 90 seconds in will show you, with your own eyes, what CO2 can do.
This Year's Model - YouTube

First of all, I'm no scientist. If you have any really deep questions of this stuff, I suggest getting in touch with climate scientists at your local university.

(You can read more about the Radiative Forcing Equation here, which measures and calculates the amount of heat trapped).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Secondly, the thing that fascinated me about the climate story is NOT my politics... I was originally right-wing and Denialist orientated. What got me in was I saw a 'Denialist' documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." After seeing that, I thought "Wow, how could ANYONE believe in this global warming stuff?" I was shocked at the level of government and scientific cover-up.

I investigated it.

I found nearly every claim in that movie to be a lie, or catastrophic half truth.

Like this one...

In addition to this, it is well known that the percent of C02 which is produced by humans is also a fraction of that fraction.

Yes, nature emits and then soaks up much more CO2 than we emit annually. These 'scales' of in and out natural CO2 are balanced. It's like scales that weigh a ton on each side of the balanced scale, and we're throwing feathers. But we're throwing a LOT of feathers, and consistently at ONE side of the scale.

The funny thing is that in a century humans have produced only a few thousand gigatons of C02 through fossil fuels, but the atmosphere has hundreds of billions of tons of C02, so any mathematical equation is doomed to proove that the fossil fuel effect is extreemly small.

Nature exhales, and then breathes in, much more CO2 than we release. But we're tipping the scales in one direction faster than nature can balance it.

If there is any human contribution to the dramatic rise in C02, it is much more likely due to modern agriculture and destruction of plant life than to the addition by fossil fuels.

False dichotomy: it's both, but agriculture is the smaller fraction.

I find it funny that in the age when the government is now prooven to be tracking everyone's emails that you think it is paranoid to believe carbon credits are a means of control. You are so easily fooled by politicians, I am amused by you.

You are so easily fooled by whacko conspiracy theorists that I'm just saddened by your attempt to patronise me. Do you know how many Christians were leaders in climate science? The former head of the IPCC? Bill McKibben? Are you telling me they're in on the 'conspiracy' as well?

But yes, the Carbon tax is a means to 'control' us... to manipulate the economy. It's this darstardly scheme that wants us to become more energy efficient, have cleaner air, use cleaner energy, use local energy, have less of us dying of lung and throat cancer, wean America (and my country of Australia) off foreign oil, make us self-reliant and energy independent, and ultimately immune to RUNNING OUT of fossil fuels, ever. Oh, and produce more jobs at home and put Detroit back to work making solar panels and wind turbines and GenIV nuclear power plants that eat nuclear waste. Countries that prepare for global warming are also preparing for peak oil, and will have their economies protected and insured against the coming oil shocks. They'll be economically prosperous while other countries collapse.

Terrible, hey?

 

[Aijalon]

First off, your video starts with two minutes of basically saying "we're just guessing". Then it tries to impress us with a piece from a "brilliant" documentary showing a candle's heat absorbed.

What was the concentration of gas in the tube before the CO2 was turned on? (it doesn't say) Was it a vacuum?

This question is very important. Was there air in the tube before the C02 was turned on? What was the rate of CO2 increased in the tube? Was it pure CO2? Or did he do a fair comparison and increase the total fraction of CO2 in the tube by 0.0004 (or 0.04 percent).

This experiment is laughable. He put pure CO2 into the tube!

The rest of the video was very boring. And since it referenced that Hansen fellow as its main source, it's rubbish. The guy is a sold out loon. His credibility has been called into serious question in recent years because he has falsified the data. He's the type of person who makes it clear that it isn't science, but a liberal agenda which drives the Climate Change crowd and the IPCC.

Nature exhales, and then breathes in, much more CO2 than we release. But we're tipping the scales in one direction faster than nature can balance it.

But this type of argument puts no numbers into the discussion. I have put out numbers that justify my position that the effect of human CO2 is very very small, and you counter with it's too fast. Well, no, it is not fast. It is slow. The rate of change of the Co2 in the atmospher as a percent of the total greenhouse effect is very very slow. If you care to put your analogy about the scales into a measurable ratio, I would listen and could actually get something from it.

You are so easily fooled by whacko conspiracy theorists that I'm just saddened by your attempt to patronise me. Do you know how many Christians were leaders in climate science? The former head of the IPCC? Bill McKibben? Are you telling me they're in on the 'conspiracy' as well?

