Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

ClimateGate: 30 years in the making (Edition 1.1) « JoNova

A PDF laying out all the details of this well planned scam.

I asked you some for some specific information justifying specific claims. You refused to answer, and just move on to the next accusation. You're just like 90% of other unthinking Denialist's, an ABC drive by shooter! Denialist's don't debate, they rotate.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]I've noticed a trend amongst certain sceptics who Cluster Bomb a thread with a variety of topics without rhyme or reason. They assert Argument A and are comprehensively answered. But instead of digging deep and really getting to the bottom of what the data says on that particular topic, they deploy their next package. Assert B! Arguments C, D, E and F are already locked and loaded and ready to deploy, whatever the answer to A or B actually turns out to be. Because these particular individuals are not interested in the answers, are they? They just want to shout 'climate change is not true!' a hundred times in a thread.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]I hope this is not you? So, in an effort to have a real conversation about what is actually happening out in the real world of peer-reviewed science, what did you think about the links above above about the last topic we were dealing with?[/FONT]

 

[n2thelight]

I asked you some for some specific information justifying specific claims. You refused to answer, and just move on to the next accusation. You're just like 90% of other unthinking Denialist's, an ABC drive by shooter! Denialist's don't debate, they rotate.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]I've noticed a trend amongst certain sceptics who Cluster Bomb a thread with a variety of topics without rhyme or reason. They assert Argument A and are comprehensively answered. But instead of digging deep and really getting to the bottom of what the data says on that particular topic, they deploy their next package. Assert B! Arguments C, D, E and F are already locked and loaded and ready to deploy, whatever the answer to A or B actually turns out to be. Because these particular individuals are not interested in the answers, are they? They just want to shout 'climate change is not true!' a hundred times in a thread.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]I hope this is not you? So, in an effort to have a real conversation about what is actually happening out in the real world of peer-reviewed science, what did you think about the links above above about the last topic we were dealing with?[/FONT]

Again I ask you,what's the bottom line?This earth will not made by man,nor will it be destroyed by man....In other words,what difference does it make ,if the earth is getting warmer or colder?And like I said earlier,this has been happening for millions of years,what's the difference now?

I see it as big money,and the love of money as it is written,is the root of evil!!!!!

You trust your sources that promote global warming,how do you really know?

 

[berachah]

I asked you some for some specific information justifying specific claims. You refused to answer, and just move on to the next accusation. You're just like 90% of other unthinking Denialist's, an ABC drive by shooter! Denialist's don't debate, they rotate.

c

Here is your quote which I referred to, the one you were either too lazy to read or find yourself. So clearly I am not like the 90% you refer to. So let us hear your wonderful response. God willing there will be no name calling dismissiveness beause you dont like the persons name or some other unscientific response... of course remembering that this is your reference...
Deaths per TWH by energy source

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

I've noticed a trend amongst certain sceptics who Cluster Bomb a thread with a variety of topics without rhyme or reason. They assert Argument A and are comprehensively answered. But instead of digging deep and really getting to the bottom of what the data says on that particular topic, they deploy their next package. Assert B! Arguments C, D, E and F are already locked and loaded and ready to deploy, whatever the answer to A or B actually turns out to be. Because these particular individuals are not interested in the answers, are they? They just want to shout 'climate change is not true!' a hundred times in a thread.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]I hope this is not you? So, in an effort to have a real conversation about what is actually happening out in the real world of peer-reviewed science, what did you think about the links above above about the last topic we were dealing with?[/FONT]

And try not be so condescending to those who disagree with your theory. Yes the theory where the reality has not yet matched the projections... no, not once.

 

[eclipsenow]

Again I ask you,what's the bottom line?This earth will not made by man,nor will it be destroyed by man....In other words,what difference does it make ,if the earth is getting warmer or colder?

Cold = ice age = bad. We don't want a nuclear war, both because the war itself would kill a billion or so, and the nuclear winter afterwards could kill more.

