# Global Warming



## Michael (Mar 2, 2009)

Posting on this topic came to mind today after I heard that Nancy Pelosi was snowed out of a global warming rally today. No matter how one feels on the subject you have to admit that's pretty ironic! 

Most here are on the conservative side politically and conservative politics generally take issue with special interest groups, especially the global warming crowd. But a lot of the time that is because they are viewed as standing in the way of energy independence or just increasing the size, spending, and mettling of government in general. I'd be interested to hear what our resident science experts have to say on the matter though and also if there are any here who actually support awareness around global warming.

Personally, and admittedly with limited knowledge on the scientific end, I will share that I don't think the earth is in any such climate peril. However, I am cautious to jump on the anti-bandwagon as I do believe that we can fail pretty miserably at times when it comes to being good stewards of God's creation. 

I would love to hear the thoughts of others...


----------



## Solus Christus (Mar 2, 2009)

While I do think it's good to be responsible for our actions on the environment, I really don't see us making that much of a global impact. God sustains everything in creation in spite of our actions.

What I also tend to be skeptical about is how some scientists feel they can make accurate predictions of global climate change in the next 10 years when current weather technology cannot accurately predict the weather in the next 10 days.

I'm also interested in what others have to say


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 2, 2009)

I had to do a bit of research on this topic for a speech contest with the Lion's Club. In all of the study I've done on it, I am undecided but, for better or for worse, of the "could care less whether or not it's true" camp. There have been studies done to show that indeed, globally (which means the average temperature of all testing sites, not "everywhere"), temperatures have increased as greenhouse gases have increased during the last century, but it hasn't increased this last decade. Some say that the concurrent rises of global temperatures and greenhouse gases are connected, while others (generally the conservatives) say that there is no proof that there is a connection and that natural cycles are just as likely, so changing everything we do to "be green" could be a massive waste.

One thing that is hard to argue with is that many mountain ranges have been melting and receding over the last several decades (though not much this last decade). The pictures show it pretty clearly. That is worrisome for many reasons, but there just isn't any proof that man is to blame. And even if we were, all of mankind would have to completely change their lifestyle in order to make any sort of change. It's just not worth trying if we don't have every other developed country with us. 

SO--I don't know, I don't care, I am going to burn wood, drive SUVs, and make fun of global warning fanatics. Generally they don't know what they are talking about or they are far too confident with their data. I have no reason to fear. The same God who called us out of darkness controls the sun, directs the stars, sends the rain, and surely gives us both the heat and cold. I'll run with whatever He decides.


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 2, 2009)

The earth has been cooling and warming since time began...the question is, is it human activity that has caused the warming (since the 70's)? I think to a certain degree humans have impacted negatively with it comes to the atmosphere. When I last went to Las Vegas, the city was covered in a horrible brown cloud of smog (close to what is usually seen in Los Angeles). This is obviously because of the smog from cars and trucks. However, this is just smog, and on a small scale (just a city). So, I don't know if this is what our whole atmosphere can look like? I do think humans have some responsibility for causing global warming. -Don't take me as a GW fanatic. I am not on the bandwagon for getting hybrids and going only solar energy. I just think that to say GW is not taking place and that humans have made no impact is wrong. 

Thats my take on it.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 06:31:16 EST-----



AThornquist said:


> I had to do a bit of research on this topic for a speech contest with the Lion's Club. In all of the study I've done on it, I am undecided but, for better or for worse, of the "could care less whether or not it's true" camp. There have been studies done to show that indeed, globally (which means the average temperature of all testing sites, not "everywhere"), temperatures have increased as greenhouse gases have increased during the last century, but it hasn't increased this last decade. Some say that the concurrent rises of global temperatures and greenhouse gases are connected, while others (generally the conservatives) say that there is no proof that there is a connection and that natural cycles are just as likely, so changing everything we do to "be green" could be a massive waste.
> 
> One thing that is hard to argue with is that many mountain ranges have been melting and receding over the last several decades (though not much this last decade). The pictures show it pretty clearly. That is worrisome for many reasons, but there just isn't any proof that man is to blame. And even if we were, all of mankind would have to completely change their lifestyle in order to make any sort of change. It's just not worth trying if we don't have every other developed country with us.
> 
> SO--I don't know, I don't care, I am going to burn wood, drive SUVs, and make fun of global warning fanatics. Generally they don't know what they are talking about or they are far too confident with their data. I have no reason to fear. The same God who called us out of darkness controls the sun, directs the stars, sends the rain, and surely gives us both the heat and cold. I'll run with whatever He decides.



Kind of along the same lines, humans are probably causing it...but God is in control and can have the earth warm or cool even without any humans activity.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 2, 2009)

It's true--we have major smog problems that cause even worse health problems. We need a giant atmosphere vacuum or something and then shoot that junk into space. We need nuclear energy regardless of global warming, smog, etc., although it would certainly help those issues. It's just that...nothing makes me feel as comfortable as nuclear meltdown drills in the middle of the night.


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 2, 2009)

I agree that we _could_ cause GW; however, I don't know if we are. I also don't believe that humans can't ruin the environment (at least for a time). Where does the Bible say that the earth will remain unblemished even as sinful man exploits every natural thing around him?


----------



## Answerman (Mar 2, 2009)

Based on what I have read on the subject, the scientists that dispute mans contribution to global warming say that the suns activity is the largest factor in global/solar system warming and cooling phases. They point to sun-spot activity and the fact that many of the planets warm and cool at the same time during these swings.

The BBC ran a special a few years ago that had scientists that were skeptical of man causing global warming and they claim that it is a hoax for the most part so that governments can have something else to levy taxes on to solve this "crisis". I don't have time to put a link up, but you should be able to find this video on YouTube or GoogleVideo.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 2, 2009)

carbon tax and control. this is the end game of environmentalism. It is humanistic predestination. Make no mistake about it, God predestines and man predestines (or at least he attempts to). The apotheosis of rebellious man is him trying to be God of the environment and other men. He in an attempt to fulfill this megalomania must micro manage every aspect of nature and man's life. And just like God who rules and issues decrees from His throne in heaven, rebellious man rules and issues decrees from his throne which is State/Civil Power. This is the essence of fiat law, "This thing is so because I will it". The "I" is the unity of all man as expressed in the state. We first found this type of thinking with Nimrod, then the Pharoah of the Exodus and Herod who simply slaughtered children at a whim in an effort to kill Jesus.

The environmental movement is of the same ilk. Their goal is the acquisition of power to rule and to predestine all mankind via the actions of all mankind.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 2, 2009)

> Personally, and admittedly with limited knowledge on the scientific end, I will share that I don't think the earth is in any such climate peril. However, I am cautious to jump on the anti-bandwagon as I do believe that we can fail pretty miserably at times when it comes to being good stewards of God's creation.
> 
> I would love to hear the thoughts of others...


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 2, 2009)

To me global warming is like Darwin's theory of evolution. Some dingbat writes a book (or makes a movie) and it's up to the rest of us to invest time and effort to prove the dingbat wrong. The problem is that most dingbat sympathizers wouldn't recognize truth if it hit them between the eyes. I feel better, I haven't ranted in a while......


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 2, 2009)

Personally, I want my global warming back. I'm freezing.... brrrrrrr....(shiver shiver).


----------



## lynnie (Mar 2, 2009)

Polar ice is at its greatest thickness since 1979.

I used to read at site that had endless posts about his, both sides. Apparently there is a hugely significant relationship between sun spots and earth temps (google Dalton minimum, "little ice age"). 2008 had perhaps the least sunspots in 100+ years. They just had a big conference in Europe with 600 climatologists and PhDs on this who think we may be heading into another ice age..as in lost harvests in Canada, Australia, Europe, and most northern parts of the USA. They are worried.

We ARE dumping enormous amounts of CO2 into the air.....the trigger to breath harder is more C02, not less oxygen.....maybe the 20 fold increase in asthma since 1980 is related somehow? Just speculating. The pollution involved IS serious. But the warming/cooling seems to have a major solar influence.

One neat book on this is Michael Chrichtons( sp?) secular novel "State of Fear". He ripped global warming to shreds. The liberals threw a fit, they regarded him as one of their own turned traitor. It was so funny.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 2, 2009)

Irrefutable evidence shows the globe has been cooling since 1998, yet the faith in global warming continues, showing once again it is difficult to reason someone out their false religion. A growing number of scientists are putting the lie to the hoax, as shown here in the recent Manhattan Declaration: 

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE


----------



## Nate (Mar 2, 2009)

I read a lot of the primary literature about three years ago, as well as the IPCC reports that were based on these reports. It didn't seem like all of the science was biased like a lot of conservatives accused them of. I also tried to read some of the reports countering the IPCC data, but was not able to get to more than a few articles - they also seemed fairly unbiased. I guess my opinion is undecided... 

One important lesson that I did learn was to make sure to go to the primary sources of data - I started by reading Senator Jim Inhofe's reports and reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. After looking up many of the primary sources that they cited, it became clear that they often based their "facts" on severly biased studies or completely mis-represented what the studies actually showed. I've heard the same thing can be said for many of Al Gore's "facts". 

I think before we characterize scientists or politicians on either side as cranks, idiots charlatans or deceivers, we had better take note of the 9th commandment and make sure of our charges first. This means doing LOTS of reading of the primary literature on BOTH sides before we can come to an informed decision, not just reading quips or opinions from people who have made their stance clear. This is admittedly difficult. I'm by no means a climate scientist, so it was very hard to wade through this literature, and I did it three years ago - there's lots more data from both sides out there now.

My


----------



## Michael (Mar 2, 2009)

From Genesis 8:21-22...

_...and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. *While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.*_


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 2, 2009)

And let‘s ensure that the primary data is valid. Do remember that much of the global warming data in the US came from temperature readings done at questionable sites. That is, many readings were taken from stations once outside of cities and now beside parking lots (close to the hot black, asphalt that retains heat like I retain calories). In that case, primary data can't save the study from skewing warmer.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 3, 2009)

The computer MODELS upon which this whole hoax is based predicted catastrophic warming CAUSED by anthropocentric CO2. Well, CO2 has continued to rise, yet the predicted warming has not occurred. To the contrary, 2008 marked a decade of COOLING. The models have been disproved, yet the faith continues for political reasons. It is not a 9th commandment violation to call a foolish theory foolish.

For more reading:

Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/20...“getting-rid”-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

Extra - WSJ.com

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 3, 2009)

All it boils down to is a scare tactic to tax "carbon", or whatever gas they add to it, to fund the overall agenda.


----------



## Michael (Mar 3, 2009)

There are of course some conservative activists that advocate protecting the environment. For instance, many hunters/fishermen are conservationists who are sensitive to legislation around national parks, oceans, wetlands, and wildlife refuges. 

It seems to me as if scientists have pandered through liberal politicians (or more likely vice versa) to win the support of environmentalists/conservationists who existed prior to global warming even being a topic of discussion. But this hasn't worked with the average rural hunter because of a greater divide in principles at the polls.

It's not a big stretch for me to imagine that things could have played out entirely in the reverse, politically speaking. Back when the Republican Party was more closely tied to the so-labeled evangelical community it wouldn't have been a surprise for me to see loads of conservative legislation attempting to protect God's creation. Likewise I wouldn't have been surprised if liberals chose to mock such stewardship and promote wasteful living just as they seem to do in economics. It seems pretty curious that things have played out the way they have. 

Might sound like a pipe dream but I can't help but wonder why there isn't more unity between the "hippie and the hunter", or however the lines are drawn, for the sake of taking better care of the earth and all that is in it.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

Plants take CO2 out of the air and do magical things with it. A ray of light hits a leaf, and an electron is stimulated in a chlorophyll molecule. And just like the old pin ball machines, when you push the button that flips the ball up, on the way down the ball racks up points. The electron on it's way back to it's lower state allows plants to store energy.

With this energy, plants take CO2 from the air and H2O from the ground and mix them up in tens of thousands of ways. Oil, sugar, starch, fats and proteins, they are all the result of C, O and H atoms being pulled apart and stitched back together, along with a few other atoms the plant takes up.

The C atoms are then "sequestered". They are in a solid form, like the desk that I'm sitting at, or the pile of logs outside my fire pit. They are no longer in the air. And when I burn those logs, the C atoms are then re-released back into the air. And this has happened constantly since Creation.

That is the Carbon cycle. Those C atoms from the logs I burnt will next be taken up by an apple tree, and one of you will eat it. Or they will be taken up by a cotton plant, and on of you will wear it.

The problem comes when you take countless tons of oil and coal from the ground. Oil and coal have lots of C atoms, and by burning them more C atoms are being released from their sequestered state than ever before.

The question becomes "How many C atoms can the earth reprocess" and nobody knows. Perhaps plankton are enough for the job, and the excess C atoms end up floating down to the bottom of the sea when the plankton die, where they are just as sequestered as they were in the coal mine. We just don't know.

Thus endeth Tim's mini Botany lecture of the day.


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 4, 2009)

Ezekiel16 said:


> There are of course some conservative activists that advocate protecting the environment. For instance, many hunters/fishermen are conservationists who are sensitive to legislation around national parks, oceans, wetlands, and wildlife refuges.



I think conservatives care more for the environment and animals and all that than the activists. Here is some thing I found interesting: "In 2006 PETA killed over 97 percent of the animals it took in, finding adoptive homes for just 0.39 percent." and "Even though its mandate is to protect the rights of all animals, PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. This begs the question: How much does PETA spend on advertising for homes for the animals they "rescue" - and subsequently kill?" 
- About PETA | Wool is Best


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 4, 2009)

I have a friend who is a fairly well established climatologist. He used to be respected until he began to point out the fact that water vapor is the greatest 'earth bound' variable in global warming, not CO2. If CO2 were a primary component then every time a volcano erupts we should see a long sustained CO2 spike in global temps. (And, no the ash is not enough to counter it. Normally ash is local issue.) A small volcano releases more CO2 in an eruption event than all of the CO2 produced by man since the invention of the internal combustion engine. 

If CO2 is a factor in global warming it would eventually lead to global cooling anyway. A warm atmosphere can hold more moisture thus leading to more cloud cover which would lead to cooling and precipitation. In more polar climates this would cause greater snow cover and in temperate climates it would lead to more vegetation and likely the reversal of desertification.

The current craze of CO2 emissions is all about gaining control of industry and commerce by governments.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 4, 2009)

I had no opinion on the subject until my husband brought home a global warming chart from a climatologist he knows. It showed the cooling and warming trends of the earth since recorded history. The earlier parts of recorded history were based on information about what types of plants grew in what regions, etc. For instance, in one region of Europe, they were growing grapes. Grapes will not grow there any longer because it is too cold, etc. 

The chart showed that the earth has actually been gradually cooling down over the last 2000 years, but we go into periodic warming peaks due to what these scientists think are the result of sunspot activity. According to the chart which went through 2006, we were just coming out of a peak of a warming trend, but the peak was actually cooler than the last warming peak. 

It seems to me that since God made this planet for us to live on, and He told us to be fruitful and multiply, He made the earth to sustain us.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 4, 2009)

I think we do have a responsibility to the creation, and to the creator -- but our actions cannot be based on the idolatrous philosophy that drives environmentalism.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 4, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> It seems to me that since God made this planet for us to live on, and He told us to be fruitful and multiply, He made the earth to sustain us.



Truer words were never spoken by man nor beast!


----------



## Nate (Mar 4, 2009)

mvdm said:


> To the contrary, 2008 marked a decade of COOLING.



From LawrenceU:


> If CO2 is a factor in global warming it would eventually lead to global cooling anyway.



From JBaldwin:


> According to the chart which went through 2006, we were just coming out of a peak of a warming trend




LawrenceU's climatologist friend's says that global warming would lead to global cooling. mvdm says that the globe IS cooling. However, both seem to be arguing that global warming is either a hoax (mvdm) or based on a faulty understanding of climate science (LawrenceU).

JBaldwin argues against global warming based on a scientific climate chart that shows an overall cooling trend, but which indicates that up until 2006 we were in a warming trend. This is in direct opposition to the data cited by mvdm.

So, we have three people who all are in agreement that global warming is not true, but from their recent posts the data that gave them their view is either in direct or indirect contradiction with each other. Can you see how some people (like myself) are unable to make such broad, emphatic statements (hoax, lies, deception, conspiracy etc) wrt this topic?

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 09:21:29 EST-----

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of the people that I quoted make these broad, emphatic statements.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 4, 2009)

Actually, none of those statements are in disagreement. The common theme is that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, both in larger swings and in smaller swings within the larger.


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 4, 2009)

I, too, think we need to be better stewarts of GOd's Earth, but don't subscribe to the man-made GW hype. As current global data is showing earth cooling, i believe whatever GW we are experiencing is a part of a natural cycle.


Our local paper had a headline a couple days ago on how twice as many manatees are dying this year due to colder than normal temperatures.


----------



## Nate (Mar 4, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Actually, none of those statements are in disagreement. The common theme is that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, both in larger swings and in smaller swings within the larger.



Thanks. I do understand that the common theme is that there is a natural cycle with smaller up and down trends within the cycle. I guess that explanation possibly takes care of the seeming contradiction between you and mdvm. I still can't reconcile the data from mdvm and JBaldwin, though... 

Maybe it's not that important.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 4, 2009)

NateLanning said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, none of those statements are in disagreement. The common theme is that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, both in larger swings and in smaller swings within the larger.
> ...



At the very least, the conflicting data/arguments exposes the lie of the global warmists' argument that anthropogenic global warming is a SETTLED scientific fact. It's not.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 23, 2009)

As a follow up, here is a blog entry with clear charts on the recent symposium by the Heartland Institute. You will also see a link to the Heartland symposium site itself, which is loaded with scientific presentations.

May the anthropocentric carbon-based global warming myth RIP.

Power Line - Dispelling the Global Warming Myth


----------

