What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Climate change is completely real.But I must say that i do tend to lean towards thinking that its over-exaggerated at least. Yes, the earth heats and cools naturally over time, but the core of the argument is how much human activity is expediting the process if at all. My opinion remains that it's probably very little in the grand scheme of things and convincing people that it's their fault creates more opportunity to tax and regulate them. I mean lots and lots of money is poured into global warming research, and researchers who are skeptical of human interference are often shunned and underfunded. Furthermore, whether humans are responsible for global warming or not, it may be very well unpreventable. This topic is too sensitive...i don't know man.
Barbarian, regarding the increase in CO in the atmosphere:
Because humans are dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. So that's not arguable.
You don't think agriculture is done by humans? Who, then?
Because humans are dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. So that's not arguable.
You don't think agriculture is done by humans? Who, then?
Well, there's a nice straw man. That every bit of sarcasm I gave is real it says that geoengineering on the part of the US government is something that is worth honestly exploring. The site I linked to gives a lot of evidence for long term government involvement in it, and serious problems arising from the pollution and environmental damaged caused by these governmental actions.
Denying it out of hand without even attempting to look at the evidence is, in my book, pure stupidity.
The earth has been far warmer than it is right now, and those episodes of the earth being warmer than it is now cannot be laid to human activity.
If you will research the history of CO2 and warming episodes of earth's history you will find that rises in CO2 levels have always followed rises in earth's temperatures. And, the earth has been warming now for a couple of centuries. Increases in CO2 levels leading temperature rises has never happened according to the scientific evidence.
Let's say your record temperatures claim is correct. Which is more powerful? Water or carbon dioxide?
How much water have we put into the atmosphere through increased irrigation over the same time period?
How do you know it's not the increase in temperatures that is causing the increase in carbon dioxide?
In addition to your comments, Climate Sanity, I would add that the rise in temperatures in the seas is a very iffy propostion. Why? Because when NASA couldn't explain a 10 year pause in rising temperatures they just went back and "adjusted" all their temperature recordings and voila, there was once again "global warming" just like they said there was. All they had to do to prove it was retroactively change the recorded temperatures.
Nothing dishonest about that now is there? When reality fails to confirm ideology just "adjust" what reality says.
Derf
Well-known member
Not really. Every bit of sarcasm you gave may be good reason to suspect the government and the government's motives, but says absolutely nothing about chemtrails and geoengineering.
I'm not denying there could be geoengineering, but none of what you wrote, and little of what you video link said, seem to indicate any kind of geoengineering attempts.
Tell you what. Why don't you tell me what to do with the information you provided as it applies to the OP. Are you saying we've already tried fixing the climate, and we only make things worse?
Are you saying geoengineering is proving that we can steer climate change in the right direction, but only evil people are using the technology so far and won't let Christians play? Or what?
And btw, I did try to look at the evidence, but got out of it the same thing some others did--chemtrail conspiracy nut, repackaged as anti-geoengineering activist (not you, necessarily, just the guy on the video). That's when you gave a list of things that had nothing to do with the data or video, which you used to conclude that the others must be true. I'm not sure I'm responsible for the strawman.
I'll admit my first impression could be wrong, despite the overwhelmingness of the impression, but it seems the burden is on you to make it relevant to the topic.
Have at it.
Derf
Well-known member
Sure, but if we didn't use a bunch of land for grazing cows, there would likely be a bunch of similar animals grazing there instead. Maybe they don't burp as much, but maybe they would make up for it with other emissions or in sheer numbers--like the bison herds in the 1800s.
Is this a suggestion for the OP? To replace all our cows with bison? I'd love it. Bison meat is great, and it would bring the price down on it. But I betcha it would turn into the same kind of problem once the bison were well into the domestication process and kept in cattle feedlots.
btw, I have a hard time reading some your self-quotes. What I like to do to preserve both the reply to my posts and my quotes they replied to is to click the "blog this post" button, copy the whole text, then paste it into the quick reply field at the bottom of the regular thread (not the blog) page.
genuineoriginal
New member
The fact that you deny there is evidence for geoengineering tells me you didn't bother to read much, if anything.
There is a ton of it on the geoengineeringwatch.com site. What did you do, if you even went there, look at the front page and then dismiss it because of the photos? Didn't bother to read the government documents addressing this issue, and how the DoD killed attempts at treaties on geoengineering as far back as the early 1970s, and that there were multiple Congressional hearings on this as far back as the mid 1960s. The fact you say there is no evidence, yet dismiss all the government documents as being no evidence at all, is simply amazing to me. But that is the norm. Keep sticking your head in the sand and keep on commenting on how you can see nothing, Sergeant Shultz.
As to dismissing chemtrails as contrails, which is often done, contrails disappear about as fast as their appear as they are nothing but condensate in the air. Ever watch very small clouds evaporate before your eyes? That's what contrails do because they are not large enough, don't have enough mass to sustain themselves. Chemtrials linger for many hours and spread across the sky. I don't know how old you are but multiple chemtrails crossing the sky that lingered on and on very rarely happened 40 to 50 years ago. They were basically unknown. Now they are an everyday occurrence.
Derf
Well-known member
Still waiting for the relevance to the topic...
Barbarian asks:
You don't think agriculture is done by humans? Who, then?
No. In fact, most cattle are not grazing, but in feed lots. Last year, there were about 92 million cattle in the United States:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/USCatSup/USCatSup-06-24-2016.pdf
On the other hand, in pre-Columbian United States, there were about 30 million bison. So a three-fold increase. This doesn't touch the other agricultural sources of carbon dioxide, such as gasoline and diesel engines, chemicals, and so on.
See above. Do we have to abandon meat? No, but we need some fixes if we want to continue as we do. That can be either finding a way to reduce usage, or technology to deal with the waste in a save manner.
Or we could just let nature do it for us. That's probably not a very good idea in the long run. Nature's way tends to be drastic cuts in population.
You don't think agriculture is done by humans? Who, then?
No. In fact, most cattle are not grazing, but in feed lots. Last year, there were about 92 million cattle in the United States:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/USCatSup/USCatSup-06-24-2016.pdf
On the other hand, in pre-Columbian United States, there were about 30 million bison. So a three-fold increase. This doesn't touch the other agricultural sources of carbon dioxide, such as gasoline and diesel engines, chemicals, and so on.
See above. Do we have to abandon meat? No, but we need some fixes if we want to continue as we do. That can be either finding a way to reduce usage, or technology to deal with the waste in a save manner.
Or we could just let nature do it for us. That's probably not a very good idea in the long run. Nature's way tends to be drastic cuts in population.
I gave you a link that has more data than you could carefully study in a month and you have refused to look at it. I can do nothing more for someone with a mind like a sprung bear trap.
It's pretty ironic that the Congressional Research Service has a 40 page document on Governance and Technology Policy that addresses aerosol injection, enhanced cloud albedo, and space reflectors for something that doesn't exist. Very odd wouldn't you say? It's also very ironic that a 150+ page document on hearings in front of a Senate subcommittee from back in 1974 exists on something that doesn't exist even now according to you. Very odd isn't it? But, that's alright Sergeant Shultz. I expect little openmindedness from someone with a mind like a sprung bear trap. You see nuthing....
You need a better graph.
G.o. has been suckered by the classic bait-and-switch. The first graph is for the Earth as a whole. The second is for an area comprising about 2% of the Earth's surface. :chuckle:
A video from a geoengineering whistleblower who was in the USAF for 9 years. A very interesting video and speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA
For those of us who are interested primarily in facts, what do you think the best argument in his video is, and what is the evidence for it?
Derf
Well-known member
ClimateSanity
New member
Which gas in its current quantities is responsible for the current temperature of the atmosphere? water vapor or gas? I submit that there are more water vapor molecules added to the atmosphere over the modern in than there have been co2 molecules. The window of absorption you refer to only matters in regards to infrared released from the surface. That radiation was fully absorbed at co2 levels much lower than they are currently.
If you fill a bathtub almost to the top from the tap, and then pour a bucket of water into it so that it it is filled to the brim, which water is responsible for it being at that level? When you know that, you will have your answer.
Show us that. Sounds unlikely, although increased temperatures might eventually lead to more water vapor in the air. So you might (assuming your belief is correct) be confusing the effect with the cause.
So your argument is that infrared from solar heating of the surface doesn't count? Why do you think it doesn't?
It isn't even fully absorbed now. Satellites can detect it, which means a lot of it is still escaping the Earth; they wouldn't be able to detect it, if it wasn't.