Global Warming

[USincognito]

The problem some HAVE shown the science to be wrong or at least non settled. What do you often hear about these folks? They are called climate deniers or not real scientists or whatever and are summarily dismissed. A few have even lost positions they held because of it. So yeah, it's toe the line or shut up or be called names and or have your name drug through the mud. Seems like a good way to get good data and information to me.

Name one.

 

[USincognito]

Actually that is completely false.

No it is not.

Data is data.

Data is plural.

How you collect the data can make a difference.How you interpret the data is something else entirely. Often the interpretation is where it's faulty because it's based upon preconceived ideas.

Sorry, but no. One cannot "interpret" a mountain to be 4,000 years old and formed by the Flood and expect that to be taken as seriously as the empirical observations showing the mountain to be 40,000,000 years old and the result of geological processes.

 

[USincognito]

There aren't a handful regardless of what you believe. See? If you believe your own statement, I wonder how you can actually believe in something like AGW.

I'm sorry, but is this some bizarrely stated version of, "I know you are, but what am I" because otherwise it's gibberish.

 

[JackRT]

I don't see how that is constructive guesswork. It is pretty plain, cut and dry to me. do you have an alternative interpretation?

Yes I do.

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights.

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes I do.

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights.

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

Are you sure it is possible to talk about "the" biblical cosmology? By the first century AD Palestine had been part of firstly the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire. It is difficult to believe that the cosmological ideas of first century Jewry would not have been influenced by contact with those cultures. Especially in the case of somebody who was highly educated by the standards of his time, such as St Paul.

 

[JackRT]

Are you sure it is possible to talk about "the" biblical cosmology? By the first century AD Palestine had been part of firstly the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire. It is difficult to believe that the cosmological ideas of first century Jewry would not have been influenced by contact with those cultures. Especially in the case of somebody who was highly educated by the standards of his time, such as St Paul.

The cosmology that I outlined was primarily from the Old Testament. It is certainly true that Greek and Roman influences were creeping in by the first century. Offhand, I can't think of anything in Paul that would suggest a flat earth but there are a few in the gospels.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Yes I do.

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights.

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

I missed the alternative theory. The earth is smooth (with mountains?)then the flood changed the smooth aspect of it...

What I got from your post is that the Hebrews were backwards But the literal interpretation I gave is correct even if you don't believe it to be true

Just to be clear though, I don't believe in a flat earth . We obviously disagree on inerrancy, but we certainly agree on that. You probably think I'm a fool... No point in arguing

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, are you suggesting that CO2 is not what is causing the warming? If so, may I ask what the current warming should be attributed to?

No, what I'm saying is that warming isn't a problem. It's part of God's plan.

Warming, whether AGW or non-on AGW, causes more frequent extreme meteorological events. What is being seen in recorded data since the beginning of the industrial revolution and paleo-data prior to that, is a rate of warming exceeding significantly any previous paleoclimate record, that is what the concern is with those events. There is quite a bit of published research demonstrating this, let me know if you would links to some of those papers for your review.


As a recognized modern science I'm not sure where to pin a date on it. Svante Arrhenius, published major research in 1896 on the effects of CO2, coming up with the first climate sensitivity with respect to CO2. Climate sensitivity with respect to CO2 is what would be expected for global average temperature to increase due to the doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Considering the science in general at that time his estimate was quite remarkable, 2 - 6 deg C for a doubling. Current science has that figure at 3 - 3.5 deg. C. Guy Callender in 1938, recognizing concerns for artificially produced carbon dioxide. Norman Phillips begin working with climate models in 1956, and there is much much more concerning climate change and its causes well before it became the political issue it is today. As a person who became quite familiar with the science back in the 1970s, it is quite troubling for me to see so many non-professional sources demeaning climate scientists and presenting misleading and misrepresented information, not intended for the scientific community, but the non-science public.

All I'm trying to point out is that human beings do not see everything as it really is. Everyone who reads the Bible reads it with a POV, everyone who does a job wants to keep that job going forever. Scientists, politicians, church ministers...government employees, everyone wants to point out their worth to an organization, so their biases stick out. What I'm saying is that global warming is not the end of the world, nor is global cooling. The climate of our planet fluctuates without human intervention. I never said we don't contribute to it, either. I'm saying we're not the primary reason for it, and I don't think the sky is falling.

But the origin of this post was to point out, given that we don't know what our effect on the climate is. Then it occurred to me that Algore said that the seas were going to rise, right about the same time he bought that property on the California coast. Based on what evidence? I believe there is more evidence, though not scientific, of a global flood than there is for a catastrophe from global warming.

 

[RickG]

Scientists, politicians, church ministers...government employees, everyone wants to point out their worth to an organization, so their biases stick out.

Yes, biases stick out, but which one are valid and which ones are not. All are nothing more than opinions with the exception of one, those of "scientists". In a letter sent today to the new EPA director, from the American Meteorological Society's, executive director, the following was stated.

"The world’s 7 billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause.” This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”
​

(Bold and underlined emphasis mine)

The scientists biases are based on facts and only facts.

What I'm saying is that global warming is not the end of the world, nor is global cooling. The climate of our planet fluctuates without human intervention. I never said we don't contribute to it, either. I'm saying we're not the primary reason for it, and I don't think the sky is falling.

I have absolutely no doubt that humans are the primary reason for the current warming trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution is primarily due fossil fuel consumption. Please recall that from an earlier post that I described those specific methods for determining that the increased amount of CO2 is from fossil fuels and not the natural carbon cycle. This is straight forward geochemical analysis of both the atmosphere, oceans, and other significant sources. Fossil fuel carbon isotope ratios are different from those occurring in the natural carbon cycle. Is the sky falling? That is the concern.

But the origin of this post was to point out, given that we don't know what our effect on the climate is.

But we do know. The earth is warming, sea level is rising, glaciers are melting, ocean acidification is taking place, agricultural areas are being affected with either too much or too little precipitation. There is limited space for agricultural areas and populations to move with over 7 billion human inhabitants. With the worlds population 2,000 years ago, no problem, with today's population, huge problem. Is it affecting us now? Somewhat, but what about our children and grandchildren. That's my biggest concern.

Then it occurred to me that Algore said that the seas were going to rise, right about the same time he bought that property on the California coast.

I don't get my science for Al Gore, or any political group or persuasion, right, left or in between. It comes strictly credible professional science sources.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, biases stick out, but which one are valid and which ones are not. All are nothing more than opinions with the exception of one, those of "scientists". In a letter sent today to the new EPA director, from the American Meteorological Society's, executive director, the following was stated.

"The world’s 7 billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause.” This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”
​

(Bold and underlined emphasis mine)

The scientists biases are based on facts and only facts.


I have absolutely no doubt that humans are the primary reason for the current warming trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution is primarily due fossil fuel consumption. Please recall that from an earlier post that I described those specific methods for determining that the increased amount of CO2 is from fossil fuels and not the natural carbon cycle. This is straight forward geochemical analysis of both the atmosphere, oceans, and other significant sources. Fossil fuel carbon isotope ratios are different from those occurring in the natural carbon cycle. Is the sky falling? That is the concern.


But we do know. The earth is warming, sea level is rising, glaciers are melting, ocean acidification is taking place, agricultural areas are being affected with either too much or too little precipitation. There is limited space for agricultural areas and populations to move with over 7 billion human inhabitants. With the worlds population 2,000 years ago, no problem, with today's population, huge problem. Is it affecting us now? Somewhat, but what about our children and grandchildren. That's my biggest concern.


I don't get my science for Al Gore, or any political group or persuasion, right, left or in between. It comes strictly credible professional science sources.

Well all that stuff happens when the climate changes. We humans have to adapt to it and with our knowledge and technology we have better ways than ever before to do just that. But we are NOT the primary cause and neither is CO2. There are other things at play here. The problem is humans are finding that by blaming us then we can control other people and poor nations can make a money grab at the wealthier ones. And by calling it catastrophic we can force things into happening now because we can scare people with it. Just take a look at Al Gore and his great money grabbing scheme using the catastrophic claim.
The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'?

Connect The Dots: Global Warming Statistics - New Analysis Confirms Widespread Fabrication of Fake Temperatures

 

[rjs330]

Name one.

I have in other posts on this subject. Go find it.

 

[USincognito]

I have in other posts on this subject. Go find it.

You don't assign me homework. If you cannot provide evidence supporting your claim, I can dismiss it.

Dismissed!

 

[Heissonear]

Name one.

You really do not understand. Just a wordsmith on a forum. The reality bypassed you.

 

[Heissonear]

You don't assign me homework. If you cannot provide evidence supporting your claim, I can dismiss it.

Dismissed!

Some rely on wordsmithing. Words.

They do not have an unbias education and common sense when investigating.

Leaning on what others say produces group thinking words production.

 

[Heissonear]

Well all that stuff happens when the climate changes. We humans have to adapt to it and with our knowledge and technology we have better ways than ever before to do just that. But we are NOT the primary cause and neither is CO2. There are other things at play here. The problem is humans are finding that by blaming us then we can control other people and poor nations can make a money grab at the wealthier ones. And by calling it catastrophic we can force things into happening now because we can scare people with it. Just take a look at Al Gore and his great money grabbing scheme using the catastrophic claim.
The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'?

Connect The Dots: Global Warming Statistics - New Analysis Confirms Widespread Fabrication of Fake Temperatures

The news is getting out that those who are Eco-Alarmists have a problem seeing the other point of view. Inability to see both sides fairly. They are bent in mind to be unable to see differently, at least until they examine themselves and find their fundamental faults.

I spare listing one link to a PhD person who findly came to their senses, because of the wrotten words combined in the testimony.

But the news is spreading. It has become apparent.

Some will continue to wake us to their avid Eco-Extremism and "It is worst than we thought", "97% of scientist agree", .................

A day awaits them to see the other side and fairly see both before them.

 

[RickG]

But we are NOT the primary cause and neither is CO2. There are other things at play here.

1. Carbon isotope ratios show that the increase from pre-industrial CO2 from 280 ppm to just over 400 ppm currently, contains a fossil fuel (AGW) signature. Straight forward geochemistry.

2. The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been well known for 150 years (Tyndall 1861) and the doubling effect for over 100 years (Arrhenius 1896). Straight forward physics.

If not from fossil fuels and increased CO2, then what shows this to be wrong and what climate forcings are responsible for a full GAT increase of 1 deg C?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, biases stick out, but which one are valid and which ones are not. All are nothing more than opinions with the exception of one, those of "scientists". In a letter sent today to the new EPA director, from the American Meteorological Society's, executive director, the following was stated.

"The world’s 7 billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause.” This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”
​

(Bold and underlined emphasis mine)

The scientists biases are based on facts and only facts.

Note that the sender of the letter was not a climatologist...just sayin'

I have absolutely no doubt that humans are the primary reason for the current warming trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution is primarily due fossil fuel consumption. Please recall that from an earlier post that I described those specific methods for determining that the increased amount of CO2 is from fossil fuels and not the natural carbon cycle. This is straight forward geochemical analysis of both the atmosphere, oceans, and other significant sources. Fossil fuel carbon isotope ratios are different from those occurring in the natural carbon cycle. Is the sky falling? That is the concern.


But we do know. The earth is warming, sea level is rising, glaciers are melting, ocean acidification is taking place, agricultural areas are being affected with either too much or too little precipitation. There is limited space for agricultural areas and populations to move with over 7 billion human inhabitants. With the worlds population 2,000 years ago, no problem, with today's population, huge problem. Is it affecting us now? Somewhat, but what about our children and grandchildren. That's my biggest concern.


I don't get my science for Al Gore, or any political group or persuasion, right, left or in between. It comes strictly credible professional science sources.

I don't get my science from them either, but their opinions are all over the place. Scientists, if this is a real problem, need to present the case to the General Public, and not let whacko's do the talking for them. Most of us don't read science journals, you know? But once again, I will hold to my point. I believe in God, the all-powerful One. Nothing I can do can overshadow what He has created. The End.

 

[USincognito]

You really do not understand. Just a wordsmith on a forum. The reality bypassed you.

Can't name one then? O.k.

 

[USincognito]

Some rely on wordsmithing. Words.

They do not have an unbias education and common sense when investigating.

Leaning on what others say produces group thinking words production.

Looks like you can't provide any evidence either. Also, you might want to stop with the flaming.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you sure it is possible to talk about "the" biblical cosmology? By the first century AD Palestine had been part of firstly the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire. It is difficult to believe that the cosmological ideas of first century Jewry would not have been influenced by contact with those cultures. Especially in the case of somebody who was highly educated by the standards of his time, such as St Paul.

I remember coming across an article on a Jewish website (can't remember the name unfortunately) that mentioned the debates within Judaism over this topic, namely there were some Jewish authorities who maintained that widely accepted views of the Greeks were unacceptable because they were Pagan, while others argued that they were true despite the origins. These were discussions supposedly happening in the Talmudic period from what I can remember.

The sphericity of the earth was no trouble for the Greeks, but both Jewish and Christian authorities seem to have been of mixed opinion on it; for example there is some debate on whether Augustine embraced the well accepted Greek model or believed in a flat earth; flat-earthism was accepted by some in the ancient Church; however by the Middle Ages the sphericity of the earth had become well established in Christian circles and taken for granted:

Flat Earth - Wikipedia
Flat Earth - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran