[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Yes we are, but I don’t see how burning the food intended for the poor in the gas tanks of the rich’s SUV’s is using the land God has provided responsibly.
[/QUOTE]
Who, aside from you, has proposed that solution in this thread?
I thought we were talking about whether the problem is a real one - honestly, you’re all over the place.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Who, aside from you, has proposed that solution in this thread?
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying you have not heard of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, butanol? I’m pretty sure there are biofuel supporters who have posted in this thread, biofules that will tap into the food supply and raise the price of the cheapest fuels, the food the poor can afford. Here’s a cite:
From the above:
This issues are interrelated, AGW becoming a religion, building on man’s hardwired desire to have a god, causes dramatic changes in lifestyle, which it seems will tend to suppress the middle classes and the poor.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Why not both? If there is demonic influence at the level that corrupts the data and scews the results, would it not be necessary to cast out that influence to get the truth?
[/QUOTE]
That reminds me of the king that had the ocean lashed to punish it for being so naughty with his fleet. He still lost the war with the Greeks.
But more to the point: The Greeks thought it was divine influence that defeated the Persians. As someone mentioned before, it is silly to ignore that many scientists that searched for the truth and became convinced by the evidence are not men or women of faith.
The rain falls on both the just and the unjust, The heat will affect both the faithful and the heathen. 
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
In Christianity a false god can mean anything that one places as a priority in their life, such as money.
[/quote]
And how do you know that money is a false god and your god isn’t ? At least money is provably real and can actually do good in the world; money IMHO makes a much better God than the Christian God, and it’s certainly no more false. And that’s not meant as a compliment towards money worship, but as a comment on how worthless and destructive belief in the Christian god is; almost anything is better than that.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Der Trihs there are many self professes Christians, but very few who actually are Christ centered, those who are really servants of Jesus as their king. This touches again with the discussion with Revenant Threshold, you can have someone who says the are a Christian but puts Jesus on the back burner and actually are worshiping money or at the alter of AGW. When I stated above that I am more likely to accept AGW witnessing from a Christian, I am referring to the small circle of people I know are truely Christ centered, not just anyone who has a lit up tree in December. The number of these people seems unfortunately very small.
[/quote]
A Christian is anyone who calls themselves a Christian, not someone who happens to follow whatever religious delusion you’ve invested yourself in.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
It even has it’s own phophit , well several, but lets stick with one, Al Gore, Son of rich man, has seen the light and flies around in a bio-fuel private jet, flying commercial when he can, offsetting every carbon atom he releases into the atmosphere by carbon credits, living the perfect life, telling the masses to repent, stop releasing carbon, become carbon neutral to reach carbon nirvana, if you can’t now, reduce your carbon footprint as much as you can - or else out god will deliver the disasters I have phrophisized about in my movies.
[/quote]
Not God, which being delusional isn’t going to inflict disasters on anyone, but nature. Which is real, and can and does inflict disasters all the time. No similarity.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Whenever corruption enters it does open the door to demonic influence.
[/QUOTE]
Really ? Any evidence of that ? Any evidence demons exist ? Any evidence that if they exist that they can influence anyone to do anything ? Any evidence that if they exist they are hostile ?
Thought not.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
And the closer a issue gets to becoming a god, the more opportunity people may open themselves to demonic oppression. Is it possible that part of AGW issue is satanic/demonic in nature - yes.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: No it’s not possible. It’s an incredibly stupid idea that belongs in the Dark Ages.
And AGW isn’t even close to religion anway. It’s based on science. which makes it the opposite of religion.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Yes we are, but I don’t see how burning the food intended for the poor in the gas tanks of the rich’s SUV’s is using the land God has provided responsibly.
[/QUOTE]
Because it could help the poor from being ruined when their homes and land are flooded by rising sea levels, or ruined by droughts, or starving because the nation’s crops have failed, or being smashed by a hurricane ? Global warming is likely to be much harder on the poor than the rich.
And nuclear power would be much better anyway. “Biofuels” might help with oil but they wouldn’t do any good against global warming.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Why not both? If there is demonic influence at the level that corrupts the data and scews the results, would it not be necessary to cast out that influence to get the truth?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: There’s no such thing as demonic influence, or demons for that matter. Nor do you have any evidence that if demons existed that they could do any such thing, or would want to. How do you know that these hypothetical demons aren’t leading us towards the truth ? After all, if they are opposed to God that’s a point in their favor.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Are you saying you have not heard of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, butanol? I’m pretty sure there are biofuel supporters who have posted in this thread, biofules that will tap into the food supply and raise the price of the cheapest fuels, the food the poor can afford.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a solution for global warming, that’s why. It’s still burning stuff. It’s still putting out CO2.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The rain falls on both the just and the unjust, The heat will affect both the faithful and the heathen.
[/QUOTE]
This is true, and motivation for believers to try to prevent suffering when they can. Then again we have:
[QUOTE=Revelation 7: 3 NIV]
“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revelation 9:4 NIV]
They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
[/QUOTE]
Which does offer some protection.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s not a solution for global warming, that’s why. It’s still burning stuff. It’s still putting out CO2.
