Right Divider
Body part
That's a dumb comment.
Global Warming - a leftist delusion
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
I agree his choice of words is a little strong, but he did give support to the claim. When one is talking about a warming of the earth, without specifics, then both concepts could encapsulate the same event(s).
By "global warming" or by "Global Warming"? Lower case is merely a general increase in temperature on earth. Upper case is a potentially catastrophic condition that some feel is happening and needs to be reversed by various means, some perhaps ok and others decidedly unwise. The lower case term is a subset of the upper case term, and both could be related to the passage @marke cited from Rev 16.
The cause of what some perceive to be "global warming" (lower case) is not well understood, and some believe it to be caused by things man does to the earth, like having too many domesticated animals. This would be termed "anthropogenic global warming".
Then you admit that it includes both "warming" and "global"? Why such vociferous argument against it?
Which also could be considered a source of methane.
I didn't say I believed it, but the bible doesn't rule out the possibility. God often uses man-caused events in judgment, like foreign armies invading the Israelites' land over and over and over again in the book of Judges and other books.
Speculation about what a passage means is not argument from silence, because it is about a passage of scripture (opposite of "silence"), similar to talking about global warming in a broad sense, and then blaming flatulent cows. Flatulent cows may or may not be causing global warming, but global warming is a concept that has been documented (rightly or wrongly) in various ways. In fact, you offered your own take on not just "global warming" but "anthropogenic global warming" by saying the earth has been warming since the flood. Because the flood was caused by God's wrath, and God's wrath was enflamed by man's wickedness, you have justified not just the term "global warming" but also "anthropogenic global warming".
Whether any current trend toward a warmer earth is related to a future judgment of scorching heat remains to be seen, but you've at least confirmed that God's wrath can result in man-caused global warming.
Right Divider
Body part
Again, simply quoting a verse and claiming it's associated to something completely different is not "support".
God's judgement in that passage is clearly NOT "man-made"
The "potentially catastrophic condition" is nothing but wild speculation.
Again, the two are NOT related and simply making the claim is not enough to "support" it.
The idea that "science" has determined that "anthropogenic global warming" is the cause for the warming of the planet is fantasy.
I'm tired of vague claims and misuse of scripture.
Derf
Well-known member
Is it? and you know that by what, silence?
Not according to Rev 16.
Simply saying they are NOT related is no stronger an argument, despite the all-caps.
I don't disagree with you, but that wasn't what I was arguing. And I'm not too sure that's what @marke was arguing either. So you may be tilting at windmills a bit.
Then you should stop doing it.
Right Divider
Body part
Mad-made in regard to sin... not man-made in regard to burning fossil fuels.
Again, you and marke are associating two things without any warrant for doing so.
Still waiting for a valid argument that shows that they are related.
Derf
Well-known member
Global warming is acknowledged by some who don't think it is man-caused. For instance, they think it is attributable to solar cycles, and isn't a threat, or at least not much of one, and not one we can do much about. And there are some that think global warming is caused by carbon dioxide and other things we release into the atmosphere, so they want to release some other stuff into the atmosphere:
Explainer: Six ideas to limit global warming with solar geoengineering - Carbon Brief
Scientists agree that cutting global greenhouse emissions as soon as possible will be key to tackling global warming. But some researchers are now calling for more research into measures that could be taken alongside emissions cuts, including – controversially – the use of “solar geoengineering”...
www.carbonbrief.org
I think attempts like that are downright foolish when we don't really understand how the earth and sun work together to regulate the climate as God intended, and exercising such power without proper understanding is dangerous. But it shows that some people think we already manipulate global climate and they want to do more of it, and they think we can. I would tend to agree with them that we can, just not that we should in such grandiose ways.
I also feel like the mRNA vaccines are an attempt to manipulate something we don't fully understand, and it is also foolish, or devious, perhaps, leading to destruction of people's lives.
Well, I'm only suggesting that it's ok to seek an association, and that the scriptures don't rule out such an association, but not saying it is for sure associated. I can't speak for @marke on it.
You must have slept through it.Still waiting for a valid argument that shows that they are related.
Right Divider
Body part
Please feel free to direct me to it.
No. Global warming is nonsense.
I still remember when the 'scientific' consensus was that the earth is cooling at an alarming rate. People who reject God don't know what to believe.
Right Divider
Body part
Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.
The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”
When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.
Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked.
www.sciencenews.org
Am I to assume the you believe that if more peer-reviewed scientific articles favor global cooling alarmism then global cooling alarmism is to be revered as irrefutable scientific fact, but if more peer-reviewed scientific articles favor global warming then global warming must be accepted as irrefutable scientific fact?Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.
The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”
When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.
Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked.
My point is that "global cooling" was never the scientific consensus that you said it was.
There were many peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting the global cooling theory decades ago, complete with data, just as there are many peer-reviewed articles supporting the global warming theory today. But there is no scientific consensus any more than there has ever been scientific consensus that the theory of evolution is more than an unproven theory.
There were only 7: "The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise..." The consensus was always warming, not cooling. Stop lying.
They only found 7? They must have worked for the government, the lazy incompetent bums.
Red Wave Rising
Yuge
18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first...
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 46th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 16 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
How ironic that leftist atheists themselves prove the 'science' that has financed their livelihoods is sometimes false, wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or just fake. Here is what highly esteemed atheist biologist George Wald said:18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first...www.aei.org
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 46th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 16 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
The environmentalist quack Barry Commoner did not enjoy his well-paid comfortable living that had resulted from decades of scientific and industrial progress, because he had fallen prey to the insidious fallacy that human progress is evil and must be arrested and reversed or we will all die. AOC must have come under the same delusive influences as Commoner because she ignorantly thinks human progress will destroy life on earth in less than a decade if progress is not stopped and reversed. Sadly, those dupes had become cultist followers of the devil's lie they so ignorantly promoted to their own shame.
Air pollution is not merely a nuisance and a threat to health. It is a reminder that our most celebrated technological achievements-the automobile, the jet plane, the power plant, industry in general, and indeed the modern city itself-are, in the environment, failures.
Barry Commoner
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Warns, 'World Is Going to End in 12 Years,' Reiterating Claims of Recent U.N. Climate Change Report
Paul Ehrlich was wrong on every prediction, which is common for climate change quacks who become convinced their erroneous takes on human existence are absolute truths that cannot be contradicted even by God. What are the consequences of false teachings like Ehrlich's? Genocide to reduce human populations. Abortion to reduce human populations. The creation of deadly viruses to reduce human populations. The shuttering of industries that pollute. The bankrupting of oil and gas companies to stop them from polluting. And so stupidly forth.
What do environmental wackos really think is needed? They believe industrial progress must be stopped and reversed and that the total number of humans on earth must be reduced by some means (the quacks are unclear as to how to cull the population of excessive numbers of people to keep human life on earth from becoming extinct.)
“We've made some heroic efforts, but the Earth as a whole is in worse shape today than 30 years ago, ... There's been 30 more years of greenhouses gases, species extinctions and population growth.”
Denis Hayes