Global Warming

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories. We live, it seems, in the age of conspiracy theories. Or maybe I am ignorant of history and there is nothing unique to this day and age about the phenomenon.

Anyway, one of my favorites is the one that says that global warming is some bogeyman invented by liberal academia for profit and professional advancement and by liberal "tree huggers" for political gain. The public is being fooled, the conspiracy theorists seem to say, by sensationalism, extremism and bad science. Entire websites are devoted to exposing the "myth" of global warming.

I guess you know a conspiracy theory by its lack of concrete evidence. Or did I miss the discovery of the secret memo or the minutes from the secret strategy meeting? Did I miss the smoking gun? Have they found Green Peace or the Harvard University biology department plotting to mislead the public with a nice newly concocted theory? You know...like the memos and stuff inside the cigarette manufacturers that showed they knew a long time ago that their product was deadly and that they had added stuff to cigarettes to make them addictive.

Sorry, but the movie The Day After Tommorow isn't proof of a leftist conspiracy. Actually, I thought the film was interesting and educational. You'll have to do better than that, you conspiracy theorists. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun.

Well, the way I undersand it, global warming has been a theory that has gradually developed since the 1950s. Not exactly something plotted and choreographed out of nowhere to deceive the public.

Meanwhile, when they aren't busy crafting baseless (Baseless as far as I can tell. Or have I missed the truth because the "liberal press" has supressed it?) theories about conspiring scientists and environmentalists, the critics are saying "Yeah, the Earth's climate is changing, but it's due to natural processes, not human activity".

Then, complicating matters, President Bush and his administration officials have pretty much conceded that climate change is happening. But rather than pushing for policy that will combat the climate change, such as developing alternatives to fossil fuels, the administration seems to be saying "We may as well prepare to live with it". Since there's going to be more war and famine, they seem to be saying, the U.S. had better prepare to defend itself more. They seem to concede that human activity has in fact caused climate change.

A hoax? Bad science? Sound science, but no reason to change? I'm confused.

Can anybody clear things up for me?

 

[Justin Horne]

If you like conspiracy theories over global warming, read State of Fear, Michael Crichton.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

...my favorite part of the thinking of the conspiracy theorists.

Global warming would be a good thing, they say. How? By turning places like Minneapolis, MN into the tropics.

Hmm. I happen to dread hot climates, so telling me that driving a gas guzzler will help turn Minnesota into another Florida doesn't make me want Congress to do away with the EPA.

But this forum is about science, not politics or personal taste for climate. Getting back to the science: Isn't that "benefit" of global warming a very ignorant, uninformed thing to say?

I suspect that global warming wouldn't necessarily give Minnesota the climate of Florida--it may instead make Minnesota like the Sahara or something. I'm not an Earth scientist, so I don't know.

But let's assume that due to human activity Minnesota does become the new Sunshine State. Is that necessarily good? It seems to me that life and its home, the Earth, exist in a delicate balance. It is a self-regulating system, as I understand it. A toronado here offsets something else there, equilibrium is maintained, and the Earth continues to be habitable for life. The smallest variation, it seems to me, from within the system or from outside of the system (Extraterrestrial impact from an asteroid would be an example of a variation from outside the system) could wipe out certain species or make all life on Earth impossible. Aren't the global warming critics with their silly dreams of sunny Minnesota failing to appreciate that balance and self-regulating system?

I don't know. I could be completely off base. I'm a social sciences and humanities guy, not a hard sciences guy, so I likely may not know what I am talking about here. That's why I'm asking for some input. Other people here obviously know the hard sciences far more than I do.

Justin, thank you for the suggestion. I've already started checking out reviews of State of Fear. I understand that Crichton includes a bibliography at the end (a bibliography in a novel?! Is that a first?). If nothing else, it would be a good guide to the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Justin Horne]

Justin, thank you for the suggestion. I've already started checking out reviews of State of Fear. I understand that Crichton includes a bibliography at the end (a bibliography in a novel?! Is that a first?). If nothing else, it would be a good guide to the conspiracy theorists.

One of the first things he says in the book is that events and organizations are fake, but references in footnotes to anything are all real.
I just checked for you, the bibliography is exactly 20 pages, put after his own 'things I think', which end with "Everybody has an agenda. Except me."
Then, he has an essay, "Why politicized science is dangerous."
Then the biblio.

I noticed after I read the books the average BN rating is like 2/5... But if you read the reasons why, it's all because they claim he manipulated the warming data, etc, which ironicly, was likely the point of the book, and certainly a huge part in the actual book itself.


I liked it.

 

[Justin Horne]

One reviewer have the following for his/her one star review:
"the plot had potential, but was done in such a kindergarten fashion, I was amazed this was a Crichton book. And some of the really stupid errors -- such as I-5 being the road to Arizona (even if you aren't from California -- odd freeways go N/S even go E/W) and that the [MY EDIT SINCE YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK] 'up to Pismo Beach from San Francisco', where Pismo Beach is well south of SF. Terribly amazing how the characters traveled the world, escaping near death at each turn. Wow. Don't waste your money on this loser."


So, yeah....

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Sorry, but the movie The Day After Tommorow isn't proof of a leftist conspiracy. Actually, I thought the film was interesting and educational. You'll have to do better than that, you conspiracy theorists. I'm still waiting for the smoking gun.

No, it isn't... What it is proof of is that the general public has no understanding of science. I'll point out three simple science errors and you tell me if you think the movie is worthy of being used as a means to educate yourself about science.

1. When you compress air, or any gas, it heats up. You can't bring air from the upper atmosphere down to sea level and expect it to stay cold. It would heat up significantly.

2. The huge wave that hits NYC... storm surges from hurricanes aren't like tidal waves. They rise slowly as the wind pushes the water up on land.

3. The super storm that supposedly led to this huge wave. The position of the storm would have led to winds blowing in the opposite direction. In other words, the wind would blow the water away from NYC, not towards it.


Educate yourself about science and then make a judgement, but don't educate yourself using Hollywood disaster flicks.

 

[Yamialpha]

Well, despite the conspiracy theories, the general public seems to accept that global warming is a reality. The main problem is that they don't seem to take it seriously or understand the implications of the problem. Either way you're stuck with the fact that you're going to have to educate the public about global warming and what it could lead to.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

...What it is proof of is that the general public has no understanding of science. I'll point out three simple science errors and you tell me if you think the movie is worthy of being used as a means to educate yourself about science.

1. When you compress air, or any gas, it heats up. You can't bring air from the upper atmosphere down to sea level and expect it to stay cold. It would heat up significantly.

2. The huge wave that hits NYC... storm surges from hurricanes aren't like tidal waves. They rise slowly as the wind pushes the water up on land.

3. The super storm that supposedly led to this huge wave. The position of the storm would have led to winds blowing in the opposite direction. In other words, the wind would blow the water away from NYC, not towards it.


Educate yourself about science and then make a judgement, but don't educate yourself using Hollywood disaster flicks.

Imagine someone who for some reason has never heard of New York City. Maybe his parents locked him up in their home when he was a child and shielded him from all outside information. Maybe he then ran away and lived as a hermit in the woods. If he were to see The Day After Tommorow, he would learn something new. He would learn that there is a New York City.

Similarly, the film taught me some things. Like the opening scene where they are drilling cores. "So that's how they do it", I was probably thinking. Then there was the scene where he is (I forget the characters' names) putting his cores in a walk-in freezer back home at the Oceonographic Institute in D.C. Suddenly, I'm connecting the dots. "Okay, he analyzes the cores and then plugs numbers into his laptop. Then the software processes those numbers through some scientific model and reconstructs past geologic events (he was a paleoclimatologist, if I'm remembering the word correctly)".

I didn't even know there was such a thing as paleoclimatology. And I never would have guessed that my tax dollars pay for paleoclimatology research. Clearly, I learned a lot of things from the film.

I'm sure that if we wanted to get nitpicky we could find all kinds of faulty physics and chemistry in Star Trek, Star Wars, The Abyss, etc. But nobody cries "Conspiracy!" over those less than exact sci-fi films.

In fact, though I am not an English PhD., I think it is safe to say that people don't read and watch sci-fi for the science. People read and watch sci-fi for the themes about mankind and the human condition. The same thing they read and watch other genres for. So, if we are going to criticize and evaluate The Day After Tommorow, I assert that science is not the relevant criteria to be using.

Indeed, it was the political undertones, not scientific inaccuracies, that irked the conservative pundits whose commentaries I read. They, like most viewers (including me ) , probably weren't even paying attention to the science.

I'll be honest, I don't turn to fiction for education in the details of hard science (or even social science). What I, and probably most people, get from the fictional works is a greater understanding and appreciation of the role of science, techology and the scientific community in society and in the human condition. There, I give The Day After Tommorow 5 stars (or are stars just for books? How do you rate movies? )

Believe me, I'd love to be able to get an undergraduate degree in Physics, with a minor in Biology to go with it. Alas, the mathematical and hard sciences are not my aptitude. I guess if I was rich I could do it for fun, never mind if I'm no good at it or make bad grades. Most of us don't have that luxury, however.

And while most of us don't have that luxury, I think it is safe to say that most of us don't believe everything we read or hear under the banner of "science". So, when you've got a million university faculty members and think tank staffers telling you a million different things, you certainly aren't going to suddenly trust a Hollywood film as being the gospel truth.

Yeah, Crichton is onto something. Science can be abused. That's why I'd like some help here discerning the truth about this controversy called "Global Warming". One isolated Hollywood film that's got the physics and chemistry all wrong doesn't constitute abuse of science. If that film was, say, part of a campaign to deceive the public and influence policy, then yeah, it is abuse of science. But I have yet to see the secret memos or tapes uncovering such a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, since the science in the film was, like you say, mostly unreal (except for the things I learned; they certainly made it worth the $7.00 admission and the $5.00 cup of Mountain Dew), it didn't answer the question as the whether the science being done in real life is a hoax, bad, or sound but no reason to change.

Whatever the status of the science behind global warming may be, we don't seem to appreciate the delicate, self-regulating natural system that makes life possible. That is my own science ( or am I fooling myself and it is really just philosophy?), not something from Hollywood. It is my own conclusions from my limited formal and informal scientific education. If you want to pick apart the latter philosophy...er...science, then by all means. You will be helping me a great deal. As for picking apart science in the movies that I like...I hope you don't think I am so ignorant and naive as to need the input.

But, with respect to the movie, if somebody can connect some dots that I've missed--like showing how it is in fact part of some leftist conspiracy--then this discussion will be more productive than I ever could have hoped for. Or, if somebody can settle it once an for all and show that the movie had nothing to do with any plot to deceive the public, then I may hire him/her as an expert witness for my case against the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Yamialpha]

What exact conspiracy theory have you heard about?

 

[chilehed]

I don't know what this thread is morphing into, but as for "global warming", if you mean that global temperatures fluctuate and the sometimes get significantly warmer than average for an extended period of time, that's a no-brainer.

If you mean that WE are responsible for it, there's absolutely no conclusive evidence for that, and I'd go so far as to say there's not even any good evidence for it.

One thing I think is funny is that the same kind of folks who are up in arms about it were hysterical about global cooling about 25 years ago.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

For the purposes of my posts in this thread, "global warming" refers to the theory that says that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels and the generation of "greenhouse gases", is changing the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and will lead to global changes in climate, weather, ocean levels and terrestrial features.

What exact conspiracy theory have you heard about?

I am unable to furnish direct quotes, references or links--I'm just going by memory and by the impressions I've gotten as I have followed the controversy.

Maybe contrasting something will help. Plate Tectonics theory. If I recall correctly, Plate Tectonics was first proposed in the 1960s. I don't know what the reception was then, but these days the only place you will hear about Plate Tectonics is in academic mediums. You won't hear Rush Limbaugh on his radio show telling listeners that Plate Tectonics is some theory that has been concocted by the left as an excuse for bigger government. You won't read an Earth Day column by Thomas Sowell or Cal Thomas calling global warming a myth that is being used to weaken the U.S. economically and undermine free enterprise. In other words, nobody is portraying Plate Tectonics as part of some conspiracy by the left.

However, those and similar commentaries have been made about global warming theory. I remember right before The Day After Tommorow was released that conservative commentators were calling the film leftist propaganda. In fact, that's mostly what motivated me to see the film. I don't go to the movie theater very often--once every 4 years maybe. But when I heard that anti-environmentalism conservatives were irked about the film, I had to go see it. Other than Darwinian evolutionary theory, has any body of scientific knowledge and the prevailing theory explaining that knowledge been more politicized than global warming?

It is, as I perceive it, only people in the United States who are resisting global warming theory. Nearly every other country, especially the so-called less developed countries, support changes in trade regulations, consumption habits and lifestyle to combat climate change. Critics, therefore, seem to be theorizing that global warming is a hoax that is spreading because of its potential to undermine U.S. economic and political power and U.S. hegemony. If such thinking is not a conspiracy theory, then what is?

I don't know what this thread is morphing into...If you mean that WE are responsible for it, there's absolutely no conclusive evidence for that, and I'd go so far as to say there's not even any good evidence for it.

That's exactly what I want everybody's thoughts on.

We've got one vote for "There is no scientific evidence for climate change caused by humans".

You all know more about it than me (the science, anyway; I have worn out the political aspect). What, then, does the evidence say about human activity?

One thing I think is funny is that the same kind of folks who are up in arms about it were hysterical about global cooling about 25 years ago.

Global cooling is in fashion again. I don't know about the physicists, chemists, meteorolgists or geologists behind the scenes, but the politicians and political analysts are talking about how global cooling may be what ultimately unfolds. I don't think that political people with no training in science could have come up with such an idea. So, somewhere in the scientific community it must be in fashion again.

 

[linssue55]

The only one that will destroy this earth is the Lord, in the book of Rev......so until then, don't worry about it, the Lord will continue to provide this earth for us to live on.............

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

...the plot of the conspiracy theory, that is.

The only one that will destroy this earth is the Lord, in the book of Rev......so until then, don't worry about it, the Lord will continue to provide this earth for us to live on.............

Where has anybody who has predicted climate change caused by human activity said that the Earth will be destroyed?

Where in scientific investigation does one find "worry"? I don't recall any scienctific work ever being done to see if people should worry or not. It's when people leave the lab and wear their lab coats to a press conference that "worry" enters the picture--when it becomes fair game for politicizing.

When I read the findings, predictions and theories of scientists investigating climate change, I read empirical statements. It's, "The warm season will be longer each year. Therefore, disease-carrying insects will be around for more months each year. Therefore, there will be more epidemics." Period. It's not, "Oh, my gosh! You people should be worried!".

If they are wrong, show me how they are wrong. You know...something like, "Yeah, but the birds won't migrate as soon. With the birds around longer to eat the insects, the insects' opportunities to infect humans with viruses and bacteria will stay statistically the same. Therefore, there won't be more epidemics."

Scientific inquiry is supposed to be values-free (I know that philosophers have demonstrated that science isn't necessarily values-free, but that's another thread--the philosophy forum, or something). Science isn't to find what we like, what we believe, what we want or what we prefer. Science is to find the way things are regardless of how we feel about it or rank it in our values and tastes. Propositions about the physical world get tested repeatedly to prove that, in spite of what we are inclined to think, and in spite of what we would prefer, they are or are not true. After surviving being peer reviewed, and then peer reviewed some more, a proposition is accepted as true.

It is my understanding that global warming theory has been through that repeated testing and peer reviewing. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe, however, that global warming theory is something that was plotted and choreographed to mislead the public and advance certain political causes.

And while they are at it, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that those who are predicting climate change are trying to get the public to worry. After all, Crichton's commentary on the marriage between science and environmentalism is titled State of Fear.

Meanwhile, I don't think that anybody who is predicting climate change caused by humans has said that the Earth will be "destroyed" and that we must "save" the Earth. The Earth and the life that inhabit it will simply go through a lot of adjustments and not look the same. The "destroy" and "save" strike me as more of the emotional word games of those who are politicizing the predictions.

I'm not afraid or worried. It will take more than pushing the right emotional buttons to get me to accept a scientific theory. What does motivate me is moral duty. You know...if driving my car to the store down the street that I could just as easily walk to is going to contribute to climate change and consequently contribute to epidemics, famine and global instability, then a case could be made that as a rational moral agent--and as a follower of Christ--I have the duty to leave that car parked.

If people want to make the case that I don't have that moral duty, there's plenty of other forums and threads for that. What I want to know is: What does empirical science really know about the relationship between human activity and climate change? In other words, help me separate the conspiracy theories from the extensively peer reviewed scientific findings.

 

[linssue55]

...the plot of the conspiracy theory, that is.



Where has anybody who has predicted climate change caused by human activity said that the Earth will be destroyed?

Where in scientific investigation does one find "worry"? I don't recall any scienctific work ever being done to see if people should worry or not. It's when people leave the lab and wear their lab coats to a press conference that "worry" enters the picture--when it becomes fair game for politicizing.

When I read the findings, predictions and theories of scientists investigating climate change, I read empirical statements. It's, "The warm season will be longer each year. Therefore, disease-carrying insects will be around for more months each year. Therefore, there will be more epidemics." Period. It's not, "Oh, my gosh! You people should be worried!".

If they are wrong, show me how they are wrong. You know...something like, "Yeah, but the birds won't migrate as soon. With the birds around longer to eat the insects, the insects' opportunities to infect humans with viruses and bacteria will stay statistically the same. Therefore, there won't be more epidemics."

Scientific inquiry is supposed to be values-free (I know that philosophers have demonstrated that science isn't necessarily values-free, but that's another thread--the philosophy forum, or something). Science isn't to find what we like, what we believe, what we want or what we prefer. Science is to find the way things are regardless of how we feel about it or rank it in our values and tastes. Propositions about the physical world get tested repeatedly to prove that, in spite of what we are inclined to think, and in spite of what we would prefer, they are or are not true. After surviving being peer reviewed, and then peer reviewed some more, a proposition is accepted as true.

It is my understanding that global warming theory has been through that repeated testing and peer reviewing. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe, however, that global warming theory is something that was plotted and choreographed to mislead the public and advance certain political causes.

And while they are at it, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that those who are predicting climate change are trying to get the public to worry. After all, Crichton's commentary on the marriage between science and environmentalism is titled State of Fear.

Meanwhile, I don't think that anybody who is predicting climate change caused by humans has said that the Earth will be "destroyed" and that we must "save" the Earth. The Earth and the life that inhabit it will simply go through a lot of adjustments and not look the same. The "destroy" and "save" strike me as more of the emotional word games of those who are politicizing the predictions.

I'm not afraid or worried. It will take more than pushing the right emotional buttons to get me to accept a scientific theory. What does motivate me is moral duty. You know...if driving my car to the store down the street that I could just as easily walk to is going to contribute to climate change and consequently contribute to epidemics, famine and global instability, then a case could be made that as a rational moral agent--and as a follower of Christ--I have the duty to leave that car parked.

If people want to make the case that I don't have that moral duty, there's plenty of other forums and threads for that. What I want to know is: What does empirical science really know about the relationship between human activity and climate change? In other words, help me separate the conspiracy theories from the extensively peer reviewed scientific findings.

Morally or scientifically I do not worry about it or even give it much thought. It doesn't interest me enough to even think about for any more than 5 seconds. Leave your car parked, God is control of history....science as far is this goes is speculations at best....I don't listen to conspiracy theories, because that is just what they are.

That is why I said God will handle anything that could or would happen to this planet.....there are bonified scientific findings but this is not one of them, what maybe a degree or two higher in temp? Big deal....speculation....that is why I do not worry...God has a handle on all that happens here on earth and beyond, and God doesn't condone in this type of science so why should I? I claim God promises, and don't listen to mans findings, true or false if it goes against God knowledge of how God runs the universe.

 

[Yamialpha]

For the purposes of my posts in this thread, "global warming" refers to the theory that says that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels and the generation of "greenhouse gases", is changing the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and will lead to global changes in climate, weather, ocean levels and terrestrial features.

Actually I was referring to what conspiracy theory you've heard that goes against global warming-not global warming itself.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

We've got one vote for "There is no scientific evidence for climate change caused by humans"...What, then, does the evidence say about human activity?

In other words, what evidence or proof is there that human activity does not contribute to climate change?

...God is control of history....science as far is this goes is speculations at best...

How is research on climate change any different from any other scientific research? I'm still waiting for the evidence that shows that the science behind global warming theory is not as reliable as other findings. Some extremely vocal public figures are telling us not only that it is unreliable, but that it is a politically motivated hoax. Where is the evidence for any of this? I'm sorry, but one hollywood film full of erroneous physics and chemistry doesn't even begin to prove that any findings concerning climate change caused by humans is false.

We arrange our lives around most science. If meteorologists forecast rain for tommorow, we plan accordingly. If toxicologists say that the poison that the wife put in the husband's breakfast drink is what killed the husband, we convict the wife of murder. If archaeologists find a Biblical artifact in a strata below another Biblical artifact, we say that the chronology of the Bible is confirmed. We can't then just make a wholesale dismissal of the findings when the same methods are applied to studying the relationship between human activity and climate change. Unless, of course, the same methods aren't really being applied--unless the work is, like critics say, either not very good science or a plain old hoax.

I'm still waiting for the proof one way or the other.

That is why I said God will handle anything that could or would happen to this planet.....there are bonified scientific findings but this is not one of them, what maybe a degree or two higher in temp? Big deal....speculation....

Again, why is climate change speculation but not daily weather forecasts? Or are you saying that daily weather forecasts are speculation as well? Either way, we rearrange our lives around the weather forecast. But people are refusing to rearrange their lives around the predictions of global warming theory. What is the difference?

