Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Polar Bears and global warming

* * * * * 2 votes Global warming hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim.

 

http://www.powerline...polar-bears.php



#2
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,637 posts

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim.

 

http://www.powerline...polar-bears.php

 

I personally believe that it's all a con. Only God controls the climate.



#3
walla299

walla299

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,790 posts

Yep. :thumbsup:

 

Global money/power scam.



#4
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,932 posts

You might have a little fun in my blog on the topic of propaganda, myth, junk science etc, for the footnote about that very picture of the polar bear in that article.



#5
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,301 posts

I read an article while we were on vacation that the bears now are having a problem that the ice is too thick and the other animals are having trouble getting air holes made in the ice so the bears are not able to catch them coming up for air and the bears are going hungry.



#6
OldSchool2

OldSchool2

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Writers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim ...


"This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

"Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was 'simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand'" ...

http://nation.foxnew...mbers-were-made

#7
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,637 posts

You might have a little fun in my blog on the topic of propaganda, myth, junk science etc, for the footnote about that very picture of the polar bear in that article.

 

I read it. I thought the picture looked familiar.



#8
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,714 posts

In addition to the fact that global warming is a scam, even if the temperatures were getting warmer, there is no proof it has anything to do with anything mankind is doing.  The idea that we are causing the planet to warm is junk science, and it is being used to scare people into accepting more re-distribution of wealth through carbon emissions taxes.  Thankfully, most people have come to see global warming for the lie it is.  Not to be deterred, now they are calling it "climate change."  That means that regardless of the weather, if it varies at all, mankind gets the blame.  Those of us that lived through the ice age nonsense of the 70s and the global warming since then will remain skeptical, but you can never tell about future generations.  They can't help but notice that the weather changes.  Temperatures will continue to rise and fall, and there will be the occasional natural disaster.  Liberal scientists will blame it on capitalism, and will eventually scare them into accepting more taxes so they won't die. 



#9
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,637 posts

In addition to the fact that global warming is a scam, even if the temperatures were getting warmer, there is no proof it has anything to do with anything mankind is doing.  The idea that we are causing the planet to warm is junk science, and it is being used to scare people into accepting more re-distribution of wealth through carbon emissions taxes.  Thankfully, most people have come to see global warming for the lie it is.  Not to be deterred, now they are calling it "climate change."  That means that regardless of the weather, if it varies at all, mankind gets the blame.  Those of us that lived through the ice age nonsense of the 70s and the global warming since then will remain skeptical, but you can never tell about future generations.  They can't help but notice that the weather changes.  Temperatures will continue to rise and fall, and there will be the occasional natural disaster.  Liberal scientists will blame it on capitalism, and will eventually scare them into accepting more taxes so they won't die. 

 

They're just false prophets, no different to the Harold Campings of this World. They promised us Global Warming - floods, rising sea levels, melted ice caps, mass humanitarian disaster, higher temperatures, and it just didn't happen.

In Britain we were told that our drizzly, cool climate would be transformed - that the Highlands of Scotland would be like England, that the south coast of England would have a Mediterranean climate like the South of France and the South of France would be desert. It didn't happen and nothing remotely like it happened.

Once a prophet has been proven wrong then he becomes a false prophet. Only the deniers would continue to follow his teachings.

The giveaway sign was when they changed their tack from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. This is a safe bet, so no matter what happens they can claim that they were right.

 

The Global Warmists belong to a religion and Climate Change is a false religion. It's all about worshiping Gaia.

Unfortunately we all have to pay a tithe to their 'church' whether we are believers or not.



#10
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,932 posts

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim.

 

http://www.powerline...polar-bears.php

Yeah, I think you are right.

  • Is climate changing in an unusual way?
  • If so, is it warming, or switching back and forth?
  • If it is warming, is it man caused or naturally caused, or a combination?
  • If it is warming, is that all that bad, or might the world be better off?
  • Do polar bears even need ice anyway?

There are lots of questions that could be asked, that I do not think have been answered definitively or convincingly, and least, not to my satisfaction. I have wondered from time to time, why tis seems to be a political issue to the degree that it is, Isn't the fate of the planet, a concern equally to those on the positions of the political spectrum? 

