OT: Man-made global warming revisited...

[CatEyes]

And this is the prime example of why nothing will ever be settled or done about this problem. Neither side can concede that the other might be right in some ways. let alone either side coming up with any actual realistic ways of fixing the "problem"

Actually, I have stated several times that there could be some truth to the arguments of the man-maders. I just don't fall hook, line, and sinker for all of them.

The Voice of Reason....

Cat

[chf34jmac]

Voice of reason - See I'm not always the smart ass or the dick around here!

[RedWingFan]

We don't have as free a market as you may believe. Oil companies have powerful political lobbies.

And the environmentalist movement doesn't?

And just as much as the media likes to profit off of pro-global warming stories, there is money to be made by promoting contrary views.

Unfortunately some don't want those views heard as stated before in this thread.

The knock on Windmill technology used to be that it couldn't produce enough power to meet our needs, but the blades have gotten longer, thinner, and lighter.

Well, tell that to that hypocrit Ted Kennedy who opposed them near his home because they are an eyesore.

Americans love their SUVs, and they react with hostility towards any perceived rhetoric that threatens their lifestyle.

I don't want ANYONE telling me what I can and can not drive. You wanna putt around in a little deathtrap Yugo. Go right ahead! Enviromentalists and politicians can just deal with it. Screw them. I react with hostility towards ANYONE who tries to encroach on my freedom!!!!!

We already have flexible fuel SUVs.

E85 you're referring to? It's a dime cheaper and has only 70% of the energy. Thanks to this bright idea, Fyrewings doesn't have any corn tortillas. Food is gonna get more expensive because were burning up so much corn.

Unless we tell our government representatives that we want change, they will listen to the more vocal interests...the powerful lobbies.

That's where we differ. I want the government to get the hell out of my life. They're already telling us what we can't eat (trans fats). That we have to fund their failing schools even if we want to opt out to private school. Now placing all these restrictions and requirements (CAFE standards, etc.) on the auto industry making our cars lighter and less safe. You apparently would love to live in a nanny state. There are plenty around the world to pick from. It's not for me.

[RedWingFan]

You people can say what you want, but I don't see how anyone CAN'T see how we aren't causing the earth to warm. There are hundreds of millions of air conditioning units pumping heat into the air. There are hundreds of millions of square feet of concrete and asphalt that trap more heat than natural surfaces do. There are hundreds of millions of cars pumping heat and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. There are thousands of refineries and industries that pump filth and heat into the air. And you can't see these things having an effect? I seriously doubt you believe what you're saying.

Here's the prologue to Michael Crichton's Jurrasic Park. It was read by Charlton Heston. So when you read it you have to have Moses' voice read it to you Great read.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.


It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

[conversationpc]

And the environmentalist movement doesn't?

The environmentalist lobby is quickly becoming one of the most powerful lobbying groups, if it isn't already. It's certainly the most militant, even more so than the NRA. As evidence of this, just look at left-wing whacko, Robert Kennedy. That guy is unhinged.

[RedWingFan]

And the environmentalist movement doesn't?

The environmentalist lobby is quickly becoming one of the most powerful lobbying groups, if it isn't already. It's certainly the most militant, even more so than the NRA. As evidence of this, just look at left-wing whacko, Robert Kennedy. That guy is unhinged.

Yeah, plus the oil companies lobby groups are so powerful, they can't even drill for oil anywhere. Alaska? NO. Gulf of Mexico? NO. The Mexican gov't went in and got it though. Real powerful

[conversationpc]

And the environmentalist movement doesn't?

The environmentalist lobby is quickly becoming one of the most powerful lobbying groups, if it isn't already. It's certainly the most militant, even more so than the NRA. As evidence of this, just look at left-wing whacko, Robert Kennedy. That guy is unhinged.

Yeah, plus the oil companies lobby groups are so powerful, they can't even drill for oil anywhere. Alaska? NO. Gulf of Mexico? NO. The Mexican gov't went in and got it though. Real powerful

Also, some states like Florida won't allow drilling off their coast but Cuba or China can come in and set up shop in international waters and drill.

[RedWingFan]

And the environmentalist movement doesn't?

The environmentalist lobby is quickly becoming one of the most powerful lobbying groups, if it isn't already. It's certainly the most militant, even more so than the NRA. As evidence of this, just look at left-wing whacko, Robert Kennedy. That guy is unhinged.

Yeah, plus the oil companies lobby groups are so powerful, they can't even drill for oil anywhere. Alaska? NO. Gulf of Mexico? NO. The Mexican gov't went in and got it though. Real powerful

Also, some states like Florida won't allow drilling off their coast but Cuba or China can come in and set up shop in international waters and drill.

As long as Exxon doesn't get it I guess everything's okay. Sounds kinda anti-American to me, but what do I know?

[conversationpc]

Another interesting bit of waffling on the part of the man-made global warming worshippers...

Global warming alarms not worth their salt

Marc Sheppard
Two years ago scientists warned that the North Atlantic Ocean had become much less salty over the past 50 years due to global warming. This year, scientists warn that the North Atlantic Ocean has become more salty over the past 50 years due to — guess what?

In June of 2005, Live Science reported the lower salt levels, attributing that:

“Climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere have melted glaciers and brought more rain, dumping more fresh water into the oceans, according to the analysis.”

Alarms sounded worldwide of the calamitous slowing impact fresher sea water would have on global ocean currents — which some shrieked would enshroud Europe in a mini ice age. Gasp!
But according to an August, 2007 report from New Scientist, Tim Boyer of the US National Oceanographic Data Center and his team have concluded that the trend changed over a decade ago, explaining that the:

“upper ocean is warming in the North Atlantic, so it stands to reason that there should be more evaporation, making waters more salty.”

Boyer says that, due to global warming, the seas have been getting saltier since the 1990s and are now “about as salty as they were in the 1970s.”
So, which is it, guys? Isn’t this all “settled science?” Ocean salinity would seem a rather absolute and quantifiable concept, compared to, say, global mean temperature flux, no?
Boyer also shunts the previous alarms by reassuring us that the so-called global ocean conveyor belt is in no danger of shutting down.
Unfortunately, neither is the big green scare machine.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

If you visit the above link to view the entire page, it also links to the article from livescience.com that claims the sea salt problem is due to global warming. Even within their own article, they state the following...

Scientists disagree over whether the planet is warming and how much humans might be contributing. But most climate experts see a clear warming trend that they expect will continue for at least a century.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... water.html

These are people who believe in man-made global warming saying that there is NOT AGREEMENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. In other words, there is not the consensus that some of you in this thread say there is and that some nuts, like Al Gore, claim to be. Gore claims that there is no debate at all. Hardly the case, is it?

[conversationpc]

Here's an interesting quote from an editorial entitled "Has Al Gore Pulled a Fonzie and Jumped the Shark" on globalwarminghoax.com...

There have been signs of the downfall on the horizon for several months now. Not the least of which is the flat out hysterical nature of the man-hating and demagogue tone to everything they say. No one that has facts on their side has to stoop to such a level. When Al Gore makes statements like “all the facts are in” man is the cause of global warming. Or Robert F. Kennedy Jr claiming that anyone that doesn't believe in man-made global warming are "toadies" for big corporations. Or the thousand other comments made by the enviro-freaks each day to try to make anyone that dares to question them seem like “flat-earthers”. The desperation is even apparent on the 'sky is falling early warning network' (better known as the environmentalist blogs). They're turning the argument towards the old tried and true “even if it only saves one life” mantra. They're doing their best to classify CO2 as a pollutant even though every one of their beloved plants would die without it. Comments like “even if man's CO2 emissions only contributes 1% to the global warming problem then we should be doing something about that 1%” are frequently made when they're cornered with scientific facts disputing mans contribution to the problem.

But that's ok. The more shrill the chicken-little handlers get the wider the chicken's eyes get. This from the mainstream International Herald Tribune “Survey finds indifference in Europe and U.S. to climate change”. There is also this humorous piece from Global Warming now world's most boring topic: report Clearly people are starting to wake up from the mass-hysteria and see there is very little evidence pointing to global warming being anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic process. When evidence is presented it is often weak and easily refuted with contradictory studies.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.20

[squirt1]

Oil companies are owned by countries. We are not drilling our own shores because of enviromeltalists and China is in the Gulf of Mexico. Our biggest company is Mobil Exon, I believe, and they are 14th in the world. We will never leave the 2nd biggest known oil reserves, which is Iraq, to Iran. I know it and Hillary knows it. That is why she flipped flopped. We are never going to let AlQueida have that revenue. We will be at war for the rest of my life. Didn't any of you see Iran and the 70's? With the help of Russia and China they are even more of a threat today. Finally, Europe is starting to join us.

[Marc S]

Gore and UN panel win Nobel prize

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was an unlikely box office hit

Climate change campaigner Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change". Mr Gore, US vice-president under Bill Clinton, said he was "deeply honoured". Mr Gore, 59, won an Oscar for his climate change film An Inconvenient Truth while the IPCC is the top authority on global warming.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised the recipients' efforts to "lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract [climate] change".

The committee said it wanted to bring the "increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" posed by climate change into sharper focus.

It highlighted a series of scientific reports issued over the last two decades by the IPCC, which comprises more than 2,000 leading climate change scientists and experts.

The reports had "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming", the committee said.

Mr Gore was praised as "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted", through his lectures, films and books.

Sense at last

[conversationpc]

Gore and UN panel win Nobel prize

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was an unlikely box office hit

Climate change campaigner Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change". Mr Gore, US vice-president under Bill Clinton, said he was "deeply honoured". Mr Gore, 59, won an Oscar for his climate change film An Inconvenient Truth while the IPCC is the top authority on global warming.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised the recipients' efforts to "lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract [climate] change".

The committee said it wanted to bring the "increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" posed by climate change into sharper focus.

It highlighted a series of scientific reports issued over the last two decades by the IPCC, which comprises more than 2,000 leading climate change scientists and experts.

The reports had "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming", the committee said.

Mr Gore was praised as "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted", through his lectures, films and books.

Sense at last

Too bad it's merely another political play. Yeah, Gore's film is just so full of truth. Too bad there are so many mis-truths in it, enough that a judge in the UK ruled that there are at least 11 significant lies in the film that school students must be told about if the film is to be shown.

Secondly, I'll give the Nobel Peace Prize creedence when they revoke the award given to terrorist Yassir Arafat, not to mention that a lady who had saved lives in Nazi Germany was overlooked for the award.

[Marc S]

There's just no pleasing some people - isn't that what Jesus said according to MPs The Life of Brian...?

[WickedGail]

With his win he will add to the global warming problem everytime he opens his mouth with all that hot air comming out......

Gail

[conversationpc]

There's just no pleasing some people - isn't that what Jesus said according to MPs The Life of Brian...?

Gore is a phony just like most of the other politicians.

BTW, you've said on more than one occasion that you were going to look at the arguments I presented and get back to me. How's it going on that?

[Marc S]

conversationpc

BTW, you've said on more than one occasion that you were going to look at the arguments I presented and get back to me. How's it going on that?

I don't recall saying that (but I'm sure you can pull out exact times/dates/quotes to dispel that) I would check out the arguments you presented. I recall you were bleating about unreliable weather readings etc and I agreed that some may have been sited in slightly strange locations.

Fact is, I cannot connect your psuedo-religious denial of man-made contributions to global warming and what I see around the planet. Period. You may well be the last man standing waving your bit of paper much like Neville Chamberlain when everyone else around has been warning of impending environmental doom.

