- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2009,12:50) Quote (princess of the king @ Dec. 07 2009,02:01) hey stuart, you tree hugger you your concerns for the earth are very heartfelt, this thought has been on my mind for a bit, maybe it was for you, take a sabbath, it could change the world.
take care stuart
Hey Stu.How about reaching out and hugging a person once in a while?
No point in loving the earth and not the people that dwell on it.
Where is this sudden glow of heartfelt warmth for your fellow humans come from? Are you scared your fundamentalism might look at bit callous with all the kingdom of God is not of this world and the Church is not like any worldly organisation and Eternal death is eternal destruction. This is the fate of the wicked. They shall never have life after the judgement and The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness and Idealism is one of the most deceptive and destructive disguises of the religious spirit. Idealism is of human origin, and a form of humanism. in which you indulge?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 06 2009,17:45) I think everyone cares to different degrees, but there are many problems in this world and each person certainly cannot concentrate on them all. Often what some people do is choose a problem and get in behind it. Some people are involved in spreading the gospel, others provide food banks, still others provide vaccines, and some make saving the planet their concern, and the list goes on. I saw a documentary on Ethiopia once and they talked about seasonal droughts and one criticism (from the US) laid at the foot of the Ethiopian government was that they were not stock piling resources for famine and were just living for the day and in the event of famine would just rely on foreign aid when the time came.
It does say in scripture that if you do not work, you do not eat. Sure that doesn't mean that all Ethiopians are lazy and deserve this, but there is a case to be made that we can all help ourselves if we try and even if we live in a land of sever famines.
Look at Australia. They have serious droughts at times and it is one of the most prosperous nations on earth. Their standard of living is very high and much of the country lacks basic fresh water and they suffer from some ghastly natural disasters too.
Still, in all this there is a place for charity and we should care, but we should also be wise enough to store provision for the bad times. I believe that anyone can do this if they try and sometimes education is the best gift you can give. Of course if you are hungry, learning is not the immediate answer, food is.
As for giving, there are a number of reputable charities that we can give to and if we target hunger ourselves, we can invent all kinds of ways of helping those in need.
Also, as far as your comment saying that only one person cared enough to respond, I think I need to remind you that there are currently 163849 posts and 2121 topics. I doubt that I have partly read more than 400 topics and of those I may have read a fraction of the posts that they contain. So given that, many just wouldn't have even seen this topic, especially considering that you posted in the “Skeptics Place” category.
But now that we are on the topic, what are you going to do about it? And feel free to get others here to back your proposal if you have one.
Well, that was a pretty well thought out reply I think, and a lot of good points that don't merit too much argument. It's certainly true people act in different ways and focus in different areas, with good reason. It's also true there are many posts and topics here (one reason to bump this one), and this isn't as keenly watched perhaps as the believers area – but of course this isn't really a directly religious or belief based matter (not of the variety that would belong in that section of the site anyway).With respect to Africa, it isn't just climate change that is responsible for their problems – but nonetheless I believe the more prosperous and developed world should take responsibility for their portion of the problems they have caused. If that means drought frequency changed from 1 in 10 to 1 in 3, that's quite fundamental.
I don't dispute that the looking after your neighbour type philosophy is pretty decent, since if everyone did that, everyone would be looked after. However, when it comes to emissions of atmospheric pollutants I will argue that everyone is your neighbour, because the atmosphere belongs to everyone and we can not contain pollutants released into it to the portion that belongs to us – as individuals or nation states. Additionally the more fundamental effects of pushing the climate out of the current stable regime are also global.
Certainly Australia is prosperous, and so is America – both have an extremely high level of per capita emissions however. Prosperity at the expense of others is not something I admire.
As for what I am doing about it, well, if I listened to the IPCC and the more optimistic end of the spectrum, I'd go on about my low carbon footprint. I calculate at around 0.5t household (I don't actually live in a house) annual emissions, and 3.5t travelling (I could cut this dramatically but only if allowed to telework). That's about half the average for my country, although I probably contribute somewhat more than average for in secondary emissions (I like meat).
However, it would be hypocritical of me to go on about that given that it's as much a consequence of lifestyle choices to reflect personal economic circumstances (and the price of houses in this country), Although I argue the reduction in emissions is real regardless of the main motivation (and the sacrifices are real too).
