Global Warming

[apothanein kerdos]

In my science book, (written by an awesome creationist who is a college professor, chemist, and physicist)

my teacher (writer) stated, and showed graphs that compared temperatures to historical information. Yes, we have hotter temeratures now... but not extremely so, because the graph jagged up, and down, and up and down, and up.... basically, it looks like it is a cycle.... a very LONG cycle, but a cycle. Also, we do not HAVE historical data on exact temperatures, for a long period of history. Before we had thermometers, for example, we could not collect that data... and it also wasn't until we started THINKING about keeping a record... I would bet that we only have data for the last 100-150 years, or so. This is a miniscule slice in the history of our world- so it is fallacious to use it as a standard of what the world's climate always acts like.

The ozone stuff is not so horrible... in fact, all that has happened is that there is a THIN spot in the ozone... not a hole. And it is over the south pole, where nothing lives. Also, we cannot really do ANYTHING about it, because our pollution is so miniscule, compared to what would actually effect it that much. The point about the volcanoes, if correct, really hits the nail on the head for this.

Another point is, that at one time, it was very cold in our world- glaciers covered my state... and a lot of other places... this was not NORMAL weather, if normal is defined by the last 200 years. However, it happened. And it didn't stay freezing. Now it is getting warmer. and it will probably get colder again, too.

the heat changes most likely have absolutely nothing to do with the ozone layer, or any pollution that we could cause.

Research the issue further and you'll find that your belief is somewhat incorrect. No on, except for extremists, deny that the earth is going through it's warm cycle. This is all Global Warming should mean...we cannot stop it, it will occur, we need to get over it. THe problem is that the pollution we put into the air does affect the enviroment. Again, look to the bigger cities and surrounding areas. Plant life is not as vibrant, crop yield is not as high, human health is generally lower, etc. Pollution is a real thing...I can understand denying GLobal Warming, but to deny pollution exists....to me that's like denying existence itself. It can be proven...and it does hold a negative effect on the enviroment. The earth can handle a lot, and minimal pollution is fine, the earth adapts to it. Yet, the rate our materialistic society is pumping it out doesn't allow for adaptation.

[Keith]

alanraj,

Copyright laws applys to message boards. Please include the reference and/or link to the article you are posting to abide by copyright laws. When you don't do this, it infers that these are your own words - which they're not. It is also considered stealing. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48855

We don't want to have any copyright laws broken on Worthy Boards. Thank you.

[justme7]

I am keeping my mouth completely shut on this issue!

dito...what i know about global warming could not fill a thimble!!

[Guest Kilad]

Christians that deny that pollution is occuring, specifically global warming (which is a natural process that has been enhanced and intensified by human intervention), just baffles me. This is the consequence of materialism, a society that loves material items so much to gain for the individual that it has begun to kill off God's creation....when you argue against people who want to rid us of pollution and global warming, you're arguing for materialism.....does no one realize that, or some of you just ignore it because you'd rather be a good republican than a good Christian? Just as the liberal Christian twists and ignores scripture that speaks out against homosexuals so they can promote their political agenda, the conservative Christians twist and ignore scripture so they can support polluting businesses. To me, it simply does not make any sense.

Reaching the conclusion that I am a materialist republician who wants to kill off Gods creation for gain is one heck of a stretch. Of course so is believing all of the reactionist psudo science that you are attempting to badger us all into believing.

All I can say is God Bless.

[apothanein kerdos]

Christians that deny that pollution is occuring, specifically global warming (which is a natural process that has been enhanced and intensified by human intervention), just baffles me. This is the consequence of materialism, a society that loves material items so much to gain for the individual that it has begun to kill off God's creation....when you argue against people who want to rid us of pollution and global warming, you're arguing for materialism.....does no one realize that, or some of you just ignore it because you'd rather be a good republican than a good Christian? Just as the liberal Christian twists and ignores scripture that speaks out against homosexuals so they can promote their political agenda, the conservative Christians twist and ignore scripture so they can support polluting businesses. To me, it simply does not make any sense.