Hot = global warming = bad. Our climate is like pushing a car over the edge of a cliff, at some point gravity takes over. If we pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere, then the Arctic permafrost will melt, releasing more and more methane, cooking this planet. (The 'gravity' of the natural warming feedbacks would take over and be like the 'car' falling over the cliff... extreme climate change would also kill billions).

Warm = just right: good rainfall, but not excessive, good crop growth, good all round.

It is simply unloving and unchristian to future generations to be ambivalent about this.

And like I said earlier,this has been happening for millions of years,what's the difference now?

It has NOT been happening for millions of years. The earth has probably not been this warm since a large volcanic release of CO2 about 55 million years ago, and that was BAD for life back then!

I see it as big money,and the love of money as it is written,is the root of evil!!!!!

I see that as big conspiracy, and the love of conspiracies is the root of all kinds of madness!!!!!!

You trust your sources that promote global warming,how do you really know?

I know that Sir John Haughton was one of the first heads of the IPCC and is a Christian, as is Bill McKibben and many other climate scientists and activists. We know the physics of CO2 in the lab. We know coal kills about a million people a year. We know coal is dirty, destructive, and will one day run out anyway!

It's time to turn to sources of energy that will make our nations MORE energy secure, less dependent on oil from overseas, and cleaner. Far cleaner and safer. A mix of nuclear energy and renewable energy could give us all the energy we need in a convenient, CLEAN, high tech future, and save a million lives a year.

I want this over with. I want 'climate change' to go away: to be boring: to be yesterday's news. We can do this, just as we abolished slavery, pushed for children's education, pushed for a sober and solitary vote (voting used to be a drunken party before Christians in Australia changed all that), pushed for a retirement pension for the elderly, and many other social causes. It's not the gospel: we've still got to preach that. That's our main focus. But because we reflect Jesus love, we just can't help ourselves. When bad stuff happens in this world, we put on our gloves, pull up our sleeves, and muck in. Global warming is like that. Something Christians should be involved in fixing. And we may just convince some greenies of the love of our Lord for this world, and his people, as we do so.

 

[eclipsenow]

c

Here is your quote which I referred to, the one you were either too lazy to read or find yourself. So clearly I am not like the 90% you refer to. So let us hear your wonderful response. God willing there will be no name calling dismissiveness beause you dont like the persons name or some other unscientific response... of course remembering that this is your reference...
Deaths per TWH by energy source

If that is your link, you completely misrepresented it. In a conversation on climate change you said carbon pollution.

One of which clearly states that with some modifications to carbon pollution sources, 99.5% of existing carbon pollution would be eliminated. And that my friend is the real solution ... not carbon trading which will eventually cost the world trillions with no benefit. The rest is rubbish and you know it.

In a thread on climate change, I take carbon pollution to be another way of talking about CO2 emissions, not particulate pollution which is a different conversation. We were discussing how coal kills a million people a year now through the fact that burning this foul stuff pollutes the local environment with super-fine dust that clogs the lungs. Try to use the correct terms. The paragraph in question even distinguishes between the two.

So it is perfectly feasible and economic to retrofit existing coal plants to prevent most of the air pollution and the damage that they cause. The costs is far less than what is required to deal with carbon dioxide (pipes to capture and put it all into large places underground). China has about 650 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would probably be cheaper for China to do the particulate retrofits (say $30 million per GWe). Therefore $20 billion would enable a 99.5% reduction in particulates. The United States has 315 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would cost about $16 billion for electrostatic precipitators on all coal plants in the United States.

So I take it you are in favour of legislating that coal at the very least deal with their public health impacts, and install these particulate scrubbers to clean up their act? Coal would have to pass the cost onto customers, but that's NOTHING compared to the cost to the public health purse if we let coal just continue to pollute particulates into the air.

But the CO2? That question still remains. This solution does NOT solve global warming. Only closing coal and oil and gas down will do that. We can replace it with fast rail, electric cars, hydrogen harvesters and cranes and construction equipment (or boron even!) and then charge all that with nuclear and renewables. We can do this! The sooner we do, the sooner America and Australia can stop buying overseas oil and start paying more money and jobs back into our own economies.

 

[n2thelight]

It has NOT been happening for millions of years. The earth has probably not been this warm since a large volcanic release of CO2 about 55 million years ago, and that was BAD for life back then!

My point was and still is that man did not cause the warming and cooling then,and we are not now.....The earth will do what it do,and always has been doing.....

 

[n2thelight]

I want this over with. I want 'climate change' to go away: to be boring: to be yesterday's news. We can do this, just as we abolished slavery, pushed for children's education, pushed for a sober and solitary vote (voting used to be a drunken party before Christians in Australia changed all that), pushed for a retirement pension for the elderly, and many other social causes. It's not the gospel: we've still got to preach that. That's our main focus. But because we reflect Jesus love, we just can't help ourselves. When bad stuff happens in this world, we put on our gloves, pull up our sleeves, and muck in. Global warming is like that. Something Christians should be involved in fixing. And we may just convince some greenies of the love of our Lord for this world, and his people, as we do so.

This is when your going to get your wish

Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

We see in II Peter 3:10,11 that the existence of this present earth age will be changed with the all physical elements (evil rudiments) done away with, at the "day of our Lord". Then in II Peter 3:12, at the end of the Millennium age, the evil souls are turned to ashes. This is called the "day of God".

II Peter 3:13 "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

This new heaven and new earth is a promise given by God to the earliest prophets, and we have seen throughout the Holy Scriptures that God does keep all his promises.

II Peter 3:14 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

 

[eclipsenow]

My point was and still is that man did not cause the warming and cooling then,

What did? I know we didn't: the Industrial Revolution didn't start until the 1700's. But what did drive climate then? Do you have a list of natural factors that drive climate change? Do you know that one of the MAJOR drivers of super-greenhouses back way before the dinosaur era was CO2? Think about it. Google 'snowball earth' and read about the time excess CO2 actually may have SAVED life on earth!

IE: Even natural climate change has been driven by CO2 from natural sources in the past. (Periods of much higher volcanism than today, etc).

and we are not now.....

Sorry, but every National Academy of Science on the planet and every reputable scientific institution on the planet disagrees with you.

The earth will do what it do,and always has been doing.....

No it won't. We've stuffed it up. Animals and plants cannot migrate up and down mountainsides the way they used to back when nature took far longer to go into and out of ice ages. We're here now. We've taken over 40% of the land for agriculture and farming and livestock. 40%! That means whole regions of forests and animals, whole ecosystems, that used to migrate south away from the ice sheets, or higher up towards the poles in periods that warmed, are now trapped. There are very real dangers of massive biodiversity loss for many, many reasons, climate change only being one MAJOR factor!

 

[eclipsenow]

This is when your going to get your wish

Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

We see in II Peter 3:10,11 that the existence of this present earth age will be changed with the all physical elements (evil rudiments) done away with, at the "day of our Lord". Then in II Peter 3:12, at the end of the Millennium age, the evil souls are turned to ashes. This is called the "day of God".

II Peter 3:13 "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

This new heaven and new earth is a promise given by God to the earliest prophets, and we have seen throughout the Holy Scriptures that God does keep all his promises.

II Peter 3:14 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

On that rationale us Christians shouldn't have done anything for anyone, ever, because it will all be good in heaven. Don't worry about the sick and the poor and the widow and the orphan: don't worry about slavery, prostitution, street-work. Just live nice middle class Christian lives and wait for heaven. All those poor people probably brought it on themselves anyway. They probably deserved it. But there won't be poverty in heaven, so I'll just look forward to that!

James 2

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

[n2thelight]

On that rationale us Christians shouldn't have done anything for anyone, ever, because it will all be good in heaven. Don't worry about the sick and the poor and the widow and the orphan: don't worry about slavery, prostitution, street-work. Just live nice middle class Christian lives and wait for heaven. All those poor people probably brought it on themselves anyway. They probably deserved it. But there won't be poverty in heaven, so I'll just look forward to that!