God has a handle on all that happens here on earth and beyond, and God doesn't condone in this type of science so why should I?...I claim God promises, and don't listen to mans findings, true or false if it goes against God knowledge of how God runs the universe.

We don't seem to think that the findings of meteorologists predicting next week's weather or forensic anthropologists identifying skeletal remains "goes against God knowledge of how God runs the universe". In fact, we make decisions based on the work of the latter. We plan yard sales and church picnics around it. We convict accused criminals with it. Why then do we suddenly not utilize the same work when it comes in the form of analyzing the relationship between human activity and climate change? Why the inconsistency?

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence to justify the inconsistency.

Actually I was referring to what conspiracy theory you've heard that goes against global warming-not global warming itself.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I thought I spelled it out already. The conspiracy theory is that global warming theory is a hoax. It is coming from various sources, mostly from the political right and from the U.S.

 

[Yamialpha]

Well to be honest I'd wager those who say global warming is a hoax or that it would be beneficial to the environment are just attempting to make excuses for the fact that mankind needs to clean up their act, although like you I'm interesting to see what empirical evidence they have that proves it is beneficial or just a hoax.

 

[linssue55]

In other words, what evidence or proof is there that human activity does not contribute to climate change?



How is research on climate change any different from any other scientific research? I'm still waiting for the evidence that shows that the science behind global warming theory is not as reliable as other findings. Some extremely vocal public figures are telling us not only that it is unreliable, but that it is a politically motivated hoax. Where is the evidence for any of this? I'm sorry, but one hollywood film full of erroneous physics and chemistry doesn't even begin to prove that any findings concerning climate change caused by humans is false.

We arrange our lives around most science. If meteorologists forecast rain for tommorow, we plan accordingly. If toxicologists say that the poison that the wife put in the husband's breakfast drink is what killed the husband, we convict the wife of murder. If archaeologists find a Biblical artifact in a strata below another Biblical artifact, we say that the chronology of the Bible is confirmed. We can't then just make a wholesale dismissal of the findings when the same methods are applied to studying the relationship between human activity and climate change. Unless, of course, the same methods aren't really being applied--unless the work is, like critics say, either not very good science or a plain old hoax.

I'm still waiting for the proof one way or the other.



Again, why is climate change speculation but not daily weather forecasts? Or are you saying that daily weather forecasts are speculation as well? Either way, we rearrange our lives around the weather forecast. But people are refusing to rearrange their lives around the predictions of global warming theory. What is the difference?



We don't seem to think that the findings of meteorologists predicting next weeks weather or forensic anthropologists identifying skeletal remains "goes against God knowledge of how God runs the universe". In fact, we make decisions based on the work of the latter. We plan picinics around it and we convict accused criminals with it. Why then do we suddenly not utilize the same work when it comes in the form of analyzing the relationship between human activity and climate change? Why the inconsistency?

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence to justify the inconsistency.



I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I thought I spelled it out already. The conspiracy theory is that global warming theory is a hoax. It is coming from various sources, mostly from the political right and from the U.S.

What I am saying true or not it does not matter.........We are going to BE on this earth until the Lord decides otherwise and that won't happen at least until after the millenium. Don't you see...IT DOES NOT MATTER, TRUE OR FALSE, RIGHT OR WRONG, SCIENTIFIC PROOF OR NOT...GOD CONTROLS HISTORY....this is insignificant to me because I claim the promises of GOD, I live for the promises of God, NOT what people or science may say or prove. God says "do not live in the world, live in the light of eternity". This is all I have to say on the subject.

 

[one love]

In other words, what evidence or proof is there that human activity does not contribute to climate change?

There is almost none, but to what extent does man effect the climate? Probably 0.00001% out of 100%. Just a small factor and nothing to worry about.

 

[Yamialpha]

What I am saying true or not it does not matter.........We are going to BE on this earth until the Lord decides otherwise and that won't happen at least until after the millenium. Don't you see...IT DOES NOT MATTER, TRUE OR FALSE, RIGHT OR WRONG, SCIENTIFIC PROOF OR NOT...GOD CONTROLS HISTORY....this is insignificant to me because I claim the promises of GOD, I live for the promises of God, NOT what people or science may say or prove. God says "do not live in the world, live in the light of eternity". This is all I have to say on the subject.

We don't, however, know when He will take us off of this planet. The Earth could be in a great state when he removes it or it could be a desolate planet with just a few colonies of humans. We simply don't know. It seems wise to therefore attempt to conserve our planet and prevent things such as global warming so that any possible future generations will have something to inhabit.