[/QUOTE]
In theory it can be carbon neutral and energy positive.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This issues are interrelated, AGW becoming a religion, building on man’s hardwired desire to have a god, causes dramatic changes in lifestyle, which it seems will tend to suppress the middle classes and the poor.
[/QUOTE]
I’m mostly an Ethanol heretic, so I don’t think you should continue with that “point”
I think there are good points against using Ethanol, however, it seems that could change, it depends on what is the source of the Ethanol and the progress made in using other sources rather than corn.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Are you saying you have not heard of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, butanol?
[/QUOTE]
Of course I’ve heard of them. They’re not the only proposed solution - but you raised the subject as if to say they were.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This is true, and motivation for believers to try to prevent suffering when they can. Then again we have:
Which does offer some protection.
[/QUOTE]
There is very little use for Revelation nowadays, Revelation had its expiration day when the Roman Empire did fall.
What is important is to take into account that I do not see the end of the world coming even if global warming becomes a bigger problem than expected. Where I see the problem is in people that will not do anything to deal with the change.
[QUOTE=matt]
People arguing for global warming are in the habit of pointing out all sorts of positive feedbacks that should make the climate an unstable equilibrium. Examples:
a) If the temperature goes up, there will be greater evaporation from the oceans, which increases the amount of water vapour, which is a greenhouse gas and so it will get even hotter. And vice versa.
b) If the temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases so it’ll release more CO2, which is a greenhouse gas so it will get even hotter. And vice versa.
c) If the temperature goes up, it’ll melt the reflective white polar ice, decreasing the Earth’s albedo. So more solar radiation will be absorbed, and again, it will get even hotter, and vice versa…
The problem I have with all these positive feedbacks is that if they were the only factors, the Earth’s climate should be a pencil balanced on its point. The slightest nudge and we should either go plummeting into a permanent ice age, or sweltering up to an ice-free hot rock. And the climate takes plenty of big nudges, e.g. the volcano eruptions that gave us the year without a summer. Why didn’t the positive feedbacks mentioned above send the temperatures crashing for ever more?
There have to be some strong negative feedback mechanisms that overwhelm the positive feedbacks. If not, then our climate walks a tightrope, and history doesn’t support that. How did the Earth ever come out of an Ice Age with all that ice reflecting the sunlight, and water vapour and CO2 levels way down?
[/quote]
This is a common misconception…i.e., that positive feedbacks necessarily imply runaway behavior and instability. In reality, this is only true if the feedbacks are sufficiently strong. If they are not, they will magnify a perturbation but not to the point of instability.
Let’s take the water vapor feedback as a concrete example. Say that it is so strong that a 1 C increase initially in the temperature alone causes enough water vapor to evaporate to produce an additional 1.5 C of warming. Then, an initial 1 C rise produces another 1.5 C rise which then produces another 2.25 C rise which then produces…and indeed, you get a runaway greenhouse effect (as apparently occurred at some point on Venus…although I am not sure whether or not water vapor was involved).
However, let’s say that the water vapor feedback is not that strong and that a 1 C increase in temperature produces additional water vapor to cause an additional 0.5 C rise. Then, your initial 1 C rise produces 0.5 C rise, which then feeds back to produce an additional 0.25 C rise, which then feeds back to produce an additional 0.125 C rise, … And, so what you now have is a convergent geometric series that shows you that the effect of the water vapor feedback in this case is not instability but instead a magnification of the original effect by a factor of 2. [It is, by the way, not hard to create a “toy model” of the water vapor feedback whereby the solution to the equations is indeed such a geometric series.]
You can check out the IPCC site to see very good correlation between temperatures and modeling over the 20th century when all the estimated forcings are included. The reason why the correlation is not so good for CO2 alone is because CO2 was not the dominant forcing over the whole 20th century. The 20th century was a century of transition between natural forcings being dominant and CO2 being dominant. (And, in between, as noted, by another poster, man-made aerosols were quite important.) You have to remember that even as recently as 1970, the amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere above pre-industrial levels, and thus the forcing due to CO2, was only 40% of what it is today. [By contrast, aerosol pollutants do not have as long a lifetime in the atmosphere so, roughly speaking, their concentrations are determined by the current output of these pollutants rather than by the total integrated output as with a long-lived substance like CO2. In such a situation, as long as we don’t keep exponentially increasing our output of pollutants, the CO2 warming effects will eventually dominate over the pollutant cooling effects although the pollutants can dominate at earlier times.]
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Are you saying you have not heard of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, butanol? I’m pretty sure there are biofuel supporters who have posted in this thread, biofules that will tap into the food supply and raise the price of the cheapest fuels, the food the poor can afford. Here’s a cite:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18173/…
This issues are interrelated, AGW becoming a religion, building on man’s hardwired desire to have a god, causes dramatic changes in lifestyle, which it seems will tend to suppress the middle classes and the poor.
[/QUOTE]
I did a quick search through the thread. Not one mention of “biofuel” or “ethanol”–until you raised the issue.
Yeah, Al Gore is the High Priest of the Church of Biofuel. Or, just perhaps, you’re the one raising false idols.