Otherwise I'm taking the view that the worst case scenarios are utterly catastrophic, and I need to prepare for those. I need to prepare for those because I can not reasonably expect anyone else is going to look after me if those scenarios come to pass and the simple act of surviving could become difficult. Logically having secured personal survival one could consider the case to help other people do the same.
So really, if I were to encourage anyone here to do anything – it would be one of those two, depending on how they see things. This said however, my experience to date is that so few people take climate change seriously I wouldn't expect much real response at all to that – a mix of denial, indifference and vague concern perhaps.
It is still something I wanted to start a discussion on though because I think it is increasingly a big issue and given that most people here exhibit beliefs that should promote positive behaviours in terms of both taking care of the world and each other – I was curious to see what take people had on the whole thing.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 07 2009,04:20) Quote (Douglas @ Dec. 06 2009,09:12) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:54) Something new about it? Rainfall and drought in equatorial east Africa during the past 1,100 years:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/africa-drought.html
Ancient drought 'changed history'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4505516.stm
They must have been driving Gas Guzzlers 75,000 years ago.
I think the global warming is caused from the global ice age you folks were crying about 15 years ago.
I actually have to say thank you on that second link. It's quite interesting. However, are you aware of Toba catastrophe theory and the premise that the last major supervolcanic eruption pushed the human race to the brink of extinction – around this many years ago?Never claimed gas guzzlers were the only mechanism by which large (enough to collapse civilisations) shifts in climate can occur, only that atmospheric pollution is causing this particular climate shift.
You could have also mentioned the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs as a time of extreme climate instability, or the PETM, or the Snowball Earth hypothesis. The science however is pretty clear – in this particular event it is our activities causing the changes, not the natural world.
Africa is somewhat of a marginal case – always has been pretty arid. So it's a little complex and harder to argue that some place. I can't deny there is precedent for mega-droughts there in the past – again it's interesting that there is a link to warming – which we are now causing though, making this current one collectively our fault.
Since you're going to offer explanations in terms of denial can you give me one to explain the net loss of billions of tonnes of ice from both polar extremes? (including Antarctica as of recently)
Or the increase in methane outgassing from permafrost? And for that matter the early signs of methane clathrate release from the sea bed in artic regions?
If you want to quote precedents from paleoclimate that's fine, this planet has had extremes from near total ice cover to rainforest at the polar extremes. It was also a totally different planet and the human race has never had to survive changes of those magnitudes.
For those of us already close to the cliff – Africa being only one example – the little push we are giving things now is already almost enough to finish them.
Not denying land use and mismanagement of resources are also issues there.
Natural earthly cycles.And the gas guzzling comment was sarcasm.
Natural earthly cycles putting us on a course for a climate regime not seen for millions of years?Not that I intend to argue the science too much. I had a prolonged and pretty intellectually challenging debate not so long ago with someone (a senior lecturer at a nearby university) who was not only extremely intelligent but very well informed on the subject.
The fact that we both agreed we were within reasonable bounds for rational debate, and that the final consensus (after some weeks) was far closer to my starting position should have been utterly terrifying considering what the topic of the debate was.
Good luck.
Douglas,
You said:
{quote]Natural earthly cycles putting us on a course for a climate regime not seen for millions of years?[/quote]Is that really true? What about the Medieval Warming period?
Has your view changed at all in light of recent revelations about outright data manipulation by top global warming scientists?
Quote But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used “Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps” to “Keith's” graph, in order to “hide the decline”. Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the “hockey stick” (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up. A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as “Lucy Skywalker”. She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)
It seems to me that the data is far more complex than the global warming scientists have represented, and that we do not yet fully know how to model the earth's climate. For example, did any climate scientist predict the current non-warming trend of the last ten years?
In many ways, global warming science at the institutional level seems to mirror organized religion in that the dogma is established whether or not the facts support it. 'Heretics' appear to be shunned rather than rationally engaged.
Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 08 2009,08:06) Douglas, You said:
{quote]Natural earthly cycles putting us on a course for a climate regime not seen for millions of years?[/quote]Is that really true? What about the Medieval Warming period?
Has your view changed at all in light of recent revelations about outright data manipulation by top global warming scientists?
Quote But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used “Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps” to “Keith's” graph, in order to “hide the decline”. Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the “hockey stick” (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up. A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as “Lucy Skywalker”. She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)
It seems to me that the data is far more complex than the global warming scientists have represented, and that we do not yet fully know how to model the earth's climate. For example, did any climate scientist predict the current non-warming trend of the last ten years?
In many ways, global warming science at the institutional level seems to mirror organized religion in that the dogma is established whether or not the facts support it. 'Heretics' appear to be shunned rather than rationally engaged.
I think it'll turn out to be true. Over hundreds of thousands to millions of years CO2 and temperature move fairly synchronously (although CO2 isn't the only mechanism at work).Seems to me the medieval warm period was certainly warmer than now in some places, but not thought to be globally so. Certainly it would appear not to have resulted in thresholds being crossed that cause an irreversible process (in human timescales).
I think you'll find the decreased warming trend over ten years requires you to pick your starting and finishing year rather carefully – it's the longer term trend that's most important here. It was predicted to some extent inasmuch as we're leaving a period of unusually low solar activity behind meaning that the sun contributed relatively less to temperatures than normal for much of that (it doesn't all have to be written off as natural variability).
The prediction that you necessarily can make from that is that we will start to see a period of above trend warming to compensate as solar activity picks up again (although other things influence, such as El Nino/La Nina).
Certainly couldn't argue that the data and environment is far more complex than the scientists have represented or indeed than they understand. The problem to me is simple – the rate at which events have started to happen (within the last few years primarily) has tended to be faster than the worst case predictions – in other words we seem to be underestimating the problem scientifically speaking (Arctic sea ice melt is a good example, and total summer time loss might be only years away now).
The models don't seem to be the place to be looking if you want a clear picture – paleoclimate in the past seems a better bet. Using paleoclimate data most of the predicted effects actually come out far worse than the models – though timescale isn't fully determined in many cases (increasingly research tends to suggest shorter timescales are possible for many effects).
The extent of feelings in the climate change discussion are indeed arguably running towards the strength of feeling you get with dogma or religion – it is a deeply contentious issue, presumably because of the scale of the issue (regardless of whether or not you believe this is happening, it's a big issue).
As for the millions of years thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299426.stm
Given the close relationship between CO2 and temperature, I don't think I'm too thrilled to know the figures for the sea level and temperature then.
Actually come to think of it, if you want to claim it's all a conspiracy, it would take something pretty spectacular to get so many different people to work together to arrange even all the articles I've read over the last few years.
Pretty clever to be able to shift the weather in my own country too, even if the changes so far are relatively less dramatic than in other more sensitive parts of the world…
hi all
I may sound out of place in my comment ,if i understand God way a little,i am under the impression that God always use is creation works to fight and punish men for is refusal to follow is way of love,like earth quakes,volcanic eruption,the sea waves,rain,wind,ect.
it is my understanding that with all the thing to come ,and already things we can see today,i feel God has started to lay the foundation to what is to come very soon,
if you can figure out the mecanics of what comes and gos this by nomeans will help us ,sciense kwnoledge,is the dream of the unbeliever.
there is multi thaussands of years history of it,for every man they have saved they have killed thaussands,would you put your faithin that
?Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2009,19:15) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2009,12:50) Quote (princess of the king @ Dec. 07 2009,02:01) hey stuart, you tree hugger you your concerns for the earth are very heartfelt, this thought has been on my mind for a bit, maybe it was for you, take a sabbath, it could change the world.
take care stuart
Hey Stu.How about reaching out and hugging a person once in a while?
No point in loving the earth and not the people that dwell on it.
Where is this sudden glow of heartfelt warmth for your fellow humans come from? Are you scared your fundamentalism might look at bit callous with all the kingdom of God is not of this world and the Church is not like any worldly organisation and Eternal death is eternal destruction. This is the fate of the wicked. They shall never have life after the judgement and The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness and Idealism is one of the most deceptive and destructive disguises of the religious spirit. Idealism is of human origin, and a form of humanism. in which you indulge?Stuart
Quote Where is this sudden glow of heartfelt warmth for your fellow humans come from? not by a lesson from you, now would it stuart.
take care
Quote As for what I am doing about it, well, if I listened to the IPCC and the more optimistic end of the spectrum, I'd go on about my low carbon footprint. I calculate at around 0.5t household (I don't actually live in a house) annual emissions, and 3.5t travelling (I could cut this dramatically but only if allowed to telework). That's about half the average for my country, although I probably contribute somewhat more than average for in secondary emissions (I like meat). However, it would be hypocritical of me to go on about that given that it's as much a consequence of lifestyle choices to reflect personal economic circumstances (and the price of houses in this country), Although I argue the reduction in emissions is real regardless of the main motivation (and the sacrifices are real too).