Reaching the conclusion that I am a materialist republician who wants to kill off Gods creation for gain is one heck of a stretch. Of course so is believing all of the reactionist psudo science that you are attempting to badger us all into believing.

All I can say is God Bless.

I like how no one has yet to actually counter what I say. The response generally accounts to, "Nu uh....it's not science" with absolutely no proof. Let's go down what I said, and then examine the claim that this is psuedo-science.

First, it is a fact that pollution is the overconsumption or abundance of excess waste of something. Think of it as a toilet. When we use a toilet once or twice, though disgusting not to flush, it still isn't all too bad. Use it multiple times, by the time you get to the tenth time, it is so vile and disgusting that no one wants to be near it. This is caused by overuse and excess waste with no proper disposal.

Pollution is caused by people driving back and forth, increased demand on factories, increase energy use, etc. We do all of this because we have specific demands and if those demands are not met then we are always upset. Thus, pollution is drive by materialism. Materialism is a belief that runs contrary to God's Word. Thus, to ignore that pollution exists and to deny it is to support the materialistic belief. There is no getting around it.

Pollution is about as deniable as gravity or sight. It simply cannot be denied to exist, it's very obvious that it does. When we look to Mexico City we see the damage that pollution has on humans alone. An incrase in asthma (in fact, the article includes an infant suffering from it). When we look further, generally the cities that have the highest ammounts of air pollution also have the highest ammounts of asthma per capita. What that means (and these are hypothetical numbers) is that whereas a rural area may have 1 in 1,000 citizens that have asthma, a big city with high pollution could have 1 in 100. It is not a matter of "300,000" people with asthma in a city of 5 million vs. 3 people with asthma in a city of 12,000. It is a matter of per capita...ratios...in other words, the bigger, more poluted city you live in, the more likely you are to have asthma.

Of course, the same thing, only more devastating, is occuring in Taiwan. The lush enviroment is quickly dying and so are the people there. Birth defects are almost common now. China's enviroment, specifically in its industrial areas, is suffering as well.

The Western World is not immune either. In 1952, the London fog (air pollution) killed about 4,000 people. The other problem is that air pollution leads to chronic lung disease which can very easily lead to death.

The point in all of this is to show you that it is not some "psuedo-science" but instead documented facts. Lives have been lost due to pollution, and you are denying that it exists? Continue to bury your head in the sand...after all...you just might breath better that way.

[Guest Kilad]

I am sure that the fact that people's life span is increasing in industrialilized nations is a fact that doesnt fit in your pollution theory. I suppose that Smoking has no impact on the asthma figures you are so fond of quoting. Also the fact that pollution is decreasing not increasing in American cities doesnt fit into your adjenda either.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/herald.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm

http://www.globalwarming.org/

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050921h.asp

Facts not scare tactics and name calling carry weight with me. To claim that man and not God has power over this world is to deny the divinity of God. The fate of the world has already been written there is absolutly nothing that we can do to prevent, prolong, or shorten what is to happen in the end of days. Even if the entire worlds nuclear arsinal is launched it will not prevent the rule of Christ. Regardless of what we do the earth will survive just as it has over the past 8-10,000 years.

For the interest of peace and furthering the name of the father I shall refrain from further posting in this topic.

[Guest yod]

Oh don't answer that....the mental imagery is too much already.

[apothanein kerdos]

For the interest of peace and furthering the name of the father I shall refrain from further posting in this topic.

'Course you will, you have nothing worthy to say. You're not even involved in the debate....everything you posted was with Global Warming and not pollution.

I am sure that the fact that people's life span is increasing in industrialilized nations is a fact that doesnt fit in your pollution theory. I suppose that Smoking has no impact on the asthma figures you are so fond of quoting. Also the fact that pollution is decreasing not increasing in American cities doesnt fit into your adjenda either.