Wouldn't it be great if you are right? Super, smashing, great! (To quote a famous Brit Comedian) We can all drive huge SUVs until the cows come home. But if you are wrong (and probably, on balance, far more likely) then we are all fooked.

How's your thinking going on that?

[conversationpc]

Fact is, I cannot connect your psuedo-religious denial of man-made contributions to global warming and what I see around the planet. Period. You may well be the last man standing waving your bit of paper much like Neville Chamberlain when everyone else around has been warning of impending environmental doom.

Psuedo-religious? That's funny considering the faith-like fervor that man-maders try to dig into the wallets of everyone else and villify anyone that dares question whether it's actually caused by man. It's really quite concerning that people like Robert Kennedy, Al Gore, etc., seem to go on a witch hunt against anyone who dares question their supposed Pope-like authority. Makes you really wonder who the "flat-earthers" really are.

Wouldn't it be great if you are right? Super, smashing, great! (To quote a famous Brit Comedian) We can all drive huge SUVs until the cows come home. But if you are wrong (and probably, on balance, far more likely) then we are all fooked.

How's your thinking going on that?

Yeah, God forbid that crooked politicians like Al Gore shouldn't be able to force excessive carbon taxes on the world, forcibly removing money when it could be better used to clean up ACTUAL pollution. Cow farts contribute far more to supposed global warming than SUVs do. Perhaps we should call it "cow made" global warming.

Oh yeah...Here's another bit of interesting news I've discovered over the last few days...

The so-called massive melting of glaciers in places like Greenland can also be caused by COLDER than normal temperatures, which can produce heavy snows on top of glaciers, causing them to crack off and fall into the ocean.

[conversationpc]

Here's a good pic of the god of flat-earth science, Algore...

[CatEyes]

Oh yeah...Here's another bit of interesting news I've discovered over the last few days...

The so-called massive melting of glaciers in places like Greenland can also be caused by COLDER than normal temperatures, which can produce heavy snows on top of glaciers, causing them to crack off and fall into the ocean.

"Global warming" does not refer exclusively to hotter temps ....... it actually refers to extremes (temperatures, storms, events) which are a result of a greenhouse effect.

and no I am not entering the fray .... just throwing out some definition which of course will be disputed - however, today I do not have the energy to give a fuck.

Have a great day!!!

Cat

[Marc S]

Psuedo-religious? That's funny considering the faith-like fervor that man-maders try to dig into the wallets of everyone else and villify anyone that dares question whether it's actually caused by man. It's really quite concerning that people like Robert Kennedy, Al Gore, etc., seem to go on a witch hunt against anyone who dares question their supposed Pope-like authority. Makes you really wonder who the "flat-earthers" really are.

Dave (if I may be so bold - I feel like I know you a little now),
It isn't a question of whether one questions their opinions. To tar them with wanting to remove tax dollars from your wallet is just your way of smearing a perfectly well argued and presented case, your way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!'. What I never hear from your lobby is why we shouldn't limit man-made global warming by whatever means possible rather than bury your head in the sand until its too late. Surely that is the underlying point here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool hippy environmentalist (I run a 351 AC Cobra rep and a Laverda Jota at weekends - but its occasional wind in the hair stuff not my usual mode of transport) my twins are 4 and I fear for what the place might be like when they are my age, arguing with someone halfway across the globe when they should be working!

Its just common sense, not flat earthish - there is proof, significant physical proof of manmade global warming that you choose to sidestep. You always seem to be defending your right, for example, to be a christian etc but there is no proof. No-one has ever come back. The earth was created millions of years ago from a big bang. Fact. Not in 6 days or whatever. But that is your belief - yes I completely disagree with all organised religion (now that is an assault on your US tax dollars - we don't have God channels raising money over here from the gullible) but that is your right and I have to respect that as a human being.

Yeah, God forbid that crooked politicians like Al Gore shouldn't be able to force excessive carbon taxes on the world, forcibly removing money when it could be better used to clean up ACTUAL pollution. Cow farts contribute far more to supposed global warming than SUVs do. Perhaps we should call it "cow made" global warming.

Oh yeah...Here's another bit of interesting news I've discovered over the last few days...

The so-called massive melting of glaciers in places like Greenland can also be caused by COLDER than normal temperatures, which can produce heavy snows on top of glaciers, causing them to crack off and fall into the ocean.

Funny isn't it, I'm sure if Gore and Kennedy were right wing republicans conveying the GW agenda they wouldn't be 'crooked'? But to quote cow farts is pretty lame - its not quantifiable in any meaningful way (go on surprise me)

But please, do justify why we shouldn't do something about the more than probable impact of man on global warming and take your approach and try to justify its non-existence. Again, I restate, once the horse had bolted....

[conversationpc]

Dave (if I may be so bold - I feel like I know you a little now),
It isn't a question of whether one questions their opinions. To tar them with wanting to remove tax dollars from your wallet is just your way of smearing a perfectly well argued and presented case, your way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!'. What I never hear from your lobby is why we shouldn't limit man-made global warming by whatever means possible rather than bury your head in the sand until its too late.

The point is that there is no convincing proof that it is man-made and that it can even be reversed, if so. The junk scientists will try to tell you that it is, but when you do the actual research, it is most certainly not. That being the case, these people want to substantially raise taxes to fight something that no one even really knows if it can be reversed anyway. I'm all for cleaning up the environment if it can be done, but don't tell me you're going to forcibly remove money from my pay for something that no one knows is going to work to begin with.

You always seem to be defending your right, for example, to be a christian etc but there is no proof. No-one has ever come back.

Jesus did it. If you want to debate that, we can start another thread but that's a totally different argument from this one.

The earth was created millions of years ago from a big bang. Fact. Not in 6 days or whatever. But that is your belief

Ummm...Don't think I've ever even discussed that topic on this board.

Funny isn't it, I'm sure if Gore and Kennedy were right wing republicans conveying the GW agenda they wouldn't be 'crooked'? But to quote cow farts is pretty lame - its not quantifiable in any meaningful way (go on surprise me)

Don't try to divert attention away from the real issue. I've had plenty to say bad about so-called Republicans. They're not much better than libs.

[conversationpc]

FYI, I apologize if I am coming off rather irritable, short, offensive, etc. I accepted this man-made global warming garbage as fact and never questioned it until just the last few years when I started researching it and it's really maddening that more people just accept it as fact and brand you as a "flat-earther", "traitor", cave dweller, etc., if you disagree with what is claimed to be "overwhelming" evidence of man's influence on earth's temperature.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

You people can say what you want, but I don't see how anyone CAN'T see how we aren't causing the earth to warm. There are hundreds of millions of air conditioning units pumping heat into the air. There are hundreds of millions of square feet of concrete and asphalt that trap more heat than natural surfaces do. There are hundreds of millions of cars pumping heat and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. There are thousands of refineries and industries that pump filth and heat into the air. And you can't see these things having an effect? I seriously doubt you believe what you're saying.

Here's the prologue to Michael Crichton's Jurrasic Park. It was read by Charlton Heston. So when you read it you have to have Moses' voice read it to you Great read.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.


It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

I'm in complete agreement with this. During recent arguments about building walls to keep Mexicans out of the country my response was, "Life finds a way."

A wall. Right. Like people won't find ways over, under, around, or through it. Life finds a way. It always has. We can try to contain it - control it - it's going to E5C4P3 and break free.

The Earth is a LIVING biosphere that's been subjected to worse things by far than anything man has thrown at it. It's always found a way and will continue to do so.

Again, I have to note another more serious danger: the flipping of Earth's magnetic field. Research that and global warming pales.

[conversationpc]

I'm in complete agreement with this. During recent arguments about building walls to keep Mexicans out of the country my response was, "Life finds a way."

A wall. Right. Like people won't find ways over, under, around, or through it. Life finds a way. It always has. We can try to contain it - control it - it's going to E5C4P3 and break free.

The Earth is a LIVING biosphere that's been subjected to worse things by far than anything man has thrown at it. It's always found a way and will continue to do so.

Again, I have to note another more serious danger: the flipping of Earth's magnetic field. Research that and global warming pales.

I might crap my pants. Fyre and conversationpc at least partially on the same side.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Jesus did it.

No. You BELIEVE he did.

You're an enigma. You want to argue that glogal warming is junk science and that if you research it there's no evidence to support it.

Well, where's this line of reasoning regarding Jesus? You can research Jesus and the "evidence" of his resurrection isn't even close to the amount of global warming evidence!

It all boils down to belief. People believe global warming because of the "evidence". You believe Jesus had risen from the dead because of the "evidence".

You want to tell people to not believe certain evidence about global warming BUT that they should believe the evidence of Jesus' resurrection...?

What a looney tunes line of logic!

[Wheels Of Fyre]

I'm in complete agreement with this. During recent arguments about building walls to keep Mexicans out of the country my response was, "Life finds a way."

A wall. Right. Like people won't find ways over, under, around, or through it. Life finds a way. It always has. We can try to contain it - control it - it's going to E5C4P3 and break free.

The Earth is a LIVING biosphere that's been subjected to worse things by far than anything man has thrown at it. It's always found a way and will continue to do so.

Again, I have to note another more serious danger: the flipping of Earth's magnetic field. Research that and global warming pales.

I might crap my pants. Fyre and conversationpc at least partially on the same side.

Maybe about this but the Jesus thing is entirely problematic!

[Marc S]

Wheels Of Fyre

No. You BELIEVE he did.

You're an enigma. You want to argue that glogal warming is junk science and that if you research it there's no evidence to support it.

Well, where's this line of reasoning regarding Jesus? You can research Jesus and the "evidence" of his resurrection isn't even close to the amount of global warming evidence!

It all boils down to belief. People believe global warming because of the "evidence". You believe Jesus had risen from the dead because of the "evidence".

You want to tell people to not believe certain evidence about global warming BUT that they should believe the evidence of Jesus' resurrection...?

What a looney tunes line of logic!

Wow. I find myself in total agreement, Fyre....

[RedWingFan]

Jesus did it.

No. You BELIEVE he did.

You're an enigma. You want to argue that glogal warming is junk science and that if you research it there's no evidence to support it.

Well, where's this line of reasoning regarding Jesus? You can research Jesus and the "evidence" of his resurrection isn't even close to the amount of global warming evidence!

It all boils down to belief. People believe global warming because of the "evidence". You believe Jesus had risen from the dead because of the "evidence".

You want to tell people to not believe certain evidence about global warming BUT that they should believe the evidence of Jesus' resurrection...?

What a looney tunes line of logic!

I think Dave would agree that they are BOTH matters of faith. We can only tell people of Jesus and the difference he's made in our lives. Whether one chooses to accept him or not is completely up to them. If Christians were out demanding billions of dollars to be given to churches from non-believers THEN it would be pretty comparable. Environmentalists are encroaching on our money and our way of life with their nonsense.

[conversationpc]

Jesus did it.

No. You BELIEVE he did.

You're an enigma. You want to argue that glogal warming is junk science and that if you research it there's no evidence to support it.

Well, where's this line of reasoning regarding Jesus? You can research Jesus and the "evidence" of his resurrection isn't even close to the amount of global warming evidence!

It all boils down to belief. People believe global warming because of the "evidence". You believe Jesus had risen from the dead because of the "evidence".

You want to tell people to not believe certain evidence about global warming BUT that they should believe the evidence of Jesus' resurrection...?

What a looney tunes line of logic!

Like I said, if you want to argue this point, feel free to start another thread.