Otherwise I'm taking the view that the worst case scenarios are utterly catastrophic, and I need to prepare for those. I need to prepare for those because I can not reasonably expect anyone else is going to look after me if those scenarios come to pass and the simple act of surviving could become difficult. Logically having secured personal survival one could consider the case to help other people do the same.
……..or douglas we can do both.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 08 2009,11:44) hi all
I may sound out of place in my comment ,if i understand God way a little,i am under the impression that God always use is creation works to fight and punish men for is refusal to follow is way of love,like earth quakes,volcanic eruption,the sea waves,rain,wind,ect.
it is my understanding that with all the thing to come ,and already things we can see today,i feel God has started to lay the foundation to what is to come very soon,
if you can figure out the mecanics of what comes and gos this by nomeans will help us ,sciense kwnoledge,is the dream of the unbeliever.
there is multi thaussands of years history of it,for every man they have saved they have killed thaussands,would you put your faithin that?
That is dark age, defeatist, fundamentalist end-times nonsense. You would have loved the 14th Century, with all the plagues and wars. If what you say is true, then people living round the edge of the Pacific plate (not that you would know about tectonic plates if you take that Adams website seriously) would be more likely not to 'follow his way of love' which of course is ridiculous.We are almost certainly facing a significant threat to our health and existence, and all you have is brutal religious nonsense about your petulant god using natural disasters to punish people.
Doesn't say much for 'his creation' if 'he' has to do that, does it.
Stuart
Quote (942767 @ Dec. 08 2009,09:47) Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
Marty
I made some suggestions about what you could do. Have you considered them?Stuart
Quote (princess of the king @ Dec. 08 2009,13:15) Quote As for what I am doing about it, well, if I listened to the IPCC and the more optimistic end of the spectrum, I'd go on about my low carbon footprint. I calculate at around 0.5t household (I don't actually live in a house) annual emissions, and 3.5t travelling (I could cut this dramatically but only if allowed to telework). That's about half the average for my country, although I probably contribute somewhat more than average for in secondary emissions (I like meat). However, it would be hypocritical of me to go on about that given that it's as much a consequence of lifestyle choices to reflect personal economic circumstances (and the price of houses in this country), Although I argue the reduction in emissions is real regardless of the main motivation (and the sacrifices are real too).
Otherwise I'm taking the view that the worst case scenarios are utterly catastrophic, and I need to prepare for those. I need to prepare for those because I can not reasonably expect anyone else is going to look after me if those scenarios come to pass and the simple act of surviving could become difficult. Logically having secured personal survival one could consider the case to help other people do the same.
……..or douglas we can do both.
Very true, which technically I am, albeit without much real expectation that my low carbon footprint is likely to make a lot of difference from where things stand today.Quote (942767 @ Dec. 08 2009,09:47) Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
Marty
I think I'll stick with the the two things already mentioned in my reply to T8.Either to go with the mainstream consensus that there still may be a chance to limit the damage and act accordingly (a responsible course of action even if it weren't as bad as it could be in the end).
Or to extrapolate from the historic tendency of the mainstream consensus to be considerably too optimistic and hedge your bets by preparing for the worst.
As pointed out, one can actually do both.
I didn't entirely make the post so much to try to suggest courses of action (since mine is resolved and in progress) as out of interest for the opinions other people here held and what, if anything, other people were doing about it.
Douglas,
From the article you referenced:
Quote The new research does not imply that reaching CO2 levels this high would definitely result in huge sea level changes, or that these would happen quickly, Dr Tripati pointed out – just that sustaining such levels on a long timescale might produce such changes. Again, it seems to me like we are not nearly all that certain about the exact relationship between CO2 and climate conditions. I don't think that there is a question as to whether or not the climate is changing, but I am not convinced that we know the exact causes and can do anything about it. For example, as you mentioned in your post, the drop in the Sun's activity has dramatically countered the previous warming trend. Does that not indicate that there are much bigger factors than greenhouse gases at play in terms of climate?
To play devil's advocate, while the warming of the planet would certainly have severe climate consequences, aren't they more manageable than perhaps another mini or major ice age? Wouldn't mankind, and land creatures in generally fare much worse if much of the planet's land masses were covered in ice again? To the extent that we can ward off another cyclical ice age, isn't that to our benefit?
In the end, whenever I see a bandwagon forming, I am the first person looking to jump off of it, and if you look around, global warming seems like the most fashionable topic for celebrities, politicians, socialites, and even advertising companies. (I don't know about your country, but it seems like every other ad in my country makes some reference to “going green”.) I am always highly skeptical of movements that start to drag masses of people into lockstep. It doesn't mean that the movement is wrong. I just require a higher level of evidence for me to take the plunge as well.
On another note, it seems like the politics of global warming is driving us towards certain disaster whereas global warming itself may materialize regardless of what we do. The political solutions all involve strangling industrial economies, both in the West, and in developing nations. That tactic will certainly lead to decreased productivity, and thus decreased resources, for all. The “haves” will have less, and the “have nots” will continue to have not. The concomitant solution is to take from those who have resources in abundance and to give to those who do not. The last time I checked, these kinds of wealth redistribution schemes tend to impoverish everyone equally, (e.g. Cuba, USSR, etc).
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 09 2009,09:04) To play devil's advocate, while the warming of the planet would certainly have severe climate consequences, aren't they more manageable than perhaps another mini or major ice age? Wouldn't mankind, and land creatures in generally fare much worse if much of the planet's land masses were covered in ice again? To the extent that we can ward off another cyclical ice age, isn't that to our benefit?
I mentioned this already, but there is a case to be made that by combating global warming we could paradoxically be saving Western Europe from an ice age.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2009,16:56) Quote (942767 @ Dec. 08 2009,09:47) Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
Marty
I made some suggestions about what you could do. Have you considered them?Stuart
Hi Stu:For the past year or so I have been helping the people of Haiti with a tenth of my income, and I am willing to help these people in that way also.
Not all of us have the same talents, and so when we something like this situation that needs our attention why don't we join together and do what we can to alleviate the problem instead of fighting one another.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Dec. 09 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2009,16:56) Quote (942767 @ Dec. 08 2009,09:47) Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
Marty
I made some suggestions about what you could do. Have you considered them?Stuart
Hi Stu:For the past year or so I have been helping the people of Haiti with a tenth of my income, and I am willing to help these people in that way also.
Not all of us have the same talents, and so when we something like this situation that needs our attention why don't we join together and do what we can to alleviate the problem instead of fighting one another.
Love in Christ,
Marty
So, what do you think of the suggestions already made?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2009,10:51) Quote (942767 @ Dec. 09 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2009,16:56) Quote (942767 @ Dec. 08 2009,09:47) Quote (Douglas @ Sep. 05 2009,08:33) This is a link to a story about drought in Africa (amongst other things). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ….a-10-10
I'm curious – how many of you care?
And how many care enough to actually do anything?
Hi Douglas:I just read this, and I do care, and since you brought it up, what do you suggest that we do?
Love in Christ,
Marty
I made some suggestions about what you could do. Have you considered them?Stuart
Hi Stu:For the past year or so I have been helping the people of Haiti with a tenth of my income, and I am willing to help these people in that way also.
Not all of us have the same talents, and so when we something like this situation that needs our attention why don't we join together and do what we can to alleviate the problem instead of fighting one another.
Love in Christ,
Marty
So, what do you think of the suggestions already made?Stuart
Hi Stu:You probably know more about the subject of climate change than I do, and so the suggestions that have been made are good ones, but they need to be implemented.
The immediate need of the people is food and clean water. Then they and I need to be educated regarding the causes of our predicament and what we can do to reverse the trend.
And yes, I will pray and ask God for wisdom in dealing with these problems and also, for the resources to do something about them. It will take money to implement anything that will be done.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 07 2009,04:23) Quote (princess of the king @ Dec. 06 2009,07:01) hey stuart, you tree hugger you your concerns for the earth are very heartfelt, this thought has been on my mind for a bit, maybe it was for you, take a sabbath, it could change the world.
take care stuart
I agree getting back to the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath and the Seventh Year Sabbath would have a great impact.Could you imagine the earth if it had a year off? And what people would see in its self healing properties if it had a rest.
Yes, I agree
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
