Global Warming?

[Redneck in training]

If you want to know what religion does to a society or a country visit Saudi Arabia. It will start with a prayer in school and end with coercion to make you go to church.

 

[newbury]

YES!! and keep it out! Of course I just cannot stop myself from respoinding when one of the theists brings it in...again...and again...and again...

Harry K

Again, why is this discussion going on in global warming?

 

[EE_Bota]

If you want to know what religion does to a society or a country visit Saudi Arabia. It will start with a prayer in school and end with coercion to make you go to church.

Why go there, when we have here? It started with prayer in the public school, and then lead to banning that and now we are down to modifying historic sites to remove religious symbolism.

 

[toppop52]

I have no idea who started the religious aspect of this, wasn't me, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I have no idea who started the religious aspect of this, wasn't me, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

I think like Topsy, it just growed. It started with a premise something like "All scientists are objective and believe in global warming and all AGW folks are religious, subjective, and don't believe in science or AGW".

 

[IslandTractor]

Like I said I did a quick search and this is where I got it from
2011 Taxes: How Much Did Romney Donate To Anti-Gay Mormon Church? | The New Civil Rights Movement

But my point was he gave 4 million to charity That's the point, and you clarified it above Thank You. Looks likeI was wrong he gave much more.
It's his money he can give it to who ever he wants, Who are you to decide which "charity" is OK he gives his money to. How much did you "SAY" you gave on your tax return? notice I didn't say give I said say, and who did you supposedly give it to?

The point was the other poster gave the wrong information to make less of Romney and I was making my point that he really is a good guy. Mormon or not I don't care.
Now I see why this is one of the longest threads on TBN, Global warming yes its warming has been for ever We were under 3 miles of ice at one time in the northeast .

Taxing me and my family making the cost of everything go up is not going to stop it. Most of the people in the world do not have electricity what do they do? Tough luck for them I guess
People all high and mighty get off this Change the climate of the earth bull. We can't even predict the weather next Thursday, and you guys are going to STOP global warming. Time to end this thread. really
The earth has been changing from day one. Mankind will adapt. move on

1) Yes he gives millions to "charity" as mandated by his church (I recall he is a Bishop or something official in the Mormon Church so rather difficult for him to skip the tithing requirement). Other than the mandated tithing by his church, he gives a relatively paltry amount given his net worth. He's free to do what he wants but it is baloney to say that he is a generous giver to charity. Look at Bill Gates or Warren Buffet if you want to see examples of people who have used their wealth for something other than personal uses.
2) You say Mitt's a "good guy". Did you ever follow him closely? He was my governor for six years. This "good guy" lost his home state and his adopted state and even his home town in the election. By a lot. Does that fit with the notion that he is a "good guy". We elected a "good guy" Scott Brown a couple of years ago so "good guy" Republicans can win here when they are genuine. Mitt was well known in MA and well understood to be a waffling poll reading multiple choice politician with an over hyped business background who was very much out of touch with regular folks. The people who knew him best did not seem to buy the good guy argument.
3) Back to climate change: You will need to provide evidence to justify your "change the climate of the earth bull". Your opinion ain't worth much so what evidence do you wish to put forth? One video of a retired Canadian professor who gives no data but simply disagrees with the extemporaneous press conference answers given by Obama doesn't really amount to much and sheds no light on the issue. Your dismissal of climate science make it sound like you don't understand it more than anything else.

 

[IslandTractor]

I have no idea who started the religious aspect of this, wasn't me, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

As I recall, religion came in to the discussion when Noah and the Biblical flood was brought in as an example of climate change. Certainly religion itself is a peripheral issue but if some "deniers" use the Bible as a source of information to justify their position then they have opened Pandora's Box on the religion issue.

 

[EE_Bota]

As I recall, religion came in to the discussion when Noah and the Biblical flood was brought in as an example of climate change. Certainly religion itself is a peripheral issue but if some "deniers" use the Bible as a source of information to justify their position then they have opened Pandora's Box on the religion issue.

Post 2030 looks like the first mention of Noah where it is was not being confused by Short Game with NOAA, most likely as a joke.

 

[IslandTractor]

Post 2030 looks like the first mention of Noah where it is was not being confused by Short Game with NOAA, most likely as a joke.

I haven't researched it but just recall the Flood discussion a month or two ago that evolved into discussion of the Bible as a reference. Maybe I am recalling a different thread.

 

[EE_Bota]

I haven't researched it but just recall the Flood discussion a month or two ago that evolved into discussion of the Bible as a reference. Maybe I am recalling a different thread.

I researched it because what 2Lane said sounded familiar, so I was curious.

 

[TCJatko]

To all AGW non-deniers: the unfortunate results of the last election will allow you to observe that when energy rates skyrocket, consumption goes down. A simple rule of economics. Also, that the US's declining use of fossil fuels will not make one bit of difference to your imaginary AGW. It will, however, result in declining economic activity and standard of living, because we will be even LESS competitive in global markets, sending ever more jobs overseas. But I'm sure the Food Stamp President has a solution for that, probably involving more taxes. Enjoy!

 

[IslandTractor]

To all AGW non-deniers: the unfortunate results of the last election will allow you to observe that when energy rates skyrocket, consumption goes down. A simple rule of economics. Also, that the US's declining use of fossil fuels will not make one bit of difference to your imaginary AGW. It will, however, result in declining economic activity and standard of living, because we will be even LESS competitive in global markets, sending ever more jobs overseas. But I'm sure the Food Stamp President has a solution for that, probably involving more taxes. Enjoy!

= poor loser.

What will really contribute to economic decline is if the obstructionist Congress with it's 10% approval rating continues the game they played over the past couple of years.

 

[TCJatko]

This is more than partisan politics. How you could inflict the coming dystopia on your children and grandchildren defies logic.

 

[IslandTractor]

This is more than partisan politics. How you could inflict the coming dystopia on your children and grandchildren defies logic.

Clearly you haven't gotten over your post election shock. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about our future. We are in a tough patch but have come through similar episodes in the past. If you think we are in the current situation simply because of a "liberal agenda" then we simply disagree. The current economic situation is hardly the result of Obama's policies and the notion that higher tax rates for the wealthy stymies economic growth doesn't stand up to historic review. Check out the 1950's for starters.

Let's get back to climate change as politics will get the thread or posts terminated.

 

[WaxMan]

1) Yes he gives millions to "charity" as mandated by his church (I recall he is a Bishop or something official in the Mormon Church so rather difficult for him to skip the tithing requirement). Other than the mandated tithing by his church, he gives a relatively paltry amount given his net worth. He's free to do what he wants but it is baloney to say that he is a generous giver to charity. Look at Bill Gates or Warren Buffet if you want to see examples of people who have used their wealth for something other than personal uses.
2) You say Mitt's a "good guy". Did you ever follow him closely? He was my governor for six years. This "good guy" lost his home state and his adopted state and even his home town in the election. By a lot. Does that fit with the notion that he is a "good guy". We elected a "good guy" Scott Brown a couple of years ago so "good guy" Republicans can win here when they are genuine. Mitt was well known in MA and well understood to be a waffling poll reading multiple choice politician with an over hyped business background who was very much out of touch with regular folks. The people who knew him best did not seem to buy the good guy argument.
3) Back to climate change: You will need to provide evidence to justify your "change the climate of the earth bull". Your opinion ain't worth much so what evidence do you wish to put forth? One video of a retired Canadian professor who gives no data but simply disagrees with the extemporaneous press conference answers given by Obama doesn't really amount to much and sheds no light on the issue. Your dismissal of climate science make it sound like you don't understand it more than anything else.

Hey IT my new TBN buddy

1) Mitt Romney wealthy as he is, he's not in the same league as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, not even close, Mitt gave 30 % of his income. Warren Buffet doesn't give away 30 % of his income It's clear you don't like the guy let's just leave it at that.

2) You're right it's just my opinion. A common sense opinion by a simple man. Yes the earth is getting warmer, it will probably start getting colder too in the future. I think we all know the earth has been changing for some 4 billion years. I don't think I have to show you evidence of that.

3) What evidence do you have that a Carbon Tax on all energy will stop the Warming of the earth and make it just the right temperature for you and your friends ? What evidence do you have that you can get every country in the world to go along with it? Seems pretty silly to me, but who am I, you guys are the smart ones right? To think you have or will have that power to reverse climate change all you need is just some money to figure it out. Well it's all about the money isn't it. The money would set the scientist up for a long long time to figure it out. The best equipment, best labs, highly paid, job security for the future etc. etc. MONEY has more to do about this then any other reason. If everyone agreed with you YES Global warming YES it's happening too fast and YES we caused it. The next words out of your mouths will be give us your money, You just can see that right now. I think your too smart. I'll leave it to you highly educated people to continue to bat this around back and fourth. I'll just stick to my simple minded opinion and smile . You're very educated and it shows in your posts and I mean that as a compliment. But I don't believe Money is the answer. And that is what your really looking for.

 

[daugen]

I tried, but I could not read this whole thing. But I never found anything about how global warming, or not, would impact agriculture, crop choices, equipment purchases (rice tractors for everyone?).
I am utterly amazed at how far afield this has gone, to a review of the Constitution, comparative religions, and the Big Bang Theory. And anyone who thinks this forum is for redneck tractor drivers should think twice. Personally I like
my neck a little red...

Anyone interested in maneuvering this discussion a little closer to what Bird had in mind, or are you having too much
fun as it is? How many folk still dream of a beach front property? Me, I think I'm heading to a retirement home at least 500 feet above sea level and far from the coast, though that pains me because I'm an avid boater.
I'd be interested to know how rising oceans, if they do..., would impact food production, and where. How about home/barn construction and building codes to withstand more severe weather? How many windmills should the average Kansas farmer have if the average wind speed increases due to more serious weather? Would putting a catalytic converter on my wood stove or fireplace chimney make a whit of difference? My suburban neighbors, btw, utterly love the smell of our fireplace; they've all switched to propane.

One poster on this forum has repeatedly asked why religious debate isn't moved somewhere else. And guess what, the "friendly religious forum" discussion just got yanked today in its entirety. Gone. I hope this thread doesn't go too, and wonder if focusing it a bit more on agriculture might keep it around a bit longer.
Just wondering if we can nudge this discussion, if desired, a little further away from politics and religion, which tend to complicate issues beyond belief.

 

[Johnp33]

Food stamps, that can be cured easily, someone forgot to raise the minimum wage, put it up were it should be to $12.50 or even give them a 350% raise, just like the top 2% got, say to $20.00 and you cure the problem.
Global warming as long as everyone on those fancy houses in 1/2 of Florida, and if say the sea rises 3 ft, none of those guys owning property that gets flooded, and damaged by storms, especially if no insurance company will cover them, they would not expect government help. **** no they are independent and would never take a hand out.
Religion, I could never understand why it is a deduction, it is a choice you make, why would everyone else want to pay for it?

 

[RobertBrown]

To all AGW non-deniers: the unfortunate results of the last election will allow you to observe that when energy rates skyrocket, consumption goes down. A simple rule of economics. Also, that the US's declining use of fossil fuels will not make one bit of difference to your imaginary AGW. It will, however, result in declining economic activity and standard of living, because we will be even LESS competitive in global markets, sending ever more jobs overseas. But I'm sure the Food Stamp President has a solution for that, probably involving more taxes. Enjoy!

Consider this....no really! Consider this.
A growing economy is not sustainable....it can't keep growing..
Try to understand the climate, then try to understand politics, then believe that the climate doesn't care about your politics, the climate cannot comprehend any politics.
Then understand that free enterprise has no ethics and no politics and an agenda that is so large it can't be mapped.
Try to bring yourself to here: Just because someone is making money from green technologies does not make climate change a falsehood.
Just because oil is the most valuable commodity there ever was does not mean it's essential to your survival or our economy.
Again:

A growing economy is not sustainable....it can't keep growing..what is truly valuable, is sustainable. The examples of this are infinite, oil is finite.

 

[IslandTractor]

Hey IT my new TBN buddy

1) Mitt Romney wealthy as he is, he's not in the same league as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, not even close, Mitt gave 30 % of his income. Warren Buffet doesn't give away 30 % of his income It's clear you don't like the guy let's just leave it at that.

2) You're right it's just my opinion. A common sense opinion by a simple man. Yes the earth is getting warmer, it will probably start getting colder too in the future. I think we all know the earth has been changing for some 4 billion years. I don't think I have to show you evidence of that.