Actually, life span is only increasing because of medical treatments. The rate of cancer per capita is actually increasing in industrialized methods...the only reason we are not seeing more deaths is because we have the technology to fight cancer. The World Heatlh Organization expects almost a 50% increase in cancer in industrialized nations from here to 2020. In fact, this medical site shows that though mortality from cancer has decreased, the actual contact of cancer has increased. As for smoking causing this, it doesn't make sense. Smoking has been decreasing significantly over the years whereas cases of lung cancer have only been increasing. Thus, it makes absolutely no sense as to why "smoking" should come into effect. Likewise, I am challenging that you did not read what I provided you. You are missing the fact that the figures were speaking of children who have had no exposure to smoking. For one, a higher ammount of people smoked in the 1950's yet there was a lower count of Asthma per person then. Now, fewer people smoke than they did in the 1950's but there is a higher per person asthma rate. From that fact alone (along with others) smoking cannot be blamed on this. The only thing that stands to blame is an increase in air pollution. Furthermore, if asthma is more common in bigger cities, where people are less likely to smoke, and smaller in rural communities, where people are more likely to smoke, how coudl smoking be the cause of it?

As for pollution decreasing in American cities, that is a myth. There is no proof that our air pollution has been decreasing. It is true that factories have been decreasing their pollution, but unfortunately cars and other problems are contributing to air pollution. A simple look over various examples will prove this point.

<a href="http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html" target="_blank">http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html</a>

<a href="http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/herald.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/herald.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/" target="_blank">http://www.globalwarming.org/</a>

<a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050921h.asp" target="_blank">http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050921h.asp</a>

This is laughable because it doesn't deal with anything I said. Secondly, most of them come from backwater sites that aren't legitimate. Only two come from "legitimate" sites and I can quickly counter them with this article that shows global warming is a real thing and the debate is over the cause of it (natural or man). I can go to the EPA's site on Global Warming, the UCS USA, the New Scientist...and I could go on. Likewise, you have yet to provide a motive for these "pseudo-scientists." What is the motive in creating a "myth" of Global Warming? What do they gain out of it? How do they falsify these claims? How are they blown out of proportion? If it is proven incorrect so easily then why do they cling to it? WHat is their motive?

I can easily point out that those who deny Global Warming and man's intervention in the enviroment do so to protect materialistic needs. Most are Capitalists/Libertarians and hate government regulation on anything. They see this as a form of regulation and therefore will work against it. They base their belief off their own wants, beliefs, and desires than on facts.

Facts not scare tactics and name calling carry weight with me.

Where did I call you a name? I pointed out your flawed philosophy. If you can't handle that, you probably should never enter into debates.

To claim that man and not God has power over this world is to deny the divinity of God. The fate of the world has already been written there is absolutly nothing that we can do to prevent, prolong, or shorten what is to happen in the end of days. Even if the entire worlds nuclear arsinal is launched it will not prevent the rule of Christ.

This is piss-poor theology right here. What it assumes is that man can run around willy nilly without fear of consequence. The problem is that it ignores Romans 8 which states specifically that creation is bound to destruction because of what Adam did. In other words, sin and the consequences thereof destroy God's creation. It is also not denying the "divinity of God," I still acknowledge He is God. The word you were looking for is sovereignty, and no, accepting that man is destroying God's creation does not deny His sovereignty. Case in point, man is part of God's creation. Man sins. Man kills man. Man rapes man. Man harms man. These are all examples of man destroying or harming God's creation in some form or fashion. By standing up for the enviroment, God's creation, we are not denying that He has power over it nor are we saying we have ultimate power over it. We are merely acknowledging our role as a caretaker of it. God, in Genesis 1 told us to take care of the earth, to subdue is and rule over it. In a way, we do hold power over it because God has given us this power. This doesn't destroy His sovereignty, it proves and validates it. We are stewards of this earth and by abusing it we likewise spit in the face of God. Imagine if you gave your car to a friend so he could use it on the weekend, and he came back with it trashed and wrecked and said, "It's your car, you can fix it." That is what we are doing with this earth. Someday we will have a new earth, but for now God has given us this one as a gift, a place for us to live. Are we going to trash a gift that God gave us?

