- This topic has 192 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 26 2009,16:24)
Hi t8Global warming is one of the biggest scams going on today.
Unfortunately people like one of our own “Al Gore” who is a huge leader in the movement is making millions off of his fraudulent Campaign.
The hypocrisy of the movement is amazing seeing how that most of the supporters want us to give up certain things while they do nothing to make a difference like selling their gas guzzlers or giving up eating meat so that we do not have to have so many cows farting in the air!
Amazing!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 27 2009,08:48) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 26 2009,16:24)
Hi t8Global warming is one of the biggest scams going on today.
Unfortunately people like one of our own “Al Gore” who is a huge leader in the movement is making millions off of his fraudulent Campaign.
The hypocrisy of the movement is amazing seeing how that most of the supporters want us to give up certain things while they do nothing to make a difference like selling their gas guzzlers or giving up eating meat so that we do not have to have so many cows farting in the air!
Amazing!
WJ
You can't be serious. You call Global warming a scam and what evidence do you have?You are quite the humourous
A UN report, written by a panel of senior scientists from around the world, says that the proof of climate change is 'unequivocal'. The report, 'Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis', the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
The report’s key conclusions are:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level.
It is 'very likely' that increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the rise in globally averaged temperatures since the middle of the 20th century. It is 'extremely unlikely' that this warming was due to natural climate variability alone.
During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1 300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.
The best estimates for projected global warming this century of a further rise in the global average temperature range from 1.8 to 4.0 °C by 2100 for different scenarios which do not assume that more action is taken to limit emissions. The full uncertainty range for the projected temperature increase this century is 1.1–6.4 °C.
Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimetres per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase due to man-made emissions, and the rate of increase has further accelerated. Current concentrations of CO2 and methane are the highest for at least 650 000 years.
Extreme weather events have increased and regional climate patterns are changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities.
Scientists have improved their ability to predict future climate change. Confidence in regional climate change projections has increased due to better models and more powerful computers. The temperature over land and at high northern latitudes will be higher than the global average. In the Arctic it could be on average 6 °C – and possibly as much as 8 °C — warmer by the end of this century than at the end of the 20th.Land Cover and Land Use Change
In addition to changes in the atmosphere’s composition, changes in the land surface can have important effects on climate. For example, a change in land use and cover can affect temperature by changing how much solar radiation the land reflects and absorbs. Processes such as deforestation, reforestation, desertification and urbanization often contribute to changes in climate (including temperature, wind and precipitation) in the places they occur. These effects may be significant regionally, but reduced when averaged over the entire globe.
Changes in land cover and land use can also affect the amount of carbon dioxide taken up (or sequestered) or released by the land surface. For more information, visit EPA’s Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry Site.
The content of this Web site focuses on global changes in climate from changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. For more information on the state of knowledge of land-use change on climate, see the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRPP)/Strategic Planning and the information on Land Use/Land Cover.
The last post came from
Hi
This is scary stuff,
The bible says
Revelation 16:8
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.
2nd Peter
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
The Day of the Lord
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Then in Malachi 4
The Day of the Lord
1“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 27 2009,10:06) Land Cover and Land Use Change In addition to changes in the atmosphere’s composition, changes in the land surface can have important effects on climate. For example, a change in land use and cover can affect temperature by changing how much solar radiation the land reflects and absorbs. Processes such as deforestation, reforestation, desertification and urbanization often contribute to changes in climate (including temperature, wind and precipitation) in the places they occur. These effects may be significant regionally, but reduced when averaged over the entire globe.
Changes in land cover and land use can also affect the amount of carbon dioxide taken up (or sequestered) or released by the land surface. For more information, visit EPA’s Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry Site.
The content of this Web site focuses on global changes in climate from changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. For more information on the state of knowledge of land-use change on climate, see the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRPP)/Strategic Planning and the information on Land Use/Land Cover.
In New Zealand we still have lots of trees and the climate doesn't appear to be getting warmer IMO.Israel have had success in changing their climate by planting trees, and now they export fruit. They are one of the few places who have reversed desertification.
Maybe we need more trees?
I think the folks on the East Coast in the USA are not buying into global warming right about now.
What happened to the global freezing that was being talked about around 15 years ago?
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 05 2010,08:52) Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.
Scientific dissent should be taught. However in practice that limits it to legitimate criticism of global warming, because while any theory should front up honestly to contradictory evidence, there has been no scientific contradiction of evolution by natural selection.It would seem to be true that those who are pressing to have their religious fantasy stories taught as science (why in schools? why not in universities?) also appear to be the ones who are misrepresenting science regarding climate change too.
Steven Weinberg again! These probably good people are made to do bad by nothing but their religions.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2010,15:46) Scientific dissent should be taught. However in practice that limits it to legitimate criticism of global warming, because while any theory should front up honestly to contradictory evidence, there has been no scientific contradiction of evolution by natural selection.
