Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: You can't blame global warming on communism or fascism, only capitalism can pollute so much! | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:08:38 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Capitalism caused the Gulf Coast huricannes and floods????LOL!" on 13:06:04 03/12/07 Mon >> It doesn't matter what non-religious people think >>about the flood, it matters what religious people >>think about it, for those of us who are religious, a >>prediction - prophesy of a global catastrophe, >>remarkably similar to the flood of noah, should be >>taken seriously. >> >> Interesting that scientists used science to bash >>religion, and now are being put in the position that >>in the past was the role of the religious? It is >>somewhat a form of justice by God, but it also shows >>that God respects them, he is punishing them by making >>them prophets. Why would God find scientists worthy >>of this after they misused science to attack religion? >> I believe that in spite of the anti-religious nature >>of many scientists, they have nevertheless committed >>themselves to finding the truth, which is a virtue, >>and God finds them worthy of repentence. Also, the >>religious leaders have been corrupted, it is >>understandable that people challenge religious >>institutions, sometimes it is necessary. There is no >>redeeming values to capitalism, it devours society, it >>destroys God's creation in it's entirety, in the end >>capitalism will be swamped by the flood it created, as >>it was in noah's days, it was recently on the gulf >>coast. >> >>>Just a couple weeks ago people on this board were >>>making fun of the belief of Noah's Flood. I guess >>>whatever suits the moment for the agruement! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the scientists have never found evidence of a >>>>global catastrophe to explain noah's flood, although >>>>there were regoinal catastrophes around the time the >>>>bible claims it happened. The description of noah's >>>>civilization is remarkably similar to that of >western >>>>civilization, it was a selfish, individualistic, >>>>materialistic society with no central government, >and >>>>it was accompanied by major advances in technology. >>>>The civilization of noah went through a period of >>>>denial of noah's prophesy, very similar to the >global >>>>warming deniers of our time. There was an >incredible >>>>amount of sexual depravity, and eventually slavery, >>>>just as capitalism has done to western civilization. >>>> >>>> In the bible, water is a symbol of materialistic >>>>prosperity, the flood represents the overconsumption >>>>of that generation, and perhaps our generation. >>Water >>>>vapor is the dominent greenhouse gas, except in the >>>>polar region. The after effects of the flood were >>>>shorter lifespans and increased desease, and that is >>>>exactly what scientists warn us of in our flood. >>>> >>>> the evangelical movement was the largest source >of >>>>votes for the republicans, it looks like that >support >>>>is starting to crack, just like those huge glaciers >>>>atop greenland. >>>> >>>>>OPINION By PHILIP STOTT >>>>>March 9, 2007 — From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to >the >>>>>post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate >>>change >>>>>cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and >>>>>sinfulness. >>>>> >>>>>In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The >>>>>Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: >>>>>Earth's climate is changing faster than even >experts >>>>>expect," while The New York Times announced, "A >>major >>>>>cooling of the climate is widely considered >>>>>inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming >>>represents >>>>>the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding >>>>>sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven >>>>>ways. >>>>> >>>>>But neither history nor science bolsters such an >>>>>apocalyptic faith. >>>>> >>>>>History and Science >>>>> >>>>>Extreme weather events are ever present, and there >>is >>>>>no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the >>>>>tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer >>>>>world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in >>>>>permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to >>>"crisis" >>>>>with warming. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sea levels have been rising since the end of the >>last >>>>>ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In >>>>>recent centuries, the average rate has been >>>relatively >>>>>uniform. The rate was higher during the first half >>of >>>>>the 20th century than during the second. At around >a >>>>>couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of >>>>>much larger positive and negative changes locally. >>>The >>>>>risk from global warming is less than that from >>other >>>>>factors (primarily geological). >>>>> >>>>>The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India >warmed >>>>>during the second half of the 20th century, yet >>>>>agricultural output increased markedly. The impact >>on >>>>>disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like >>>malaria, >>>>>are not so much a matter of temperature as of >>poverty >>>>>and public health. Malaria remains endemic in >>>Siberia, >>>>>and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to >>>>>cold is generally more dangerous. >>>>> >>>>>So, does the claim that humans are the primary >cause >>>>>of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on >>>>>temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with >>>>>increasing CO2. The role of human-induced >greenhouse >>>>>gases does not relate directly to emission rate, >nor >>>>>even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or >>>>>greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient >>>>>benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer >>>>>models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C >>warming. >>>>> >>>>>What is rarely noted is that we are already >>>>>three-quarters of the way into this in terms of >>>>>radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 >>>>>(+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose >>>>>that all of this is due to humans. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Indeed the system requires no external driver to >>>>>fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of >ocean >>>>>disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also >>>>>alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the >>sun, >>>>>water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth >>>>>remembering that modelers even find it difficult to >>>>>account for the medieval warm period. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Real Crisis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Our so-called "crisis" is thus neither a product of >>>>>current observations nor of projections. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>But does it matter if global warming is a "crisis" >>or >>>>>not? Aren't we threatened by a serious temperature >>>>>rise? Shouldn't we act anyway, because we are >>>stewards >>>>>of the environment? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming >>>>>hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die >>of >>>>>waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go >>hungry. >>>>>A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. >>This >>>>>does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting >>>>>about "saving the planet." What is wrong with us >>that >>>>>we downplay this human misery before our eyes and >>>>>focus on events that will probably not happen even >a >>>>>hundred years hence? We know that the greatest >cause >>>>>of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, >we >>>>>can and must act. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The global warming "crisis" is misguided. In >>>>>hubristically seeking to "control" climate, we >>>>>foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable >>>>>change. There is no way we can predictably manage >>>this >>>>>most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. >>>>>The inconvenient truth is that "doing something" >>>>>(emitting gases) at the margins and "not doing >>>>>something" (not emitting gases) are equally >>>>>unpredictable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is >>>both >>>>>an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for >>4 >>>>>billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty >>>>>water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By >>>>>contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria >>of >>>>>the pampered rich. >>>>> >>>>>We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human >>>>>doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. >The >>>>>"crisis" is the global warming political agenda, >not >>>>>climate change. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the >>>>>University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he >>>was >>>>>the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Of course you can't blame it on communists, there arn't many of them left! | Oropan | 14:00:29 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||