If we take your viewpoint, then we might as well become Christian nihilist and not care about anything, since apparnetly to you, anytime we try to intervene we're questioning God's sovereignty.

Regardless of what we do the earth will survive just as it has over the past 8-10,000 years.

This is false...we've been killing it. We're abusing what God has given us.

Something smells a little funny here - just for clarification purposes are we talking about number 1 or number 2?

Either one, I lived in a dorm long enough to know that both, if left long enough, provide a pretty digusting smell.

[DaniJ87]

In my science book, (written by an awesome creationist who is a college professor, chemist, and physicist)

my teacher (writer) stated, and showed graphs that compared temperatures to historical information. Yes, we have hotter temeratures now... but not extremely so, because the graph jagged up, and down, and up and down, and up.... basically, it looks like it is a cycle.... a very LONG cycle, but a cycle. Also, we do not HAVE historical data on exact temperatures, for a long period of history. Before we had thermometers, for example, we could not collect that data... and it also wasn't until we started THINKING about keeping a record... I would bet that we only have data for the last 100-150 years, or so. This is a miniscule slice in the history of our world- so it is fallacious to use it as a standard of what the world's climate always acts like.

The ozone stuff is not so horrible... in fact, all that has happened is that there is a THIN spot in the ozone... not a hole. And it is over the south pole, where nothing lives. Also, we cannot really do ANYTHING about it, because our pollution is so miniscule, compared to what would actually effect it that much. The point about the volcanoes, if correct, really hits the nail on the head for this.

Another point is, that at one time, it was very cold in our world- glaciers covered my state... and a lot of other places... this was not NORMAL weather, if normal is defined by the last 200 years. However, it happened. And it didn't stay freezing. Now it is getting warmer. and it will probably get colder again, too.

the heat changes most likely have absolutely nothing to do with the ozone layer, or any pollution that we could cause.

Research the issue further and you'll find that your belief is somewhat incorrect. No on, except for extremists, deny that the earth is going through it's warm cycle. This is all Global Warming should mean...we cannot stop it, it will occur, we need to get over it. THe problem is that the pollution we put into the air does affect the enviroment. Again, look to the bigger cities and surrounding areas. Plant life is not as vibrant, crop yield is not as high, human health is generally lower, etc. Pollution is a real thing...I can understand denying GLobal Warming, but to deny pollution exists....to me that's like denying existence itself. It can be proven...and it does hold a negative effect on the enviroment. The earth can handle a lot, and minimal pollution is fine, the earth adapts to it. Yet, the rate our materialistic society is pumping it out doesn't allow for adaptation.

I do not disagree that pollution exists- only that it is not the cause of the ozone thinning. I do agree that pollution harms the lives of people, and can be damaging to our environment- but it's not such an enormous amount that it could be powerful enough to harm the atmosphere permanently.

You say that I have "a belief that is somewhat incorrect"... what are you referring to? Nothing that you said in reply to my post really related to it, and your statement is fairly vague, as to what you don't like about my post.

I would say one reason plant life around a city is not as vibrant is pollution... but what IS pollution? What do you define that as? Factory smoke? CO2? Cars actually don't emit very much bad stuff... if they are working efficiently, all they produce is CO2, and water. CO2 is a natural substance... and the plants use it- so it's not harmful... if you think we have too much... plant a tree or something...

Saying that smoking could not possibly have an influence on the asthma numbers, merely because children don't have access to smoking, is incorrect. Second-hand smoke is damaging as well. And there is a lot of that- for example, on my university campus, there are people smoking outside just about every building. I try not to breathe when I go past them ,because it's unhealthy... but it's there. Children go places... and there are people who smoke... sometimes the children will even have a mom or dad who smokes- there's exposure....

One problem with your scientific references, is that they are also (I think... the names seem familiar) the same people who smash the idea of God creating the world, and the Bible being true... why should we trust them?

As for, what motives would they have.... what motives do the crazy environmentalist wackos have? They want to REDUCE THE HUMAN POPULATION, for goodness sakes! what motives do abortion doctors have? What motives do crooked politicians have? They can all get power, and selfish gain... Some of them may even think that "saving the environment" to such an extreme is going to earn them brownie points from someone... sometimes they want political gains.. or just... money. People investing in new super-eco-friendly cars, is going to want the government to make everyone buy one...

Also... a verse from Genesis for you....

(NIV)

"As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest,

cold and heat,

summer and winter,

day and night

will never cease."

[apothanein kerdos]

I do not disagree that pollution exists- only that it is not the cause of the ozone thinning. I do agree that pollution harms the lives of people, and can be damaging to our environment- but it's not such an enormous amount that it could be powerful enough to harm the atmosphere permanently.

Suprisingly you're one of the first people here to acknowledge that pollution exists.

You say that I have "a belief that is somewhat incorrect"... what are you referring to? Nothing that you said in reply to my post really related to it, and your statement is fairly vague, as to what you don't like about my post.

The idea that Global Warming isn't influenced by human pollution. Certaintly, if it is causing cancer in humans, killing plants, etc, then it has to be doing something to our atmosphere. Likewise, even if it isn't, what it does do is provide a blanket over the earth so that heat cannot escape properly.

I would say one reason plant life around a city is not as vibrant is pollution... but what IS pollution? What do you define that as? Factory smoke? CO2? Cars actually don't emit very much bad stuff... if they are working efficiently, all they produce is CO2, and water. CO2 is a natural substance... and the plants use it- so it's not harmful... if you think we have too much... plant a tree or something...

Pollution comes in many forms; waste material, toxic waste, chemicals, etc seeping into the undergound water table....then various air pollutants. As for cars, you're right and wrong. You're right in that they really don't produce that much harmful chemicals....but so many of them in one area is still enough to produce high ammounts of pollution. Have you ever been to a huge city? There is almost this constant brown cloud surrounding it...that's smog from cars. It wasn't until I left the empty plains of Kansas that I began to recognize the problem of smog.

Saying that smoking could not possibly have an influence on the asthma numbers, merely because children don't have access to smoking, is incorrect. Second-hand smoke is damaging as well. And there is a lot of that- for example, on my university campus, there are people smoking outside just about every building. I try not to breathe when I go past them ,because it's unhealthy... but it's there. Children go places... and there are people who smoke... sometimes the children will even have a mom or dad who smokes- there's exposure....

I highly encourage you to look at what I wrote again. I feel I provided enough proof to dispell the "smoking theory." More people smoked and subsequently were exposed to second hand smoke in the 50's than in the 90's....yet the 90's had more cases of asthma per capita.

One problem with your scientific references, is that they are also (I think... the names seem familiar) the same people who smash the idea of God creating the world, and the Bible being true... why should we trust them?

Because these scientists are always wrong. Science isn't the problem, it's the philosophy behind it. These same scientists have naturalistic philosophies, so no matter what they're going to believe there is no God. I can use their same science to prove there is God. So question their philosophy, not their findings.

As for, what motives would they have.... what motives do the crazy environmentalist wackos have? They want to REDUCE THE HUMAN POPULATION, for goodness sakes! what motives do abortion doctors have? What motives do crooked politicians have? They can all get power, and selfish gain... Some of them may even think that "saving the environment" to such an extreme is going to earn them brownie points from someone... sometimes they want political gains.. or just... money. People investing in new super-eco-friendly cars, is going to want the government to make everyone buy one...

That doesn't discredit the science. The motives didn't come about until after the science. In other words, they are a faulty response. Human population can be huge...we just need to learn to curb our materialism.

Just because people abuse something doesn't mean it's not true.....if we apply this logic to everything, then God isn't true because people have certainly abused believe in Him.

Also... a verse from Genesis for you....

(NIV)

"As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest,

cold and heat,

summer and winter,

day and night

will never cease."

No one is denying that the earth will go on as long as God wants it to go on....doesn't mean we should destroy what He has given us.