Christianity or Science, please pick a discussion. I see no reason to beleive that a Christian scientist is a better scientist. Many Christians are off their rockers, but I don't question the core of their faith because they are fooled by politics.

As far as conspiracy, you use this as a dirty word, as though conspiracists are crazy. The conspiracy isn't a human one, it is a spiritual one, and the ultimate conspiracy is the return of Jesus Christ.

Let see if you put your money where your mouth is. Do you drive? what do you drive? Do you eat local produce or food from the store that was transported hundreds of miles with fossil fuels to get to you. Do you eat organic food or food produced with loads of harmful pesticides and fertilizer that disrupt the ecosystem and fatten corporate profits?

If you want to change the world and save us all from global warming, get out there and do something about it. Join the Sierra Club.

 

[Biblewriter]

First off, your video starts with two minutes of basically saying "we're just guessing". Then it tries to impress us with a piece from a "brilliant" documentary showing a candle's heat absorbed.

What was the concentration of gas in the tube before the CO2 was turned on? (it doesn't say) Was it a vacuum?

This question is very important. Was there air in the tube before the C02 was turned on? What was the rate of CO2 increased in the tube? Was it pure CO2? Or did he do a fair comparison and increase the total fraction of CO2 in the tube by 0.0004 (or 0.04 percent).

This experiment is laughable. He put pure CO2 into the tube!

The rest of the video was very boring. And since it referenced that Hansen fellow as its main source, it's rubbish. The guy is a sold out loon. His credibility has been called into serious question in recent years because he has falsified the data. He's the type of person who makes it clear that it isn't science, but a liberal agenda which drives the Climate Change crowd and the IPCC.



But this type of argument puts no numbers into the discussion. I have put out numbers that justify my position that the effect of human CO2 is very very small, and you counter with it's too fast. Well, no, it is not fast. It is slow. The rate of change of the Co2 in the atmospher as a percent of the total greenhouse effect is very very slow. If you care to put your analogy about the scales into a measurable ratio, I would listen and could actually get something from it.


Christianity or Science, please pick a discussion. I see no reason to beleive that a Christian scientist is a better scientist. Many Christians are off their rockers, but I don't question the core of their faith because they are fooled by politics.

As far as conspiracy, you use this as a dirty word, as though conspiracists are crazy. The conspiracy isn't a human one, it is a spiritual one, and the ultimate conspiracy is the return of Jesus Christ.

Let see if you put your money where your mouth is. Do you drive? what do you drive? Do you eat local produce or food from the store that was transported hundreds of miles with fossil fuels to get to you. Do you eat organic food or food produced with loads of harmful pesticides and fertilizer that disrupt the ecosystem and fatten corporate profits?

If you want to change the world and save us all from global warming, get out there and do something about it. Join the Sierra Club.

Eclipsenow has already demonstrated that he does not understand even the basics of science, so you are wasting your time in trying to educate him as to what constitutes scientific investigation. To him, the words "peer reviewed" are a magic ticket to explaining anything.

 

[eclipsenow]

First off, your video starts with two minutes of basically saying "we're just guessing". Then it tries to impress us with a piece from a "brilliant" documentary showing a candle's heat absorbed.

What was the concentration of gas in the tube before the CO2 was turned on? (it doesn't say) Was it a vacuum?

This question is very important. Was there air in the tube before the C02 was turned on? What was the rate of CO2 increased in the tube? Was it pure CO2? Or did he do a fair comparison and increase the total fraction of CO2 in the tube by 0.0004 (or 0.04 percent).

This experiment is laughable. He put pure CO2 into the tube!

Dude, go ask a physics lab to demonstrate the Radiative Forcing of CO2. Debating this is like debating whether or not water boils at 100C (at sea-level). The physicists show us that it is repeatable, demonstrable science that can be tested in Fourier Devices. Even Biblewriter, no fan of climate science, doesn't debate the physics of how CO2 interacts with heat energy at this basic level! You're really putting yourself on a level with people who believe the moon to be made of cheese.

As for action, I'm not saying we as individuals should solve this. We vote. We can write letters. We do not all have to live like the Amish to solve this, because we CANNOT solve it while the rest of the country continues to burn coal and oil and gas.

But I notice that you've ignored the fact that we'd all be better off if we solved climate science?