3) What evidence do you have that a Carbon Tax on all energy will stop the Warming of the earth and make it just the right temperature for you and your friends ? What evidence do you have that you can get every country in the world to go along with it? Seems pretty silly to me, but who am I, you guys are the smart ones right? To think you have or will have that power to reverse climate change all you need is just some money to figure it out. Well it's all about the money isn't it. The money would set the scientist up for a long long time to figure it out. The best equipment, best labs, highly paid, job security for the future etc. etc. MONEY has more to do about this then any other reason. If everyone agreed with you YES Global warming YES it's happening too fast and YES we caused it. The next words out of your mouths will be give us your money, You just can see that right now. I think your too smart. I'll leave it to you highly educated people to continue to bat this around back and fourth. I'll just stick to my simple minded opinion and smile . You're very educated and it shows in your posts and I mean that as a compliment. But I don't believe Money is the answer. And that is what your really looking for.

1) We'll leave the Mittster out of this reply as he is now irrelevant.:thumbsup:

2) I think the argument that "the earth's climate has always been changing" is rather trite. Of course it has. But at the same time, it has rarely changed due to the activities of it's inhabitants (despite one congressman's assertion that it changed in the past due to dinosaur farts, and yes he is a Republican and even more scary he is one of the candidates to chair the house committee on science and technology). There is a good amount of evidence accumulating that man is having an effect. The simplest place to review the data is in the IPCC reports. Here is the main IPCC website IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and here is the most recent (2007) summary report AR4 SYR Synthesis Report . It is possible to drill deeper into those technical reports to get primary references. Warning: those with an allergy to international scientific organizations or those who see conspiracies every time they see the UN symbol should beware. The IPCC has been around for almost 20 years though and it has won a Nobel Price so is a pretty reputable organization set up to critically review climate data and to present analysis and summaries for policy makers.

3) You immediately get into money and politics without bothering to stop and look at the data or science. That is in fact a pretty good description of what the denier community does. They are skeptical mostly of any data or finding that doesn't fit with their political views. To address your concern though, I think most of us would say the issue is not money but rather behavior change. If CO2 is indeed an important driver of climate change then the issue is not your money but your net carbon production that would be the logical thing to address. Money might be involved (eg switch to wind, solar etc) but simple behavior change (get a smaller car, drive less, insulate your home more, etc etc) would be the first and most obvious goal.

 

[IslandTractor]

I tried, but I could not read this whole thing. But I never found anything about how global warming, or not, would impact agriculture, crop choices, equipment purchases (rice tractors for everyone?).
I am utterly amazed at how far afield this has gone, to a review of the Constitution, comparative religions, and the Big Bang Theory. And anyone who thinks this forum is for redneck tractor drivers should think twice. Personally I like
my neck a little red...

Anyone interested in maneuvering this discussion a little closer to what Bird had in mind, or are you having too much
fun as it is? How many folk still dream of a beach front property? Me, I think I'm heading to a retirement home at least 500 feet above sea level and far from the coast, though that pains me because I'm an avid boater.
I'd be interested to know how rising oceans, if they do..., would impact food production, and where. How about home/barn construction and building codes to withstand more severe weather? How many windmills should the average Kansas farmer have if the average wind speed increases due to more serious weather? Would putting a catalytic converter on my wood stove or fireplace chimney make a whit of difference? My suburban neighbors, btw, utterly love the smell of our fireplace; they've all switched to propane.

One poster on this forum has repeatedly asked why religious debate isn't moved somewhere else. And guess what, the "friendly religious forum" discussion just got yanked today in its entirety. Gone. I hope this thread doesn't go too, and wonder if focusing it a bit more on agriculture might keep it around a bit longer.
Just wondering if we can nudge this discussion, if desired, a little further away from politics and religion, which tend to complicate issues beyond belief.

You have a very reasonable request. The debate should focus mostly on the science though the driver of the skeptical movement is primarily political so politics do keep entering the discussion.

Here is a website that I recently found that does a very good job of outlining the various skeptic arguments and addressing them at basic, intermediate and advanced levels. The basic stuff is not so useful and the advanced level requires a PhD in climate related fields to read properly so I tend to look at the intermediate level responses (which are further fleshed out with technical data and jargon in the advanced level). It is really a pretty readable website and while it is clearly "biased" in the sense that it was set up specifically to address the various "denier" arguments, it does adhere to scientific explanation rather than political dog fighting in addressing those skeptical arguments.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Here for example is a reply to Waxman's earlier assertion that climate change has occurred before: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm