the sky is falling ... again

[JustinM]

One day, everything on Earth will be destroyed and made new and nothing of the past will be remembered.

 

Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

 

Guess it would be easier than being responsible an doing the right thing.

What do YOU consider to be the right thing, uncertain?

The best thing to do would be to separate the science from the politics, but sadly that will never happen.

This is a well written article from a gentleman I have meet a couple of times. Read it with an open mind.http://www.vox.com/2014/11/11/7187057/global-warming-free-market-solution-republican-skepticp

 

All well and good to separate fact from politics but.....how does that help the environment?  What are you doing that actually addresses the problem?  Not the debate....the problem. You told another poster that spreading false data was easier than being responsible (not an exact quote).  What do you suggest that entails?

What am I doing personally? Well the wife and I downsized our home cutting our square feet in half, we have the most energy efficient appliances we could find and use geothermal energy for heating and AC. We downsized when it was time for new cars and have much more fuel efficient cars.

We have divested our investments from any company not environmentally friendly and have focused a portion of our investments into companies focused on new sources of energy.

This issue is high on my list when it comes to voting.

There is not much more I can do personally.

 

 

Hmm...those are all positive things.  I have the energy efficient appliances and a very fuel efficient car.  I recycle everything I can also. I don't have the desire or the time to research companies but it's a good thing if you can.  I think every little thing we do helps.  Its not really America that is the main offender anymore though; China, India and other emerging countries are the major contributors to pollution of the atmosphere.  Not sure what to do about them. 

[walla299]

 

 

 

 

Two things you got wrong.

First, it was not the climate change of the 70s, a review of the scientific journals of the time show more articles, by a 6 to 1 margin, about warming, not cooling.

Second, the scientists that warned about cooling all focused on aerosols, and the need to cut back on their use. In the 70s, not everything was broken down via party lines and people actually listened to the scientists instead of brushing off based on politics, and cut back on the use of aerosols. So, they were not wrong.

 

Something you got wrong friend: I was there. I saw it. We were taught it in school. Our parents chuckled and went on with life. Don't ever tell me I didn't live through something I lived through. The only real difference was that they didn't preach the Ice Age scenario with quite the same propaganda like frequency like they do global warming today. You could still watch a nature doco and wouldn't come up . . . 

 

The "responable thing" seems to be to turn our country into a 3rd world pesthole, and I'm not okay with that. I'm also done with this so called debate. Have a nice day . . .

What they taught at your school is irrelevant, what the scientific community was saying is a matter of record, and it does not jive with what your school was teaching.

The adults of that generation didn't laugh, they acted responsibly and changed their ways in the use of aerosols.

 

We seem to be talking about 2 different things here. The aerosol thing was one time where the science and government actually did the right thing. Again: I know. I was there - in the southern hemisphere living next door to that ozone hole over the south pole, assuming that's what you're referring to. Totally different thing than the warm/cooling debate which I won't waste time on.

 

They really didn't "change their ways" in the use of aerosols, by the way. Just the propellants. There's still lots of aerosols used today.

No, we are talking about the same thing, it was aerosols in the atmosphere that were predicated to cause global cooling. You might have be been there but your memory of the situation is clouded by personal biases. Instead of relying on 40 year old memories, look at the scientific papers of the time. For the record, I was there also.

 

 

Call me biased if you like, but I'll never buy into the global money/power scam that the climate change folks want to push. I know a scam when I see one. When I see those pushing the agenda also changing their lifestyles to match it I might consider changing my mind upon seeing them take it seriously enough to cut there own "carbon footprint" first. Not much chance of that though as I can see a Herr Gore and a few others.

[Uncertain]

The actions of greedy politicians has no bearing on the science and the data.

If you had lung cancer and a doctor who smoked told you that you need to stop smoking would you ignore him for being a hypocrite?

[ayin jade]

The actions of greedy politicians has no bearing on the science and the data.

If you had lung cancer and a doctor who smoked told you that you need to stop smoking would you ignore him for being a hypocrite?

 

It has everything to do with the so called science. 

[Uncertain]

The actions of greedy politicians has no bearing on the science and the data.

If you had lung cancer and a doctor who smoked told you that you need to stop smoking would you ignore him for being a hypocrite?

 

It has everything to do with the so called science.

That is what you have been told, but it is not reality, but how else do of you get normally bright people to ignore the facts and data and majority of scientists in the field? The only way is to turn the issue into a political wedge issue.

[ayin jade]

 

 

The actions of greedy politicians has no bearing on the science and the data.

If you had lung cancer and a doctor who smoked told you that you need to stop smoking would you ignore him for being a hypocrite?

 

It has everything to do with the so called science.

That is what you have been told, but it is not reality, but how else do of you get normally bright people to ignore the facts and data and majority of scientists in the field? The only way is to turn the issue into a political wedge issue.

 

 

It is what I have seen in the sciences and in society. It is not what Ive been told. I have a berean attitude and double and triple check everything. I dont trust anyone just telling me something without verifying it from sources. 

[Uncertain]

The actions of greedy politicians has no bearing on the science and the data.

If you had lung cancer and a doctor who smoked told you that you need to stop smoking would you ignore him for being a hypocrite?

 

It has everything to do with the so called science.

That is what you have been told, but it is not reality, but how else do of you get normally bright people to ignore the facts and data and majority of scientists in the field? The only way is to turn the issue into a political wedge issue.

 

It is what I have seen in the sciences and in society. It is not what Ive been told. I have a berean attitude and double and triple check everything. I dont trust anyone just telling me something without verifying it from sources.

Have you taken the data sets an ran an analysis on them yourself? They are available to anyone who wants to download them. There is a great free analysis package called R that will let you manipulate the data in countless ways.

[MorningGlory]

Pondering....since when does  "the majority= TRUTH?  umm .....like ...hardly ever.  

Ignore me...but, can you ignore the words of Michael Crichton? 

 

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called CONSENSUS SCIENCE. I regard CONSENSUS SCIENCE as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

 

Whenever you hear the CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

 

"Let's be clear; The work of Science has nothing whatever to do with CONSENSUS. CONSENSUS is the business of POLITICS. Science , on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In Science --CONSENSUS is irrelevant. What relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are CONSENSUS. PERIOD.....

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of CONSENSUS is invoked. CONSENSUS is invoked only in situations where the science is NOT solid enough. Nobody says the CONSENSUS of scientists agrees that E=mc2.   Nobody says the CONSENSUS is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

(Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.)

 

 Co2 has many of benefits to the planet, like the earth becoming greener. This for one thing means that more food for the earth's growing population. I trust that our Father in heaven is Sovereign and knows exactly what we need and how long we will need it. " 2Peter3:9 " The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slacknes; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 

 

As previously stated , if  people would turn to GOD we would not have the problems that we have.

 

The bottom line is = what does the Bible say?

 

2CHRONICLES 7:14 " If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves , and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

 

oh I  praise the Lord, who is faithful and merciful and always keeps His promises! and bless His holy name Yeshuah, El Shaddai for ever.  

 

The name of the Lord is a strong tower and the righteous run into it and are safe and secure. Proverbs 18:10

 

Amen,, davida. 

[enoob57]

Guess it would be easier than being responsible an doing the right thing.

What do YOU consider to be the right thing, uncertain?

The best thing to do would be to separate the science from the politics, but sadly that will never happen.

This is a well written article from a gentleman I have meet a couple of times. Read it with an open mind.http://www.vox.com/2014/11/11/7187057/global-warming-free-market-solution-republican-skepticp

 

All well and good to separate fact from politics but.....how does that help the environment?  What are you doing that actually addresses the problem?  Not the debate....the problem. You told another poster that spreading false data was easier than being responsible (not an exact quote).  What do you suggest that entails?

What am I doing personally? Well the wife and I downsized our home cutting our square feet in half, we have the most energy efficient appliances we could find and use geothermal energy for heating and AC. We downsized when it was time for new cars and have much more fuel efficient cars.

We have divested our investments from any company not environmentally friendly and have focused a portion of our investments into companies focused on new sources of energy.

This issue is high on my list when it comes to voting.

There is not much more I can do personally.

 

Hmm...those are all positive things.  I have the energy efficient appliances and a very fuel efficient car.  I recycle everything I can also. I don't have the desire or the time to research companies but it's a good thing if you can.  I think every little thing we do helps.  Its not really America that is the main offender anymore though; China, India and other emerging countries are the major contributors to pollution of the atmosphere.  Not sure what to do about them. 

This is in fact the nail in the coffin ... as increase of sin in the world so the love of many grows cold.

We effectively become fewer and loveless becomes the norm. The act of getting what one can today regardless of

the ones of tomorrow is the tribulation (great) for many therein have no love outside of themselves!

Love always through Christ, Steven