James 2

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Kinda of think we were talking about this earth,I said nothing about the sick and the poor,of course we should help them.....

Like I said there's nothing you can do about what this EARTH does,and the fact remains God will not allow man to destroy it......

The earth can take care of itself,always has,always will............

 

[eclipsenow]

Kinda of think we were talking about this earth,I said nothing about the sick and the poor,of course we should help them.....

But not when it comes to helping Africa and Pacific Island nations survive the famines and floods of climate change?

Like I said there's nothing you can do about what this EARTH does,and the fact remains God will not allow man to destroy it......

Sorry, but God designed the laws of physics. You're going to have to back up that statement with a little data of some sort.

The earth can take care of itself,always has,always will............

Did the earth take care of itself when we sinned, and it started becoming harsher than previously, when we were protected from whatever natural destructive cycles are in it?
Did the earth take care of itself when we hunted down the last of the mammoths and other megafauna?
Did the earth take care of the dodo, the golden toad, the various species of Tiger that have already gone extinct, including the Tasmanian Tiger?
Did the earth stop us damming so many rivers that only about half the world's rivers actually reach the ocean?
Did the earth stop us over-fishing so that there is now a 90% drop in world fish stocks?
Did the earth stop us chopping down most of the forests, and who knows how many of those held ants or bugs with rare chemicals straight out of natures kitchen that held the cure for cancer, or some new super-glue, or who knows what?

I just don't see any basis for your assertion in science or theology. God rules over the laws of physics, and yet let's knives stab and guns kill with those very laws. We reap what we sow. Climate change is no different.

 

[n2thelight]

But not when it comes to helping Africa and Pacific Island nations survive the famines and floods of climate change?

The United States alone produces enough food to feed all the hungry and poor people in the whole world,why we chose not to ,can't answer that....

Sorry, but God designed the laws of physics. You're going to have to back up that statement with a little data of some sort.


Did the earth take care of itself when we sinned, and it started becoming harsher than previously, when we were protected from whatever natural destructive cycles are in it?
Did the earth take care of itself when we hunted down the last of the mammoths and other megafauna?
Did the earth take care of the dodo, the golden toad, the various species of Tiger that have already gone extinct, including the Tasmanian Tiger?
Did the earth stop us damming so many rivers that only about half the world's rivers actually reach the ocean?
Did the earth stop us over-fishing so that there is now a 90% drop in world fish stocks?
Did the earth stop us chopping down most of the forests, and who knows how many of those held ants or bugs with rare chemicals straight out of natures kitchen that held the cure for cancer, or some new super-glue, or who knows what?

I just don't see any basis for your assertion in science or theology. God rules over the laws of physics, and yet let's knives stab and guns kill with those very laws. We reap what we sow. Climate change is no different.

Our sins had nothing to do with the earth as you are suggesting,it started with the rebellion of satan,that's when God destroyed the earth the first time...That's when the earth became chaotic ie earthquakes floods tornadoes and such......

Don't know what to say about the rest of your post.....I do however know for a fact the earth will not be destroyed by man,as destructive as we are....

 

[eclipsenow]

Our sins had nothing to do with the earth as you are suggesting,it started with the rebellion of satan,that's when God destroyed the earth the first time...That's when the earth became chaotic ie earthquakes floods tornadoes and such......

Don't know what to say about the rest of your post.....I do however know for a fact the earth will not be destroyed by man,as destructive as we are....

Where does climate science say the whole earth will be destroyed by man? I think you're attacking a strawman.

 

[n2thelight]

Where does climate science say the whole earth will be destroyed by man? I think you're attacking a strawman.

Well what are you suggesting?As I asked earlier what's the bottom line?

You say global warming is caused by man,I say it's not,who's right,now let's hear from one of the leading climate scientist

Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Bogus’

Now free from the shackles of NASA censorship, Dr. Miskolczi is finally coming to the fore as a serious critic of the theory behind man-made global warming. He is gaining note for proving that the Earth has an in-built ‘safety mechanism’ that prevents runaway global warming from greenhouse gases.

The top Hungarian physicist, in fact, identified that the greenhouse effect upon which the whole man-made global warming theory is based, is probably bogus. The highly principled researcher discovered that the sum of all radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is equal to the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere. That in turn then is equal to the total gravitational potential energy.

In other words, the planet is most capable at keeping itself in a heat energy balance and is not vulnerable to so-called runaway warming. Thus, there is no ‘tipping point’ to fear from any atmospheric increase of a trace gas such as carbon dioxide.

NASA Gagging Policy: Climate Scientist Resigns over Controversy | johnosullivan

Like I said earlier,the earth can take care of itself.............

 

[eclipsenow]

Well what are you suggesting?As I asked earlier what's the bottom line?

The planet will not be destroyed by climate change, OK? Let's get that out of the way.

You say global warming is caused by man,I say it's not,who's right,now let's hear from one of the leading climate scientist
NASA Gagging Policy: Climate Scientist Resigns over Controversy | johnosullivan

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/...y-climate-scientist-resigns-over-controversy/
You'd like this to be true, wouldn't you? It suits your political presuppositions. But, sadly, it's not. The guy is a quack.

Ferenc Miskolczi - RCwiki

PDF response
Ferenc Miskolczi - RCwiki

When it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's not climate science, OK?

Like I said earlier,the earth can take care of itself.............

That's actually unbiblical. God put us here to tend the garden, didn't he?

 

[n2thelight]

The planet will not be destroyed by climate change, OK? Let's get that out of the way.

You'd like this to be true, wouldn't you? It suits your political presuppositions. But, sadly, it's not. The guy is a quack.

Ferenc Miskolczi - RCwiki

PDF response
Ferenc Miskolczi - RCwiki

When it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's not climate science, OK?


That's actually unbiblical. God put us here to tend the garden, didn't he?

So you agree with all that agree with you?Anyway I can find many more who don't,so I'll stay where I am...........Agree to disagree

 

[ShedSinforChrist]

So you agree with all that agree with you?Anyway I can find many more who don't,so I'll stay where I am...........Agree to disagree

The op drives a car most likely, has electricity in his home, and uses products that require fossil fuels to be acquired, then says we need to be concerned about climate change as a result of something he is in part of creating.

Nearly the most blatant hypocrisy Ive seen to date.

Im sure he will say he rides a bicycle, uses solar power (pollution from solar panel production is ridiculous anyways) grows his own food and uses animal fat for soap.

Why this is in the eschatology and end times forum when he doesn't believe Revelation to be a future event or any end time prophecies is beyond me.

Red flags all over the place.

 

[eclipsenow]

So you agree with all that agree with you?Anyway I can find many more who don't,so I'll stay where I am...........Agree to disagree

Joint national science academy statements

• 2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[27] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[28]
• 2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[29]
• 2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-pik-potsdam-30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[eclipsenow]

Australia's hottest year on record. Again.
Or is that, "Worldwide conspiracy convinces Australian temperature agencies that it was the hottest year on record - again. And the moon is made of cheese!"
Tony Abbott urged to rethink climate policy after hottest year on record | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[Interplanner]

Report from Weather Bell:

And though this cold spell will last just a few days as warmer air comes behind, it likely will freeze over the Great Lakes and other bodies of water, meaning frigid temperatures will likely last the rest of winter, said Ryan Maue, a meteorologist for Weather Bell.

quoted from Fox news today. This is mentioned in the 'north Atlantic cycle' in the LITTLE ICE AGE. The temp in Winnipeg Canada yesterday was colder than the sunny side of Mars. But Yellowknife BC is 20C below that.

So...why was HuffPo so agressive about NOT disclosing on any print or video report that the ship stuck in the Antarctic was studying global warming? Why don't they mention the net gain 2003-2012? Why was it suddenly a cruise to 'looking for historic sites in Antarctica'?