 

Surely no rational person believes that those on the right desire to ruin the planet for their children and grand children. Anyone who thinks that conservatives and/or small government advocates want to ruin our home, is so unhinged and their judgement is so bad, that no one should take them seriously. It appears to me, that global warming alarmists fall into one or more of several categories:

 

  • They hate capitalism and financial success, for individuals and/or societies, unless that success comes from some mostly low value activity like entertainment and poverty pimping
  • They have a distaste of financial inequality and feel that it is preferable to have everyone in poverty, than to have some people or societies well off, and believe that punishing success is a legitimate way to level the playing field
  • They are gullible and prone to scare tactics, and readily believe what they hear (especially if the news is scary) without putting in the effort to examine the facts
  • They like joining causes so they can feel good about helping fix things by voicing an opinion that agrees with some consensus or sounds compassionate
  • They enjoy government grant money
  • They get their information from people on who tend toward the political left, regardless of intellectual of educational qualification - entertainers, educators, politicians of certain specific political parties or organizations
  • etc

 

O.K, I have exposed some of my own predjudices, and I realize that some of the above can more or less just reversed to form an accusation or criticism of myself and those who think like me. You may do that if you wish (though those who have responded to this thread so far seem to be climate change skeptics - AKA deniers) but what I would like to know is:

 

What is there, other than an appeal to the worn out concept that "most scientists agree that the planet is warming and that it is caused by the activities of mankind". Actually, I would not mind even that line of thinking, if the assumptions that most scientists (and I mean here qualified scientists) actually do agree and have objective reasons for believing as they do, could be convincingly documented.

 

All right, I will stop now as I am losing focus and even boring myself.



#11
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,637 posts

 

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim.

 

http://www.powerline...polar-bears.php

Yeah, I think you are right.

  • Is climate changing in an unusual way?
  • If so, is it warming, or switching back and forth?
  • If it is warming, is it man caused or naturally caused, or a combination?
  • If it is warming, is that all that bad, or might the world be better off?
  • Do polar bears even need ice anyway?

There are lots of questions that could be asked, that I do not think have been answered definitively or convincingly, and least, not to my satisfaction. I have wondered from time to time, why tis seems to be a political issue to the degree that it is, Isn't the fate of the planet, a concern equally to those on the positions of the political spectrum? 

 

Surely no rational person believes that those on the right desire to ruin the planet for their children and grand children. Anyone who thinks that conservatives and/or small government advocates want to ruin our home, is so unhinged and their judgement is so bad, that no one should take them seriously. It appears to me, that global warming alarmists fall into one or more of several categories:

 

  • They hate capitalism and financial success, for individuals and/or societies, unless that success comes from some mostly low value activity like entertainment and poverty pimping
  • They have a distaste of financial inequality and feel that it is preferable to have everyone in poverty, than to have some people or societies well off, and believe that punishing success is a legitimate way to level the playing field
  • They are gullible and prone to scare tactics, and readily believe what they hear (especially if the news is scary) without putting in the effort to examine the facts
  • They like joining causes so they can feel good about helping fix things by voicing an opinion that agrees with some consensus or sounds compassionate
  • They enjoy government grant money
  • They get their information from people on who tend toward the political left, regardless of intellectual of educational qualification - entertainers, educators, politicians of certain specific political parties or organizations
  • etc

 

O.K, I have exposed some of my own predjudices, and I realize that some of the above can more or less just reversed to form an accusation or criticism of myself and those who think like me. You may do that if you wish (though those who have responded to this thread so far seem to be climate change skeptics - AKA deniers) but what I would like to know is:

 

What is there, other than an appeal to the worn out concept that "most scientists agree that the planet is warming and that it is caused by the activities of mankind". Actually, I would not mind even that line of thinking, if the assumptions that most scientists (and I mean here qualified scientists) actually do agree and have objective reasons for believing as they do, could be convincingly documented.

 

All right, I will stop now as I am losing focus and even boring myself.

 

 

Good post, not boring at all.



#12
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

 

Often people pushing the global warming agenda-use polar bears to push their agenda, suggesting they are becoming endangered due to warmer temperatures melting the ice. Problem is, they have absolutly no evidence to support this claim.

 

http://www.powerline...polar-bears.php

Yeah, I think you are right.

  • Is climate changing in an unusual way?
  • If so, is it warming, or switching back and forth?
  • If it is warming, is it man caused or naturally caused, or a combination?
  • If it is warming, is that all that bad, or might the world be better off?
  • Do polar bears even need ice anyway?

There are lots of questions that could be asked, that I do not think have been answered definitively or convincingly, and least, not to my satisfaction. I have wondered from time to time, why tis seems to be a political issue to the degree that it is, Isn't the fate of the planet, a concern equally to those on the positions of the political spectrum? 

 

Surely no rational person believes that those on the right desire to ruin the planet for their children and grand children. Anyone who thinks that conservatives and/or small government advocates want to ruin our home, is so unhinged and their judgement is so bad, that no one should take them seriously. It appears to me, that global warming alarmists fall into one or more of several categories:

 

  • They hate capitalism and financial success, for individuals and/or societies, unless that success comes from some mostly low value activity like entertainment and poverty pimping
  • They have a distaste of financial inequality and feel that it is preferable to have everyone in poverty, than to have some people or societies well off, and believe that punishing success is a legitimate way to level the playing field
  • They are gullible and prone to scare tactics, and readily believe what they hear (especially if the news is scary) without putting in the effort to examine the facts
  • They like joining causes so they can feel good about helping fix things by voicing an opinion that agrees with some consensus or sounds compassionate
  • They enjoy government grant money
  • They get their information from people on who tend toward the political left, regardless of intellectual of educational qualification - entertainers, educators, politicians of certain specific political parties or organizations
  • etc

 

O.K, I have exposed some of my own predjudices, and I realize that some of the above can more or less just reversed to form an accusation or criticism of myself and those who think like me. You may do that if you wish (though those who have responded to this thread so far seem to be climate change skeptics - AKA deniers) but what I would like to know is:

 

What is there, other than an appeal to the worn out concept that "most scientists agree that the planet is warming and that it is caused by the activities of mankind". Actually, I would not mind even that line of thinking, if the assumptions that most scientists (and I mean here qualified scientists) actually do agree and have objective reasons for believing as they do, could be convincingly documented.

 

All right, I will stop now as I am losing focus and even boring myself.

 

 

 

 

Hi omegaman. I’ve chosen to address your post since you ask some fair questions. I might address other posts later. I am in the seemingly unusual position of being a Biblical Christian (i.e. a fundamentalist, creationist) who is convinced that climate change is both real, and predominantly human driven. I don’t consider the issue of climate change to be in any way related to my faith. [Note: I have pointed you in the direction of some references for my claims at the end of my discussion so it doesn’t get too messy]

 

You asked, “Is climate changing in an unusual way?”

 

The term “unusual” is somewhat subjective. From recorded climate history up to the 1950s, there were established norms of climate activity which incorporated some variance. Since that time, the mean (average) temperature has deviated beyond the pre-established range of variance. So it is “unusual” in the sense that there has been significant movement away from the long-existing, pre-established norms.

 

 

 

“If so, is it warming, or switching back and forth?”

 

Within the long term climate data there are observed periods of plateauing and negative energy (or temperature) climate patterns. The effects on the overall pattern of increasing energy are mild. They likely represent what scientists call “negative feedback”. Most complex systems have established parameters of extremes which are driven back towards equilibrium by negative feedback forces. For example; more energy in the atmosphere leads to more precipitation, which in turn leads to more cloud formation – clouds reflect the sun’s energy back into space (the albedo effect); thereby mitigating some of the warming.

 

Recent data suggested that the warming over the past 2 decades was occurring more slowly than predicted. Note that warming more slowly is not the same as cooling. There has been no reversal (or “switching”) in the atmospheric energy patterns towards the previous norms since the warming pattern was established.

 

 

 

“If it is warming, is it man caused or naturally caused, or a combination?”

 

It is a combination. However these “radiative forcings” can be quantified. Natural positive forcings are miniscule compared to the human contribution of greenhouse gasses.

 

 

 

“If it is warming, is that all that bad, or might the world be better off?”

 

Well – that depends on one’s perspective.

 

If you rely on a crop that is unable to set seed due to warmer nights, or if you live on an island that will disappear under projected sea level rises (i.e. if you have not already been wiped out by an extreme weather event), or if you are a nearby nation having to accept refugees from said islands, or if you live somewhere that the combination of storm surge, sea level rise and extreme weather events could wipe out your property, or if you live in an area of encroaching aridity, or if you become subject to increasing levels of disease due to the expansion of vector ranges, or if your nation is forced to go to war over water and food security, or if the increased ocean acidification means your species can no longer tolerate predation, or if the survival of your species relies on the consistency of temperature dependent incubations of other species, or if the only thing protecting your species from extinction is that you can take refuge at higher altitudes where disease vectors don’t exist etc. – then I would suggest to you that you might consider the warming of the globe to be bad.

 

Though if you live a little way inland, then you might end up with a beach front property. If you are wealthy enough, food and water security might not be an issue for you.

 

 

 

“Do polar bears even need ice anyway?”

 

I suspect Polar bears are intrinsically adapted to cold conditions and probably require such conditions to maintain temperature regulation. Polar bears are awesome, but losing them would be a lot less important to our survival than messing with the habitats of species that are lower on the food chain – if we are being pragmatic.

 

 

 

“There are lots of questions that could be asked, that I do not think have been answered definitively or convincingly, and least, not to my satisfaction”

 

Since the invention of the atom bomb, climate has probably been the most studied area of scientific investigation (because we needed to know how the radiation would be impacted by climate patterns). There is so much information around that it is difficult to know where to start. The physics and chemistry of climate change has been studied in various capacities since 1681 (Edme Mariotte). Most people mistakenly believe climate science to be new science with a new agenda.

 

I am highly critical of the scientific community’s efforts to communicate the science behind climate change. As a creationist, I am keenly aware that, contrary to the scientific method, the scientific community does not like to be questioned. They would rather disengage, and dodge, and strategize and ridicule etc. If you look hard enough you can find sincere scientists who are ready to answer questions and engage in rational discussion on climate change. But unfortunately, most of the scientific community has defaulted to the position of “I am a scientist – who are you to question my authoritaah?”

 

I am also critical that;

- The IPCC summary reports are released unreferenced. The originals (Working Group reports) are referenced – but most people read the summaries. Anyone moderately educated in science knows that unreferenced, published, scientific claims are meaningless. - Might as well go to a wiki for information.

- Many journals charge for their articles – so the appropriate science isn’t always freely available (unless like me, you are lucky enough to have a university proxy subscription).

 

 

 

“Surely no rational person believes that those on the right desire to ruin the planet for their children and grand children”

 

Logically speaking, it doesn’t really qualify as a right/left issue. It has only become such for political and rhetorical reasons. I have been fortunate enough to be formally educated on this issue – where I was exposed to the evidence and arguments relating to climate change. Most people have not had that opportunity. And many in society have, quite rightly, chosen to distrust the scientific community for their refusal to engage in rational discussion. The problem is that the remaining voices also tend to be untrustworthy – but since people generally prefer to hear what they want (confirmation bias); these are the voices being heeded. And now the scientific community wants to have a cry because their manipulations haven’t worked. I still hear some talking about not giving fair time to opposing positions – it’s outrageous, and stupid.

 

 

 

“It appears to me, that global warming alarmists fall into one or more of several categories …”

 

Respectfully, this whole section is Ad-hominem. Arguments and evidence should be assessed on their own merits – not mitigated or dismissed based on some misrepresentative stereotypes.

 

 

 

“What is there, other than an appeal to the worn out concept that "most scientists agree that the planet is warming and that it is caused by the activities of mankind". Actually, I would not mind even that line of thinking, if the assumptions that most scientists (and I mean here qualified scientists) actually do agree and have objective reasons for believing as they do, could be convincingly documented.”

 

Actually – you were correct at the first to not trust any Appeal to Consensus or Authority.

 

The IPCC is the best place to find climate change information gathered in one location. The trick is to go to the Working Group reports and ignore the summary reports (which are the dumbed-down, unreferenced reports given to governments and the media). For example, Working Group I addresses the physical science of climate change. Chapter 2 (dealing with atmosphere and surface observations) can be found here;

[http://www.climatech...ter02_FINAL.pdf ]

Note that their claims are backed up by 18 pages of references; mostly journal articles. The other 13 chapters can be found here;

[http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/]

This should give you some indication as to why questions such as yours, which imply little scientific support, are so stunning to those involved in the issue. But it is they (the scientific community) who have failed to communicate the extent of scientific support for climate change. That’s their job. It’s not the job of society to chase down this information. And to expect our trust based on their qualifications is itself, unscientific.



#13
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 665 posts
Global warming is a lie. There are mountians of info out there that prove this. There is also alot of false info too. Remember not to long ago a ship headed up to the north pole full of scientists who wanted to collect data to stop global warming.... and they got stuck in the ice. And even the rescue team had to turn back due to weather. North america has actually been cooling off since the 30's. Also keep in mind alot of false religions worship the earth and "mother nature".... they just want to save thier god, havent you heard it before save the planet?




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network