Ha ha. A perfect example of blind faith in action.Quote (t8 @ April 10 2010,01:41) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2010,15:46) Scientific dissent should be taught. However in practice that limits it to legitimate criticism of global warming, because while any theory should front up honestly to contradictory evidence, there has been no scientific contradiction of evolution by natural selection.
Ha ha. A perfect example of blind faith in action.
How so?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 10 2010,10:58) How so? Stuart
The fact that you even said that reinforces my comment.Source: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs….-part-1
A common theme in science fiction involves a highly advanced society in which people no longer understand the basis of science and technology. In such societies science is often just a series of beliefs that are to be accepted without question like in a religion.
The Star Trek episode “Spock's Brain” dealt with a society in which the people had little understanding of anything, even though the women lived in a climate controlled environment underground with sophisticated technology that required Mr. Spock's brain to operate. Installing Spock's brain had required one of the women to put on a machine that temporarily provided her with the knowledge to accomplish the task. After completing the task she forgot everything.
“For the World Is Hollow…” was another such episode with a priestess in charge of the knowledge taking orders from a machine viewed as a god.
Is our society moving in that direction? Is science on our planet becoming just another religion possibly a primitive religion based on a wizard's magic?
Some people who call themselves scientists claim that slight changes in the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) can affect the temperature of the entire atmosphere.even though CO2 comprises less than 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. That sounds more like magic rather science. That's not the tail wagging the dog. That's a few hairs on the tail wagging the dog. The earth's land and water is the dog and the atmosphere is it's tail.
If the claim by the priests of global warming that what they are doing is accepted practice by modern science, then science has become nothing more than a form of religion. It is based on acceptance of beliefs by faith rather than rigorous examination of physical reality through experimentation and observation.
Real science used to be based on verification through experimentation and observation. Global Warming “science” is based on acceptance of long disproved 19th Century beliefs.
French polymath Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that greenhouses were heated by trapping infrared radiation (IR) in the early 19th Century. He then suggested that the atmosphere was heated by gas molecules such as carbon dioxide and water vapor absorbing IR. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html#text http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Physicist R.W. Wood tested this hypothesis in 1909 with an experiment involving identical greenhouses and demonstrated that the greenhouse that trapped IR was the same temperature as one that didn't trap IR. The experiment disproved Fourier's theory.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.htmlGlobal warming believers rely on consensus which is a political concept not a scientific one. Real scientists rely on facts and will abandon a theory when evidence contradicts the theory. During the 19th Century the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and could not be further divided. They abandoned that consensus when Sir J.J. Thomson demonstrated the existence of the electron and suggested the existence of two other charged particles he called “protons” and “neutrons”.
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=50A more recent consensus involved a belief that the human brain stopped developing new cells. Research over the last few decades has demonstrated that the human brain continues to produce new brain cells through it's life.
Real science is mathematically rigorous. Global Warming “science” is mathematically ridiculous. The only evidence for what they call global warming is something called an average global temperature.
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, etc. which make up the climate.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm http://www.fys.ku.dk/%7Eandresen/BAhome/welcome.html
In real science, including the social sciences, averages went out with slide rules. Averages cover up too much information. For example, the numbers “0” and “100” have the same average as the numbers “20” and “80” but if those temperatures represent temperature ranges for different areas, those areas would have different climates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule
Quote (t8 @ April 12 2010,13:56) Quote (Stu @ April 10 2010,10:58) How so? Stuart
The fact that you even said that reinforces my comment.
Are you speaking in tongues, t8? Strange that I can understand each individual word, if not how they relate to what went before.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 12 2010,14:00) Is science on our planet becoming just another religion possibly a primitive religion based on a wizard's magic?
Not if your post is anything to go by: it would describe the fantasy world of the global warming denier, which would appear to include logical fallacies like that which suggests that because 19th century physicists did not have a complete picture of the atom, therefore scientists are wrong about global warming.Stuart
This is not an argument for or against evidence, but I think it relevant following t8's post above.
From the Holy Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Public_sector
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue” and “challenge the science” by “recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.”In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes “back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain”, but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.
In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former lobbyist and “climate team leader” at the American Petroleum Institute, had “repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.” Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney “edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'” Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying “You are doing a great job.” Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke, but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.
Speaking of those who base their lives on “a series of beliefs that are to be accepted without question like in a religion”, by believing in a religion, maybe the religious here should be considering signing up with one of these:
http://christiansandclimate.org/home/
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/whatwedo/issues/climate_change.aspx
http://www.cws.org.nz/take-action/climate-change
http://www.operationnoah.org/
http://www.tearfund.org/Campaig….nge.htmShould you repent of your climate change sins?
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9825Stuart
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