[QUOTE=matt]
Now, something that I haven’t seen much discussion of is stability. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy is an equilibrium, the question is what kind of equilibrium? Stable, neutral or unstable? The differences are shown here, top figure. Equilibrium, Stability, and Behavior over time
If the equilibrium is stable, then if you nudge the system out of equilbrium, there will be negative feedbacks to bring it back. Like a marble in the bottom of a bowl.
If the equilibrium is unstable, it is like a pencil balanced on its point. The slightest nudge will send it crashing away from its equilibrium state.
[/QUOTE]
You oversimplify. Judging from history, the Earth’s climate has multiple quasi-stable states. Consider that Earth during Ice Ages, like the one we are in now, has alternated between being covered over much of it’s surface with glaciers for thousands of years, then they shrink and stay shrunk for thousands of years. That’s two quasi-stable states right there.
It’s not the all-or-nothing situation you are claiming. And given that Earth has been warmer in the past,there’s every reason to believe that there are stable states that are warmer than the one we are ( or were ) in.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
It is filling the need of man for a god, is it exact no, is it close enough to fill that need IMHO unquestionably yes.
[/QUOTE]
So, it’s not exactly a religion, but it fills (some of OR all of) the same needs as religion?
Is that the tack?
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
So, it’s not exactly a religion, but it fills (some of OR all of) the same needs as religion?
Is that the tack?
[/QUOTE]
Or in other words, when people don’t do religion, they fill the time by doing other things instead. This is big news.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Well help me fight my ignorance; I don’t have any idea where to look. It seems there was just a thread about the Bush admn. trying to sell thier version of it. Is it just who gets the most press?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not exactly what we were discussing ( the #s of scientists) but it’s related.
Scientific consensus happens when just about everybody agrees, which is exactly what is going on with global climate change.
Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, examined nearly 1,000 published papers on climate change. She found no disagreement within the scientific community on two questions: whether Earth’s climate is warming and whether human activities are influencing that warming.
Not one, not a single paper, refuted the basic consensus statement that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is increasing, that it is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, and it’s having discernible effects, Oreskes told UPI’s Climate.
Scientists also agree the CO2 increases are the result of human activity, she wrote in her paper, which was published in the Dec. 3 issue of the journal Science.
The climate skeptics also have weighed in on the subject.
So far I have listed about 4,000 studies from 1972-2004, and about 10 percent disagree with the consensus position, said Timo Hämeranta, the Finland-based moderator of a climate skeptics’ Internet group.
from here:
Sorry about the lack of primaries
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are no scientists who take Global Warming on faith. There are a lot of people who simply trust the scientists but the science is pretty much beyond dispute. The comparison to religion is inane.
[/QUOTE]
Surely you mean Climatologists? After all, there are many professions in the sciences that label their practitioners scientists, that have no great grasp of climatology than the average college educated person. Possibly no more than the Lay person (as going to college does not guarantee that you will have taken a climatology class or anything related, I sure as hell have not).
So, yeah, some, if not many scientists take AGW on “faith”.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
So, it’s not exactly a religion, but it fills (some of OR all of) the same needs as religion?
Is that the tack?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and as it falls into man’s hardwired tendency of having a god, taking issues relating to god is allowed on faith alone, the burden of physical ‘proof’ required to accept a matter of faith is lower. One difference as I see it is one going deeper into ‘living god based religions’ will explore and get the ‘proof’* they need from the spiritual world, in ‘science as religion’ they will research into the physical world for that proof. But before those steps are taken, and some may never take those steps and take either issue totally on faith.
*Yes I know some/most of you don’t accept anything from the spiritual world, including the spiritual world itself as proof of anything unless it can be scientifically proven.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Here is a graph of the global temperature anomaly, in recent years:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2_lrg.gif
LilShieste
[/QUOTE]
The graph you link to shows a temperature change of approximately 0.8 degrees Celcius over approximately 125 years. That’s a rate of change of approximately .0064 degrees Celcius per year.
Are you claiming that this rate – 0.0064 degrees per year – is unprecedented?
[QUOTE=Epimetheus ]
Surely you mean Climatologists? After all, there are many professions in the sciences that label their practitioners scientists, that have no great grasp of climatology than the average college educated person. Possibly no more than the Lay person (as going to college does not guarantee that you will have taken a climatology class or anything related, I sure as hell have not).
So, yeah, some, if not many scientists take AGW on “faith”.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they do, unless DtC wants to claim that those are not ‘true scientists’ as I suggested he would. As for climatologist, I was googling for a account that AGW deniers were refused employment and used the terms “Climatologists global warming”, I was taken back with the # of links on the first page that referred to how many of them deny it’s happening.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
If some find it to be false, then they need to provide evidence that explains their reasoning. I emphasize evidence, because gut feelings don’t work like they do with religion.
[/QUOTE]
So, when people make the affirmative claim that there is a God, the burden of proof falls to them. AND when people doubt the affirmative claim that there is AGW the burden of proof falls to them.
It seems that the burden of proof falls to anyone who happens to disagree with you. :rolleyes: