Climate Change

[ZNPaaneah]

There has been some discussion on this topic under Politics, but I think this warrants its own thread so that we can dig a little deeper into the evidence and arguments.

this is a general definition from Wikipedia. I read through it and it seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather within the context of longer-term average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. Certain human activities have been identified as primary causes of ongoing climate change, often referred to as global warming.[1]

Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. A climate record—extending deep into the Earth's past—has been assembled, and continues to be built up, based on geological evidence from borehole temperature profiles, cores removed from deep accumulations of ice, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable-isotope and other analyses of sediment layers, and records of past sea levels. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. General circulation models, based on the physical sciences, are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

T
Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather within the context of longer-term average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. Certain human activities have been identified as primary causes of ongoing climate change, often referred to as global warming.[1]

Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. A climate record—extending deep into the Earth's past—has been assembled, and continues to be built up, based on geological evidence from borehole temperature profiles, cores removed from deep accumulations of ice, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable-isotope and other analyses of sediment layers, and records of past sea levels. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. General circulation models, based on the physical sciences, are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.

Please note the part I have highlighted in red. We are not talking about a single cold weather day in a single part of the globe. We are talking about a statistical change over the entire globe for a period of at least 10 years and could be as much as a million years.

Climate change does not change the fact that the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.5 degrees. As a result when the sun sets at the North Pole it is 6 months before it rises again. Likewise when the sun rises at the North pole it is 6 months before it sets. Obviously if the night is 6 months long it is going to get cold.

However, if the average temperature rises by 1 degree F, or 2 degrees F then that will have broad consequences for many species, both plants and animals.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There has been some discussion on this topic under Politics, but I think this warrants its own thread so that we can dig a little deeper into the evidence and arguments.

this is a general definition from Wikipedia. I read through it and it seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather within the context of longer-term average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. Certain human activities have been identified as primary causes of ongoing climate change, often referred to as global warming.[1]

Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. A climate record—extending deep into the Earth's past—has been assembled, and continues to be built up, based on geological evidence from borehole temperature profiles, cores removed from deep accumulations of ice, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable-isotope and other analyses of sediment layers, and records of past sea levels. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. General circulation models, based on the physical sciences, are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.

I have highlighted this part about all the natural causes that can cause climate change because this has been used in the previous thread to throw confusion. We are not ignorant of the fact that the climate changes due to natural causes, nor are we ignorant of the fact that all of these potential causes can make the science of predicting human influence more complicated.

But the discussion is primarily about human influences that we have control over. For example, your income is the result of many factors. If you have job, then income from that, if you have investments they will also factor in. If a distant uncle dies and leaves you a million dollars that will factor in. If you get sick, have a car accident, etc. All of these can factor in. Even so, most of us would focus on the the things we control when considering our income.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There has been some discussion on this topic under Politics, but I think this warrants its own thread so that we can dig a little deeper into the evidence and arguments.

this is a general definition from Wikipedia. I read through it and it seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather within the context of longer-term average conditions. Climate change is caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. Certain human activities have been identified as primary causes of ongoing climate change, often referred to as global warming.[1]

Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. A climate record—extending deep into the Earth's past—has been assembled, and continues to be built up, based on geological evidence from borehole temperature profiles, cores removed from deep accumulations of ice, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable-isotope and other analyses of sediment layers, and records of past sea levels. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. General circulation models, based on the physical sciences, are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.

I agree with what you posted in blue, but not in red. Yes the climate is changing, but I don't agree that man is causing climate change. That's about as true as the endless claim that all rich people are Republicans.

The industrial revolution did not start in the 1990's, and the earth was far dirtier back in the middle of the 20th century. Yet, certain segments of the "scientific" community tried to convince us then that "evil" man with all of his filthy pollution would plunge the planet into another ICE AGE. Maybe you are too young to remember those days. I remember them.

Did the industrial revolution cause the first ICE AGE, and cause the dinosaurs to become extinct? No, but everyone believed that it would happen. That became one of the driving forces to export heavy manufacturing, like steel mills, overseas. If you look at climate data from the 60's, you will see the trend to lower temperatures. Now the reverse has happened, and all the political fearmongers have spooked the world again.

It's a new age religion, and Trump is not a convert. So you hate him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with what you posted in blue, but not in red. Yes the climate is changing, but I don't agree that man is causing climate change. That's about as true as the endless claim that all rich people are Republicans.

The industrial revolution did not start in the 1990's, and the earth was far dirtier back in the middle of the 20th century. Yet, certain segments of the "scientific" community tried to convince us then that "evil" man with all of his filthy pollution would plunge the planet into another ICE AGE. Maybe you are too young to remember those days. I remember them.

Did the industrial revolution cause the first ICE AGE, and cause the dinosaurs to become extinct? No, but everyone believed that it would happen. That became one of the driving forces to export heavy manufacturing, like steel mills, overseas. If you look at climate data from the 60's, you will see the trend to lower temperatures. Now the reverse has happened, and all the political fearmongers have spooked the world again.

It's a new age religion, and Trump is not a convert. So you hate him.

London was far dirtier. Not Africa, Asia, South America or even North America.

There were far fewer people using far less fossil fuel. Gasoline engine didn't even take off until around WW1. Cities didn't become electrified until around that time as well. Refer to this graph https://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fu...rs-graphs.html

World Fossil fuel consumption took off after WWII.

Second, the effect is cumulative. So each year we are adding to the total ppm in the atmosphere.

Third, a slight increase in CO2 can promote plant growth. It is very likely that the CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1880s was balanced by additional plant growth.

Fourth, increase in population doesn't just increase the amount of emissions, it also decreases the amount of plants as we chop them down for parking lots, roads, cities, houses, etc. So while emissions are increasing, the amount of plants pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is decreasing. This is exacerbated when they burn down tropical rainforest and replace it with grasslands and cows.

Fifth the recent industrialization of the third world has accelerated the process even further. (When I went to Taiwan in 1987 you rode bicycles and they were so crowded it was hard to squeeze a bicycle into a parking place. By 1995 no one rode bicycles and they were all replaced with scooters and cars.

Sixth, once you pass a certain point the ocean become acidified and kills off the creatures that have shells made of calcium carbonate. We are seeing this process now. As they die lots of life including plants die as well. 70% of our plants are in the ocean, decrease them and you decrease the amount of carbon being pulled out of the air.

Seventh, as the ice melts (36 cubic miles in Antarctica, 36 cubic miles in Greenland, virtually every glacier, and the Arctic sea ice) the ocean or ground that remains absorbs much more of the suns energy. Ice and snow reflects sunlight back out to space whereas the ocean and land absorb it and it becomes heat.

So then we know, for a fact that the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere have increased dramatically since the 1950s and are now at a level we have not seen since the last major extinction. During this time the average temperature of the Earth has risen and directly correlates to the increase in CO2. During this time the ice has begun to melt rapidly and this in turn is causing more heat energy from the sun to become heat. And, every year we add to the totals.

[ZNPaaneah]

12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

At the Great White Throne men are judged based on what is written in "books" and these books are very clearly not the book of life. Being judged according to the book of life is a separate judgment.

You can interpret books to refer to 2 books other than the book of life (at the very least) or you can interpret this to refer to the innumerable number of books mentioned by John when trying to write down all that Jesus did, much less all that all men have done. Perhaps these books are documentaries, perhaps they are chronicles of senate hearings, maybe they are newspaper clippings. It is very vague as to what these books are other than they are plural and they are not the book of life. However, what is not vague is what these books contain, the basis on which the men are judged, i.e. their works.

If we cross reference this with the Lord's word in Matthew that men will be judged from every word that they speak, and then in another place that "with what judgement you have judged you shall be judged" then I think it is clear that it could be a quote of what the man said. It could be "fake news" that they authored. We have seen this time and time again. The same PR firm that advised Tobacco executives how to spin the truth concerning cigarettes being addictive, they also advised oil executives how to spin the truth concerning climate change.

Because of the lawsuits we now have about 80 million pages of documents from the tobacco companies. These represent their internal memos, studies, conversations. It is a book and it tells a very coherent story. It shows that in the 1950s all the tobacco companies knew that tobacco caused cancer. Then there is another book, this is the public testimony, advertisements, PR. This also tells a very coherent story, but quite different from the secret book. This one has them saying "it is not known if tobacco causes cancer" in 1984. This one has them all testifying before congress that they did not think cigarettes were addictive when the secret book tells us that not only did they know that it was addictive but they hired large groups of scientists to manipulate the addictiveness to make it more and more addictive. I am pretty sure that at the great white throne these ones will be judged by these two books.

One of the strategies they use is to "identify who is a potential threat to you" and then "neutralize them". For the tobacco company that meant blaming furniture for fires started by cigarettes. This resulted in legislation requiring "flame retardants" (toxic cancer causing chemicals put in your furniture, rugs, carpets, mattresses, etc). The oil industry has used the same strategy and even employed the same PR firm.

In the 1990s the strategy of the oil companies was “let’s not rush to judgement” and “there is no consensus among scientists”. Naomi Oreskes article “The Scientific consensus on Climate Change” in Science magazine was a study designed to answer that question. She looked at every paper published from 1992 to 2002 that used the key word phrase “Global climate change”. There were 928 papers. Of these 928 how many disagreed with the premise that “most of the observed warming is due to increased greenhouse gases?” The answer was none. All 928 papers agreed.

You want to talk about fake news, the presentation in the news that there was a "debate" among scientists over this was "fake news".

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it is important that we understand how the industrial revolution started, this way we can more easily see what word of the Lord was violated.

I grew up in NY. I made very many wood fires, and my father had us split logs that we later used in our fireplace. We didn't live in NYC, but in Westchester. In NYC no one used wood. Mostly they had boilers or perhaps coal. Same with our school. In upstate NY wood was everywhere and many people made a living selling wood. You could see the signs for firewood as you drove by. But then in the 70s I lived in England, in Norfolk. There everyone used coal. It was easy to see why. You have a small bucket of coal (compared to our much larger pile of wood) by a small iron stove similar to a Franklin stove. In the morning you add a couple of chunks of coal and open up the vent. At night you tamp down the vent. Compared to wood it was cleaner, neater, and much easier. Also even though I travelled the countryside in England, Wales and Scotland you never saw anyone burning wood. It turns out this is true of all land that is crowded. As towns grow coal is a much better source for fires than wood.

But coal mines have major problems. Often you will have a shaft leading down to the coal mine that is 800 feet or more straight down. This requires an elevator which initially was powered by horses. Flooding was also a major issue and so they needed pumps to pump water out also powered by horses. Then moving the coal was another issue. Imagine being underground and having to drag hundreds of pounds of coal behind you for a quarter of mile back to the elevator. Very quickly they discovered the advantage of a railway at reducing the friction. They even built railways from the mines down to the port. A brakeman would control the car on the way down, filled with coal, on the way back horses would pull it back up. Also, fires and explosions were a major problem so they needed to develop lights that would not cause explosions. They also needed government regulation since the owners of the mine didn't really care that miners got killed without them. Now if you are at a coal mine there will be lots of "garbage", coal that is too small to sell. The coal is essentially free to burn whereas providing grain for the horses to do all the work is not. That is why the first steam engine invented was designed to pump water out of a coal mine.

So let's look at Israel. A small strip of land with very limited forests and wood. By law they are forbidden to import wood from other countries and instead are told they have "a rich land". At the time of Solomon they have a large, well organized, centralized government. Solomon is also famous for his mines. No doubt his mines had all the same issues that mines in England had. If Solomon had obeyed God's command to not go to Egypt for horses and Lebanon for Cedars he would have had no choice but come up with the same creative solutions that the English came up with.

We know that pumps had been invented, we know that rails were used to move heavy carts, and we have found a working steam engine that is thousands of years old (toy).

Therefore it is my conclusion that at the time of Solomon we were on the brink of the industrial revolution. However, his many wives turned him aside.

Ps 81:8 Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee:
O Israel, if thou wouldest hearken unto me!
9 There shall no strange god be in thee;
Neither shalt thou worship any foreign god.
10 I am Jehovah thy God,
Who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt:
Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
11 But my people hearkened not to my voice;
And Israel would none of me.
12 So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart,
That they might walk in their own counsels.
13 Oh that my people would hearken unto me,
That Israel would walk in my ways!
14 I would soon subdue their enemies,
And turn my hand against their adversaries.
15 The haters of Jehovah should [d]submit themselves unto him:
But their time should endure for ever.
16 He would feed them also with the [e]finest of the wheat;
And with honey out of the rock would I satisfy thee.

Just imagine what would happen if Israel had discovered the industrial revolution hundreds of years before the Babylonians rode into visit. They would have found cars, trains, airplanes, high rise buildings made of concrete and steel. The entire world would have been able to leap frog the dirty part of the industrial revolution.

[Intothewind]

Ohio: if you would check literature from that time you will see that scientists were already majority predicting global warming(70s).

A few folks presented the idea of global cooling, and the press ate it up...but this idea was never taken very seriously as the evidence was weak. Wikipedia has a whole article on global cooling. In general the media does a very poor job of communication of science, and this could explain a lot of issues we see today

So red herring

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Ohio: if you would check literature from that time you will see that scientists were already majority predicting global warming(70s).

A few folks presented the idea of global cooling, and the press ate it up...but this idea was never taken very seriously as the evidence was weak. Wikipedia has a whole article on global cooling. In general the media does a very poor job of communication of science, and this could explain a lot of issues we see today

So red herring

I definitely agree with you.

It's all a red herring.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Ohio: if you would check literature from that time you will see that scientists were already majority predicting global warming(70s).

A few folks presented the idea of global cooling, and the press ate it up...but this idea was never taken very seriously as the evidence was weak. Wikipedia has a whole article on global cooling. In general the media does a very poor job of communication of science, and this could explain a lot of issues we see today

So red herring

This is a very interesting point that is greatly misunderstood (see Hollywood movies). So let's clarify it. The presentation I have seen from legitimate scientists is not "global" cooling but rather regional cooling sometimes referred to as a "mini ice age".

Here is how this works and it is fascinating. The oceans have global currents that move warm water from the equator up the poles, at the poles the water cools and sinks and then returns to the equator at the bottom of the ocean. It acts like a giant conveyor belt. It moves heat and nutrients. It is critical to the Earth's climate and for life in the ocean.

However, fresh water is less dense than salt water, so even if it is cold it won't sink. (there is a great experiment you could do to prove this to yourself. Get two containers, fill both half full with equal amounts of water and then freeze. Once you have these two large ice cubes fill the other half of the container. In one use fresh water at room temperature. In the other use salt water at room temperature. Then watch (you might want to use time lapse photography). The ice in the fresh water will melt faster than the one in salt water. Why? The salt water is more dense so the ice cube floats up to the top and as it melts it is surrounded with the ice water that can't sink due to convection. In the other container the cold water sinks and the ice stays next to the warmer water and melts quicker.)

So the thought is as the ice is melting rapidly the surface of the ocean in the poles will be ice cold but fresh water that can't sink. This will shut down these currents. As a result we can see the heat in the ocean concentrated in the tropics while the poles are covered with cold, fresh water. If this happens we can measure the decrease in the ocean currents (which we are seeing) and we would expect Europe to get a lot more snow in the winter (which we are also seeing). The only way that this could have a bigger affect than just regional is if it does cause a mini ice age in Europe. Snow and ice reflects more sunlight. I have not seen anyone who is predicting that this effect to the ocean currents will result in global cooling.

[ZNPaaneah]

We had 15 climate events of a billion dollars or more:

Western Wildfires†
Summer-Fall 2017
2017-06-01 2017-09-30 Numerous wildfires across many western and northwestern states burn over 8.4 million acres and hundreds of homes. 2017 already exceeds the 10-year annual average of 5.9 million acres. Montana in particular has been affected by wildfires scortching over 1 million acres so far. These wildfire conditions are enhanced by the extreme drought taking place in several states. $2.0 CI 8
North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana Drought†
Spring-Fall 2017
2017-03-01 2017-09-30 Extreme drought causes extensive impacts to agriculture in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. Field crops including wheat were severely damaged and the lack of feed for cattle forced ranchers to sell off livestock. This drought has also contributed to the increased potential for severe wildfires. $2.5 CI 0
Hurricane Maria†
September 2017
2017-09-19 2017-09-21 Category 4 hurricane made landfall in southeast Puerto Rico after striking the U.S. Virgin Island of St. Croix. Maria's high winds caused widespread devastation to Puerto Rico's transportation, agriculture, communication and energy infrastructure. Extreme rainfall up to 37 inches caused widespread flooding and mudslides across the island. The interruption to commerce and standard living conditions will be sustained for a long period, as much of Puerto Rico's infrastructure is rebuilt. Maria tied Hurricane Wilma (2005) for the most rapid intensification, strengthening from tropical depression to a category 5 storm in 54 hours. Maria's landfall at Category 4 strength gives the U.S. a record three Category 4+ landfalls this year (Maria, Harvey, and Irma). TBD -- estimated to be $45 to 95 billion 38
Hurricane Irma†
September 2017
2017-09-06 2017-09-12 Category 4 hurricane made landfall at Cudjoe Key, Florida after devastating the U.S. Virgin Islands - St John and St Thomas - as a category 5 storm. The Florida Keys were heavily impacted, as 25% of buildings were destroyed while 65% were significantly damaged. Severe wind and storm surge damage also occurred along the coasts of Florida and South Carolina. Jacksonville, FL and Charleston, SC received near-historic levels of storm surge causing significant coastal flooding. Irma maintained a maximum sustained wind of 185 mph for 37 hours, the longest in the satellite era. Irma also was a category 5 storm for longer than all other Atlantic hurricanes except Ivan in 2004. TBD -- estimated to be $100 billion 95
Hurricane Harvey†
August 2017
2017-08-25 2017-08-31 Category 4 hurricane made landfall near Rockport, Texas causing widespread damage. Harvey's devastation was most pronounced due to the large region of extreme rainfall producing historic flooding across Houston and surrounding areas. More than 30 inches of rainfall fell on 6.9 million people, while 1.25 million experienced over 45 inches and 11,000 had over 50 inches, based on 7-day rainfall totals ending August 31. This historic U.S. rainfall caused massive flooding that displaced over 30,000 people and damaged or destroyed over 200,000 homes and businesses. TBD -- estimated to be $180 billion 84

As a reference the average cost from hurricane damage per year in the US prior to last year was $26 billion.

Midwest Severe Weather†
June 2017
2017-06-27 2017-06-29 Severe hail and high wind damage impacting Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa. More than one dozen tornadoes touched down across parts of Iowa, in addition to other storm damage. $1.2 CI 0
Minnesota Hail Storm and Upper Midwest Severe Weather†
June 2017
2017-06-09 2017-06-16 Severe hail and high wind damage impacting numerous states including MN, WI, WY, TX, IA, IL, KS, MO, NE, NY, PA, VA. The Minneapolis metro area in particular was damaged from large, destructive hail impacting many buildings and vehicles. This damage is comparable to the May 15, 1998 Minnesota hail storm that was also very costly. $2.5 CI 0
Colorado Hail Storm and Central Severe Weather†
May 2017
2017-05-08 2017-05-11 Hail storm and wind damage impacting several states including CO, OK, TX, NM, MO. The most costly impacts were in the Denver metro region where baseball-sized hail caused the most expensive hail storm in Colorado history, with insured losses exceeding 1.5 billion. $2.2 CI 0
Missouri and Arkansas Flooding and Central Severe Weather†
May 2017
2017-04-25 2017-05-07 A period of heavy rainfall up to 15 inches over a multi-state region in the Midwest caused historic levels of flooding along many rivers. The flooding was most severe in Missouri, Arkansas and southern Illinois where levees were breached and towns were flooded. There was widespread damage to homes, businesses, infrastructure and agriculture. Severe storms also caused additional impacts during the flooding event across a number of central and southern states. $1.7 CI 20
South/ Southeast Severe Weather†
March 2017
2017-03-26 2017-03-28 Large hail and high winds in Texas north of the Dallas metro region caused widespread damage to structures and vehicles. Severe storms also caused damage across several other states (OK, TN, KY, MS, AL) due to the combination of high winds, hail and tornadoes. $2.1 CI 0
Southeast Freeze†
March 2017
2017-03-14 2017-03-16 Severe freeze heavily damaged fruit crops across several southeastern states (SC, GA, NC, TN, AL, MS, FL, KY, VA). Mid-March freezes are not climatologically unusual in the Southeast, however many crops were blooming 3+ weeks early due to unusually warm temperatures during the preceding weeks. Damage was most severe in Georgia and South Carolina. Crops most impacted include peaches, blueberries, strawberries and apples, among others. $1.0 CI 0
Midwest Tornado Outbreak†
March 2017
2017-03-06 2017-03-08 Tornado outbreak and wind damage across many Midwestern states (AR, IA, IL, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, NY, OH, WI). Missouri and Illinois were impacted by numerous tornadoes while Michigan and New York were affected by destructive, straight-line winds following the storm system. Nearly one million customers lost power in Michigan alone due to sustained high winds, which affected several states from Illinois to New York. $2.1 CI 2
Central/ Southeast Tornado Outbreak†
March 2017
2017-02-28 2017-03-01 Over 70 tornadoes developed during a widespread outbreak across many central and southern states causing significant damage. There was also widespread straight-line wind and hail damage. This was the second largest tornado outbreak to occur early in 2017. $1.8 CI 6
California Flooding†
February 2017
2017-02-08 2017-02-22 Heavy, persistent rainfall across northern and central California created substantial property and infrastructure damage from flooding, landslides and erosion. Notable impacts include severe damage to the Oroville Dam spillway, which caused a multi-day evacuation of 188,000 residents downstream. Excessive rainfall also caused flood damage in the city of San Jose, as Coyote Creek overflowed its banks and inundated neighborhoods forcing 14,000 residents to evacuate. $1.5 CI 5
Southern Tornado Outbreak and Western Storms†
January 2017
2017-01-20 2017-01-22 High wind damage occurred across southern California near San Diego followed by 79 confirmed tornadoes during an outbreak across many southern states including AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC and TX. This was the 3rd most tornadoes to occur in a single outbreak during a winter month (Dec.-Feb.) for records going back to 1950. $1.1

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We had 15 climate events of a billion dollars or more:

How much will the "Big One," the long predicted CA earthquake cost us?

Perhaps CA will be a separate country by then. One can only hope.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How much will the "Big One," the long predicted CA earthquake cost us?

Perhaps CA will be a separate country by then. One can only hope.

Good idea. California is an economic powerhouse and hi tech center. CA contributes more to the American economy than any other state...$2.44 trillion in 2015.

[ZNPaaneah]

The cost to the US this year was over $350 billion dollars in insured losses for climate disasters. However, this will show up as job increases. Insured losses are translated into jobs for contractors, etc.

Perhaps this is what Trump really meant when he said he wanted more of that "good old global warming". It is the single biggest job creator for 2017.

[ZNPaaneah]

Since 1950, the number of coastal ecosystems that scientists say are “suffocating” has grown tenfold. The problem has grown four times over in the open ocean, which is generally a more stable and resilient environment. Scientists say ocean oxygen content has declined 2 percent over the past 50 years. The trend, scientists say, is another consequence of global warming that threatens to disrupt food chains, ...

What was it that the "comic book Revelation" said? The oceans and rivers and lakes would be turned to blood?

[ZNPaaneah]

It was 5 degrees here yesterday and 86 degrees in the Dominican Republic.

Tomorrow it will be 40 degrees here.

The equator is heating up because the heat cannot move north. This means we will have hurricanes in January (what we saw) and because of sea level rise those on the coast can get flooded with water that then freezes (this is what happened to Boston encasing cars in ice two feet deep).

So if it is 5 degrees in NY and 86 in DR, what is the average? 45 degrees in January -- that is an example of what is meant by Climate change.

People have the mistaken idea that 1 degree warmer will be nicer, it isn't going to be even, it could be 20 degrees warmer at the equator and 18 degrees colder in NY.

[ZNPaaneah]

Thousands of flying foxes died in an Australian heatwave so severe it has melted tarmac. The animals fell from the trees as they were boiled alive in temperatures exceeding 104 degrees Fahrenheit in Campbelltown in New South Wales. Animal welfare volunteers battled to save the lives of the hundreds of babies and some adults in distress but the death toll is believed to be in the thousands.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was 5 degrees here yesterday and 86 degrees in the Dominican Republic.

Tomorrow it will be 40 degrees here.

The equator is heating up because the heat cannot move north. This means we will have hurricanes in January (what we saw) and because of sea level rise those on the coast can get flooded with water that then freezes (this is what happened to Boston encasing cars in ice two feet deep).

So if it is 5 degrees in NY and 86 in DR, what is the average? 45 degrees in January -- that is an example of what is meant by Climate change.

People have the mistaken idea that 1 degree warmer will be nicer, it isn't going to be even, it could be 20 degrees warmer at the equator and 18 degrees colder in NY.

I'll just move to where it's 1 degree warmer then.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'll just move to where it's 1 degree warmer then.

It is going to be 54 degrees on Friday in NY, a week ago it was 5, the average is about 30 degrees which for mid January is warm. Today it is 40 degrees, a few days ago it was 18 degrees, again the average is 29 degrees, once again for mid January that is warm.

If you want to move to NY go ahead, we are one of the most at risk cities for floods, sea level rise, the new version of hurricanes, and the spread of tropical diseases.

[Ohio]

Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

[Intothewind]

You think linking Breitbart is appropriate?

We had this same discussion over evolution. Lying to save face is supposed to be a sin.

(Do a bit of research on breitbart. They are the epotome of fake news.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

"This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.

A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:

They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies." (https://www.snopes.com/scientific-pa...-warming-myth/)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

You think linking Breitbart is appropriate?

We had this same discussion over evolution. Lying to save face is supposed to be a sin.

(Do a bit of research on breitbart. They are the epotome of fake news.)

You only like the news that fits your narrative. There's more to the story.

[ZNPaaneah]

In its hottest December ever recorded, Alaska was a stunning 15.7°F above the 20th century average. And the year ended with Arctic sea ice hitting an all-time record low. While the East Coast had a cool December and New Year’s week, Alaska baked. Last Tuesday, Anchorage hit 48°F, warmer than southern cities from Atlanta and Jacksonville to Houston and New Orleans. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported this week that Alaska averaged 19.4°F for the month, topping the previous record (1985) by a whopping 2.1°F. “That’s really quite astonishing,” said Rick Thoman, the National Weather Service’s climate sciences and services manager for the Alaska region.

[ZNPaaneah]

As announced in a report issued this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2017 was a historic year, and not at all in a good way. Climate-related disasters, including the hurricanes and wildfires that dominated headlines during late 2017, exceeded $300 billion in costs last year – a new annual U.S. record. In fact, last year’s weather events shattered the previous record dating back to 2005, when the likes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita added up to a total of $214.8 billion in damages. In addition to the California wildfires and Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, NOAA’s accounting also included droughts in the Dakotas and Montana; flooding in Missouri and Arkansas;

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As announced in a report issued this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2017 was a historic year, and not at all in a good way. Climate-related disasters, including the hurricanes and wildfires that dominated headlines during late 2017, exceeded $300 billion in costs last year – a new annual U.S. record. In fact, last year’s weather events shattered the previous record dating back to 2005, when the likes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita added up to a total of $214.8 billion in damages. In addition to the California wildfires and Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, NOAA’s accounting also included droughts in the Dakotas and Montana; flooding in Missouri and Arkansas;

Signs of the times Luke 12.54-57

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Signs of the times Luke 12.54-57

Yes, we see a south wind blowing, we know their will be scorching heat. And, yes, we will not escape until we have paid the very last mite.

[ZNPaaneah]

MOSCOW (AP) — Even thermometers can't keep up with the plunging temperatures in Russia's remote Yakutia region, which hit minus 67 degrees Celsius (minus 88.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas Tuesday.

In Yakutia — a region of 1 million people about 3,300 miles (5,300 kilometers) east of Moscow — students routinely go to school even in minus 40 degrees. But school was canceled Tuesday throughout the region and police ordered parents to keep their children inside.

In the village of Oymyakon, one of the coldest inhabited places on earth, state-owned Russian television showed the mercury falling to the bottom of a thermometer that was only set up to measure down to minus 50 degrees. In 2013, Oymyakon recorded an all-time low of minus 71 degrees Celsius (minus 98 Fahrenheit).

Over the weekend, two men froze to death when they tried to walk to a nearby farm after their car broke down. Three other men with them survived because they were wearing warmer clothes, investigators reported.

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You only like the news that fits your narrative. There's more to the story.

No, I like accurate news based on facts and evidence. There is more to the story because there are people with interest in maintaining fossil fuel consumption sow doubt, and this has been documented in the literature extensively. These people are understandbly sowing lies to save their wallets. You may look into this yourself. Scientists disagree on certain aspects about climate change models and the like, but basically all scientists on in agreement in regards to the basics of climate change(that the earth(as a whole) is warming and this is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution...and that this will cause various changes that will pose problems for society as we know it). I would sooner look at why you like this "news".

Again, very dishonest Ohio. I expect better.

[Boxjobox]

ZNP- What do you propose for a solution? Obviously, if oil is the problem, then we should all cease using oil for energy. That would mean an alternative energy source is needed or humankind go back to an agrarian life, which was not very friendly. Mostly what I hear from the climate changers is scare tactics of doom and gloom, while the proponents still have no problem living with the luxury and benefit of oil. The only solution that ever seems to be proposed is TAX. If the scientists have an answer/an alternative, bring it out, draw up a workable model that would not be dependent on oil. I see no workable model being presented.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

No, I like accurate news based on facts and evidence. There is more to the story because there are people with interest in maintaining fossil fuel consumption sow doubt, and this has been documented in the literature extensively. These people are understandbly sowing lies to save their wallets. You may look into this yourself. Scientists disagree on certain aspects about climate change models and the like, but basically all scientists on in agreement in regards to the basics of climate change(that the earth(as a whole) is warming and this is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution...and that this will cause various changes that will pose problems for society as we know it). I would sooner look at why you like this "news".

Again, very dishonest Ohio. I expect better.

With this horrible weather we have had, I'm expecting the Ice Age is on the horizon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

ZNP- What do you propose for a solution? Obviously, if oil is the problem, then we should all cease using oil for energy. That would mean an alternative energy source is needed or humankind go back to an agrarian life, which was not very friendly. Mostly what I hear from the climate changers is scare tactics of doom and gloom, while the proponents still have no problem living with the luxury and benefit of oil. The only solution that ever seems to be proposed is TAX. If the scientists have an answer/an alternative, bring it out, draw up a workable model that would not be dependent on oil. I see no workable model being presented.

I could give you the solution in 2 words but I doubt any would understand. The solution has to be practical. It is completely unreasonable and impractical to think that 8 billion people will stop using fossil fuel because of climate change. Likewise, solar is becoming more and more economic and bigger and it is growing exponentially. But that doesn't mean people will stop using existing power plants fueled with fossil fuel.

So then it will take 100+ years to make the transition to an essentially carbon free power. So then the real question is what is the solution that will get us through the next 100 years. Personally I think the cost of climate change is finally beginning to take a bite out of numerous government budgets and that is the reason the consensus has swung, it truly is a "green" issue now.

I am avoiding getting into details about the "solution" because it is quite lengthy. But in short here is what a solution looks like -- it will be a city (we have to think of societal changes to make an impact), this city will be carbon neutral (as more and more of these cities get built we will see a significant decrease in emissions), this city will be designed to survive hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, and other forms of extreme weather events. This city will also be a far more economic place to live and far more pleasant place to live, this will be the motivation for people to move, build, and fund the construction. Finally the city has to be built in desert environments and ocean environments, because other than those two places it is hard to find the space to build brand new cities.

In two words the solution is the "New Jerusalem".

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With this horrible weather we have had, I'm expecting the Ice Age is on the horizon.

Noreaster fury indeed!

Joking aside, weather and climate are different, and places can see more extreme weather(yes, even colder winters) in a changing climate. This isn't surprising.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Noreaster fury indeed!

Joking aside, weather and climate are different, and places can see more extreme weather(yes, even colder winters) in a changing climate. This isn't surprising.

One of the predicted changes due to climate change is a very mild ice age in Europe.

The idea is that the ocean currents will temporarily (a few years) shut down due to all the less dense fresh water due to melting of ice. This will prevent warm water from the equator to move north along the Gulf stream current.

It appears we are seeing this. This will have massive impacts worldwide. Equatorial waters will become much hotter, Europe will be dumped on with lots of snow, and worldwide the ocean will see lots of death due to the lack of upwelling currents bringing up nutrients.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One of the predicted changes due to climate change is a very mild ice age in Europe.

The idea is that the ocean currents will temporarily (a few years) shut down due to all the less dense fresh water due to melting of ice. This will prevent warm water from the equator to move north along the Gulf stream current.

It appears we are seeing this. This will have massive impacts worldwide. Equatorial waters will become much hotter, Europe will be dumped on with lots of snow, and worldwide the ocean will see lots of death due to the lack of upwelling currents bringing up nutrients.

Climate will indeed change before the great and terrible day of the Lord!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Climate will indeed change before the great and terrible day of the Lord!

Yes, that great and terrible day prophecies of "And the second poured out his bowl into the sea; and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living soul died, even the things that were in the sea."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Climate will indeed change before the great and terrible day of the Lord!

That's why we elect climate deniers : to bring the Lord back. We want it so bad we don't care if every soul dies ; of the neighbors Jesus instructed us to love.

But maybe that's why over 80% of Evangelical's voted for Trump. For their "loving" Jesus to come back.

When's the slaughter start? Climate change is way too slow. And there's waaaay toooo many neighbors to love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why we elect climate deniers : to bring the Lord back. We want it so bad we don't care if every soul dies ; of the neighbors Jesus instructed us to love.

But maybe that's why over 80% of Evangelical's voted for Trump. For their "loving" Jesus to come back.

When's the slaughter start? Climate change is way too slow. And there's waaaay toooo many neighbors to love.

You spend waaaay toooo much time with Joe and Meeka.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You spend waaaay toooo much time with Joe and Meeka.

I spend absolutely no time with Joe and Mika.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why we elect climate deniers : to bring the Lord back. We want it so bad we don't care if every soul dies ; of the neighbors Jesus instructed us to love.

Do the math. 8 billion people, of those 7 billion are not going to worry about Climate change when to their calculation they didn't cause the problem and they are living hand to mouth. Of the 1 billion people left who are the biggest polluters, they are on a treadmill that can't stop. Their economy has to grow by 1-2% per year to avoid recession and depression. They also have a massive installed base of infrastructure depending on fossil fuel that they cannot afford to shutter. The idea that Al Gore, much less Hillary Clinton would have made a difference is completely unrealistic and ignores the math, the economics and the political reality in the US. It has taken us close to 200 years to go from the industrial revolution in its infancy when steam pumps were used to pump out mines, to climatic catastrophe. You have to go back a long way in history before you can actually find a leader who actually could have averted this disaster. When Solomon was mining ore on an industrial level he also needed to pump water out. Had they invented the steam engine at that time (there were steam engines designed as toys and novelties in ancient Greece) then Israel could have gone through the industrial revolution during the 400 years from Solomon to the Babylonian invasion. They were sitting on an ocean of oil. Imagine the Babylonians riding in on horses to discover Israel after 400 years of industrialization.

The US represents about 5% of the world's population. Even if we discover cleaner technology, the car companies and other companies sell their old factory parts to the developing nations. The problem is not Trump, or Gore, or Clinton. The problem is this system that put us on a highway that led straight off a cliff.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do the math. 8 billion people, of those 7 billion are not going to worry about Climate change when to their calculation they didn't cause the problem and they are living hand to mouth. Of the 1 billion people left who are the biggest polluters, they are on a treadmill that can't stop. Their economy has to grow by 1-2% per year to avoid recession and depression. They also have a massive installed base of infrastructure depending on fossil fuel that they cannot afford to shutter. The idea that Al Gore, much less Hillary Clinton would have made a difference is completely unrealistic and ignores the math, the economics and the political reality in the US. It has taken us close to 200 years to go from the industrial revolution in its infancy when steam pumps were used to pump out mines, to climatic catastrophe. You have to go back a long way in history before you can actually find a leader who actually could have averted this disaster. When Solomon was mining ore on an industrial level he also needed to pump water out. Had they invented the steam engine at that time (there were steam engines designed as toys and novelties in ancient Greece) then Israel could have gone through the industrial revolution during the 400 years from Solomon to the Babylonian invasion. They were sitting on an ocean of oil. Imagine the Babylonians riding in on horses to discover Israel after 400 years of industrialization.

The US represents about 5% of the world's population. Even if we discover cleaner technology, the car companies and other companies sell their old factory parts to the developing nations. The problem is not Trump, or Gore, or Clinton. The problem is this system that put us on a highway that led straight off a cliff.

We should not be blaming people for climate change. The real source of greenhouse gas are them cattle.

We’ve Grossly Underestimated How Much Cow Farts Are Contributing to Global Warming

The source of the problem is all you hamburger lovers!

Save the planet, boycott McDonald's!

.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We should not be blaming people for climate change. The real source of greenhouse gas are them cattle.

We’ve Grossly Underestimated How Much Cow Farts Are Contributing to Global Warming

The source of the problem is all you hamburger lovers!

Save the planet, boycott McDonald's!

.

Methane is a very valuable gas, we are trying to design bacteria that will produce it economically. What we really need to do is collect the methane from the cows. That is simple and straightforward technically speaking, though it will create an added expense. But along with the added expense is the added revenue stream from the methane.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Methane is a very valuable gas, we are trying to design bacteria that will produce it economically. What we really need to do is collect the methane from the cows. That is simple and straightforward technically speaking, though it will create an added expense. But along with the added expense is the added revenue stream from the methane.

It's easier to collect cow paddies than cow farts.

Better to get methane thru fracking!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's easier to collect cow paddies than cow farts.

Better to get methane thru fracking!

If you put the cows within a dome it is simple to collect (methane is lighter than air). The Eden project (http://www.edenproject.com/) has put vast biomes within domes. The cost is approximately $10 per square foot covered. There would be several benefits in addition to the methane. For example, you could put your pastures in the desert. If the land is free (huge tracts of government owned land in the desert) that would virtually offset the cost of the dome. In addition there would be other benefits to having the cows local rather than cutting down the rainforest in Brazil to give them a pasture. The US government generally collects about 40% of revenue as taxes when all is considered. Therefore it would be a money making operation for the US government to give the land (that they have no other use for) free of charge.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you put the cows within a dome it is simple to collect (methane is lighter than air). The Eden project (http://www.edenproject.com/) has put vast biomes within domes. The cost is approximately $10 per square foot covered. There would be several benefits in addition to the methane. For example, you could put your pastures in the desert. If the land is free (huge tracts of government owned land in the desert) that would virtually offset the cost of the dome. In addition there would be other benefits to having the cows local rather than cutting down the rainforest in Brazil to give them a pasture. The US government generally collects about 40% of revenue as taxes when all is considered. Therefore it would be a money making operation for the US government to give the land (that they have no other use for) free of charge.

Cow domes in a desert to collect farts up top?

Great idea.

But don't those cows need to eat?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We should not be blaming people for climate change. The real source of greenhouse gas are them cattle.

We’ve Grossly Underestimated How Much Cow Farts Are Contributing to Global Warming

The source of the problem is all you hamburger lovers!

Save the planet, boycott McDonald's!

.

Ha ha. Good one Ohio. But save the fracking.

Of course humans are causing climate change. If we just count the cow farts we'll know that. But add to that rice patties. They produce methane too. Boycott Chinese and Mexican too.

But hey, humans aren't done causing that. They had to add fracking to it. That's losing over $1.5 billion in leaks a year.

But Exxon Mobile, and Shell, knowing full well about the causes of climate change for decades, points to cow farts.

I think at bottom, if we're looking for the originator of ALL the causes, it's human farts, or the humans letting them. There's too many of them.

But who cares.

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cow domes in a desert to collect farts up top?

Great idea.

But don't those cows need to eat?

The dome allows sunlight through, and these things are huge, they can cover entire pastures. Inside the dome you can control the climate, reduce evaporation, so that even in a desert you could have a pasture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ha ha. Good one Ohio. But save the fracking.

Of course humans are causing climate change. If we just count the cow farts we'll know that. But add to that rice patties. They produce methane too. Boycott Chinese and Mexican too.

But hey, humans aren't done causing that. They had to add fracking to it. That's losing over $1.5 billion in leaks a year.

But Exxon Mobile, and Shell, knowing full well about the causes of climate change for decades, points to cow farts.

I think at bottom, if we're looking for the originator of ALL the causes, it's human farts, or the humans letting them. There's too many of them.

But who cares.

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

You seem more scared of the 2nd coming of Christ than all the natural and supernatural calamities that are coming.

Aren't you concerned that some of these globalist totalitarians might decide to "thin the herd" and include you in their plans?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why we elect climate deniers : to bring the Lord back. We want it so bad we don't care if every soul dies ; of the neighbors Jesus instructed us to love.

But maybe that's why over 80% of Evangelical's voted for Trump. For their "loving" Jesus to come back.

When's the slaughter start? Climate change is way too slow. And there's waaaay toooo many neighbors to love.

Never heard of a "climate denier."

Do you really think hybrid cars will save us from the "rising oceans."

Talk about a false hope! Those who reject the Savior are willing to trust most anything.

Why is it that all these High Priests of Climate Change, like Obama, Gore, and DiCaprio all get rich hob-nobbing the planet in private jets with their entourages, while the rest of us are supposed to ride bicycles?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

Always hatin on the Republicans! More fake news!

The former secretary of the interior under President Reagan, James Watt, continues to draw criticism for things he probably did not say.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Never heard of a "climate denier."

Do you really think hybrid cars will save us from the "rising oceans."

Talk about a false hope! Those who reject the Savior are willing to trust most anything.

Why is it that all these High Priests of Climate Change, like Obama, Gore, and DiCaprio all get rich hob-nobbing the planet in private jets with their entourages, while the rest of us are supposed to ride bicycles?

hybrid cars will not save the planet, but riding bicycles, that is a different story. Not only will it significantly reduce greenhouse gases, it will also help the job security of those in the medical profession while also "thinning the herd".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

hybrid cars will not save the planet, but riding bicycles, that is a different story. Not only will it significantly reduce greenhouse gases, it will also help the job security of those in the medical profession while also "thinning the herd".

Personally I do believe the climate is changing, but I don't believe greenhouse gases are the cause of it.

Not just the climate, but the whole earth is changing, with earthquakes and volcanoes to prove it.

Paul says that the "whole creation is groaning together and travailing in pain together" like an expectant mother. (Rom 8)

Sorry folks, but there's no government program that could ever save us from this "groaning" planet. What will happen if the long-promised "big one" would hit the San Andreas fault?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally I do believe the climate is changing, but I don't believe greenhouse gases are the cause of it.

Not just the climate, but the whole earth is changing, with earthquakes and volcanoes to prove it.

Paul says that the "whole creation is groaning together and travailing in pain together" like an expectant mother. (Rom 8)

Sorry folks, but there's no government program that could ever save us from this "groaning" planet. What will happen if the long-promised "big one" would hit the San Andreas fault?

My personal opinion is that this is similar to Noah learning of the impending flood. Some people are recommending that we get waders, or fill sand bags. Both of those situations may seem appropriate in the event of some floods, but not for Noah's flood. What we need is a city that can weather the storm. It won't be on the coastline (65% of people live there), it won't be in the line of hurricanes and tornadoes. It needs to endure extreme weather events. I like a city in the desert designed for 10 inches of rain or less a year.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I could give you the solution in 2 words but I doubt any would understand. The solution has to be practical. It is completely unreasonable and impractical to think that 8 billion people will stop using fossil fuel because of climate change. Likewise, solar is becoming more and more economic and bigger and it is growing exponentially. But that doesn't mean people will stop using existing power plants fueled with fossil fuel.

So then it will take 100+ years to make the transition to an essentially carbon free power. So then the real question is what is the solution that will get us through the next 100 years. Personally I think the cost of climate change is finally beginning to take a bite out of numerous government budgets and that is the reason the consensus has swung, it truly is a "green" issue now.

I am avoiding getting into details about the "solution" because it is quite lengthy. But in short here is what a solution looks like -- it will be a city (we have to think of societal changes to make an impact), this city will be carbon neutral (as more and more of these cities get built we will see a significant decrease in emissions), this city will be designed to survive hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, and other forms of extreme weather events. This city will also be a far more economic place to live and far more pleasant place to live, this will be the motivation for people to move, build, and fund the construction. Finally the city has to be built in desert environments and ocean environments, because other than those two places it is hard to find the space to build brand new cities.

In two words the solution is the "New Jerusalem".

ZNP- problem with that solution is that the New Jerusalem is built by God- it's not earthly- where we all live. Perhaps the solutiion would be a little more God-given-down-to-earth: what about implementing a weekly sabbath rest. 6 days of energy use, one day of shutting down all but necessary consuming. Turn off the whole consumption/get ahead/entertainment/travel/military/electronic society and contemplate creation and the God who created all things. This would reduce what some feel are the catalysts for climate change about 14%. It would also be an internal change-maker for the human soul.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

ZNP- problem with that solution is that the New Jerusalem is built by God- it's not earthly- where we all live. Perhaps the solutiion would be a little more God-given-down-to-earth: what about implementing a weekly sabbath rest. 6 days of energy use, one day of shutting down all but necessary consuming. Turn off the whole consumption/get ahead/entertainment/travel/military/electronic society and contemplate creation and the God who created all things. This would reduce what some feel are the catalysts for climate change about 14%. It would also be an internal change-maker for the human soul.

If you are going the wrong direction, driving slower is not a solution.

Sabbath rest for who? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, etc?

Even if we were to immediately drop to 0 net emissions we would still continue on this path of Climate change for a great deal longer, maybe even 100+ years.

Are you familiar with a "feedback loop"? We have already reached a level of warming where we are getting methane hydrates bubbling up into the atmosphere from what was formerly perma frost and from the sea bottom. This is a very powerful greenhouse gas. As this bubbles up we get accelerated climate change.

As Ohio has pointed out a major portion of our emissions is from cows and pigs. How do you propose a "sabbath rest" from cows and pigs pooping and burping?

Half of a cars emissions are from the manufacture of the car. Just because you don't drive it one day a week won't change all of that.

Heating and cooling of buildings is a major contributor of greenhouse gases. Do you propose that people take a Sabbath rest from heating and cooling their homes and businesses?

The bottom line is we are sitting on the railroad tracks, the train is coming and the only way to survive the coming storm (precisely prophesied about in the book of Revelation) is to build a "boat" that can weather the storm.

Since the NT charges us to "be imitators of God" I see no reason why we can't build a city according to the design of the NJ.

[ZNPaaneah]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming is likely slowing the main Atlantic Ocean circulation, which has plunged to its weakest level on record, according to a new study.

[Intothewind]

Doesn't matter what you believe, only what is demonstrated correct. Believing something that is incorrect is irrelevant.



Just cause you believe you can move mountains doesn't mean a thing.


The futility or solutions to climate change don't effect whether or not it is happening and man caused.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Doesn't matter what you believe, only what is demonstrated correct. Believing something that is incorrect is irrelevant.



Just cause you believe you can move mountains doesn't mean a thing.


The futility or solutions to climate change don't effect whether or not it is happening and man caused.

Brother Intothewind, "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind."

[ZNPaaneah]

Syria’s leader Bashar al-Assad responded by cutting food and fuel subsidies, thus planting the seeds for protest and finally civil war (Fountain 2016).The root cause of migration from Syria, then, was climate stress. (Anthropology Matters, Third Edition, Shirley A Fedorak)

Another example of how climate change can increase the fragility of a state is Syria.In 2010–2011, Syria was considered by many political analysts to be a relatively stable state compared to other countries experiencing the so-called “Arab Spring". (Handbook of Transitions to Energy and Climate Security, Robert E. Looney)

If we count climate change as a factor in conflict and violence, it is indirect, through the structural violence which leaves vulnerable populations at risk from natural disasters, droughts and storms, or through the indirect impact of climate on drought-related conflicts such as in Darfur. (Contemporary Conflict Resolution, by Oliver Ramsbotham, Hugh Miall, Tom Woodhouse)

[ZNPaaneah]

‘We’ve fallen off a cliff’: Scientists have never seen so little ice in the Bering Sea in spring

[ZNPaaneah]

Carbon dioxide — the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming — reached its highest level in recorded history last month, at 410 parts per million.

This amount is highest in at least the past 800,000 years, according to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Prior to the onset of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels had fluctuated over the millennia but had never exceeded 300 parts per million.

[ZNPaaneah]

It is only May but temperatures are already skyrocketing in the Southwest.

The highest temperature in the nation Sunday was in Thermal, California, where it reached a daily record of 110 degrees. Phoenix hit a record high of 106 Sunday, breaking the record from 1947. Tucson, Arizona, hit their first 100-degree reading for the year, too.

[ZNPaaneah]

(CNN)An ancient virus infecting residents across Australia's Northern Territory is leaving death and despair in its path, and doctors are now calling for greater efforts to stop the spread of infections.

The rates of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1, or HTLV-1, infection are exceeding 40% among adults in remote regions of central Australia, with indigenous communities being the hardest hit, especially in the town of Alice Springs.

(This virus is found in 1500 year old mummies and may have become reactivated due to melting glaciers).

[Ohio]

Hypocrisy in action ...

Shocking Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists

Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study

The same is true of our Climate Priesthood like Ozone Al Gore -- hobnobbing the globe in their private jets and limos, while we bike to work.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy in action ...

Shocking Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists

Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study

The same is true of our Climate Priesthood like Ozone Al Gore -- hobnobbing the globe in their private jets and limos, while we bike to work.

The whole thing is idiotic. Half of the carbon footprint of a car is made when it is built. Therefore, buying a Prius that gets 45 mpg is not 50% less footprint than a car that gets 22 mpg. Plus, if you are in a city that generates electricity from coal (very common) your source of generating electricity is not cleaner that burning gas. So if they are saying that people who believe in climate change should have a Prius, that is stupid. And, it is worse than that. The inefficient cars that "pollute" and are no longer legal in the US are not destroyed, those factories are shipped to the third world. This is why you can go to Mexico, Africa or Cuba and find cars that appear to be 40 years old, yet look brand new.

On the other hand if the person who believes in climate change sells the beach house and moves inland 200 miles, that is consistent with their belief.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The whole thing is idiotic. Half of the carbon footprint of a car is made when it is built. Therefore, buying a Prius that gets 45 mpg is not 50% less footprint than a car that gets 22 mpg. Plus, if you are in a city that generates electricity from coal (very common) your source of generating electricity is not cleaner that burning gas. So if they are saying that people who believe in climate change should have a Prius, that is stupid. And, it is worse than that. The inefficient cars that "pollute" and are no longer legal in the US are not destroyed, those factories are shipped to the third world. This is why you can go to Mexico, Africa or Cuba and find cars that appear to be 40 years old, yet look brand new.

On the other hand if the person who believes in climate change sells the beach house and moves inland 200 miles, that is consistent with their belief.

Idiotic, stupid, nonsensical, irrational??? Yes, of course!

Cause it is the cult of Green. They have their High Priests, their gospel, their services, their beliefs, their fellowship, etc.

Take away the Lord Jesus, the only true God, and all these liberals have is their cults, their idols, their fanaticism, etc.

Idiotic, stupid, nonsensical, irrational???

Yes, of course, move inland 200 miles! Oops, did you say your island is only 20 miles wide? What will this true believer like you do then???

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Idiotic, stupid, nonsensical, irrational??? Yes, of course!

Cause it is the cult of Green. They have their High Priests, their gospel, their services, their beliefs, their fellowship, etc.

Take away the Lord Jesus, the only true God, and all these liberals have is their cults, their idols, their fanaticism, etc.

Idiotic, stupid, nonsensical, irrational???

Yes, of course, move inland 200 miles! Oops, did you say your island is only 20 miles wide? What will this true believer like you do then???

We have made important advances. For example solar power is currently the cheapest form of electricity on the planet and is becoming cheaper at a very fast rate. If we were to get to 50% or more of our electricity from renewable energy it would have an impact. If we can get to 90% or higher it could actually be a solution.

Robotic cars are also a way to greatly reduce our footprint.

Of course if Fusion becomes a viable source of power it could be a huge solution.

If we are talking about 100 years from now all of these things are quite realistic in having a worldwide impact. The real issue is surviving the next 100 years.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have made important advances. For example solar power is currently the cheapest form of electricity on the planet and is becoming cheaper at a very fast rate. If we were to get to 50% or more of our electricity from renewable energy it would have an impact. If we can get to 90% or higher it could actually be a solution.

Robotic cars are also a way to greatly reduce our footprint.

Of course if Fusion becomes a viable source of power it could be a huge solution.

If we are talking about 100 years from now all of these things are quite realistic in having a worldwide impact. The real issue is surviving the next 100 years.

I definitely favor solar power, in the right region.

The more I hear about windmills, the less I like them. They are killing off many endangered species, from bats to bald eagles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely favor solar power, in the right region.

The more I hear about windmills, the less I like them. They are killing off many endangered species, from bats to bald eagles.

You can't have more than 25% of your power from solar without a really good way to store the power. So batteries are a critical component to the solution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You can't have more than 25% of your power from solar without a really good way to store the power. So batteries are a critical component to the solution.

The town of Warren, PA has an ingenuous "battery."

Every night their hydro plant on the Allegheny River pumps water to the top of the mountain. During peak consumption they empty the reservoir thru the hydro plant for peak shaving.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The town of Warren, PA has an ingenuous "battery."

Every night their hydro plant on the Allegheny River pumps water to the top of the mountain. During peak consumption they empty the reservoir thru the hydro plant for peak shaving.

It is well known that using water in this way is a very efficient battery. The problem is how practical is it for much of the world? I have always felt that using solar power to fill water towers is an ideal application for solar (no need for a battery).

[ZNPaaneah]

Another extreme heat wave strikes the North Pole

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Another extreme heat wave strikes the North Pole

Apparently just in time to drill in ANWR.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Another extreme heat wave strikes the North Pole

So says the CEO of ExxonMobil, and Russia, China, Canada, and all other earth killing scoundrels.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So says the CEO of ExxonMobil, and Russia, China, Canada, and all other earth killing scoundrels.

Oh the evil oil that your truck burns and the natural gas that gives you electricity?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh the evil oil that your truck burns and the natural gas that gives you electricity?

The problem is not that we use electricity, nor is it that we use fossil fuel to generate electricity. The problem is that 7 billion people do this. Had we done this with 7 million people back in the days of Solomon the amount of pollution would have been 0.1% of what it is now while at the same time the amount of plants on both land and sea would have been 100 times greater. If we had transitioned to renewable energy 3,000 years ago this would not have been an issue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The problem is not that we use electricity, nor is it that we use fossil fuel to generate electricity. The problem is that 7 billion people do this. Had we done this with 7 million people back in the days of Solomon the amount of pollution would have been 0.1% of what it is now while at the same time the amount of plants on both land and sea would have been 100 times greater. If we had transitioned to renewable energy 3,000 years ago this would not have been an issue.

The folks in Hawaii don't think their 7 billion neighbors are the problem, rather it's the "whole creation groaning together and travailing in pain," as evidenced by lava flows. (Rom 8.19-22)

The Bible informs us that this earth ball is a disposable and temporary home for man, and was never intended to be permanent dwelling place. The creation knows this, many of God's children know this, yet most people on the planet do not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The folks in Hawaii don't think their 7 billion neighbors are the problem, rather it's the "whole creation groaning together and travailing in pain," as evidenced by lava flows. (Rom 8.19-22)

Yes, this may in fact be a result of climate change, however I expect that building your home on an active volcano is the real issue. Just like people who build their homes in flood zones, etc.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible informs us that this earth ball is a disposable and temporary home for man, and was never intended to be permanent dwelling place. The creation knows this, many of God's children know this, yet most people on the planet do not.

Yes it does. It also says the Earth is a garden and that man was put into the garden to tend and keep it.

I thought the creation was groaning because man was not expressing Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, this may in fact be a result of climate change, however I expect that building your home on an active volcano is the real issue. Just like people who build their homes in flood zones, etc.

Yes it does. It also says the Earth is a garden and that man was put into the garden to tend and keep it.

As the earth continues to groan ever more as we see the day drawing near, who can really know the extent of volcanic and flood zone dangers? How could Houstonians know that Harvey could dump 50 inches of rain?

And, yes, Adam was placed in a garden to temd it, but something happened to change all that. That garden is now uninhabitable desert with oil beneath it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The problem is not that we use electricity, nor is it that we use fossil fuel to generate electricity. The problem is that 7 billion people do this. Had we done this with 7 million people back in the days of Solomon the amount of pollution would have been 0.1% of what it is now while at the same time the amount of plants on both land and sea would have been 100 times greater. If we had transitioned to renewable energy 3,000 years ago this would not have been an issue.

Are you saying that there are too many people on earth?

That thought has frightening implications.

Did you ever consider that "renewable" energy is just the opium of the masses?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you saying that there are too many people on earth?

That thought has frightening implications.

Did you ever consider that "renewable" energy is just the opium of the masses?

No, I am saying there is a time for everything under the sun. The time to discover the industrial revolution was when Solomon was king. It was not time to fornicate with a hundred wives.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As the earth continues to groan ever more as we see the day drawing near, who can really know the extent of volcanic and flood zone dangers? How could Houstonians know that Harvey could dump 50 inches of rain?

And, yes, Adam was placed in a garden to temd it, but something happened to change all that. That garden is now uninhabitable desert with oil beneath it.

I lived in Houston. First time I ever saw a fire department with a fleet of boats in each fire house. 40 years ago it flooded every time it rained. How could they not know that things will get worse with climate change?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you saying that there are too many people on earth?

Yes!

Originally Posted by Ohio

That thought has frightening implications.

Is birth control frightening?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you ever consider that "renewable" energy is just the opium of the masses?

That would be oil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I lived in Houston. First time I ever saw a fire department with a fleet of boats in each fire house. 40 years ago it flooded every time it rained. How could they not know that things will get worse with climate change?

Yes, sure there has been flooding, but then there was FLOODING with Harvey -- in areas never thought of.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes!

Is birth control frightening?

Birth control is a great idea, so is the ancient practice of abstinence.

Liberal bureaucrats have even prevented it at times from being discussed.

But, you have changed the subject.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes!


Is birth control frightening?


That would be oil.

Birth control is not a viable solution to world overpopulation.

1. Birth control only limits population growth in the developed world. In the developing world it might decrease the growth rate, but it is still growing rapidly.

2. Birth control is dependent on the type of economy (rural agricultural society still wants lots of children).

3. Birth control is dependent on the economy. When the economy collapses so does birth control.

The only realistic and practical ways to reduce the number of people on the planet from the existing number are:

1. War
2. Plague
3. Holocaust

Also, please note, when a society, like Japan, has a birth rate less than 2 for an extended period of time they "age". This in turn causes the economy to collapse because you have too many elderly people depending on a shrinking tax base to support them. So then you can't (we have yet to see it) have a vibrant economy that is at less than 0 for a growth rate in population. Even if the entire world had a birth rate of 1.5, shrinking the world's population by a billion or so people over the next 60 years, it would cause a global collapse in all of the economies, which in turn would destroy the birth control and birth rates would spike.

Also, in the past wars have not had a big impact on population because the population growth rate is really dependent on women and not men. Historically it is the men who fight and get killed, but within a generation the population has fully recovered and is growing strongly again.

Plague is also not great at limiting growth rate as it generally strikes the young and the elderly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Birth control is not a viable solution to world overpopulation.

1. Birth control only limits population growth in the developed world. In the developing world it might decrease the growth rate, but it is still growing rapidly.

2. Birth control is dependent on the type of economy (rural agricultural society still wants lots of children).

3. Birth control is dependent on the economy. When the economy collapses so does birth control.

The only realistic and practical ways to reduce the number of people on the planet from the existing number are:

1. War
2. Plague
3. Holocaust

Also, please note, when a society, like Japan, has a birth rate less than 2 for an extended period of time they "age". This in turn causes the economy to collapse because you have too many elderly people depending on a shrinking tax base to support them. So then you can't (we have yet to see it) have a vibrant economy that is at less than 0 for a growth rate in population. Even if the entire world had a birth rate of 1.5, shrinking the world's population by a billion or so people over the next 60 years, it would cause a global collapse in all of the economies, which in turn would destroy the birth control and birth rates would spike.

Also, in the past wars have not had a big impact on population because the population growth rate is really dependent on women and not men. Historically it is the men who fight and get killed, but within a generation the population has fully recovered and is growing strongly again.

Plague is also not great at limiting growth rate as it generally strikes the young and the elderly.

Personally, I feel all of the overpopulation discussions are Godless and atheistic. If you believe God created this earth, and put man on it, then you also must believe that He is willing and able to care for them. God commanded man to replenish the earth with every intention of providing a suitable home for all of them.

That's not to say, however, that sin will not take its toll on man's population.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I feel all of the overpopulation discussions are Godless and atheistic. If you believe God created this earth, and put man on it, then you also must believe that He is willing and able to care for them. God commanded man to replenish the earth with every intention of providing a suitable home for all of them.

That's not to say, however, that sin will not take its toll on man's population.

Sure God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. That's because there was only two of them. But I'm sure now God is yelling, "stop being fruitful and multiplying. You're killing the critters I saved."

And maybe birth control won't work. But give every household in the world a TV and remote, and reproduction will slow way down.

Calling those that are concerned about the population explosion atheists is asinine.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I feel all of the overpopulation discussions are Godless and atheistic. If you believe God created this earth, and put man on it, then you also must believe that He is willing and able to care for them. God commanded man to replenish the earth with every intention of providing a suitable home for all of them.

That's not to say, however, that sin will not take its toll on man's population.

I see it differently. The Bible talks about the man child being born, so I see the Earth like a womb where the man child grows. Just like a baby will grow in the womb until there is no longer room and the womb starts to break down. Also, often the baby will begin to ingest feces prior to birth.

So those who realize we can't continue to grow exponentially without a crisis are right, and those who believe it is all under God's sovereignty are right.

But those who think "birth control" is a solution have not thought this through.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sure God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. That's because there was only two of them. But I'm sure now God is yelling, "stop being fruitful and multiplying. You're killing the critters I saved."

And maybe birth control won't work. But give every household in the world a TV and remote, and reproduction will slow way down.

Calling those that are concerned about the population explosion atheists is asinine.

Wow! You are sure about this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see it differently. The Bible talks about the man child being born, so I see the Earth like a womb where the man child grows. Just like a baby will grow in the womb until there is no longer room and the womb starts to break down. Also, often the baby will begin to ingest feces prior to birth.

So those who realize we can't continue to grow exponentially without a crisis are right, and those who believe it is all under God's sovereignty are right.

But those who think "birth control" is a solution have not thought this through.

The population is a crisis, not because the earth cannot sustain life, but because of the results of sin and rejecting God. There are now numerous crises coming to a head -- whether climate, or environment, or nuclear, or pandemic, or financial meltdown, or all of the above as prophesied, etc., mankind is in quite a fix. Today Iran and Israel, for example, are at war. With any of these conflicts, we might hit the flashpoint.

This is the inevitable result of man living temporarily under the god of this age, but the earth is the Lord's. He has redeemed man and creation, and desires to return for His own. In brief, like the message in the "Lord of the Flies," man cannot survive on his own. We barely survived the first two world wars, and we will not survive the third.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The population is a crisis, not because the earth cannot sustain life, but because of the results of sin and rejecting God. There are now numerous crises coming to a head -- whether climate, or environment, or nuclear, or pandemic, or financial meltdown, or all of the above as prophesied, etc., mankind is in quite a fix. Today Iran and Israel, for example, are at war. With any of these conflicts, we might hit the flashpoint.

This is the inevitable result of man living temporarily under the god of this age, but the earth is the Lord's. He has redeemed man and creation, and desires to return for His own. In brief, like the message in the "Lord of the Flies," man cannot survive on his own. We barely survived the first two world wars, and we will not survive the third.

I thought that was the message of the Bible

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought that was the message of the Bible

If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It?

"Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, presented an argument that would appear nearly blasphemous for anyone fighting on the front lines of the green energy movement. Shellenberger made the case that renewable energy is not beneficial, but actually damaging, to the environment in a Thursday Forbes article. He added that if renewables take up a larger share of electricity generation — something environmentalists have ardently campaigned for — the ecological impact would be even more devastating."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It?

"Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, presented an argument that would appear nearly blasphemous for anyone fighting on the front lines of the green energy movement. Shellenberger made the case that renewable energy is not beneficial, but actually damaging, to the environment in a Thursday Forbes article. He added that if renewables take up a larger share of electricity generation — something environmentalists have ardently campaigned for — the ecological impact would be even more devastating."

Far too generic to be meaningful.

Wind turbines kill birds. As a result they are studying different techniques to warn and keep the birds away. The real killer seems to be with bats, but again that would not apply to off shore where the best wind is.

Solar power can take up a lot of real estate, that could be an issue. But if we use it for roofs and roads that is a non issue. China is experimenting with floating solar farms, that would have serious ecologic impact to the lake.

We are also experimenting with making fuel from Algae. I don't see why that would have a negative environmental impact.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It?

"Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, presented an argument that would appear nearly blasphemous for anyone fighting on the front lines of the green energy movement. Shellenberger made the case that renewable energy is not beneficial, but actually damaging, to the environment in a Thursday Forbes article. He added that if renewables take up a larger share of electricity generation — something environmentalists have ardently campaigned for — the ecological impact would be even more devastating."

Did you read the article? Michael is concerned for renewables killing critters.

And you get a more rounded picture of Michael here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

[awareness]

NASA head Bridenstine lays out climate change beliefs

“I don't deny the concensus that the climate is changing. In fact I fully believe and know that the climate is changing, and I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We're putting it into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven't seen and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. That is absolutely happening and we are responsible for it.”
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...518-story.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

NASA head Bridenstine lays out climate change beliefs

“I don't deny the concensus that the climate is changing. In fact I fully believe and know that the climate is changing, and I also know that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We're putting it into the atmosphere in volumes that we haven't seen and that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. That is absolutely happening and we are responsible for it.”
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...518-story.html

His views are a little self-serving.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

His views are a little self-serving.

He's a republican and Trump appointee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did you read the article? Michael is concerned for renewables killing critters.

And you get a more rounded picture of Michael here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

He seems focused on the energy issue -- which he doesn't dispute, only the solution.

Solar and wind are, in his terms, "chaotic". This means you want a reliable source of energy that is there day or night, whether the wind is blowing or not. To get that you will need really good batteries, otherwise solar and wind are simply "green wash" for fossil fuel as he says.

I think everyone would agree that Fusion would be the solution -- and he is advocating government expenditures to make new technology affordable and practical.

That said much of the best technological advances are coming in battery technology.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He seems focused on the energy issue -- which he doesn't dispute, only the solution.

Solar and wind are, in his terms, "chaotic". This means you want a reliable source of energy that is there day or night, whether the wind is blowing or not. To get that you will need really good batteries, otherwise solar and wind are simply "green wash" for fossil fuel as he says.

I think everyone would agree that Fusion would be the solution -- and he is advocating government expenditures to make new technology affordable and practical.

That said much of the best technological advances are coming in battery technology.

He's a big supporter of nuclear power. How about SNAP units in every home?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

He's a big supporter of nuclear power. How about SNAP units in every home?

Fission compares very well with coal, but that is only because coal is so deadly. No one has figured out what to do with the nuclear waste, a very big concern I would think. Also, no one has figured out how to decommission a nuclear power plant even though they know their effective life is only about 100 years or less.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fission compares very well with coal, but that is only because coal is so deadly. No one has figured out what to do with the nuclear waste, a very big concern I would think. Also, no one has figured out how to decommission a nuclear power plant even though they know their effective life is only about 100 years or less.

They put SNAP units in satellites, to power them. They considered putting them in homes, but decided against it because then uranium would be easy to come by.

All power solutions have problems. But we've got to do something.

Shellenberger is big on technology solving the problem. But research has discovered even cell towers kill critters, as do high power electrical wires.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

They put SNAP units in satellites, to power them. They considered putting them in homes, but decided against it because then uranium would be easy to come by.

All power solutions have problems. But we've got to do something.

Shellenberger is big on technology solving the problem. But research has discovered even cell towers kill critters, as do high power electrical wires.

We can generate up to 20% of our power from solar. Putting solar cells on roofs will solve our needs for the next 5-7 years. Hopefully by then we will have much better batteries that will open the door to get 40% of our power from solar.

In 20 years it is conceivable that Nuclear Fusion will be an economically viable solution.

[ZNPaaneah]

If the mean of its temperature from 1970-1999 is taken as a baseline, the temperatures from 2010-2016 are nearly four standard deviations higher. 2016—the most recent year we have validated data for—was 6.3 standard deviations higher.

This is astounding. 6.3 standard deviations is a huge amount. Generally 99.7% of data falls within 3 standard deviations. We generally consider natural fluctuations can go as high as 90%, once you get to 95% we feel that you have proven that other factors are at play.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We can generate up to 20% of our power from solar. Putting solar cells on roofs will solve our needs for the next 5-7 years. Hopefully by then we will have much better batteries that will open the door to get 40% of our power from solar.

In 20 years it is conceivable that Nuclear Fusion will be an economically viable solution.

I like solar much more than wind, which has serious impact upon wildlife. I also like ground source heat pumps.

I seriously doubt Nuclear will ever return. With 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and that Japanese Tsunami meltdown, we have a whole generation of Millennials ready to protest. Also, look how NoKo and Iran used their "power" needs to secretly develop nukes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like solar much more than wind, which has serious impact upon wildlife. I also like ground source heat pumps.

I seriously doubt Nuclear will ever return. With 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and that Japanese Tsunami meltdown, we have a whole generation of Millennials ready to protest. Also, look how NoKo and Iran used their "power" needs to secretly develop nukes.

Solar is extremely convenient because you can put it at the end user, as a result we don't need to pay for transmission costs. In addition, by putting it on your roof you take energy that would have become heat and thus raised your cooling bill or increased the heat island effect of cities and turn it into electricity. Two very big benefits. Also, because the energy generation is distributed among a multitude of sites you are actually making US energy production more secure in the event of an attack or act of terrorism.

However, unless we make significant breakthroughs in batteries we will only be able to generate 25% of our power from solar, at the absolute best case scenario. If you add wind to that mix you would increase the total % because wind blows at night as well as during the day. The best place for wind is on the ocean about a half mile from the shore. That would be ideal for 70% of the world's population.

That said, the real future of energy is fusion. I base that on the NJ which "has no need of the Sun".

German Nuclear Fusion Experiment Sets Records for Stellarator Reactor

With new materials like graphene and new quantum computers and AI we should have this thing finally running economically.

[ZNPaaneah]

A private nuclear-fusion company has heated a plasma of hydrogen to 27 million degrees Fahrenheit (15 million degrees Celsius) in a new reactor for the first time — hotter than the core of the sun. UK-based Tokamak Energy says the plasma test is a milestone on its quest to be the first in the world to produce commercial electricity from fusion power, possibly by 2030.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heatwaves...104056769.html

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.perc.org/2016/07/21/clea...c-perspective/

The average number of structures destroyed by wildfire per year in the US has increased 20 fold from the 1960s to this present decade.

[ZNPaaneah]

Japan hit 106 degrees last Monday, its hottest temperature ever. Records fell in parts of Massachusetts, Maine, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico and Texas. And then there’s crazy heat in Europe, where normally chill Norway, Sweden and Finland all saw temperatures they have never seen before on any date, pushing past 90 degrees. So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Japan hit 106 degrees last Monday, its hottest temperature ever. Records fell in parts of Massachusetts, Maine, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico and Texas. And then there’s crazy heat in Europe, where normally chill Norway, Sweden and Finland all saw temperatures they have never seen before on any date, pushing past 90 degrees. So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Even if there were no fossil fuels, the weather patterns would be going crazy ... "For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope the creation itself will be liberated from the bondage of corruption and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even if there were no fossil fuels, the weather patterns would be going crazy ... "For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope the creation itself will be liberated from the bondage of corruption and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Right. Forget saving the environment for the generations to come. Creation was just waiting for you to come along. Not Brother Lee. You.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. Forget saving the environment for the generations to come. Creation was just waiting for you to come along. Not Brother Lee. You.

If you really cared about the environment, you would go change China, India, and all the other polluters. This fake concept about "America Leading" is not working out, since these countries even refuse to use our clean burning technologies.

But I get it that this is your new religion -- a faithful "save the planet" zealot who refuses to use plastic straws.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you really cared about the environment, you would go change China, India, and all the other polluters. This fake concept about "America Leading" is not working out, since these countries even refuse to use our clean burning technologies.

But I get it that this is your new religion -- a faithful "save the planet" zealot who refuses to use plastic straws.

In 2015, plastic consumption worldwide totaled 300 million metric tonnes. That essentially means that for each one of the world's 7.6 billion humans, we're making 88 pounds of plastic a year.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you really cared about the environment, you would go change China, India, and all the other polluters. This fake concept about "America Leading" is not working out, since these countries even refuse to use our clean burning technologies.

But I get it that this is your new religion -- a faithful "save the planet" zealot who refuses to use plastic straws.

I'm sympathetic with your eschatological hope, but not at the expense of destroying the environment we all live in. As you must know as a student of history, Christians have mistakenly thought that Christ was returning in their generation many times before. We shouldn't repeat their mistake by acting irresponsibly toward the world we live in.

The most important work we can do at the moment is to get rid of Donald Trump who wants to pull the US out of the Paris international climate agreement, has taken steps to cut back the US Environmental Protection Agency, and said that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese to attack US manufacturing. When he is defeated, the USA can resume efforts to reverse his assault on the environment and seek world-wide efforts to limit anthropogenic greenhouse gas production for the greater good of the future of life on this planet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In 2015, plastic consumption worldwide totaled 300 million metric tonnes. That essentially means that for each one of the world's 7.6 billion humans, we're making 88 pounds of plastic a year.

And this is good or bad?

And the Dems rising star Occasional-Cortex (from your neck of the woods) is screaming about plastic straws, and how the Founding Fathers were not Capitalists.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm sympathetic with your eschatological hope, but not at the expense of destroying the environment we all live in. As you must know as a student of history, Christians have mistakenly thought that Christ was returning in their generation many times before. We shouldn't repeat their mistake by acting irresponsibly toward the world we live in.

The most important work we can do at the moment is to get rid of Donald Trump who wants to pull the US out of the Paris international climate agreement, has taken steps to cut back the US Environmental Protection Agency, and said that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese to attack US manufacturing. When he is defeated, the USA can resume efforts to reverse his assault on the environment and seek world-wide efforts to limit anthropogenic greenhouse gas production for the greater good of the future of life on this planet.

I am not sympathetic to your myopic view of current events. The idea that Trump alone could do anything is absurd. He obviously is the puppet on the string of a bunch of corporate overlords. We have known since Al Gore that we are heading off a cliff, didn't see anyone else do anything.

The real difference is that as the evidence mounts it is harder and harder for these politicians to obfuscate until the puppet masters need to blatantly deny doing anything, Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And this is good or bad?

And the Dems rising star Occasional-Cortex is screaming about plastic straws, and how the Founding Fathers were not Capitalists.

It is unsustainable and has to be changed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm sympathetic with your eschatological hope, but not at the expense of destroying the environment we all live in. As you must know as a student of history, Christians have mistakenly thought that Christ was returning in their generation many times before. We shouldn't repeat their mistake by acting irresponsibly toward the world we live in.

The most important work we can do at the moment is to get rid of Donald Trump who wants to pull the US out of the Paris international climate agreement,

You are delusional. Trump Derangement Syndrome will do that to you.

Who gets to define who is destroying the environment???

I think these environmental protesters are doing the most damage. Did you ever see all the trash, graffiti, and destruction at every protest. Did you checkout all the damage to the environment left behind by these protesters at the Dakota Access Pipeline? Compare that to every Right-to-Life protest that occurs annually in Wash D.C.

You wacky environmentalists do far more damage than any good. You guys are just some crazy cult. You try to provide authenticity to these paid protesters who go around screaming for every absurd cause. Go to Bangladesh and do some good for the world.

EPA? Environmental Protection? Are you serious?

Did you see what they did to the Animas River? EPA? No thanks!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is unsustainable and has to be changed.

Tell that to the folks in the medical profession who use plastics to save people.

Tell that to the military who use plastics to protect us.

We used to use environmentally friendly and renewable paper bags at the grocery stores until the wackos told us that was bad.

So we now use plastic bags at the grocery story and the wackos tell us that is now evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not sympathetic to your myopic view of current events. The idea that Trump alone could do anything is absurd. He obviously is the puppet on the string of a bunch of corporate overlords. We have known since Al Gore that we are heading off a cliff, didn't see anyone else do anything.

The real difference is that as the evidence mounts it is harder and harder for these politicians to obfuscate until the puppet masters need to blatantly deny doing anything, Trump.

Send Al Gore off the cliff. Ozone Al told us we would all die because of the ozone. Then the rising oceans.

What a hypocrite. This guy laughs all the way to the bank each day in his private jet. He has a carbon footprint as big as Brontosaurus Rex.

One reason Conservatives like Trump is because he never sold out to special interests like Clinton, Bush, and Gore.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tell that to the folks in the medical profession who use plastics to save people.

Tell that to the military who use plastics to protect us.

We used to use environmentally friendly and renewable paper bags at the grocery stores until the wackos told us that was bad.

So we now use plastic bags at the grocery story and the wackos tell us that is now evil.

All those plastics could be from hemp. All the plastics in your car could be made of hemp. Oh, but that's a schedule 1 drug.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tell that to the folks in the medical profession who use plastics to save people.

Tell that to the military who use plastics to protect us.

We used to use environmentally friendly and renewable paper bags at the grocery stores until the wackos told us that was bad.

So we now use plastic bags at the grocery story and the wackos tell us that is now evil.

One change we are doing is recycling. I am sure that is something that doesn't conflict with doctors saving our lives and the military killing our enemies.

In NYC I imagine we are approaching a very high rate of recycling. But I doubt that is typical of the rest of the world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One change we are doing is recycling. I am sure that is something that doesn't conflict with doctors saving our lives and the military killing our enemies.

In NYC I imagine we are approaching a very high rate of recycling. But I doubt that is typical of the rest of the world.

I pay for each bag of trash, so I have an incentive to burn all my wood scraps and fill my recycle bin, both of which are free. I doubt that all the extra work helps the environment. Even times a thousand.

Probably the best thing my neighbors could do is to mulch their grass clippings, shred their leaves and yard clippings, and use a compost bin for food, all of which I do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

All those plastics could be from hemp. All the plastics in your car could be made of hemp. Oh, but that's a schedule 1 drug.

Save the environment! Get stoned!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

He's a big supporter of nuclear power. How about SNAP units in every home?

People are worried about the radiation from cell phones, and you want to give everyone their own nuclear radiation source?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm sympathetic with your eschatological hope, but not at the expense of destroying the environment we all live in. As you must know as a student of history, Christians have mistakenly thought that Christ was returning in their generation many times before. We shouldn't repeat their mistake by acting irresponsibly toward the world we live in.

Christians have been a driving force for efficient use of resources and technological innovations since day one.

And now you are comparing the entire body of believers to a few quacks who made false predictions?

So biased. So pathetic. So false. So anti-Christian.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Christians have been a driving force for efficient use of resources and technological innovations since day one.

The relationship of the church and Christians with science has been mixed. Amir Dan Aczel, Israeli-born American lecturer in mathematics and the history of mathematics and science writes:

Over the centuries, religion assumed a moral and spiritual role in human life and also began to rely more and more on the supernatural. This hampered advances in natural science for many centuries.

The Greek civilization had advanced ideas about the natural world— including Democritus’s perceptive notion of atoms and the heliocentric view of the solar system advanced by the fourth-century b.c. philosopher Philolaus. When this great culture declined and the Western world sank into the Dark Ages, Scripture assumed the role of the explanation of truth, and freethinking was shunned.

This mode of thought continued through the late Middle Ages, when except for the development of crude notions about medicine (most of them wrong, such as prescribing bleeding as treatment for various ailments) there were few attempts to pursue science. Deviations from established belief were not tolerated in a culture dominated by the church and Catholic monarchs. Simply put, the “order of things” was not up for debate. Aczel, Amir. Why Science Does Not Disprove God (pp. 64-65). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

And now you are comparing the entire body of believers to a few quacks who made false predictions? So biased. So pathetic. So false. So anti-Christian.

"Quacks" is your characterization not mine. Some Christians of virtually every generation have hoped for the return of Jesus in their lifetime. That hope sometimes takes the form of predictions. The motives of the would-be prophets vary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...alyptic_events

Again I see your tendency to view everything in black and white, them-against-us terms affecting your thinking, this time in the way you read history.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Christians have been a driving force for efficient use of resources and technological innovations since day one.

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

[Ohio]

Awhile ago I went sour on wind energy, since the verdict had come in on the "experiment." I first saw turbine "farms" back in the early 90's driving out to Anaheim. In those barren desert valleys, turbines may still be a good idea, but elsewhere I doubt it.

Wind Turbines Can Harm Heart, Says German Professor

The wind industry is a massive class action suit waiting to happen. [Especially now that the World Health Organisation has confirmed the health risks – which, of course, just like Big Tobacco, Big Wind has been covering up for years] Indeed, of all the scandals to emerge from the great global warming scam, the wind industry is in my view the worst.

Wind power is often billed as cheap, clean, wholesome and safe. In fact, it’s very expensive, environmentally damaging, harmful to humans and animals – and pretty much useless in the war on climate change. But you don’t get to read the truth very often in the credulous mainstream media which prefers to run the propaganda put out by extremely well-funded wind industry lobbyists.

Typical is this farrago of drivel from the BBC. It’s titled: "Reality Check: Which form of renewable energy is cheapest?" Wind – you guessed it – turns out to be the answer. Which isn’t a particularly big deal when you think about it. The point about renewable energy is that all of it is dramatically more expensive than fossil fuel energy. So being the “cheapest” form of renewable energy is a bit like winning the prize for “thinnest sumo wrestler” or “least unpleasant Antifa activist” or “sanest Remain voter”: pretty meaningless in the great scheme of things.

[recoveringCK]

The primary cause of global warming or anthropogenic climate change is hot air from miscreants like Al Gore, the worlds first individual carbon credit billionaire.

The primary cause of global warming is the Sun, the nearest star.
Cosmic rays impact cloud formation.
Climate has been changing throughout geologic history.
That the climate changes is not new.

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2.

The greatest threats to mankind is not CO2 emissions but deceptions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

The primary cause of global warming or anthropogenic climate change is hot air from miscreants like Al Gore, the worlds first individual carbon credit billionaire.

The primary cause of global warming is the Sun, the nearest star.
Cosmic rays impact cloud formation.
Climate has been changing throughout geologic history.
That the climate changes is not new.

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2.

The greatest threats to mankind is not CO2 emissions but deceptions.

Yes, the sun is the cause of heat entering our system, greenhouse gases are the reason the heat doesn't escape. If we had no greenhouse gases it would be catastrophic, that was the situation when we had "snowball earth". However, we need a balance. Too little is bad, and too much is also bad for life as we know it (just look at Venus).

It is also true that climate changes throughout geologic history but you have neglected to mention that the most extreme changes coincide with the greatest extinction events. The Permian extinction saw over 90% of all species go extinct. Greenhouse gases were also very extreme then, so extreme that the ocean evaporated and we have evidence that the ocean floor was exposed to the atmosphere.

Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, the amount of water vapor in the air is dependent on the temperature, as temperature increases we will have more water vapor in the air. Carbon dioxide by contrast has been altered due to human burning of fossil fuel. We are not talking about forest fires, burning trees and plants is not equivalent to burning fossil fuel.

What deception is the threat to mankind?

1. The deception that the Democrats or "Green" party will actually do anything about it? Not going to happen, that ship sailed 40 years ago. At this point the only suggestions being made would slow down the exponential growth in greenhouse gases. They would require a greater cost being born by the developed nations while the 3rd world gets a pass. Although that is superficially fair, the problem is that the adoption of greenhouse burning fuels by the 3rd world would be catastrophic and erase any gains made through political means in the 1st world.

Or are you referring to the deception that the judgements on the Earth about being burned with great heat are not real? Sorry to burst your bubble, those judgements are real and are not delaying in coming.

No, the reality is catastrophic climate change is already upon us. Just ask Puerto Rico, California and Houston. What we have seen in the US is only a very small sampling of what the rest of the world is seeing. We are already seeing an exponential rise in climate refugees which may soon eclipse all other refugees combined. We are seeing horrible drought, spread of tropical diseases, forest fires, and super storms. The size and frequency have been increasing over the last 50 years and have taken off in the last 10-20 years. In the last 3-4 years we have seen each year bringing new records. You can tabulate the insurance costs to get an idea, but the reality is these numbers are greatly minimized for the first 3 years, so there is a lag on this, and insurance numbers do not reflect the damage to the 3rd world as most of that is uninsured.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

The primary cause of global warming or anthropogenic climate change is hot air from miscreants like Al Gore, the worlds first individual carbon credit billionaire.

The greatest threats to mankind is not CO2 emissions but deceptions.

recoveringCK, I'm old enough to remember my school days with endless photos of frozen woolly mammoths forecasting the impending ICE AGE. The progressives of old seized on colder-than-usual weather in the 60's to spook us.

I recently watch this excellent show with Mark Levin about so-called climate change. . .

Brilliant Analysis of Climate Change by Top Expert IPCC Climatologist - Dr. Patrick Michaels

For those of us who still believe in God, we know with assurance that all the weather is in His hands.

[recoveringCK]

Originally Posted by Ohio

recoveringCK, I'm old enough to remember my school days with endless photos of frozen woolly mammoths forecasting the impending ICE AGE. The progressives of old seized on colder-than-usual weather in the 60's to spook us.

I recently watch this excellent show with Mark Levin about so-called climate change. . .

Brilliant Analysis of Climate Change by Top Expert IPCC Climatologist - Dr. Patrick Michaels

For those of us who still believe in God, we know with assurance that all the weather is in His hands.

Ohio does his research well and appreciates concise statements.

There was a medieval warming period followed by a little ice age referred to as the Maunder Minimum before the industrial revolution when man made CO2 emissions was not a factor.

CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere as the amount of solar energy reaching the ground increases. Solar energy from the Sun is modified by volcanic eruptions and cloud formation. Cosmic rays can influence and increase cloud formation, increasing reflected solar energy reducing the solar energy reaching the surface.

CO2 promotes plant growth increasing food crop production.

deception
n. the act of misleading another through intentionally false statements or fraudulent actions. (See: fraud, deceit)

The greatest threats to humans are deceptions:
Fake facts intentionally stated or poorly researched by ideologues,
false science which does not use the scientific method,
intentionally misleading statements which are difficult to wade through without graduate level study,
following the model first demonstrated by Satan, “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” There was only a grain of truth big enough to swallow the lie. Deception.

Alarmist use deception to generate hysteria for their own benefit.
Deception is the threat and the alarmist behind their deceptions.

[ZNPaaneah]

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states," the report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II, said.

Global warming would disproportionately hurt the poor, broadly undermine human health, damage infrastructure, limit the availability of water, alter coastlines, and boost costs in industries from farming, to fisheries and energy production, the report said.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states," the report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II, said.

Global warming would disproportionately hurt the poor, broadly undermine human health, damage infrastructure, limit the availability of water, alter coastlines, and boost costs in industries from farming, to fisheries and energy production, the report said.

That is referring to the US. We have a diversified economy and have a very large land area. Take a country that is lowland like Bangladesh, or that is far more dependent on one or two agricultural crops (Coffee, Bananas, cotton, etc) then it is very likely for particular countries the loss could be closer to 30%. We are going to have climate refugees, not simply people from Puerto Rico, California and Houston, but even more from the 3rd world.

All told, the report says, climate change could slash up to a tenth of gross domestic product by 2100, more than double the losses of the Great Recession a decade ago.

The difference with the Great recession is that this will be worldwide, and will not be something we can "bounce back from" it will simply be bad with more catastrophic on the horizon.

At present the US has 1 trillion dollars in assets on our coastline threatened by hurricanes and sea level rise. The US coastline is about 2% of the world's. So assets damaged in the US will only be a very tiny percent of the overall damage done.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is referring to the US. We have a diversified economy and have a very large land area. Take a country that is lowland like Bangladesh, or that is far more dependent on one or two agricultural crops (Coffee, Bananas, cotton, etc) then it is very likely for particular countries the loss could be closer to 30%. We are going to have climate refugees, not simply people from Puerto Rico, California and Houston, but even more from the 3rd world.

All told, the report says, climate change could slash up to a tenth of gross domestic product by 2100, more than double the losses of the Great Recession a decade ago.

The difference with the Great recession is that this will be worldwide, and will not be something we can "bounce back from" it will simply be bad with more catastrophic on the horizon.

At present the US has 1 trillion dollars in assets on our coastline threatened by hurricanes and sea level rise. The US coastline is about 2% of the world's. So assets damaged in the US will only be a very tiny percent of the overall damage done.

But bro ZNP we don't like doing what it takes to prevent the human side of the cause of climate change.

I feel guilty for driving my car, for burning wood for heat, but am not going to stop. We're not going to do without, if that's what it takes.

We've got to get population growth under control. The causes of climate change will only get worse with population growth.

Marvin Harris, in his book, Cannibals and Kings: Origins of Cultures, points out that even primitive tribes in the past had different methods of controlling the population of their tribe, using even infanticide.

Wiki reports :

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[3]:61

But we have much better methods, like modern birth control. But we don't even want to use them. Our religions tell it it's a sin. And forget infanticide. Our religions tells us that even the morning after pill is murder, before it is even an infant.

Maybe we should put cable and flat screen TV's in every home on the planet. That remote will slow down the population explosion.

But even then religions like the local church forbid that. It's of 'the world.'

So we're not going to stop causing climate change. Not until catastrophe puts a stop to it.

Maybe it's God's plan for Armageddon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But bro ZNP we don't like doing what it takes to prevent the human side of the cause of climate change.

I feel guilty for driving my car, for burning wood for heat, but am not going to stop. We're not going to do without, if that's what it takes.

We've got to get population growth under control. The causes of climate change will only get worse with population growth.

Marvin Harris, in his book, Cannibals and Kings: Origins of Cultures, points out that even primitive tribes in the past had different methods of controlling the population of their tribe, using even infanticide.

Wiki reports :

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[3]:61

But we have much better methods, like modern birth control. But we don't even want to use them. Our religions tell it it's a sin. And forget infanticide. Our religions tells us that even the morning after pill is murder, before it is even an infant.

Maybe we should put cable and flat screen TV's in every home on the planet. That remote will slow down the population explosion.

But even then religions like the local church forbid that. It's of 'the world.'

So we're not going to stop causing climate change. Not until catastrophe puts a stop to it.

Maybe it's God's plan for Armageddon.

Realistically speaking even if Carter had been successful it is highly unlikely to have made any difference. Suppose 50 years ago we spent $1 trillion on developing solar and wind. The US is still about 5% of world population, and then we would have $1 trillion worth of antiquated and less efficient solar and wind which would have to be replaced. And then that $1 trillion would not have been around to fight all the wars since Carter.

This is why I feel the really good opportunity to avoid this entire man made catastrophe was at the time of Solomon. If he had stayed focus long enough to get the industrial revolution started the world would be a very different place.

[zeek]

"The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a willingness to dismiss scientific findings and propose its own facts, on Friday issued a scientific report that directly contradicts its own climate-change policies.

That sets the stage for a remarkable split-screen political reality in coming years. The administration is widely expected to discount or ignore the report’s detailed findings of the economic strain caused by climate change, even as it continues to cut environmental regulations, while opponents use it to mount legal attacks against the very administration that issued the report."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/c...gtype=Homepage

[Ohio]

As the High Priest of the Climate Change religion of hypocritical Albert Gore, whose carbon footprint measures up with the greatest of all, Obama's goal was simple -- not to help the planet, but to bring the US down to the economic status of Kenya.

The Paris Climate Accord had as much impact on the world as the Pope has on the Protestant churches. Yet we were supposed to give them $Billions in order for these "developing" countries like China to continue burning coal with 1890's technology.

We need to seriously investigate why Obama, Biden, and the Clinton's have been in bed with China, Iran, and Russia. Why does technology and regulations constantly flow in their direction, and Big Money flow into their own pockets and tax-exempt foundations? Why is it that they can control nearly all the media to be silent on their own corruption, yet be complicit with Deep State fabrications of "collusion" with dictators?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As the High Priest of the Climate Change religion of hypocritical Albert Gore, whose carbon footprint measures up with the greatest of all, Obama's goal was simple -- not to help the planet, but to bring the US down to the economic status of Kenya.

The Paris Climate Accord had as impact on the world as the Pope has on the Protestant churches. Yet we were supposed to give them $Billions in order for these "developing" countries like China to continue burning coal with 1890's technology.

We need to seriously investigate why Obama, Biden, and the Clinton's have been in bed with China, Iran, and Russia. Why does technology and regulations constantly flow in their direction, and Big Money flow into their own pockets and tax-exempt foundations? Why is it that they can control nearly all the media to be silent on their own corruption, yet be complicit with Deep State fabrications of "collusion" with dictators?

And that is why it is absurd to think politicians will legislate a solution. The shrill debate on either side, the accusations of fraud, collusion, and corruption. Every country operating from a self serving motive.

I feel Climate change will be devastating over the next 5 years. Not for the nation as a whole, but for individual regions like Puerto Rico, Yemen, Syria, Houston, California, etc. Everything we have seen the last few years of massive storms, fires, droughts, will be seen again and again.

But Kyoto and any other UN legislation is worse than a fig leaf.


At this point states and cities need to do what they can to protect themselves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And that is why it is absurd to think politicians will legislate a solution. The shrill debate on either side, the accusations of fraud, collusion, and corruption. Every country operating from a self serving motive.

I feel Climate change will be devastating over the next 5 years. Not for the nation as a whole, but for individual regions like Puerto Rico, Yemen, Syria, Houston, California, etc. Everything we have seen the last few years of massive storms, fires, droughts, will be seen again and again.

In many cases, folks do not differentiate the storm itself from the damages it causes. This is especially true with hurricanes. After the Federal Gov't decided to underwrite flood insurance, in places where private insurers would not, we saw exponential development along the southern coastlines. The exact same storms, 20-30-40-50 years later now do many times more damage.

We also must discuss human stupidity which escalates horrific damages. Firstly, after Katrina we learned that NoLa was sinking 3-4 times faster than previously thought. Conclusion: Rebuild the houses. Second, CA has passed extensive environmental laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush. Results: Rampant fires like the one that decimated Paradise.

Blame it on the new age religion of "Climate Change."

Personally I do believe the climate is changing. The earth is changing. We will see more earthquakes, volcanoes, and related disasters. The earth and its climate is the Lord's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In many cases, folks do not differentiate the storm itself from the damages it causes. This is especially true with hurricanes. After the Federal Gov't decided to underwrite flood insurance, in places where private insurers would not, we saw exponential development along the southern coastlines. The exact same storms, 20-30-40-50 years later now do many times more damage.

We also must discuss human stupidity which escalates horrific damages. Firstly, after Katrina we learned that NoLa was sinking 3-4 times faster than previously thought. Conclusion: Rebuild the houses. Second, CA has passed extensive environmental laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush. Results: Rampant fires like the one that decimated Paradise.

Blame it on the new age religion of "Climate Change."

Personally I do believe the climate is changing. The earth is changing. We will see more earthquakes, volcanoes, and related disasters. The earth and its climate is the Lord's.

Personally I agree that the climate is the Lord's. However, it has been impacted by man's failure to follow the Lord, hence the use of it in God's judgement. Otherwise it does not make sense that our actions (our sins) result in God's judgement (the natural disaster). Yet that is what many portions of the OT say.

So much of what you have just shared is a good example of God's judgement on man for his stupidity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Personally I agree that the climate is the Lord's. However, it has been impacted by man's failure to follow the Lord, hence the use of it in God's judgement. Otherwise it does not make sense that our actions (our sins) result in God's judgement (the natural disaster). Yet that is what many portions of the OT say.

So much of what you have just shared is a good example of God's judgement on man for his stupidity.

I have read about God's judgment on man's sin, pride, and rebellious ways, but you have added stupidity. Compared to an all wise God, are we not all stupid? Without divine instruction, how can God judge us?

Last week I visited Christians who live on the end of a remote dirt road, and I got stuck in the mud when leaving. Basically couldn't see a thing. Was I being judged by God for my "stupidity" in not owning a raised 4x4 off-road truck, or was it just an opportunity for grace as we struggled for vehicular "freedom" throughout that dark gloomy night?

[Ohio]

Latest Global Warming Lies from US Global Change Research Program

The trouble with climate models is that their output is not a plausible representation of the climate of the Earth. The in words of the distinguished climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, no climate skeptic: “…none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

The climate models are very large black boxes. They are far too complicated to make sense of what is going on. The way the models are used to create predictions or projections of future climate is determined by political, not scientific considerations. The results of the many models are simply averaged together to create an ensemble of climate models that is used to make the doomsday predictions. Instead of using the best model to make predictions, all the models are used as if every model is as good as every other model.

The climate of the last 118 years is a clear demonstration of the fallacy of using climate models to predict the future climate. Carbon dioxide, according the theories supported by the IPCC and the USGCRP, had insignificant influence on climate prior to 1975. Yet, from 1910 to 1940 the Earth warmed strongly, not as a response to CO2. What caused that early century warming? No one knows. It is a mystery to this day. The only thing we know for sure is that it was not caused by CO2.

From 1975 to 2000, a very similar strong warming took place. According to the apostilles of global warming, that late century warming was caused exclusively by CO2. How do they know that the late century warming was not caused by the same mysterious force that caused the early century warming? They don’t, but they claim it because it is politically convenient. From 2000 to the present there has been little global warming, probably none if the influence of tropical El Nino events is discounted.

The corruption of science has its roots in the political funding of science by the federal government.Somehow we have to make it less profitable for scientists to make up science. Peer review is a joke and doesn’t work. Certainly it would help if the public and the media were skeptical about any scientific theory that predicts a disaster unless we do what the scientists and their allies want us to do.

[Ohio]

Here is a very simple question for all those upset over the fact that I and others do not believe in this religion of Climate Change: How many scientific doomsday prophecies do we have to see debunked before we are allowed to be skeptical of the next one?

awareness, on numerous occasions on this forum, has dissed all Christian ministers because of bogus "end of the world" prophetic dates which came and went. Why am I also not entitled to the same prerogatives regarding what I consider to be fake science?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is a very simple question for all those upset over the fact that I and others do not believe in this religion of Climate Change: How many scientific doomsday prophecies do we have to see debunked before we are allowed to be skeptical of the next one?

awareness, on numerous occasions on this forum, has dissed all Christian ministers because of bogus "end of the world" prophetic dates which came and went. Why am I also not entitled to the same prerogatives regarding what I consider to be fake science?

No one has stopped you. And yes, it is a fair comparison, your dissing the scientists doing research on Climate Change does remind me of Awareness dissing any and all Christians. You and Awareness are really very similar, I guess I never saw it before.

[recoveringCK]

LC Heresies

The WL the elders and BBs maintain a hierarchical structure which is enforced secretly through indirect means while claiming there is no hierarchy. All the while stating that in the church there are no secrets, everything is in the open while contradicting their words with their deeds. They speak against the practice of the nicolaitans while ruling over the saints. Anyone openly speaking such truth will be quarantined.

It took a surprisingly long time to realize it. That is what unconditional absolute acceptance of the “truth” will do for you.

It seems fair to call their followers devotees.

As in the quote attributed to George Orwell -- in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. We live in a time of many deceptions.


Population Bomb Heresies

There are huge population problems on this planet.

Italy has a population problem – a population decrease problem.
Search term: Italy population decrease.
.
Japan has a similar population problem.
Search term: Japan population decrease.

It is much the same in the rest of the industrialized world.
Wikipedia has a section titled "Population decline - Wikipedia"

The population problem is mostly regional.

Africa is facing great and potentially catastrophic population increase.
Asian population is also set to significantly increase.

Perhaps the developed world can teach Africans how to industrialize and
the Africans can teach the people in the developed world how to procreate.

The faith [belief] adherents of the population explosion theory in the developed world seem out of place.

But adherence to their theory seems almost cult-like.


Anthropocentric Global Warming or Climate Change Heresies

Over geologic time, atmospheric CO2 does not drive global climate.
The sun does. Solar output carries in a cyclical manor. The sun is the primary driver for global warming.

CO2 levels have been both higher and lower than it is today. Average global temperatures have also been both higher and lower than they are today.

CO2 is a lagging indicator for global warming. It is not a leading indicator and is not a causative factor.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It is not a major contributor. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas

Many computer models ignore those "inconvenient" facts.

A petition with over 31,000 scientists' signatures cast doubt on the “97% consensus” figure.

Once 100% of the recognized authorities agreed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Then there was the Copernican Revolution was a paradigm shift to the heliocentric model. It happens.

Beliefs of anthropocentric global warming / climate change devotees have more in common with cults followers than facts. It reminds me of my experience in local christian group I was associated with.

An infamous Austrian with a nasty disposition and a funny mustache along with his publicist sidekick are both reported to have said that if you tell a lie big enough loud enough long enough, eventually the people will believe it. A key is it must be a big lie. And loud. Eventually the people believe it.

That maniac was of course the leader of the NAZI death cult. They pretended their eugenics policies were based on science with “science” articles in approved peer review journals. It was fake too. But there were true believers.

Speaking of death cults, policies advocated by global warming fanatics, in addition to being uneconomical will be genocidal. Poor people will take the blunt of that -- everyone except the "elites." Think Al Gore et al.

If one looks at the actual facts, it looks like a political scam, not "science."

Belief is for religious faiths and cults Facts are for science.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

The faith [belief] adherents of the population explosion theory in the developed world seem out of place.

But adherence to their theory seems almost cult-like.

True about population in the developed world. But does this world population clock lie? :

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

If one looks at the actual facts, it looks like a political scam, not "science."

Belief is for religious faiths and cults Facts are for science.

I think it's hard to get around the fact that the polar caps are melting ... away, for the north pole.

Sounds to me like you've got stocks in the energy companies. They just love that the north pole is melting. Then their freighters can pass over it, and cut their shipping costs way down.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://truthout.org/articles/califo...mate-refugees/

California Climate refugees


http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2018...-at-post.html?
World faces “impossible” task at post-Paris climate talks – “The national plans, when you add everything up, will take us way beyond 3, potentially 4 degrees Celsius warming”


https://psmag.com/environment/climat...from-wildfires

Climate Change Is Making It Harder for Forests to Recover From Wildfires
A growing body of research suggests that, thanks to various environmental symptoms of climate change, America's forests are increasingly at a disadvantage when it comes to recovering from devastating wildfires.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Climate Change Is Making It Harder for Forests to Recover From Wildfires
A growing body of research suggests that, thanks to various environmental symptoms of climate change, America's forests are increasingly at a disadvantage when it comes to recovering from devastating wildfires.

"Growing body of research" all funded by agenda-driven Western globalist governments, including the latest US report. Why is it that none of their dire predictions have come true?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Growing body of research" all funded by agenda-driven Western globalist governments, including the latest US report. Why is it that none of their dire predictions have come true?

7 projections that have come true:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-...have-come-true

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

7 projections that have come true:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-...have-come-true

Those were "projections come true?" Seriously?

I like #6: "A coming ice age was not predicted in the 1970s—that was “if it bleeds it leads, if it thinks it stinks” journalism. “ 1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based."

Lots of hooey here. All I heard in the early 70's was the coming ICE AGE, with pictures of Woolly Mammoths in huge ice blocks. Now they say that was "stinky" journalism? Huh? That was science! Well, kind of. Actually it was Political Science. Same as today. Science manipulated for political gain.

You can be assured it's all fake when the High Priest of Global Warming, Ozone Al Gore himself, has the biggest carbon footprint on the planet, and raking in millions from his gullible followers.





50 years from now, they will be telling us the same message again about "stinky" journalism and bad science during the Trump administration.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those were "projections come true?" Seriously?

I like #6: "A coming ice age was not predicted in the 1970s—that was “if it bleeds it leads, if it thinks it stinks” journalism. “ 1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based."

Lots of hooey here. All I heard in the early 70's was the coming ICE AGE, with pictures of Woolly Mammoths in huge ice blocks. Now they say that was "stinky" journalism? Huh? That was science! Well, kind of. Actually it was Political Science. Same as today. Science manipulated for political gain.

You can be assured it's all fake when the High Priest of Global Warming, Ozone Al Gore himself, has the biggest carbon footprint on the planet, and raking in millions from his gullible followers.





50 years from now, they will be telling us the same message again about "stinky" journalism and bad science during the Trump administration.

You are kidding right? The easiest way to discredit legitimate science is to make it sound like wack jobs. Exxon hires scientists to not only dispute the science but to agree with it in the way of a wacko. Then they point to these wackos and use them to paint all scientist with the same brush.

Point to a reputable scientific journal that promoted this.

[recoveringCK]

Regarding 7. “Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded” found in

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

7 projections that have come true:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-...have-come-true

Really?
Does that include temperatures estimated over geologic time illustrated in the following graph?



Apparently not.

Temperatures have been higher. Much higher. And lower.

We are in an interglacial period of global warming after the Pieistocene ice age. That's good. Not bad.

CO2 does not drive temperature as illustrated by the following graph.



In case clarification is necessary, in the heading Anthropocentric Global Warming or Climate Change Heresies, by “Anthropocentric Global Warming”, I did NOT mean Global Warming or climate change caused by non human factors as is illustrated in the above graphs.

You know what they say about the weather,
"If you don't like the weather, wait a few minutes. It will change."

Climate change is real. Climate does change. Except you have to wait a lot longer than for weather changes.

CO2 does not drive climate change. Mostly it's the sun. The sun is the source of global warming.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Regarding 7. “Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded” found in

Really?
Does that include temperatures estimated over geologic time illustrated in the following graph?

Apparently not.

Temperatures have been higher. Much higher. And lower.

We are in an interglacial period of global warming after the Pieistocene ice age. That's good. Not bad.

CO2 does not drive temperature as illustrated by the following graph.

In case clarification is necessary, in the heading Anthropocentric Global Warming or Climate Change Heresies, by “Anthropocentric Global Warming”, I did NOT mean Global Warming or climate change caused by non human factors as is illustrated in the above graphs.

You know what they say about the weather,
"If you don't like the weather, wait a few minutes. It will change."

Climate change is real. Climate does change. Except you have to wait a lot longer than for weather changes.

CO2 does not drive climate change. Mostly it's the sun. The sun is the source of global warming.

The quote refers to "recorded temperatures", not inferred temperatures. It is referring to temperatures measured and recorded by human civilization. Humans have only been alive during the Holocene, so you are pulling up inferred temperatures in the geologic past that are millions of years predating humans.

For example 500 million years ago basically predates all life except for single cell organisms. 250 million years ago is the worst extinction in Earth's history. The KT boundary is the extinction of the dinosaurs. So put this into context -- in the last 500 million years the Earth has gotten extremely hotter than it is today, of course those episodes resulted in an environment that humans did not live in and in many cases were not able to live in. Likewise, some of the most extreme cases of global warming in the geologic past took place at the same time as major extinctions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

The sun is the source of global warming.

That is a theory that's been considered ... and dismissed for present climate change :

Scientists have considered the sun-climate hypothesis to explain Earth’s rapid warming. The evidence collected show that the sun noticeably affects our climate over millions of years, but it is not the cause of recent warming.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-1

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That is a theory that's been considered ... and dismissed for present climate change :

Scientists have considered the sun-climate hypothesis to explain Earth’s rapid warming. The evidence collected show that the sun noticeably affects our climate over millions of years, but it is not the cause of recent warming.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-1

It is a very complex picture. Yes, there is a cycle where we are closer to the sun and then further from the Sun and also a cycle where our axis of rotation wobbles a little, causing the tilt to be more extreme and less extreme. These cycles play a role.

Likewise there have been huge asteroids that have hit the earth and filled the atmosphere with dust and smoke, blocking the sun and precipitating a global drop in temperature. Likewise every time a major volcano goes off, and when the super volcanoes explode they can have an even bigger impact on global climate. At the time of the biggest extinction there was massive volcanic activity that accompanied that. In addition the movement of the continents due to plate tectonics causes ocean currents to be cut off which in turn stops warm water from going to the poles and that can precipitate an ice age. There is also a cycle where our magnetic north pole flip flops, this results in a short period of a few years without a magnetic shield to block some of the solar radiation, as a result the amount of radiation hitting the earth during those years increases. There are also sun spots which create a short cycle of increase and decrease in the radiation coming from the sun.

It is a complex interplay of factors. Anthropogenic change to the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuel is a brand new factor.

[ZNPaaneah]

As renewable energy is more economic it is being adopted widely. Solar and wind are two examples and we can expect that this trend continues over the next 100 years. Since it will take that much time to transition from oil and coal there needs to be a 100 year plan in place.

Possible solutions that have been floated

1. A carbon tax. I think this is a failed idea. If 7 states enact this then they will simply lose manufacturing jobs. If the US enacts this we will lose manufacturing to China, Mexico, etc. Doesn't work unless it is worldwide and that is clearly not a realistic idea in the near future.

2. Removing Carbon from the atmosphere. We have the technology to do this, and the carbon we pull could be a valuable resource, offsetting some of the cost. If this were funded globally -- so that every country contributed to the cost in one way or another, and if we used renewable energy (solar or wind) to power this technology it seems like it might be able to allow us to tread water for the next 20 years, after which we might actually make significant headway into reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

It seems to me that many countries would appreciate this approach much more since it doesn't penalize them for existing infrastructure and the cost, if born by the entire planet would be much simpler to make equitable. It also creates a new market for solar and wind and would give us a much bigger bang for our buck from clean energy.

There are major deserts in the world, Sahara, Gobi, Southwest US, and these could be designated as areas for this development. That would create jobs and help bring down the cost of renewable energy from economy of scale.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As renewable energy is more economic it is being adopted widely. Solar and wind are two examples and we can expect that this trend continues over the next 100 years. Since it will take that much time to transition from oil and coal there needs to be a 100 year plan in place.

Possible solutions that have been floated:

1. A carbon tax.

2. Removing Carbon from the atmosphere.

That "hated" Trump basically ran against carbon tax. Why should Americans be jobless when the rest of the planet gets to pollute it.

Carbon dioxide is a good thing, not a bad. If CO2 increases, so will vegetation. Isn't the Creator wonderful?

Wind energy has reach its inflection point. Soon the environmentalists will be warring with the animal rights folks. Windmills kill birds, bats, and endangered species.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That "hated" Trump basically ran against carbon tax. Why should Americans be jobless when the rest of the planet gets to pollute it.

I agree that this idea is incomplete at the best. It is also unrealistic to think we could get a fair application of this tax.

However, mining the atmosphere for carbon dioxide would be much more feasible. First, it would create jobs, not take them away, second it would give a market for solar, third it would be a second way that we could be compliant by reducing our carbon footprint and fourth, you could mitigate the cost by using the carbon (toner, carbon fiber, etc).

Originally Posted by Ohio

Carbon dioxide is a good thing, not a bad. If CO2 increases, so will vegetation. Isn't the Creator wonderful?

Salt is also a good thing, but too much and you are dead. Water is a good thing but again, too much can be deadly. Sugar is a good thing, too much is deadly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wind energy has reach its inflection point. Soon the environmentalists will be warring with the animal rights folks. Windmills kill birds, bats, and endangered species.

Wind energy is the least expensive way to generate electricity when everything is taken into account.

Making turbines safe for birds and bats is a relatively simple task for engineers. For example there is no need for the turbines to move quickly, you could have a gear system that allows them to turn in low wind, but keeps them moving slowly in high wind. You can put very cheap lights and reflectors on the blades. You can emit some kind of warning to bats, etc.

Wind is not only the least expensive way to generate electricity virtually all the expense is in the installation, therefore you can be sure that existing turbines will continue running for decades. As fossil fuel is exhausted the cost will continue to climb and wind will look better and better. 120 years ago we got a return on investment for oil at 100 or higher (for each barrel of oil used to drill we got 100 back). Today it is less than 2 (we spend a barrel to get less than 2 barrels of oil back). Also, the ecologic devastation has grown as well (fracking, etc).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Salt is also a good thing, but too much and you are dead. Water is a good thing but again, too much can be deadly. Sugar is a good thing, too much is deadly.

Bad analogy. We are talking about CO2 and the environment. The more people there are on earth, the more CO2 we produce. The more CO2 we produce, the more food is produced. Great system. Surprised more folks don't acknowledge a creator. Instead they are easily spooked by crooked politicians and biased scientists.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Making turbines safe for birds and bats is a relatively simple task for engineers. For example there is no need for the turbines to move quickly, you could have a gear system that allows them to turn in low wind, but keeps them moving slowly in high wind. You can put very cheap lights and reflectors on the blades. You can emit some kind of warning to bats, etc.

Apparently these simple engineering solutions are not working.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bad analogy. We are talking about CO2 and the environment. The more people there are on earth, the more CO2 we produce. The more CO2 we produce, the more food is produced. Great system. Surprised more folks don't acknowledge a creator. Instead they are easily spooked by crooked politicians and biased scientists.

Initially as CO2 increased in the atmosphere there was evidence of increased growth of crops. But that is no longer true. 70% of the earth is ocean and that has become acidified and is the process of becoming acidified. Corral and other shell fish are under severe stress. Various climatic stresses (drought, flood, and fires) as well as spread of invasive species of insects have had a devastating impact on our forests.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Initially as CO2 increased in the atmosphere there was evidence of increased growth of crops. But that is no longer true. 70% of the earth is ocean and that has become acidified and is the process of becoming acidified. Corral and other shell fish are under severe stress. Various climatic stresses (drought, flood, and fires) as well as spread of invasive species of insects have had a devastating impact on our forests.

Ironic. The globalists love their open borders travel, and in return we get endless invasive species far worse than CO2 -- Asian Carp, Asian Stink Bugs, Asian Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Kudzu, Asian Longhorn Beetles, etc. Hopefully Trump gets some "fair" trade agreements with the Chinese.

How is the Lord going to rule an earth devastated by insects, pollution, acid rain, nuclear fallout, etc?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ironic. The globalists love their open borders travel, and in return we get endless invasive species far worse than CO2 -- Asian Carp, Asian Stink Bugs, Asian Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Kudzu, Asian Longhorn Beetles, etc. Hopefully Trump gets some "fair" trade agreements with the Chinese.

How is the Lord going to rule an earth devastated by insects, pollution, acid rain, nuclear fallout, etc?

Seriously? The Earth has gone through much worse. The Permian extinction was unimaginable and yet a few million years later life began to bounce back.

The Earth will be fine. Man on the other hand, man is in a very precarious position.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Seriously? The Earth has gone through much worse. The Permian extinction was unimaginable and yet a few million years later life began to bounce back.

The Earth will be fine. Man on the other hand, man is in a very precarious position.

Humans are the cause of the 6th extinction. Humans will be included this go-round.

That's okay. The dinosaurs went extinct and eventually humans came along. Maybe after humans become extinct, some other life form will come along, that's much better, like humans are much better than dinosaurs.

Stranger things have happened ... like the platypus ... like the Big Bang ... or the speaking of things into being, out of thin air, or no air at all ... speaking thin air into being.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Humans are the cause of the 6th extinction. Humans will be included this go-round.

That's okay. The dinosaurs went extinct and eventually humans came along. Maybe after humans become extinct, some other life form will come along, that's much better, like humans are much better than dinosaurs.

Stranger things have happened ... like the platypus ... like the Big Bang ... or the speaking of things into being, out of thin air, or no air at all ... speaking thin air into being.

See it is foolish comments like this that have Ohio up in an uproar. Humans will not go extinct, they will be judged. Different. The general description of this judgement is a third of the land and a third of the ocean. So extinct, no, but the death of several billion people -- definite possibility.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

See it is foolish comments like this that have Ohio up in an uproar. Humans will not go extinct, they will be judged. Different. The general description of this judgement is a third of the land and a third of the ocean. So extinct, no, but the death of several billion people -- definite possibility.

Uproar!

Think about this: The god of this age has convinced the many, especially our next-gen leaders at our "elite" universities, that mankind's greatest "sin" is their carbon footprint. It's scary to think what means they can justify in order to accomplish their ends, supposedly saving "mother earth."

[ZNPaaneah]

'Six panels a minute': Two million Australian homes now have solar
Peter Hannam 3 December 2018 — 1:55pm
Surging power bills and the falling price of solar panels have pushed the number of households with photovoltaics on their roofs past the 2 million mark, according to analysis of Clean Energy Regulator data.

As of last week, there were panels on just over one-fifth of all Australian homes. Sunbelt states of South Australia and Queensland are nearing rates of one-third of total homes, or about twice that of NSW - where state support has largely been removed - and Victoria.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

'Six panels a minute': Two million Australian homes now have solar
Peter Hannam 3 December 2018 — 1:55pm
Surging power bills and the falling price of solar panels have pushed the number of households with photovoltaics on their roofs past the 2 million mark, according to analysis of Clean Energy Regulator data.

As of last week, there were panels on just over one-fifth of all Australian homes. Sunbelt states of South Australia and Queensland are nearing rates of one-third of total homes, or about twice that of NSW - where state support has largely been removed - and Victoria.

Australia is a spacious desert, sort of like our Southwest, and perfect for solar panels.

Where I live, where the sun won't shine until February, that is, if everything goes well, there are next to no solar panels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Australia is a spacious desert, sort of like our Southwest, and perfect for solar panels.

Where I live, where the sun won't shine until February, that is, if everything goes well, there are next to no solar panels.

At present pricing -- around $30,000 per household -- it would take me 25 years of electric bills to equate it. And it would be monthly payments, not a lump-sum. I'd be long gone before I'd see any savings.

Electric bills in Australia must be thru the roof.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

At present pricing -- around $30,000 per household -- it would take me 25 years of electric bills to equate it. And it would be monthly payments, not a lump-sum. I'd be long gone before I'd see any savings.

Electric bills in Australia must be thru the roof.

That's all chump-change for those making money off the politics of this fake science. Read this book instead and be set free from climate change hysteria ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's all chump-change for those making money off the politics of this fake science. Read this book instead and be set free from climate change hysteria ...

Why buy his book so he can make money off of climate change, when we can get it free at his website. He's not a scientist any more than you and I are. He only has a bachelor's degree in political science. He's certainly not a respected authority on climate change. He's a political hack.

I thought you believed in getting reputable sources.

His website :

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[zeek]

While cynics sell joke books about climate change...

"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accelerate Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018

Worldwide, carbon emissions are expected to increase by 2.7 percent in 2018, according to the new research, which was published by the Global Carbon Project, a group of 100 scientists from more than 50 academic and research institutions and one of the few organizations to comprehensively examine global emissions numbers.

Emissions rose 1.6 percent last year, the researchers said, ending a three-year plateau.

Reducing carbon emissions is central to stopping global warming."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/c...d=165251391206

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

At present pricing -- around $30,000 per household -- it would take me 25 years of electric bills to equate it. And it would be monthly payments, not a lump-sum. I'd be long gone before I'd see any savings.

Electric bills in Australia must be thru the roof.

Well, if I know you will be paying for electricity for the next 25 years then paying for this over 25 years would work the same way a 25 year mortgage on a house works. But, wait, what if the price of electricity over the next 25 years rises? Well you have locked your price in at today's prices, so it is very possible this would be a great deal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

While cynics sell joke books about climate change...

Watching the world get conned by the likes of Ozone Al, Arnold the Terminator, and LeoDiCaprio is hysterical. Until we see how rich these guys have become conning the gullible rubes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Watching the world get conned by the likes of Ozone Al, Arnold the Terminator, and LeoDiCaprio is hysterical. Until we see how rich these guys have become conning the gullible rubes.

Exactly. If God had intended us to fly He would have given us wings. If God had intended us to use solar He wouldn't have given us oil, He would have given us solar panels.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Exactly. If God had intended us to fly He would have given us wings. If God had intended us to use solar He wouldn't have given us oil, He would have given us solar panels.

I appreciate the irony. God gave us something even better... trees. Deforestation is contributing significantly to climate change.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Exactly. If God had intended us to fly He would have given us wings. If God had intended us to use solar He wouldn't have given us oil, He would have given us solar panels.

They are now saying that the largest deposit of untapped oil ever to be found is in the Texas/New Mexico Permian Basin.

Plenty of fuel to heat for the next global cooling period.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I appreciate the irony. God gave us something even better... trees. Deforestation is contributing significantly to climate change.

It's time to stop burning live trees, and only burn fossil fuels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's time to stop burning live trees, and only burn fossil fuels.

No one burns live trees. They've got to season at least a year. Two is better. Except White Ash. I burns green.

Burning live trees is a forest fire. Global warming will only cause more.

So are you supporting coal cuz you have stock in coal companies? Damn the future generations. Who cares? Like Trump says, "I won't be here."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So are you supporting coal cuz you have stock in coal companies? Damn the future generations. Who cares? Like Trump says, "I won't be here."

That is a fair question. I can understand someone who feels that solar doesn't work for them, but why would you be against others getting solar? Who in their right mind would prefer others burning fossil fuel to solar?

[ZNPaaneah]

In the aftermath of California's wildfires, homeowners who live in fire-prone areas have struggled to renew their insurance policies with companies that cannot, or refuse to, pay. Now, a Central Valley company has gone out of business after failing to pay out claims to the thousands of people who lost their homes in the Camp fire.

Facing $64 million in claims from Paradise residents, the Merced Property and Casualty Company liquidated and passed on its claims to the state's Insurance Guarantee Association on Monday, Think Progress reports. The fire "completely overwhelmed this company," Nancy Kincaid, press secretary at the California Department of Insurance, told ABC 30. "Looking at the number of claims that they would have ... it left them insolvent."

[ZNPaaneah]

In World First, Luxembourg to Make All Public Transportation Free

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the aftermath of California's wildfires, homeowners who live in fire-prone areas have struggled to renew their insurance policies with companies that cannot, or refuse to, pay. Now, a Central Valley company has gone out of business after failing to pay out claims to the thousands of people who lost their homes in the Camp fire.

I wondered about their insurance coverage.

I saw big insurance collect premiums for 35 years, and when hurricane Andrew hit South Florida, they ran like cockroaches when the lights come on.

It's a mini west coast A.I.G.

FEMA has The National Flood Insurance Program, for private and public properties in areas where private insurance companies won't cover. That program has lost a lot of taxpayer money. But it provides coverage.

I doubt FEMA has a program like that for forest fire victims.

Maybe FEMA should offer climate change insurance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I saw big insurance collect premiums for 35 years, and when hurricane Andrew hit South Florida, they ran like cockroaches when the lights come on.

FEMA has The National Flood Insurance Program, for private and public properties in areas where private insurance companies won't cover. That program has lost a lot of taxpayer money. But it provides coverage.

I doubt FEMA has a program like that for forest fire victims.

Ran like cockroaches? I guess you didn't realize that insurance companies have to make money. They can't operate on a $Trillion annual debt like FEMA.

After the Feds began to underwrite flood insurance, people began to build houses where they never should have in the first place. Perhaps the insurance industry, through higher premiums, can enact needed changes. People should not build wood houses in drought-affected forests subjected to Santa Anna winds.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ran like cockroaches? I guess you didn't realize that insurance companies have to make money. They can't operate on a $Trillion annual debt like FEMA.

After the Feds began to underwrite flood insurance, people began to build houses where they never should have in the first place. Perhaps the insurance industry, through higher premiums, can enact needed changes. People should not build wood houses in drought-affected forests subjected to Santa Anna winds.

The insurance companies use the very best mathematicians to calculate risk, and sell insurance in a diversified way to also reduce risk. The problem with their calculations is that the climate is changing, and therefore the risk is also changing. These storms, droughts, fires, floods, are all bigger and much more destructive than the historical records would suggest.

So whereas the President is denying climate change so that FEMA and other entities could deny culpability and financial responsibility. The insurance companies are reacting quite differently. At Katrina they tried to deny coverage claiming the flooded regions were not due to the hurricane. Watch their ads, they talk about how many 100 year storms we have had in the last few years. They are trying to change their policies as quickly as is legal and the government is trying to put the brakes on this.

I learned this when I was a stock broker. Nowhere is there more "fake news" than in the stock market. You learn to watch the money. The money doesn't lie.

[ZNPaaneah]

CALMatters: What happens if PG&E goes bankrupt?

Two large power companies are being sued for the fires this year and last year. Too early to tell how great the liability is, but there is the possibility that the biggest utility companies in California go bankrupt. PG&E is one of the biggest utility companies in the US.

[ZNPaaneah]

From 2005 to 2015, the median annual frequency of flooding days more than doubled along the stretch of coast from Florida to North Carolina, according to an analysis by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The coast between Virginia and Maine saw a median increase of 75 percent during the same period.

[zeek]

Our planet is in peril, and time is running out. With a new Democratic Congress, we must press for the most comprehensive climate change reforms possible.

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement are pushing for a Green New Deal. Specifically this calls for:

• 100% of national power generation from renewable sources;
  
• Building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;
  
• Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;
  
• Decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;
  
• Decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;
  
• Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;

Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal also has racial & economic justice elements to ensure that the poor and people of color do not bear the brunt of climate change catastrophes.

Is the Green New Deal Ambitious? Yes. Radical? Sure. But our dire climate situation has made it clear that we are on the edge of catastrophe, and we need to make such changes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Our planet is in peril, and time is running out.

Wrong, time has already completely run out on any plan like this. Even 1970 would have been late. The only time we might have had for this plan would have been at the time of Eisenhower, still about 50 years after the science had explained the coming crisis.

Originally Posted by zeek

With a new Democratic Congress, we must press for the most comprehensive climate change reforms possible.

Originally Posted by zeek

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement are pushing for a Green New Deal. Specifically this calls for:

• 100% of national power generation from renewable sources;

• Just so we understand, this junior congresswoman, not even in office yet, is calling for the shutting down of all existing power stations, and the loss of all the jobs that this will entail.
  
  

  Originally Posted by zeek

  Building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

  I thought that was already being done.
  
  

  Originally Posted by zeek

  Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

  Hey, upgrade my house, as long as the US govt pays. So at the same time they are talking about cutting off funding to the US govt and shutting it down she is talking about upgrading every residential and industrial building.
  
  

  Originally Posted by zeek

  Decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;

  How exactly do they do that other than say nice catch phrases that sound good and no one understands.
  
  

  Originally Posted by zeek

  Decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;

  So lets not just put all the people working for Con Ed out of work, lets also put the car industry, train industry and airplane industry out of their misery as well. Now I understand what she means by "state of the art". After she is through killing everyone we'll be back in the stone age.
  
  

  Originally Posted by zeek

  Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;

If they can truly fund this then why put everyone else out of business? Everyone is moving towards "state of the art" and higher efficiency, and renewable energy as it is. This should have been number one and if it is truly a massive drawdown it could give us a 20 year reprieve while we move aggressively but responsibly on those other pipe dreams of hers.

Originally Posted by zeek

Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

After she has put everyone else out of business and shut down all of our major industries she is going to make up for it with this. Not believable.

Originally Posted by zeek

The Green New Deal also has racial & economic justice elements to ensure that the poor and people of color do not bear the brunt of climate change catastrophes.

Oh, the justification for this idiotic plan is to make up for racial and economic injustice.

Originally Posted by zeek

Is the Green New Deal Ambitious? Yes. Radical? Sure.

Sorry, an idiotic plan.

Originally Posted by zeek

But our dire climate situation has made it clear that we are on the edge of catastrophe, and we need to make such changes.

No, the dire climate situation has made it clear that it is too late for anything other than plans on how to adapt and plans on how to buy us time. If it was possible for the world to capture enough carbon to offset the entire yearly increase in carbon emissions then that would be a realistic suggestion. But just because we can capture carbon is not a solution nor is it a treatment.

The question I have is do we have the technology to completely offset the worlds carbon emissions? Is it feasible to do this? Is it economically viable? If so that is something we need to do immediately, if not the focus needs to be on adapting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Our planet is in peril, and time is running out. With a new Democratic Congress, we must press for the most comprehensive climate change reforms possible.

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement are pushing for a Green New Deal. Specifically this calls for:

• 100% of national power generation from renewable sources;
  
• Building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;
  
• Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;
  
• Decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;
  
• Decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;
  
• Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;

Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal also has racial & economic justice elements to ensure that the poor and people of color do not bear the brunt of climate change catastrophes.

Is the Green New Deal Ambitious? Yes. Radical? Sure. But our dire climate situation has made it clear that we are on the edge of catastrophe, and we need to make such changes.

While America does this, Russia and China will automatically follow our lead!

Talk about "Dumb as a rock!" The LEFT now hooks their wagon to this "experienced" Bronx Bartender.

And someone might think, on this "Christian" forum, that there might be calls for repentance instead.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wrong, time has already completely run out on any plan like this. Even 1970 would have been late. The only time we might have had for this plan would have been at the time of Eisenhower, still about 50 years after the science had explained the coming crisis.







Just so we understand, this junior congresswoman, not even in office yet, is calling for the shutting down of all existing power stations, and the loss of all the jobs that this will entail.



I thought that was already being done.



Hey, upgrade my house, as long as the US govt pays. So at the same time they are talking about cutting off funding to the US govt and shutting it down she is talking about upgrading every residential and industrial building.



How exactly do they do that other than say nice catch phrases that sound good and no one understands.



So lets not just put all the people working for Con Ed out of work, lets also put the car industry, train industry and airplane industry out of their misery as well. Now I understand what she means by "state of the art". After she is through killing everyone we'll be back in the stone age.



If they can truly fund this then why put everyone else out of business? Everyone is moving towards "state of the art" and higher efficiency, and renewable energy as it is. This should have been number one and if it is truly a massive drawdown it could give us a 20 year reprieve while we move aggressively but responsibly on those other pipe dreams of hers.



After she has put everyone else out of business and shut down all of our major industries she is going to make up for it with this. Not believable.



Oh, the justification for this idiotic plan is to make up for racial and economic injustice.



Sorry, an idiotic plan.



No, the dire climate situation has made it clear that it is too late for anything other than plans on how to adapt and plans on how to buy us time. If it was possible for the world to capture enough carbon to offset the entire yearly increase in carbon emissions then that would be a realistic suggestion. But just because we can capture carbon is not a solution nor is it a treatment.

The question I have is do we have the technology to completely offset the worlds carbon emissions? Is it feasible to do this? Is it economically viable? If so that is something we need to do immediately, if not the focus needs to be on adapting.

Sure we need to adapt, but a defeatus attitude that makes no sense.

Trump is rolling back vehicle emission standards and the Clean Power Plan. He started the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. He appointed a former coal lobbyist to lead the EPA. He Opened up federal land and waters to drilling. And that’s just the start.

Trump thinks he can pull a fast one on Americans – as well as our brothers and sisters all over the world – with destructive policies that harm our planet while propping up Big Polluter profits.

But we the people need to oppose policies that threaten the future safety and security of our planet. The world’s leading scientists agree: Climate change is happening. It’s creating a global health crisis. We must slash emissions by 2030 and to keep global warming below 1.5º C to avert a truly dangerous future.

Carbon pollution from fossil fuels poisons our air, water, and soil, threatening our health in incalculable ways. If we don’t take action now, droughts and storms will become more dangerous, infectious diseases will spread farther and faster, safe drinking water and nutritious food may become even more scarce, and poverty and displacement could threaten millions around the world.

The good news is that we have the solutions to this crisis. Wind. Solar. Energy efficient buildings. Smart land use. Low-carbon transit. We need to change the system radically before we destroy ourselves by destroying the environment we live in. If you won't get on board get out of the way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wrong, time has already completely run out on any plan like this. Even 1970 would have been late. The only time we might have had for this plan would have been at the time of Eisenhower, still about 50 years after the science had explained the coming crisis.

50 years ago all the rage was the pending Ice Age. I lived thru that.

We apparently conquered that political scare.

Have you all forgotten the Wholly Mammoths frozen in the block of ice?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump is rolling back vehicle emission standards and the Clean Power Plan. He started the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. He appointed a former coal lobbyist to lead the EPA. He Opened up federal land and waters to drilling. And that’s just the start.

Trump thinks he can pull a fast one on Americans – as well as our brothers and sisters all over the world – with destructive policies that harm our planet while propping up Big Polluter profits.

Carbon pollution from fossil fuels poisons our air, water, and soil, threatening our health in incalculable ways. If we don’t take action now, droughts and storms will become more dangerous, infectious diseases will spread farther and faster, safe drinking water and nutritious food may become even more scarce, and poverty and displacement could threaten millions around the world.

The good news is that we have the solutions to this crisis. Wind. Solar. Energy efficient buildings. Smart land use. Low-carbon transit. We need to change the system radically before we destroy ourselves by destroying the environment we live in. If you won't get on board get out of the way.

Why don't you do something useful like teaching the rest of the world how to use our coal-burning emissions-scrubbing technology?

Since you have decided to regularly trash your former Christian "brothers and sisters," you now have new "brothers and sisters" around the world? Can you put in a good word with your Chinese, Indian, and Russian "brothers and sisters" to stop polluting the planet?

None of your climate "solutions" is proven. You neither know the cause nor the cure. I'm not sure you even got the symptoms right.

Every year the US has reduced pollutants. We are the world leaders. Compare our air, rivers, and earth to the rest of the planet. Start with China.

Like all those on the LEFT, you only use Climate to fear monger due to your obsessed hatred for Trump. We polluted more under Obama, yet you said nothing. Trump has increased manufacturing, and still reduced pollutants. Isn't it better to have "clean" manufacturing in the US, than the same manufacturing in "filthy" foreign countries? The manufacturing- exporting policies of the 20th century have come back to haunt us. Actually they haunt the LEFT.

It seems to me you don't really care about a "clean" planet, just hatred for Trump. Why is it that the Democrats flip-flop on every position, just to oppose Trump? They have no policy, but obstruction. They really don't care about the planet, the immigrants, crime in the cities, etc. etc. they only care for power. Our greatest concern on earth is with those obsessed with power.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sure we need to adapt, but a defeatus attitude that makes no sense.

This is not a defeatist attitude. This is simply plotting a strategy based on the best information available.

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump is rolling back vehicle emission standards and the Clean Power Plan. He started the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. He appointed a former coal lobbyist to lead the EPA. He Opened up federal land and waters to drilling. And that’s just the start.

Yes, that is just the start. You can expect when push comes to shove (as it will over the next 3 years) that many other countries will follow that lead. Look at what happens in France when they try to increase tax on gasoline (a key tactic for eliminating carbon)

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump thinks he can pull a fast one on Americans – as well as our brothers and sisters all over the world – with destructive policies that harm our planet while propping up Big Polluter profits.

Now that is funny. The fast one has already been pulled, and it was pulled during Carter's administration. It was pulled during Bush's administration, and it was pulled again during baby Bush's administration. It was pulled when Clinton was elected and we thought that having Gore on the ticket would actually make a difference.

Originally Posted by zeek

But we the people need to oppose policies that threaten the future safety and security of our planet. The world’s leading scientists agree: Climate change is happening. It’s creating a global health crisis. We must slash emissions by 2030 and to keep global warming below 1.5º C to avert a truly dangerous future.

You are like all those people motivated to stand against Trump's campaign and make sure he wasn't elected, only problem is they rallied a week after the election.

Originally Posted by zeek

Carbon pollution from fossil fuels poisons our air, water, and soil, threatening our health in incalculable ways. If we don’t take action now, droughts and storms will become more dangerous, infectious diseases will spread farther and faster, safe drinking water and nutritious food may become even more scarce, and poverty and displacement could threaten millions around the world.

They will get worse regardless of whether or not you take action. Weather and climate is elastic. We have already kicked off feedback loops like the thawing of the permafrost releasing methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas, the destruction of the rainforests, the melting of the arctic. Even if you instantly converted the world's economy to a carbon neutral economy the situation would continue to get worse for the next 20 years.

Now you and Ocasio are not even suggesting that in their wildest dream, they are talking about destroying the US economy without having any impact on the world's. Imagine if we shoot our car industry, they'll simply move to Mexico. The US workers are now out of work and the US buys cars from Mexico. It is absurd to even suggest her plan will have any impact on China, Russia, India, or the third world. Hence, it is idiotic.

Originally Posted by zeek

The good news is that we have the solutions to this crisis. Wind. Solar. Energy efficient buildings. Smart land use. Low-carbon transit. We need to change the system radically before we destroy ourselves by destroying the environment we live in. If you won't get on board get out of the way.

Finally, someone referring to Armageddon as good news. Yes, we will have massive catastrophes wiping out a third of the world's ecosystem, creating massive shortages which in turn result in wars and a dramatic drop in human population. In that way the Earth will cleanse itself of the problem. After that under the leadership of the Lord Jesus we will have the restoration of all things, a period of 1,000 years where we clean up this mess.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

50 years ago all the rage was the pending Ice Age. I lived thru that.

We apparently conquered that political scare.

Have you all forgotten the Wholly Mammoths frozen in the block of ice?

We found a wooly Mammoth that had undigested food in its belly. It was fully frozen. Imagine how rapidly it must have cooled to freeze a mammoth solid which in the last few hours had just been eating food. It was a stunning find that challenged everything we understand. This animal was not killed by another animal, and the temperature it would have taken to freeze it would have meant there wasn't any food to eat. So the rapidity with which we saw this incredibly drastic fall in temperature was astounding and difficult to deny -- we had a full size frozen mammoth.

However, there never was a consensus of scientists who thought we would actually have an ice age. The big concern was that if the sea ice melted rapidly it would disrupt the ocean currents and potentially cause a very short term and "mini ice age" for Europe, not the US. We have seen evidence of what they were discussing. Last year there were drone images of massive ice flows in the Atlantic ocean and Northern Europe has been hit with some massive blizzards.

The last time you brought this up I asked you to reference a legitimate Scientific journal. Your failure to do so has to be taken by me as evidence that you have no legitimate scientists who made this claim but instead you were simply listening to fake news and now parroting it back to us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, someone referring to Armageddon as good news. Yes, we will have massive catastrophes wiping out a third of the world's ecosystem, creating massive shortages which in turn result in wars and a dramatic drop in human population. In that way the Earth will cleanse itself of the problem. After that under the leadership of the Lord Jesus we will have the restoration of all things, a period of 1,000 years where we clean up this mess.

Ah, finally we get to what this is all about for you--the Second Coming of Christ and Millennialism. It's all good from your apocalyptical POV.

Pollute away, destroy everything, it will be magically restored. Voila! Presto Chango! "In the blink of an eye." Just like Jesus and Paul thought would happen in their generations and apocalyptic-minded Christians in every generation since.

So much for evidence-based arguments. We can all stop worrying and love climate change cuz it's going to bring Jesus back. Hallelujah!

And which of the 1000s of Jesuses preached by the various denominations based on different possible interpretations of an inexact sometimes conflicting and theologically challenging collection of texts known as the Bible will it be that comes back? Your's? Mine? Ohio's? Awareness's Witness Lee's? I'm guessing you think it will be yours.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ah, finally we get to what this is all about for you--the Second Coming of Christ and Millennialism. It's all good from your apocalyptical POV.

Pollute away, destroy everything, it will be magically restored. Voila! Presto Chango! "In the blink of an eye." Just like Jesus and Paul thought would happen in their generations and apocalyptic-minded Christians in every generation since.

So much for evidence-based arguments. We can all stop worrying and love climate change cuz it's going to bring Jesus back. Hallelujah!

And which of the 1000s of Jesuses preached by the various denominations based on different possible interpretations of an inexact sometimes conflicting and theologically challenging collection of texts known as the Bible will it be that comes back? Your's? Mine? Ohio's? Awareness's Witness Lee's? I'm guessing you think it will be yours.

Nope, again you are unable to hear. You have become dull of hearing.

I spoken at great length about this. Saying that in 1950 the US might have been able to do something to avoid climate change catastrophes is a great departure from my position, but is simply me being extremely generous to those unable to receive the truth.

My position is that King Solomon was the last best chance for humanity to avoid the catastrophe. Why? Because a small country of a few million people in a local region like Israel that was completely cut off from the rest of the world for several hundred years would have allowed us to develop our Industry and technology with limited damage and by the time the rest of the world discovered and adopted it they could have completely skipped the dirty phase of this development.

So what does the NT say about this? Your wisdom is turned to foolishness. The wisest among you is a fool compared to God. There is no suggestion anywhere that there is still an option to avoid the great tribulation. Jesus and the disciples saw this coming 2,000 years ago.

Is there any reason to think the entire world could be united to respond to a coming catastrophe predicted by scientists by doing something harmful to their economy and power today? No. If so, they would have responded to the prophecies about the great tribulation.

If the answer to the last question is no, then everything else you are doing is trivial bloviating and has no chance of success. Ohio has repeatedly asked you this and you simply avoid the question.

Nowhere have I ever suggested or hinted that climate change is going to bring the Lord back. What I have said is that none of this will cause lasting damage to the Earth. You may lose 1/3 of our ecosystems, but that will be temporary, they'll be completely restored. You may lose several billion people, but also will be a temporary issue. It will only take 1,000 years to restore the Earth, and in Geologic time that is like a day. My glory hallelujah is not that man has sinned and rebelled against God, but rather that God saw this and will completely deal with it and clean it up.

[ZNPaaneah]

This discussion has really become absurd.

2,000 years ago the NT makes it clear that this judgement on the Earth, Sea, and Sun is determined. Lots of people refuse to hear this. Now 2,000 years later we are close enough to where they can see it, similar to being in an airplane that is falling from 30,000 feet and now all of a sudden they can see the ground real close. Now they are jumping up and down "do something". Hello, you were the same ones who 2,000 years ago said "nothing to see here" and "you can ignore this, it is simply a myth".

Others on the other hand point out that the NT says nothing about this, hence they have no marching orders from the Lord to do anything about this. Again, this is true, the judgement has been determined and it is because man did not listen to God and was not submissive to Him. Most notably Solomon, but hey, that shouldn't be seen as giving anyone a pass prior to the NT.

What is totally absurd is the claim that now, as the ground is coming up fast and hard "we need to do something". Really, what? Kill all our industry and let them flee to Mexico. Great plan. This is due to man not listening to God and not obeying God. It seems to me the only plan is "listen and obey".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We found a wooly Mammoth that had undigested food in its belly. It was fully frozen. Imagine how rapidly it must have cooled to freeze a mammoth solid which in the last few hours had just been eating food.

These are the kinds of "assumptions" that sane folks scoff at. The other day they found frozen hikers that went missing 30 years ago. Food in their bellies too? Shall we conclude that the Ice Age predicted in the late 60's got them?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

50 years ago all the rage was the pending Ice Age. I lived thru that.

We apparently conquered that political scare.

Have you all forgotten the Wholly Mammoths frozen in the block of ice?

So damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, there never was a consensus of scientists who thought we would actually have an ice age.

The same is true today. I recently posted a link for Dr. Patrick Michaels, and no one here dared to touch it. Climate Change "scientists" are all living in the same echo chamber, vying for the same government monies: "Show us climate change or else."

It's just like funding a thousand scientists with money from Western governments to determine if God exists. When they all "prove conclusively" that God does not exist, will you then give up your faith like some other posters have done?

Of course not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Pollute away, destroy everything, it will be magically restored. Voila! Presto Chango!

Originally Posted by awareness

So damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

You guys are extremists! Get your ANTIFA masks and helmets on! Let's go smash windows and burn cars!

You guys are just incapable of decent discussion. Disagree with you, and you go off the reservation.

I told you 90% of this rancor (Why do the heathen rage?) is Trump hate gone wild. Try to accomplish this Occasional-Cortex green plan, and we will have rioting like the world has never seen. Think about hives of "yellow jackets."

If you guys really want to reduce pollution, you need to go abroad. Do some real good. Go to Asia, where people can't even breathe the air, or drink the water. The US has all the cleanest technology on the planet. We are making great strides with solar panels, GSHP's, and windmills, but they will never replace fossil fuels.

The LEFT today is just reaping what they sowed decades ago. If they really wanted energy independence from fossil fuels, they should not have banned nuclear power. It was our only chance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is there any reason to think the entire world could be united to respond to a coming catastrophe predicted by scientists by doing something harmful to their economy and power today? No. If so, they would have responded to the prophecies about the great tribulation.

Everybody knows about "Armageddon." Even Hollywood makes movies about it. That's why I don't mention it. Won't do any good. This is what happens when folks make science their God. How's that working out for you folks?

Scientists have been predicting a huge earthquake for years -- the "THE BIG ONE" will strike California. People in San Francisco joke about it regularly. But if it ever hits, they will all blame Trump, and hate him for not sending FEMA fast enough to fix their houses.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, someone referring to Armageddon as good news. Yes, we will have massive catastrophes wiping out a third of the world's ecosystem, creating massive shortages which in turn result in wars and a dramatic drop in human population. In that way the Earth will cleanse itself of the problem. After that under the leadership of the Lord Jesus we will have the restoration of all things, a period of 1,000 years where we clean up this mess.

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

What a bunch of nonsense. Where's the science on the wiping out of a third of the world's ecosystem? How could science even predict such a thing? Obviously you aren't speaking from science.

Seems to me that, your biases come from books written during the bronze and iron age. There's no way they can help us today, with this climate change.

In fact, James Watt is an example of how it holds us back.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

What a bunch of nonsense. Where's the science on the wiping out of a third of the world's ecosystem? How could science even predict such a thing? Obviously you aren't speaking from science.

Seems to me that, your biases come from books written during the bronze and iron age. There's no way they can help us today, with this climate change.

In fact, James Watt is an example of how it holds us back.

No one is holding you back. Go find a polluter with a giant carbon footprint, and let him have it! Why don't you start with Ozone Al Gore?

And why is it these books written during the bronze and iron age are the best books we got? They have changed more lives than any other book today. You can keep on criticizing them, as you watch their prophecies come true, but what good does that do you? Aren't you tired of condemning the Bible and all Christians, just because you met a few bad ones over the years?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"We don't have to protect the environment the Second Coming is at hand."
James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

What a bunch of nonsense. Where's the science on the wiping out of a third of the world's ecosystem? How could science even predict such a thing? Obviously you aren't speaking from science.

Seems to me that, your biases come from books written during the bronze and iron age. There's no way they can help us today, with this climate change.

In fact, James Watt is an example of how it holds us back.

Educate yourself:

Global warming is likely to be the greatest cause of species extinctions this century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a 1.5°C average rise may put 20-30% of species at risk of extinction. If the planet warms by more than 2°C, most ecosystems will struggle. https://www.wwf.org.uk/effectsofclimatechange

The oceans, for instance, provide people with about 20 percent of their dietary protein, deMenocal said. However, ocean acidification caused by climate change makes it difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of species, including oysters, crabs and corals, to form their protective shells, which in turn disrupts the food web, Live Science previously reported. https://www.livescience.com/58891-wh...e-matters.html

Two degrees of warming marks the likely threshold for widespread ecological problems, including coral reef collapse, markedly higher sea-level rise and crop failures, according to NASA. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...grees-celsius/

Any hope of putting the brakes on before the 2 degree rise is really unwarranted at this point. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...grees-celsius/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are the kinds of "assumptions" that sane folks scoff at. The other day they found frozen hikers that went missing 30 years ago. Food in their bellies too? Shall we conclude that the Ice Age predicted in the late 60's got them?

This kind of response is what makes scientists cringe at the relative stupidity of the average american.

Let's see:

1. Wooly Mammoth weighs 6 tons, the hikers weigh less than 2% of that weight.

2. We would expect the food in the hikers belly was carried in, whereas to our understanding the Wooly Mammoth did not have backpacks, nor did they have refrigeration or the technology to freeze dry their food.

So if we find food in the belly of a Wooly Mammoth we understand they ate it in the last two days and hence found it available in the wild in the last two days. Yet the temperature necessary to freeze a Wooly Mammoth solid before carnivores and scavengers could feed on it would be what? 20 below 0? More? According to experts they predict 150 degrees below 0. And not for just two or three days. A Wooly Mammoth is adapted to living in a very cold environment, perhaps 20 below 0 for a week is not enough to kill it. Also, even if you killed it, if it wasn't buried in snow and ice it would have been scavenged as soon as it thawed out in the spring.

So this Mammoth is evidence of an incredibly rapid drop in temperature where a green field became transformed into a frozen land buried in snow almost overnight.

However, to my knowledge this Mammoth is not considered evidence of a coming ice age, but rather that we can get these dramatically powerful systems similar to a tornado, except one that brings cold air down from the stratosphere, rather than a tornado which is lifting warm air up.

Over time, various clues about the environment at the time of their death have been discovered and studied. Scientists found partially preserved stomach vegetation in some of the carcasses and so could identify the woolly mammoth’s last meal. Solving one mystery just leads to another. They wondered how the stomach contents remained half decayed while the animals froze? This is a problem since it takes a long time to freeze an animal as large as an elephant. A quick freeze came to mind. Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company ran the calculations and came up with a staggering -150°F (-100°C). Once again, the scientists were puzzled. How could such temperatures be reached on earth, especially when apparently they were in a fairly temperate environment before the quick freeze?

Many theories have been postulated. One of the most popular is that the hairy elephants were peacefully grazing on grass and buttercups and were suddenly struck by a huge freezing storm blowing from the Arctic Ocean. Millions of them froze instantly. This kind of quick freeze has never been observed, so some special and imaginative ideas have been proposed. One question seems to always lead to another. This story is based on the Beresovka mammoth that was excavated and shipped back to St. Petersburg, Russia, overland during a heroic expedition led by Otto Herz and E. Pfizenmayer. The expedition started in the late spring of 1901, and ended on February 18, 1902. To transport the mammoth flesh, they had to travel 3,700 miles (6,000 km) by sled during a bitterly cold Siberian fall and winter.2 https://answersingenesis.org/extinct...es-in-siberia/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one is holding you back. Go find a polluter with a giant carbon footprint, and let him have it! Why don't you start with Ozone Al Gore?

Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence, France has riots in the street over an energy tax, and in the US they are bandying about the "impeach" word a hundred times a night. In this environment what leader has the ability to unite the world into something as difficult as curtailing your consumption of fossil fuel. Putin? Xi? President Kovind?

No, Ocasio.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one is holding you back. Go find a polluter with a giant carbon footprint, and let him have it! Why don't you start with Ozone Al Gore?

And why is it these books written during the bronze and iron age are the best books we got? They have changed more lives than any other book today. You can keep on criticizing them, as you watch their prophecies come true, but what good does that do you? Aren't you tired of condemning the Bible and all Christians, just because you met a few bad ones over the years?

I'm just concerned that the Bible could mean the death of us. Not the Bible per se, but Bible believers that dismiss science because of it.

Believers have a long history of fighting against science. It's called the Good Book, and it is, as you've pointed out, but not when it comes to science. And yes I know Newton was a Bible thumper, who also, like you, believed in prophecy, and predicted the end would come in 2060.

Science did not advance because of Bible believers. It advanced in spite of them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm just concerned that the Bible could mean the death of us. Not the Bible per se, but Bible believers that dismiss science because of it.

The Law says that if you commit crimes, you may do some time. Should we blame the Law, when people then go to prison? Is the Law then "the death of us."

Originally Posted by awareness

Science did not advance because of Bible believers. It advanced in spite of them.

That's purely biased historical revisionism. Without Christian scientists, educators, doctors, engineers, physicists, entrepreneurs, etc. in the USA, we would be just another 3rd world country. America is only great because God has blessed her. Did you know that every Ivy League University was founded by Christians?

You really should study more history.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm just concerned that the Bible could mean the death of us. Not the Bible per se, but Bible believers that dismiss science because of it.

The point he made was very simple -- if you have a problem with a big carbon footprint then go after those with the biggest carbon footprint. Why not ban private airplanes? Why not limit homes to 500 square feet per person (family of four cannot live in a house bigger than 2,000 square feet)? Enough with the hand wringing. What is the point? The US represents 5% of the world's population. Even if we significantly cut our greenhouse gas emissions we are not going to cut it to 0. So you will have no impact on 95% of the world's population and the other 5% you will only reduce the impact, not cut it to 0. So instead of speeding down the road at 100 we are now doing 98 mph. Whoopty Do.

Originally Posted by awareness

Believers have a long history of fighting against science. It's called the Good Book, and it is, as you've pointed out, but not when it comes to science.

Honestly, who is delusional now and who is exercising common sense?

All of Ocasio's claims are pointless and will have no other effect other than bankrupting and destroying the US economy and sending all these industries to Mexico.

We have pointed out that prophecies made 2,000 years ago are now staring the entire world in the face. and your response is that "science advanced inspite of the Bible".

OK, let's see --

1. Jesus says His return will be "as the days of Noah". According to you the story of the flood is a myth, and never happened as described. If that were so, then it would be impossible for the end of this age to be as the days of Noah since it never happened in the first place. Yet, here we are, Time magazine named the Earth as its "person of the year" a few years ago because of the extinctions. We are building "an ark" where we can preserve the seeds and DNA of tens of thousands of organisms because we can see a coming mass extinction. So just as Noah saw a coming flood and built and ark, we also are doing the same, for the same reason.

Not only so, but scientists now have discovered that what we thought was impossible is in fact the truth.

We used to think that if a flood did come from 40 days of rain it would have been a flash flood that would have rolled his boat over. But then learned that the Black sea flooded after the last ice age and would have risen like a bathtub. Oops, one mistake by the scientists.

We used to think there is no possibility of a flood having "gone over the tops of the highest mountains". Yet since then learned that this is precisely what happened at the end of the last ice age when massive dams of melt water gave way and flooded down from the Rockies in the US and the Himalayans in India. These were the biggest and most massive floods we have ever seen in the geologic record.

We used to think that it is totally impossible that it could rain for 40 days and 40 nights, no such weather event. We then discovered that a huge asteroid hit in the Indian ocean and would have vaporized a huge amount of water which would then have been put up into the Stratosphere, encircling the globe and for all we know could have resulted in 40 days and nights of rain unlike anything we have ever seen.

We used to think the story of a boat with all the animals was a myth. But then we discovered strikingly similar stories in 100 different cultures. We also know that every large domesticated animal is native to Mesopotamia except for 1, the llama. Not only so but every large ungulate went extinct on all 5 continents and Indonesia at the end of the ice age. This happened at the same time man appeared. There are some 200 of these animals that all went extinct at the same time. In North America 70 different species like the saber toothed tiger, giant sloth, and Mastodont. It is incredible, how? Did man hunt them to extinction -- absolutely absurd theory without any archaeological evidence. If we had hunted these creatures to extinction our camps would have been filled with their bones and skins. Did man bring diseases? Again, ridiculous -- these animals inhabited many different biomes and would not have all fallen prey to the same disease on 5 different continents, they were far too disperse. The only explanation that can possibly make sense is the flood described by Noah and 100 other cultures.

So what it sounds like to me is that the truth has advanced despite all these naysayers blaming the Bible and disparaging the truth in the word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This kind of response is what makes scientists cringe at the relative stupidity of the average american.

Let's see:

1. Wooly [sic] Mammoth weighs 6 tons, the hikers weigh less than 2% of that weight.

2. We would expect the food in the hikers belly was carried in, whereas to our understanding the Wooly Mammoth did not have backpacks, nor did they have refrigeration or the technology to freeze dry their food.

So if we find food in the belly of a Wooly Mammoth we understand they ate it in the last two days and hence found it available in the wild in the last two days. Yet the temperature necessary to freeze a Wooly Mammoth solid before carnivores and scavengers could feed on it would be what? 20 below 0? More? According to experts they predict 150 degrees below 0. And not for just two or three days. A Wooly Mammoth is adapted to living in a very cold environment, perhaps 20 below 0 for a week is not enough to kill it. Also, even if you killed it, if it wasn't buried in snow and ice it would have been scavenged as soon as it thawed out in the spring.

So this Mammoth is evidence of an incredibly rapid drop in temperature where a green field became transformed into a frozen land buried in snow almost overnight.

However, to my knowledge this Mammoth is not considered evidence of a coming ice age, but rather that we can get these dramatically powerful systems similar to a tornado, except one that brings cold air down from the stratosphere, rather than a tornado which is lifting warm air up.

Woolly Mammoths don't carry backpacks? What was I thinking!

The next time I get cold while hiking in the mountains, I'm taking off my backpack, else I freeze to death. Makes so much sense.

BTW, can you revise your calculations for the case when the Woolly Mammoth falls in freezing water and drowns, and then becomes a block of ice to scare stupid average Americans back in the late 60's and early 70's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence, France has riots in the street over an energy tax, and in the US they are bandying about the "impeach" word a hundred times a night. In this environment what leader has the ability to unite the world into something as difficult as curtailing your consumption of fossil fuel. Putin? Xi? President Kovind?

No, Ocasio.

Yeah Occasional-Cortex! Drinks are on the house!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Woolly Mammoths don't carry backpacks? What was I thinking!

The next time I get cold while hiking in the mountains, I'm taking off my backpack, else I freeze to death. Makes so much sense.

BTW, can you revise your calculations for the case when the Woolly Mammoth falls in freezing water and drowns, and then becomes a block of ice to scare stupid average Americans back in the late 60's and early 70's.

We have the entire carcass. We can tell if an animal drowned, got stuck in the mud, etc.

Explain how an animal similar in size to an elephant, only bigger is eating daffodils one day and then within the next 48 hours the temperature is 150 degrees below 0.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have the entire carcass. We can tell if an animal drowned, got stuck in the mud, etc.

Explain how an animal similar in size to an elephant, only bigger is eating daffodils one day and then within the next 48 hours the temperature is 150 degrees below 0.

The neg150deg figure and the 48hrs are speculations based on a number of assumptions. Change the assumptions, and the results change.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The neg150deg figure and the 48hrs are speculations based on a number of assumptions. Change the assumptions, and the results change.

So go ahead, what are the assumptions?

[ZNPaaneah]

The population of wild reindeer, or caribou, in the Arctic has crashed by more than half in the last two decades.
A new report on the impact of climate change in the Arctic revealed that numbers fell from almost 5 million to around 2.1 million animals.

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/m...ne&.src=sports

Biological Annihilation: A Planet in Loss Mode

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...net-loss-mode?

California is in the grip of what its governor, Jerry Brown, calls the “new abnormal”. The past five years have been the hottest on record in the state, which is in stuttering recovery from its worst drought in a millennium. The state has received just a fifth of its normal rainfall so far in 2018, with a record 1.6m acres of grassland, forest and urban area, an area larger than Delaware, burning this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...gain-and-again

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So go ahead, what are the assumptions?

BirdsEye doesn't tell us. They only provided conclusions here . . .

They wondered how the stomach contents remained half decayed while the animals froze? This is a problem since it takes a long time to freeze an animal as large as an elephant. A quick freeze came to mind. Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company ran the calculations and came up with a staggering -150°F (-100°C). Once again, the scientists were puzzled. How could such temperatures be reached on earth, especially when apparently they were in a fairly temperate environment before the quick freeze?

I'm saying that I seriously doubt that BirdsEye assumed the Woolly Mammoth drowned in a pool of water.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

BirdsEye doesn't tell us. They only provided conclusions here . . .

I'm saying that I seriously doubt that BirdsEye assumed the Woolly Mammoth drowned in a pool of water.

When an animal drowns there is plenty of evidence. If you have the entire body it is easy to see that.

There are questions here that have stumped the entire scientific community. Why did 200 of these large animal species all go extinct at the same time on 5 continents? How did these giant wooly Mammoths all of a sudden freeze solid, never to thaw again? And the term "all of a sudden" is as dramatic as it can possibly be.

Those are the facts, not assumptions.

The reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the animal died by freezing, and this happened from the time it ate the food and in less time than it would take to digest the food. Given those parameters -- 6 ton elephant, freeze to death, less than 48 hours they calculated what a possible temperature would be.

there is a relationship between size and heat, so what would be unbearable to us would be quite comfortable to an animal that is 50 times bigger than us. Deadly to us wouldn't even bother this creature. That also is a fact.

[ZNPaaneah]

But in a study released Tuesday, researchers determined that the current climate polices of governments around the world will push Earth towards 3.3˚C of warming. That's more than two times the aspirational 1.5˚C target adopted by nearly 200 nations under the 2015 Paris agreement.

https://www.ecowatch.com/global-clim...23065326.html?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is that King Solomon was the last best chance for humanity to avoid the catastrophe. Why? Because a small country of a few million people in a local region like Israel that was completely cut off from the rest of the world for several hundred years would have allowed us to develop our Industry and technology with limited damage and by the time the rest of the world discovered and adopted it they could have completely skipped the dirty phase of this development.

May as well say God could have done something about climate change way back in the stone age. After all, all he had to do was stop the use of metals.

If we would have remained in the stone age we would have reminded balanced with nature, and not its enemy, and its dominator and destroyer.

And why Solomon? Because it is said that he was the wisest man ever?

Well all I've got to say is, no hero is a hero until the mythmakers put their pens down. Never buy their advertisements.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

May as well say God could have done something about climate change way back in the stone age. After all, all he had to do was stop the use of metals.

If we would have remained in the stone age we would have reminded balanced with nature, and not its enemy, and its dominator and destroyer.

And why Solomon? Because it is said that he was the wisest man ever?

Well all I've got to say is, no hero is a hero until the mythmakers put their pens down. Never buy their advertisements.

I have already said "why Solomon". Solomon's mines have been discovered and are described as "industrial in scale". The industrial revolution began with the building of water pumps to pump out mines, it is a critical part of the operation.

The limiting factor in the industrial revolution was not the concept that energy is stored chemically in oil, gas, and alcohol. Nor is it that water vapor expands. The limiting factor was being able to machine tool instruments fine enough to prevent all your energy escaping as steam through cracks in your machinery. This is something that requires the foresight of intelligent leaders and their assistance.

Machine tools were greatly improved in the building of guns and ships, two industries that funded this work.

My point is that Solomon had industrial scale mines, these mines needed water pumps, and he was renowned for his organizational skills. Had he been focused he could have enabled and facilitated the development of steam powered pumps.

Second, we have discovered rails leading from these mines built into the rock. This is because it is much easier for a donkey to pull a cart filled with iron ore or coal if the cart is on rails. This is and was the precursor to the railroad. The steam engine used to pump water was simply modified to run the railroad.

Solomon was 2/3 of the way towards the industrial revolution and had the skills and wisdom to get them all the way had he not been distracted.

But that is not the only reason, if you look at the invention of the industrial revolution it took place in Europe and the US simultaneously with countries in competition with each other. During all these wars and economic competition you can't expect any of these countries to be concerned about pollution, which is precisely what we saw. The only time any country did anything about pollution was when it made economic sense.

However, during Solomon's time they could have continued to develop their industry, completely cut off from the rest of the world (which was commanded them in the books of Moses). They had several hundred years before other countries came to visit. So imagine what Israel is like 200 years after the industrial revolution? They would have gone through much of the dirtiest phase of this development before any other countries would have gotten involved, and the population and extent of this development would have been a very small percent of the Earth, minimizing the negative aspect of the pollution, and since Israel is such a small country they would have seen the negative effects very soon and responded just as Britain and others did.

However, this is not my idea, I got this idea reading the Psalms, one of which laments how blessed Israel would have been "had they listened to God" and then enumerates all the blessings of the industrial revolution.

It also shows how once Solomon didn't listen they were "judged" and their ultimate destiny of being defeated and carried off was already determined. All the kings could do after that was put off the coming judgement so it didn't happen during their lifetime. In the same way you can see that the coming judgement of the great tribulation is also determined and cannot be changed, only delayed. This was determined 2,000 years ago? Why? What I do know is that I cannot see any other time in history when one man had the power and influence to prevent Climate change as a result of fossil fuel.

[ZNPaaneah]

REPORT / 14 OCT, 2014
Climate Change Threatens National Security Says Pentagon

The Pentagon has been preparing for the impact of Climate change for years. What the President is saying in public is simply disinformation. Not any different from a bank managers yelling that everything is fine, nothing to worry about when there is a run on the banks. So you have to look at what they do, not what they say.

1. They have spent over $1 trillion to put our military in place to control the biggest oil reserves and gas reserves in the world.

2. They are doing everything in their power to get a wall up separating the US from the 3rd world. They are anticipating a flood of refugees.

3. The Patriot act clearly anticipates being able to control the local populace in the event of a revolution. History has shown that when you have starvation you will also have revolution.

4. I think one thing is clear, they need to oil from the middle east to keep the military might. It is probably far less likely that in a really bad situation you would still be able to transport oil tankers all the way across the Atlantic without being attacked and plundered. Also, putting our military on the oil fields keeps it from others taking it. They may have calculated that there would be no way to defend the US without that.

Dick Cheney was the architect of this plan. Clearly his calculations show that this is the best path. As inhuman as this may seem, his actions indicate that the way through the storm is to batten down the hatches and maintain rigid control in the face of catastrophic famines and a flood of refugees.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nope, again you are unable to hear. You have become dull of hearing.

I spoken at great length about this. Saying that in 1950 the US might have been able to do something to avoid climate change catastrophes is a great departure from my position, but is simply me being extremely generous to those unable to receive the truth.

My position is that King Solomon was the last best chance for humanity to avoid the catastrophe. Why? Because a small country of a few million people in a local region like Israel that was completely cut off from the rest of the world for several hundred years would have allowed us to develop our Industry and technology with limited damage and by the time the rest of the world discovered and adopted it they could have completely skipped the dirty phase of this development.

So what does the NT say about this? Your wisdom is turned to foolishness. The wisest among you is a fool compared to God. There is no suggestion anywhere that there is still an option to avoid the great tribulation. Jesus and the disciples saw this coming 2,000 years ago.

Is there any reason to think the entire world could be united to respond to a coming catastrophe predicted by scientists by doing something harmful to their economy and power today? No. If so, they would have responded to the prophecies about the great tribulation.

If the answer to the last question is no, then everything else you are doing is trivial bloviating and has no chance of success. Ohio has repeatedly asked you this and you simply avoid the question.

Nowhere have I ever suggested or hinted that climate change is going to bring the Lord back. What I have said is that none of this will cause lasting damage to the Earth. You may lose 1/3 of our ecosystems, but that will be temporary, they'll be completely restored. You may lose several billion people, but also will be a temporary issue. It will only take 1,000 years to restore the Earth, and in Geologic time that is like a day. My glory hallelujah is not that man has sinned and rebelled against God, but rather that God saw this and will completely deal with it and clean it up.

There are numerous problems with your theory. I'll mention two. 1) people who expect God's intervention to "clean up the environmental mess" tend to live in environmentally irresponsible ways and to accept or promote environmentally irresponsible public policies. 2) the notion that God intervenes in history is not scientifically tenable. In other words, there are simpler more probable explanations for historical events of the past then divine intervention. Which is not to say it's theologically impossible since it is proposed in the Bible that for God all things are possible. But science works in terms of probability. And when things can be explained more simply without recourse to supernatural causation, such explanations are more probable. Just sayin'.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

There are numerous problems with your theory. I'll mention two. 1) people who expect God's intervention to "clean up the environmental mess" tend to live in environmentally irresponsible ways and to accept or promote environmentally irresponsible public policies.

The people I know cannot be characterized that way, whereas many of the most notable proponents for various schemes to address this have the biggest carbon footprints, just as Ohio has pointed out. Unless all those calling on others to change are in fact living in a way that is carbon neutral they need to stop telling others what to do.

Originally Posted by zeek

2) the notion that God intervenes in history is not scientifically tenable. In other words, there are simpler more probable explanations for historical events of the past then divine intervention. Which is not to say it's theologically impossible since it is proposed in the Bible that for God all things are possible. But science works in terms of probability. And when things can be explained more simply without recourse to supernatural causation, such explanations are more probable. Just sayin'.

Well tell that to the historians that study WWII.

The Germans were ahead of us in the development of both missiles and nuclear fission. Yet they were unable to make a bomb. Lucky or God's intervention?

If Germany had not attacked Russia mainland Europe would almost certainly remained in their hands. Lucky or God's intervention?

After Pearl Harbor if Germany had not declared war on the US it would have been very difficult to justify our going to war with Germany, again leaving Europe in Germany's hands. Lucky or God's intervention?

or look at the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Incredibly lucky or God's intervention?

or look at the return of Israel to the Good land. Incredible coincidence or fulfillment of prophecy?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

There are numerous problems with your theory. I'll mention two. 1) people who expect God's intervention to "clean up the environmental mess" tend to live in environmentally irresponsible ways and to accept or promote environmentally irresponsible public policies.

This is nonsense, exposing an intellectual bias towards people of the Christian faith. Since America is perhaps the cleanest of all the industrial nations on earth, perhaps zeek should be a spokesman for the American way, based on our Judeo-Christian values.

Another suggestion for zeek. Perhaps the changes in the climate have nothing to do with fossil fuels from man's needed livelihood, rather man's stubborn and unbelieving heart, and the sin of rebellion towards our Creator and Savior. The gospels show us clearly that Jesus is well able to control the weather.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence, France has riots in the street over an energy tax, and in the US they are bandying about the "impeach" word a hundred times a night. In this environment what leader has the ability to unite the world into something as difficult as curtailing your consumption of fossil fuel. Putin? Xi? President Kovind?

No, Ocasio.

Ocasia has now taken a pointer from the LEFTist playbook of Pocahontas.

Ocasio is clearly biased against Israel, supporting BDS, and standing with the likes of Sarsour and Farrakhan.

But . . . now she claims Jewish blood going back 3-4 generations. The "ultimate" get-out-of-jail-free-card.

#MeToo. My grandfather escaped Germany prior to WWI, and now I have just "learned" that I have distant Jewish blood too. I no longer need to fear any White Supremacist backlash from some of our posters here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ocasia has now taken a pointer from the LEFTist playbook of Pocahontas.

Ocasio is clearly biased against Israel, supporting BDS, and standing with the likes of Sarsour and Farrakhan.

But . . . now she claims Jewish blood going back 3-4 generations. The "ultimate" get-out-of-jail-free-card.

#MeToo. My grandfather escaped Germany prior to WWI, and now I have just "learned" that I have distant Jewish blood too. I no longer need to fear any White Supremacist backlash from some of our posters here.

I think Pocahontas political career is already done. Claiming to be american Indian so that you can get into Harvard is a very big turnoff to suburban america. It is pretty hard to be the standard bearer for the Democratic party when you proved Trump was right.

As for Ocasio I would be very, very surprised if she doesn't crash and burn. I don't think those that elected her are representative of our country, so what might play well in Brooklyn isn't going to play well to a larger audience.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already said "why Solomon". Solomon's mines have been discovered and are described as "industrial in scale". The industrial revolution began with the building of water pumps to pump out mines, it is a critical part of the operation.

The limiting factor in the industrial revolution was not the concept that energy is stored chemically in oil, gas, and alcohol. Nor is it that water vapor expands. The limiting factor was being able to machine tool instruments fine enough to prevent all your energy escaping as steam through cracks in your machinery. This is something that requires the foresight of intelligent leaders and their assistance.

Machine tools were greatly improved in the building of guns and ships, two industries that funded this work.

My point is that Solomon had industrial scale mines, these mines needed water pumps, and he was renowned for his organizational skills. Had he been focused he could have enabled and facilitated the development of steam powered pumps.

Had to stop reading here.

Focused? Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines. I couldn't stay focused with just one. That means he wasn't as wise as advertised.

His renown must have been because of some attribute other than his supposed organizational skills, and wealth.

We don't know. Neither do we know about Solomon's mines. I'd figure you're just making stuff up, but realize there's all kinds of such claims, on Bible sites ... including recently finding the Ark. In the days of science countering the Bible, those of little faith seek such substantiation of the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Pocahontas political career is already done. Claiming to be american Indian so that you can get into Harvard is a very big turnoff to suburban america. It is pretty hard to be the standard bearer for the Democratic party when you proved Trump was right.

As for Ocasio I would be very, very surprised if she doesn't crash and burn. I don't think those that elected her are representative of our country, so what might play well in Brooklyn isn't going to play well to a larger audience.

Pocahontas even got rejected by her own people.

Prior to the "brilliant" Ocasio it was the "pervert" Anthony Weiner and your mayor De Blasio actually won on an "anti-police" platform.

I suspect that none of NYC is "representative of our country."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Had to stop reading here.

Focused? Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines. I couldn't stay focused with just one. That means he wasn't as wise as advertised.

His renown must have been because of some attribute other than his supposed organizational skills, and wealth.

We don't know. Neither do we know about Solomon's mines. I'd figure you're just making stuff up, but realize there's all kinds of such claims, on Bible sites ... including recently finding the Ark. In the days of science countering the Bible, those of little faith seek such substantiation of the Bible.

It is called a counterfactual conditional. Scholars engage in this type of investigation all the time in history. The response that "I am just making stuff up" simply indicates you are ignorant of how scientists and historians actually investigate key questions. Ironic since ignorant Bible thumpers seems to be your pet peeve, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is called a counterfactual conditional. Scholars engage in this type of investigation all the time in history. The response that "I am just making stuff up" simply indicates you are ignorant of how scientists and historians actually investigate key questions. Ironic since ignorant Bible thumpers seems to be your pet peeve, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Oh the irony! I bet that hurt.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh the irony! I bet that hurt.

This latest discussion began with Ocasio's proposals. We point out that they will have no effect at reversing the damage, nor will they stop any further damage, rather the only result will be to significantly damage the US economy. The response is not to try and find a real solution but rather to get huffy about someone pointing out the flaws in the proposal and to attack anyone who does point out the flaws, quite similar to what McCarthy did to anyone who pointed out his lies (Why are they challenging this, must be a communist). So they (Awareness and Zeek) imitate the very thing they hate.

This judgement has been determined. So a reasonable question is why? At what point was this judgement determined? What did we do?

It is easy to see that once the US built our highway system in the 50s this was a done deal, we were committed to the automobile and fossil fuel. But there is no real argument to be made that Eisenhower could have chosen trains instead, nor is there any real argument to be made that this was not a critical development that had to be made. But that has set in stone our path towards this coming destruction and judgement day.

WWI and WWII made it clear that warfare was now industrial and the armies ran on oil. Hence controlling oil fields was now of great strategic importance. Once again, very difficult in the midst of WWI or WWII to see anyone turning this ship. So the idea that we could have chosen a different path at that point seems absurd.

So then what about 1800, ten million tons of coal are mined in Britain. But for Britain this was far better than cutting down what few trees they had, and the same is true of other countries. Britain tried to keep their textile industry a state secret, but that was impossible. People smuggled the plans out to the US. Again, very hard to see any way that a single country like Britain could have developed without the rest of the world at this point being right on their heels.

In fact it is probably the invention of a national bank that had as much to do with the invention of the steam engine and beginning of the industrial revolution as anything.

I am not claiming that Solomon as "wisest man on earth" should have invented the steam engine, simply saying that it could have been invented then had he done a better job as King. He very clearly disobeyed direct commands in the Bible to not go to Lebanon, and Egypt and across the sea. He clearly disobeyed direct commands to not take their daughters as his wives. Also I am saying that the steam engine was every bit as much a necessity with Solomon's mines as it was later in Britain with their mines. The necessity was there, what they needed was a system where the research and development could have been financed and done.

I am also saying that unlike the 1800s, had Israel invented the steam engine in the days of Solomon that this could have been something that they alone worked on for hundreds of years. By the time the Babylonians show up in Israel to find out about the Sun moving backwards the Israelites could have had solar power, wind power, and have passed through the dirtiest part of this learning curve.

So look closer at the command. 1. Don't go to Egypt for horses -- why? We have replaced horses during the industrial revolution. 2. Don't go to Lebanon for Cedars -- why? Again, we have replaced wood structures with concrete and steel in the industrial revolution. 3. Don't go overseas for treasures -- Why, what possible treasure could the Arabian peninsula have if He is not talking about oil.

If you factor in oil then the Lord's promise that this is a "rich land" is undeniable. The boundaries given by Moses is the Ephrates to the East, Mediterranean to the West, and Red Sea to the South. That is, the entire Arabian Peninsula.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This latest discussion began with Ocasio's proposals. We point out that they will have no effect at reversing the damage, nor will they stop any further damage, rather the only result will be to significantly damage the US economy. The response is not to try and find a real solution but rather to get huffy about someone pointing out the flaws in the proposal and to attack anyone who does point out the flaws, quite similar to what McCarthy did to anyone who pointed out his lies (Why are they challenging this, must be a communist). So they (Awareness and Zeek) imitate the very thing they hate.

I see this regularly with the Bible. Everything is under suspicion. But with science, they have swallowed it whole without even tasting first.

They have prepared their arsenals aimed at every Christian target. As soon as some Bible prophecy or current event is mentioned, they quickly point out all the failed "end of the world" prophecies, thus rejecting the warning signs given to us. Concerning all things Biblical, they remind me of an Oppo Research firm.

[ZNPaaneah]

• Norway Is Entering a New Era of Climate-Conscious Architecture
  
  The country now has a suite of buildings that generate more energy than they use.
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...ldings/578245/

Concrete is the most widely used man-made material in existence. It is second only to water as the most-consumed resource on the planet.
But, while cement - the key ingredient in concrete - has shaped much of our built environment, it also has a massive carbon footprint.
Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,according to think tank Chatham House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

[INDENT]Concrete is the most widely used man-made material in existence. It is second only to water as the most-consumed resource on the planet.
But, while cement - the key ingredient in concrete - has shaped much of our built environment, it also has a massive carbon footprint.
Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,according to think tank Chatham House.

Cement also replaces trees. Trees absorbs heat and cement reflects it. So it both reflects it and traps it.

[awareness]

Dermophis donaldtrumpi

A newly discovered blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand has joined a growing list of creatures named after President Donald Trump.

With its behavior bearing a striking resemblance to the commander in chief’s attitude toward climate change, it seemed fitting that the limbless animal be named Dermophis donaldtrumpi.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02d2cae8e520d

[ZNPaaneah]

Puerto Rico lost $43 billion after Hurricane Maria, according to govt. report
“Given the magnitude of the natural disaster, the economic sectors will keep feeling the impact for an undetermined amount of time,” the report says.
Associated Press ** Dec. 4, 2018 / 6:52 AM PST

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/...g-govt-n943441

[ZNPaaneah]

In his State of the Union speech, Trump proclaimed the end of the "war on beautiful, clean coal" without acknowledging that cheaper natural gas and renewables were driving coal out of the marketplace.
In the wake of the hellacious Camp Fire that wiped out the northern California town of Paradise, Trump pointed to the sylvan nation of Finland, whose President told Trump that a diligent program of "raking and cleaning" the forest floor had kept wildfires at bay. President Sauli Niinistö politely said he could recall no such conversation, but the Finns responded to the #RakeNews with a riot of national snark. The hashtag "#haravointi" – Finnish for raking – went wild, and Finns took to the forest to Instagram themselves, posing with their rakes.
When the alarming National Climate Assessment was published, Trump told reporters that it was "fine." He said he'd seen the report and read "some of it." (The cover page? Maybe?) He also said he did not believe that climate change would have a serious economic impact.
He rolled out his obligatory tweet questioning climate change on the season's first cold snap in the Northeast .

[ZNPaaneah]

Paris (AFP) - Climate change-induced disasters cost nations at least $100 billion in 2018, a watchdog said Thursday, warning the spate of deadly wildfires, floods and superstorms was "a shadow" of things to come if greenhouse gas emissions aren't slashed.
This year is set to be the fourth hottest on record and as planet-warming carbon and methane levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, extreme weather events such as the devastating blazes that destroyed swathes of California are likely to become far more common.

[Ohio]

2018 First Year Ever with No Violent Tornadoes in the United States

How dare they publish data which contradicts "climate change?"

Send the Climate-Nazis to get these folks!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

2018 First Year Ever with No Violent Tornadoes in the United States

How dare they publish data which contradicts "climate change?"

What is the difference between a tornado and a "violent" tornado?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...tornado-graph/

This is another story that is quite similar. What they point out is that as our ability to measure and identify all the tornadoes has increased over the years it is making data from the 50s, 60s and even 70s irrelevant (the point of this article) or very misleading. As a result, it is very clear that the data in both of these articles is based on about 20 years of data. Climate is the average of at least 100 years. Seeing annual increases and decreases is how weather works. Our climate is elastic.

Second, tornadoes and hurricanes are based on more than simply warmer temperatures or more energetic weather systems. Never once has anyone suggested that Climate change would result in a direct correlation with more energetic tornadoes. Instead a much better way to look at is a total cost of climate related damage. Hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, even blizzards. Warmer oceans, melting glaciers, melting ice caps, etc. You have to look at it all in total.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is the difference between a tornado and a "violent" tornado?

Ranked EF-4 and above according to the article.

Violent tornadoes cause total loss of structures and are not survivable.

Data shows actual storm violence declining, yet with increases in population, storms do more damage.

With global 24/7 cable news, climate change fear-mongering has become an easy sell, and a great money-maker for her "sales people" like Al Gore.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ranked EF-4 and above according to the article.

Violent tornadoes cause total loss of structures and are not survivable.

Data shows actual storm violence declining, yet with increases in population, storms do more damage.

With global 24/7 cable news, climate change fear-mongering has become an easy sell, and a great money-maker for her "sales people" like Al Gore.

No, data shows that the storm violence from tornadoes has decreased over the last few years. The data is incomplete. Does the Data tell us if the current average of tornadoes is above the average from 100 or 200 years ago prior to the industrial revolution? No, because we don't have the data. Does the data tell us if there is a normal sin curve to the intensity of tornadoes similar to this pattern? No, because the data is incomplete. In 100 or 200 years we could answer those questions.

"Actual Storm violence" would include hurricanes, blizzards, floods, etc. Narrowing that term down to only refer to tornadoes in the US in the last 20 years is a valid research topic, but not a valid analogy to make inferences about Climate change.

However we do have 200,000 years of data from ice cores. We do have over 500 years of temperature data from monks.

We do have a much better understanding of hurricane data since hurricanes are so big they are hard to miss or ignore. Several hundred years of accurate records from the East coast of the US, and from other regions of the world.

[ZNPaaneah]

2018 Likely to be 4th Hottest; But 2019 Might Break All Records - video

https://robertscribbler.com/2018/12/...-all-records/?

This article has the data from the last 138 years, and the graph is very clear. Also, tornadoes in the US are simply one manifestation of more energetic weather, but a global average temperature is not a symptom of warming but an actual measure of it.

Ten Grim Climate Scenarios If Global Temperatures Rise Above 1.5 Degrees Celsius

https://truthout.org/articles/ten-gr...grees-celsius/

The latest version, titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,” asserts that most of the environmental challenges raised in the original letter — i.e., depletion of freshwater sources, overfishing, plummeting biodiversity, unsustainable human population growth — remain unsolved and are “getting far worse.”

1. Extinction
2. Food insecurity and nutritional deficiencies
3. Farewell to coastal cities and island nations.
4. Social conflict and mass migration
5. Lethal heat
6. Surging wildfires
7. Hurricanes more frequent and more intense
8. Melted polar ice and permafrost
9. Spread of Pathogens
10. Dead corals

(notice that tornadoes are not on this list)

The three highest-volume U.S. rainfall events on record happened in the past three years

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2018...nfall.html?2b2

[ZNPaaneah]

Ticks rising
In a warming world, ticks thrive in more places than ever before, making Lyme disease the first epidemic of climate change

https://aeon.co/essays/how-lyme-dise...limate-change?

After Back-to-Back Hurricanes, North Carolina Reconsiders Climate Change
In a state where lawmakers once rejected sea level rise warnings, polls show a growing concern among residents and a desire for better policies.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...chael-matthew?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ticks rising
In a warming world, ticks thrive in more places than ever before, making Lyme disease the first epidemic of climate change

https://aeon.co/essays/how-lyme-dise...limate-change?

After Back-to-Back Hurricanes, North Carolina Reconsiders Climate Change
In a state where lawmakers once rejected sea level rise warnings, polls show a growing concern among residents and a desire for better policies.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...chael-matthew?

A new invasive tick species that has the potential to infect people with a newly emerging deadly disease has been identified in New Jersey.

https://weather.com/health/news/2018...ase-new-jersey

[ZNPaaneah]

Bend Over And Kiss Your Free Speech Goodbye
Free speech — the touchstone that the Supreme Court used to justify its Citizens United decision — clearly applies only to corporations these days. Citizens are expected to shut up and obey duly constituted authorities. Many states where oil pipelines and fracking are common have passed new legislation recently — at the urging of Koch Brothers supported pressure groups — that makes interfering with such operations a felony punishable by up to 40 years in prison.
Land of the free? Think again, fellow citizens. The fiction of “national security” now takes priority over civil liberties as America paddles furiously backwards toward a plantation society where corporations sit atop the social hierarchy and deign to let a few souls rise while the rest are condemned to permanent servitude within a corporatist agenda.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/01/bill-mckibben-has-a-new-years-message-about-climate-change-act-quickly/

[ZNPaaneah]

Democratic Leaders Failed Their First Big Test on Climate
Kicking the can down the road appears to be a bipartisan sport in Washington

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...-test-climate?

[zeek]

Vanishing glaciers means less water for people and crops. http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?locati...525139ing-news

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Vanishing glaciers means less water for people and crops. http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?locati...525139ing-news

We know what is going to happen. Climate refugees and wars.

The pentagon knows this and has created lengthy reports on the risks and dangers. The first world knows this.

This is like the Titanic sinking the those in first class locking the poorer people in the hull while they seek for a lifeboat.

The reality is that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are willing to risk sinking the US to save these at risk populations.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.thenation.com/article/cl...alism-divorce/


Since 1990, when international climate negotiations commenced, carbon emissions have jumped by more than 60 percent. Last year, as the fires burned and the floodwaters rose, they*leaped*by a projected 2.7 percent. It’s almost as if someone’s profiting from our misfortune. And they are: Six of the 10 highest-earning corporations on last year’s*Fortune*Global 500*list made their money extracting or delivering fossil energy; two were automobile manufacturers and one—Walmart, the planet’s richest brand—relied on a system of globalized trade inconceivable without massive consumption of fossil fuels. Even on an individual level,*the richest 1 percent*have a carbon footprint 2,000 times larger than the poorest inhabitants of Honduras or Mozambique, countries that have contributed next to nothing to global warming and are suffering disproportionately from it. We already know well that the 1 percent do not let go of power willingly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Greenland ice melting faster than scientists had thought, nears 'tipping point'
USA TODAY Doyle Rice,USA TODAY 11 hours ago

Ice on Greenland is melting four times faster than it did just 16 years ago, a study reports.

The melting is growing exponentially. This doesn't mean we'll get 4 times as much melt in the next 16 years as the last 16, instead it probably means we'll get 8 times as much, if not more. And the same is also true of Antarctica. the change is taking place at an ever increasing rate.

[zeek]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8746536.html

Teen Inspires Youth Demonstrations Across Europe, Demanding Action On Climate Change


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/68879...on-climate-cha

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8746536.html

Teen Inspires Youth Demonstrations Across Europe, Demanding Action On Climate Change


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/68879...on-climate-cha

"Demanding action" that is a very general statement. What action? If you got the UN to outlaw all personal automobiles worldwide, you could argue that this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by 25%, but I doubt that would be true. Since many more people would be taking public transit and most of these countries have diesel and gasoline buses, the true number would probably be 20% decrease. That would have a dent, that might even delay the catastrophic climate change by 4 or 5 years. Is that the action they are calling for? How realistic is that? Or are they calling for the phasing out of private automobiles so that those who have recently purchased will not be crushed by this law. Assuming the longest loan is 7 years perhaps phase this in over the next 10 years. Again, this would make even less of a dent.

Imagine how many mechanics, gasoline stations and auto dealers would become unemployed as a result of this action. It is absurd to even think anyone would consider it. Yet, it is not even close to enough to make a real difference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Demanding action" that is a very general statement. What action? If you got the UN to outlaw all personal automobiles worldwide, you could argue that this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by 25%, but I doubt that would be true. Since many more people would be taking public transit and most of these countries have diesel and gasoline buses, the true number would probably be 20% decrease. That would have a dent, that might even delay the catastrophic climate change by 4 or 5 years. Is that the action they are calling for? How realistic is that? Or are they calling for the phasing out of private automobiles so that those who have recently purchased will not be crushed by this law. Assuming the longest loan is 7 years perhaps phase this in over the next 10 years. Again, this would make even less of a dent.

Imagine how many mechanics, gasoline stations and auto dealers would become unemployed as a result of this action. It is absurd to even think anyone would consider it. Yet, it is not even close to enough to make a real difference.

All those who "demand action" should stop using any fossil fuels, including cars, public transportation, planes, home heating, jobs, etc.

Be faithful to your religious cause and go live off the grid! Leave now!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Demanding action" that is a very general statement. What action? If you got the UN to outlaw all personal automobiles worldwide, you could argue that this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by 25%, but I doubt that would be true. Since many more people would be taking public transit and most of these countries have diesel and gasoline buses, the true number would probably be 20% decrease. That would have a dent, that might even delay the catastrophic climate change by 4 or 5 years. Is that the action they are calling for? How realistic is that? Or are they calling for the phasing out of private automobiles so that those who have recently purchased will not be crushed by this law. Assuming the longest loan is 7 years perhaps phase this in over the next 10 years. Again, this would make even less of a dent.

Imagine how many mechanics, gasoline stations and auto dealers would become unemployed as a result of this action. It is absurd to even think anyone would consider it. Yet, it is not even close to enough to make a real difference.

Greta made me cry. It's her future life that's on the line, not mine.

So are you saying, let's play music while the Titanic sinks, let's protect our jobs, and damn generation Z?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Greta made me cry. It's her future life that's on the line, not mine.

So are you saying, let's play music while the Titanic sinks, let's protect our jobs, and damn generation Z?

No, I am saying we should work for a solution, not demand wasted busy work, especially when the situation is so serious as we cannot afford to waster our time and energy on uselessness.

The only solution is a city that is carbon neutral and can ride out the storm. If you design a city where people can live without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and if this city is designed to withstand the worst that Climate change will send our way, then that is a solution. Over the next 50 years you will see hell on earth as climate refugees and wars over scarce resources and collapse of many, many economies, and the rampant plagues that accompany all this take place.

This city will have to be able to survive during the Mad Max years.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...re-because-it?

"We are facing a disaster of unspoken sufferings for enormous amounts of people. And now is not the time for speaking politely or focusing on what we can or cannot say. Now is the time to speak clearly."

I agree with this. There is time to make a city that would be solution to a million people, there might even be time to make a number of these cities so that millions could survive.

But there is not time to avert the disaster and sufferings for billions of people.

So when people say there is still "time to fix this" I would qualify that with yes, that is true, but it isn't true that there is still time for 4-5 billion people. At most a few hundred million.

[recoveringCK]

Hockey-Stick: climate related death risk
warning - words in title selectively chosen -

Article complete with full title can be found at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/...99-since-1920/


Selectively chosen isolated incidents or words do not necessarily accurately reflect the big picture.




From the Moderator of alternative View's endnote:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

[recoveringCK]

Professor Valentina Zharkova's presentation about her mathematical model which actually predicts historic data.

Professor Valentina Zharkova: The Solar Magnet Field and the Terrestrial Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yq...ature=youtu.be

"This prediction revealed the presence of a grand cycle of 350-400 years, with a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity features reported in the past millennia: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10 BC) and other warm periods."

Feel free to believe whatever you like.
But get a big overcoat. You'll need the overcoat.

Al Gore et al are quite the miscreant deceivers.



From the Moderator of alternative View's end note:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Feel free to believe whatever you like.

I'm not a fan of believing. It's got "lie" right in the middle of it.

And what happened to the north pole?

Originally Posted by recovering

But get a big overcoat. You'll need the overcoat.

Will a Alaskan coat do? I'll be using it in a day or two. Where's global warming when we need it? Maybe God should keep up with his electric bill.

Originally Posted by recovering

Al Gore et al are quite the miscreant deceivers.

How can you be so disrespectful of the man that invented the internet that you are using?

Originally Posted by recovering

From the Moderator of alternative View's end note:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

I still have problems with why I was so credulous. I think I was just young and stupid. Indoctrination in the Southern Baptist contributed to it too, no doubt, and hippy oceanic experiences too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Hockey-Stick: climate related death risk warning - words in title selectively chosen -

Article complete with full title can be found at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/...99-since-1920/

Selectively chosen isolated incidents or words do not necessarily accurately reflect the big picture.

From the Moderator of alternative View's endnote:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

This reminds me of Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. <-click

A good book by the way. The world is not as bad as Christian's like to claim.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Hockey-Stick: climate related death risk
warning - words in title selectively chosen -

Article complete with full title can be found at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/...99-since-1920/


Selectively chosen isolated incidents or words do not necessarily accurately reflect the big picture.




From the Moderator of alternative View's endnote:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

This graph shows that deaths are down, not that there are a decrease in climate events. Consider the impact computers, satellites, and other technology have on predicting these events and giving people warnings. We now can send out weather warnings to everyone's phone, so even a tornado which might only have a 5 minute warning, we can have a much bigger impact. 5 minutes is plenty of time to get to the basement or other safe room, whereas if the warning were on TV you know many, many people would have never gotten it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Professor Valentina Zharkova's presentation about her mathematical model which actually predicts historic data.

Professor Valentina Zharkova: The Solar Magnet Field and the Terrestrial Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yq...ature=youtu.be

"This prediction revealed the presence of a grand cycle of 350-400 years, with a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity features reported in the past millennia: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10 BC) and other warm periods."

Feel free to believe whatever you like.
But get a big overcoat. You'll need the overcoat.

Al Gore et al are quite the miscreant deceivers.



From the Moderator of alternative View's end note:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan
.

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...communication/

"To be blunt, no mini ice age for us".

We are all aware of the Maunder minimum. The decrease in heat per square meter of Earth is not nearly enough to compensate for the increase in greenhouse gases since 1700s. Do the math. "The miscreant deceivers" are the media who heard a lecture on the maunder minimum and then ran off on very poor conclusions without doing the math.

There is a second aspect to this as well which is that fresh water is less dense than sea water, as a result when the ice in the North and South pole melts it sits on top of the ocean, shutting down the ocean currents which move heat from the equator to the poles like a conveyor belt. As a result you have a layer of fresh water which freezes at a much warmer temperature than salt water. During the winter when the North Pole is tilted away from the sun it is theoretically possible that we will get large expanses of very thin ice. If you understand how specific heat impacts climate this will allow much more cold air to sweep down upon Northern Europe, and which some suggest could result in a mini ice age for Europe. However, please note, this heat that is not being pumped to the poles will build up near the equator killing large areas of ocean and making them dead zones. It will also create a very large imbalance where excessively hot moist air over the equator (think hurricanes and super storms) and very cold polar air sweeping further south. Where these two collide (think tornados and super storms) we will have violent storms. Also, the droughts will be bigger and more severe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Fire-Induced Storms: A New Danger from the Rise in Wildfires

Scientists are tracking an increase in a little-known phenomenon in which intense wildfires can spawn their own thunderstorms, known as pyroCbs. Lightning from these storms can spark additional blazes far away and send plumes of smoke and aerosols into the stratosphere.

“PyroCbs like the one that was associated with the Carr fire in California in 2018 can be catastrophic because they can generate tornado-strength vortexes,” says Flannigan.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Al Gore et al are quite the miscreant deceivers.

Watch it there guy. Them's are fighting words! Wait 'till zeek, ZNP, and awareness catch you in a dark alley!

Ozone Al is a "god" in these parts, and his climate science is their "gospel." Even though the fraud has the biggest carbon footprint of all, Ozone Al has become the High Priest of their Climate Cult.

Have you heard? NYC is already under water! Miami has vanished!

[ZNPaaneah]

The Next Financial Crisis Could Be Caused by Climate Change

After wildfires bankrupted a major utility, there's concerns that more severe natural disasters will lead to economic devastation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Watch it there guy. Them's are fighting words! Wait 'till zeek, ZNP, and awareness catch you in a dark alley!

Ozone Al is a "god" in these parts, and his climate science is their "gospel." Even though the fraud has the biggest carbon footprint of all, Ozone Al has become the High Priest of their Climate Cult.

Have you heard? NYC is already under water! Miami has vanished!

The maunder minimum has been factored in for the last 30 years. good to see you are getting up to speed on this topic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Next Financial Crisis Could Be Caused by Climate Change

After wildfires bankrupted a major utility, there's concerns that more severe natural disasters will lead to economic devastation.

The major utility may have caused the wildfires, not the climate change.

[recoveringCK]

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” John Stuart Mill

[recoveringCK]

Originally Posted by awareness

How can you be so disrespectful of the man that invented the internet that you are using?

Surely you must be joking:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/


I used the internet while it was still ARPANET before Tim Breners-Lee implemented http and founded of the World Wide Web Consortium.

[recoveringCK]

Originally Posted by awareness

I still have problems with why I was so credulous. I think I was just young and stupid. Indoctrination in the Southern Baptist contributed to it too, no doubt, and hippy oceanic experiences too.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan

Me too. Great quote. It still surprises me it took so long to recognize the bamboozle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The major utility may have caused the wildfires, not the climate change.

Seriously? We have had forest fires before, they have been caused by many different things, but they haven't been this horrific, end of world apocalypse fire like the Camp fire.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Surely you must be joking:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/


I used the internet while it was still ARPANET before Tim Breners-Lee implemented http and founded of the World Wide Web Consortium.

I also used it when I was at Rice -- in the 1970s, dial up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” John Stuart Mill

There are several cycles the Earth goes through. Everyone is familiar with the daily and yearly cycles. However, there are other cycles that are much longer in duration, there are cycles of sun spots, etc. These all have minor influences on our weather and climate.

Chemical changes to the atmosphere also have very measurable changes -- not all gases absorb heat, greenhouse gases do, primarily carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. As the heat rises (both atmospheric and oceanic) we get more water vapor in the air which traps much more heat than carbon dioxide. Also, as the earth heats up methane hydrates will bubble up out of the tundra and shallow ocean. This also has a much, much greater impact on climate change than carbon dioxide. These are feedback loops. The concern is that once we pass a tipping point the bubbling up of the methane will literally sink the earth's climate.

There is no wild card in the equation unless we can stop the burning of all fossil fuel. As long as we are taking fuel from millions of years of sunlight and burning it all at once we will make the situation worse and worse.

In addition to this there is the acidification of the ocean due to the extra carbon dioxide. So think of this as a cycle, the carbon cycle. Plants on land and in the ocean use the carbon to make sugar and oil. If you reduce the number of plants by killing them in the ocean or land (forest fires, droughts, floods, etc) then you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being pulled out of the air. Again, once climate change begins to impact this it is a feedback loop which gets worse and worse. So then, the Camp fire released a lot of carbon dioxide into the air while also killing a lot of trees which would have been absorbing the carbon dioxide.

Once again, as long as that percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase the situation gets worse. Maunder cycles are not going to save you.

If we are going to talk about deceptive and evil people, they refer to things that typical americans are unfamiliar with (cycle of sunspots), or the other one that was really evil -- we have had times in Earth's history when the carbon dioxide was this high in the past. So let's look at that one. Yes, it is true. During the Permian extinction we have had horrific changes which resulted in about 95% of all species going extinct. They even saw evidence that the ocean floor was exposed to wind and rain, indicating a phenomenal amount of evaporation, really inconceivable. So, have there been times in the past where we had these levels of carbon dioxide in the air? Yes. Could man have survived them? No. But the politicians and pundits who point out the first never mention the fact that these are the worst extinction events in Earth's history.

[ZNPaaneah]

For all the attempts to confuse, the equation is very simple -- energy from the sun enters Earth's atmosphere. Some will be trapped here by plants, some will heat the land and water and radiate into the atmosphere heating the atmosphere, and some will radiate back out into space, lost to us forever.

If the Sun increases its output of energy then the Earth will receive more. If the Sun decreases the output the Earth Receives less. Likewise, with more greenhouse gases more heat will be trapped and less will escape into space. More plants and you capture more of the Sun's energy for plants, less for heat. Less plants and more becomes heat, less is trapped as plant matter.

So we can measure how much greenhouse gases there are, we can also measure how much greenhouse gases there were in the 1700s by looking at ice cores. We can infer how much the energy from the Sun has fluctuated and using that inference estimate how much variation to expect in the future.

That is the basic formula.

There are some other variables as well. Earth's magnetic field blocks a lot of radiation. This field is currently weakening and this also is a cycle which is generally around 10-100,000 years. If it weakens significantly it will allow more radiation to enter the Earth's atmosphere, radiation that can become heat.

Likewise UV radiation is blocked by ozone in the stratosphere. However, the hole in the ozone allows more UV radiation through, which in turn kills plants and becomes heat.

Finally, some substances reflect more sunlight back into space (ice and snow) and some absorb more sunlight as heat (ocean and land). As the ice and snow melts and retreats more and more of the sunlight is absorbed as heat and less and less is reflected back into space.

Along with this there is the "heat island effect". Cities are warmer than the surrounding area because we cut down trees (which absorb sunlight) and pave the ground with concrete and asphalt which reradiate sunlight as heat.

Also, what about the heat generated by burning fossil fuel in cars, planes and power plants? Remarkably, this is a tiny fraction of the heat from the Sun so whether or not you factor it in will not make much of a difference. However, these massive fires like the Camp fire actually do make a difference, not only in the heat but also in the carbon emissions. If California was going to limit themselves to carbon dioxide emissions based on the latest accord the Camp fire would have used up their entire year's allotment.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Surely you must be joking:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

You caught that. Gore never claimed to invent the net. That's false rumors. He also beat Dubya, but the courts shot it down. There were problems with chads.

Originally Posted by recovering

I used the internet while it was still ARPANET before Tim Breners-Lee implemented http and founded of the World Wide Web Consortium.

Now you're aging yourself.

[awareness]

Extreme storms could soon become more common as tropical oceans get warmer due to climate change, NASA study warns

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ns-warmer.html

[ZNPaaneah]

In my opinion we are already seeing climate change. Hurricane Harvey and the Camp fire are two examples that are specific to the US.

But every continent is now having similar examples in the last few years.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion we are already seeing climate change. Hurricane Harvey and the Camp fire are two examples that are specific to the US.

But every continent is now having similar examples in the last few years.

There will be some among God's chosen ones, who will believe that changes in climate signal divine warnings, and then will repent for their sins and believe in the Savior. God uses all things to work together for good. Praise Him.

This old earth, like our own bodies, has a limited life span. One day there will be a new heaven and a new earth. We all would be wise to take heed to the warnings in His word.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There will be some among God's chosen ones, who will believe that changes in climate signal divine warnings, and then will repent for their sins and believe in the Savior. God uses all things to work together for good. Praise Him.

This old earth, like our own bodies, has a limited life span. One day there will be a new heaven and a new earth. We all would be wise to take heed to the warnings in His word.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between what we forsee will take place with Climate change and the judgments on the Earth in the book of Revelation.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, there is a strong correlation between what we forsee will take place with Climate change and the judgments on the Earth in the book of Revelation.

I have wondered too if climate change is another sign that it is winding up. Severe cold is due in Chicago soon. Severe weather events will increase. In the past, there are indicators of severe weather events. Some say a severe event, such as flood, meteor strike, volcanic eruption, caused mass extinction of species.
I wonder if some have made an educated determination of how much is due to a climate cycle and how much is due to fossil fuel use.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

I have wondered too if climate change is another sign that it is winding up. Severe cold is due in Chicago soon. Severe weather events will increase. In the past, there are indicators of severe weather events. Some say a severe event, such as flood, meteor strike, volcanic eruption, caused mass extinction of species.
I wonder if some have made an educated determination of how much is due to a climate cycle and how much is due to fossil fuel use.

I don't think the climate cycles have resulted in mass extinction. Meteor strike yes, flood -- yes, volcanic eruption -- that happened coincidentally with the Permian extinction but there were a number of factors, at most the Siberian basalt contributed to the situation, but doubtful that it caused it.

As for the cold in Chicago people confuse weather with climate. One cold day is not climate change. This is why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". People were too easily confused.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As for the cold in Chicago people confuse weather with climate. One cold day is not climate change. This is why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". People were too easily confused.

Then why is rain in Houston, fires in CA, and cold in Chicago blamed on climate change, and not the ever-changing weather?

[recoveringCK]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For all the attempts to confuse, the equation is very simple -- energy from the sun enters Earth's atmosphere. Some will be trapped here by plants, some will heat the land and water and radiate into the atmosphere heating the atmosphere, and some will radiate back out into space, lost to us forever.

If the Sun increases its output of energy then the Earth will receive more. If the Sun decreases the output the Earth Receives less. Likewise, with more greenhouse gases more heat will be trapped and less will escape into space. More plants and you capture more of the Sun's energy for plants, less for heat. Less plants and more becomes heat, less is trapped as plant matter.

So we can measure how much greenhouse gases there are, we can also measure how much greenhouse gases there were in the 1700s by looking at ice cores. We can infer how much the energy from the Sun has fluctuated and using that inference estimate how much variation to expect in the future.

That is the basic formula.

There are some other variables as well. Earth's magnetic field blocks a lot of radiation. This field is currently weakening and this also is a cycle which is generally around 10-100,000 years. If it weakens significantly it will allow more radiation to enter the Earth's atmosphere, radiation that can become heat.

Likewise UV radiation is blocked by ozone in the stratosphere. However, the hole in the ozone allows more UV radiation through, which in turn kills plants and becomes heat.

Finally, some substances reflect more sunlight back into space (ice and snow) and some absorb more sunlight as heat (ocean and land). As the ice and snow melts and retreats more and more of the sunlight is absorbed as heat and less and less is reflected back into space.

Along with this there is the "heat island effect". Cities are warmer than the surrounding area because we cut down trees (which absorb sunlight) and pave the ground with concrete and asphalt which reradiate sunlight as heat.

Also, what about the heat generated by burning fossil fuel in cars, planes and power plants? Remarkably, this is a tiny fraction of the heat from the Sun so whether or not you factor it in will not make much of a difference. However, these massive fires like the Camp fire actually do make a difference, not only in the heat but also in the carbon emissions. If California was going to limit themselves to carbon dioxide emissions based on the latest accord the Camp fire would have used up their entire year's allotment.

Key Points:
Yes. Energy in, mostly from the sun, provides heat. Energy radiating into space dependent upon earths temperature decreases the planet's heat content.

Secondary and Tertiary Points:
There are various cycles worth investigating in oceans and the atmosphere as well as changes in magnetic fields. Incoming cosmic rays occasionally play a role.


It is amazing that individuals, above average in intelligence and education, who display a basic understanding of many factors related to earth's temperature including climatic changes over time and weather changes over shorter time periods become swept away in hysteria generated by climate alarmist. Their models do a poor job of predicting historic data.

Nonsense spewed out by political icons and well credentialed "scientists" is still nonsense. "Consensus science" may provide social proof used miscreant deceivers such as Al Gore. But it is not science any more than, in previous ages, someone else saying "100% of all recognized authorities -- bishops and cardinals -- agree that the sun and planets revolve around the earth" is science.

Solar output varies. That is the driving force behind long term changes in average temperature on a global scale. That is true even if well credentialed delusional directors of numerous prestigious "scientific" organizations "debunk" it.

For the role consensus science plays in the scientific method and technical revolution, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn is worth reading.

The climate alarmist hysteria promoted by miscreant deceivers has much in common with the phenomena described the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay.

One is tempted to divide LCers into two primary groups, the deceivers and the deceived. Likewise for climate alarmists. I was deceived in the LC. It seems incredible that I was so naive and trusted WL, BBs and elder deceivers in their deceptions.

Originally Posted by awareness

Will a Alaskan coat do?

It should be fine for most of the lower 48.

Fortunately, we only have to wait a few years for global cooling to become more apparent, with the difficulties historically associated with cooling periods including decreasing crop yields to appear.

Have a nice day.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think the climate cycles have resulted in mass extinction. Meteor strike yes, flood -- yes, volcanic eruption -- that happened coincidentally with the Permian extinction but there were a number of factors, at most the Siberian basalt contributed to the situation, but doubtful that it caused it.

As for the cold in Chicago people confuse weather with climate. One cold day is not climate change. This is why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". People were too easily confused.

Just wanted to clarify my statements.
Some say some extinctions were due to one catastrophic event. Another theory
is gradual climate changes causing extinction for species which couldn’t adapt.
I also was trying to say that some think these severe weather events are being caused by climate change.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why is rain in Houston, fires in CA, and cold in Chicago blamed on climate change, and not the ever-changing weather?

When they called it global warming people equated "warming" with it, but heat is only one type of energy and the reality is that the weather is becoming more energetic. So the real change is an increase in energy. A bigger flood is more energetic, bigger hurricane is more energetic, the fires indicate a bigger drought -- indicative of more heat (longer, hotter).

But climate change is not about a hot day or cold day. We have had cold winds blowing from Canada throughout recorded history.

Regardless of how much carbon dioxide goes into the air the north pole is still tilted towards the sun in the summer and tilted away in the winter. The fact that the North pole has a 6 month night will mean we will always have some very cold polar air.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Key Points:
Yes. Energy in, mostly from the sun, provides heat. Energy radiating into space dependent upon earths temperature decreases the planet's heat content.

Secondary and Tertiary Points:
There are various cycles worth investigating in oceans and the atmosphere as well as changes in magnetic fields. Incoming cosmic rays occasionally play a role.


It is amazing that individuals, above average in intelligence and education, who display a basic understanding of many factors related to earth's temperature including climatic changes over time and weather changes over shorter time periods become swept away in hysteria generated by climate alarmist. Their models do a poor job of predicting historic data.

The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a new paper from Carnegie's Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira published by*Nature. Their findings suggest that the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on average, may be underestimating future warming.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1206132220.htm

There are a number of bad models, but there are a number of spectacularly good models, which is why our ability to predict hurricanes strength and location has become so accurate. What we have seen is that for the most part the models have been low balling the speed with which these changes are taking place and that may reflect the political pressure to do so.

Predicting weather uses much of the same factors that predicting climate does, so the improvement in our ability to predict weather is evidence of how good this science is. The issue is data, the more high quality data, the better. Second issue is having a computer powerful enough to handle all the data. This is one of the primary applications for these bigger and more powerful super computers you see rolling out every couple of years.

[ZNPaaneah]

When a scientist is modeling it requires assumptions about the future -- what will the GDP of each country be for each year over the next 25-100 years. How much greenhouse gases will be emitted? How much construction will take place? How much forests will be cut down or burned? What happens to plants in the oceans? Second, we are modeling climate change, by definition climate is an average of the weather over 100 years, yet the pundits and politicians want to see if your "prediction" is accurate 10 years later. That displays an incredible ignorance of the model in the first place and the purpose of the model.

First, the model wasn't designed to give you a prediction of the weather in 10 years. At present we can only predict 10 days out, and at that point our prediction is only modestly better than a guess. So asking scientists to predict the weather 10 years out is idiotic, we don't have that capability.

Instead, the purpose of the model is to make predictions, compare them with observations, and then use that to modify your model. This is how we learn if we are missing key pieces to the puzzle, and if we are weighting the factors we do know about accurately. That is why the models are always "wrong". Very often theories are tested by making a model. So when the press presents the models as evidence that we don't know what we are doing they reveal their complete ignorance and most likely willful ignorance in this matter.

Understanding this scientists will give the pundits the "average" model. There is a reason for that, we are exploring a number of hypothesis, often they average each other out, so the "average" model is very often what the public understands the model to be, our best guess about the future.

I have learned about this process as a teacher because I model my students performance so that I can predict prior to an exam the outcome. Doing this is common to most teachers, and they can tell you with reasonable accuracy who will pass and who will fail each year before the exam. However I have taken my modeling to the extreme and predict the actual score each student will get. This model is always "wrong". There are always students who do not get the exact score I had predicted. That said my prediction is far more accurate than other teachers, and I do it this way so that I can counsel students on what the best thing to study prior to the exam would be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

It is amazing that individuals, above average in intelligence and education, who display a basic understanding of many factors related to earth's temperature including climatic changes over time and weather changes over shorter time periods become swept away in hysteria generated by climate alarmist. Their models do a poor job of predicting historic data.

Nonsense spewed out by political icons and well credentialed "scientists" is still nonsense. "Consensus science" may provide social proof used miscreant deceivers such as Al Gore. But it is not science any more than, in previous ages, someone else saying "100% of all recognized authorities -- bishops and cardinals -- agree that the sun and planets revolve around the earth" is science.

Bravo! So well said! Bravo!

Today's Climate Cult Zealots, led by high priests like Al Gore, are no different than the religious ideologues and inquisitors of the Dark Ages. They shut down all rational scientific discourse to instill hysteria in the masses. Armed with the high tech weaponry of the 21st century, these social justice warriors can bludgeon their opponents and tighten the racks using only a few strokes of the keyboard.

Look at the overwhelming proof they possess: As I write, a polar vortex now grips the entire Midwest, presently engulfing all of Ohio. Watching The Weather Channel, the "evidence" piles up daily to support their agenda. Their rising star, the pretty politician Occasional Cortex from NYC, has now predicted the end of the world in 12 years, unless, of course, we all sell our cars, ride the subway, and stop drinking out of straws.

And if you don't comply, you are now an enemy of Planet Earth!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are a number of bad models, but there are a number of spectacularly good models, which is why our ability to predict hurricanes strength and location has become so accurate. What we have seen is that for the most part the models have been low balling the speed with which these changes are taking place and that may reflect the political pressure to do so.

Remember all those lectures you gave us about the difference between "climate" and "weather?"

Do you understand the difference between "climate models" and "weather forecasts?"

Why is it that no climate model of the last century has accurately predicted climate change, so why should we start believing them now?

Have you forgotten that I lived thru the predicted Ice Age of the '70's? I'm still haunted by all of those frightening pictures of Woolly Mammoths frozen alive in giant ice cubes?

[zeek]

The notion that global warming isn't real because it's cold where you are shows a lack of comprehension of what "global" means. Realizing that some people won't get this because their belief system depends on massive denial of publicly observable facts, I will nevertheless repeat once again: weather isn't climate. The cold snap that North America is experiencing east of the rocky mountains, with temperatures at Arctic-like levels, is real, but it isn't global. Simultaneously, there are record warm temperatures happening in other parts of the world, from Australia to the actual Arctic.

Extreme cold snaps have gotten more severe in recent years, due to the impact of global warming on the polar vortex. Although I expect certain people to reject this because it threatens their world view, it's explained quite well here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#588d43a7d8cf

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The notion that global warming isn't real because it's cold where you are shows a lack of comprehension of what "global" means.

It's hard to convince a freezing person of global warming. Likely global won't even be on their mind.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if you don't comply, you are now an enemy of Planet Earth!

Well I agree that the political agenda that has arisen over this,exemplified by Ocasio, is ill informed. It is as the old saying goes, all the harm in the world is done by "good hearted" people.

We are in a car speeding towards a horrific crash. There are no brakes. Screaming to "step on the brakes" is not helpful, what brakes? Who is supposed to step on them? Also, why should some idiot like Ocasio decide to shut down businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people even though this won't solve anything and she doesn't know how to solve the problem. It is like sending people to war to fight and die without the slightest strategy on how to win the war.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The notion that global warming isn't real because it's cold where you are shows a lack of comprehension of what "global" means. Realizing that some people won't get this because their belief system depends on massive denial of publicly observable facts, I will nevertheless repeat once again: weather isn't climate.

So . . . are you a true believer or just another climate hypocrite like Ozone Al?

Have you sold your car, started riding the bus, and stopped drinking out of straws? What have you personally done to stop the rising ocean and save mother earth?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember all those lectures you gave us about the difference between "climate" and "weather?"

Do you understand the difference between "climate models" and "weather forecasts?"

Why is it that no climate model of the last century has accurately predicted climate change, so why should we start believing them now?

Have you forgotten that I lived thru the predicted Ice Age of the '70's? I'm still haunted by all of those frightening pictures of Woolly Mammoths frozen alive in giant ice cubes?

The factors that affect our daily weather are the very same factors that affect our climate. Being positioned next to the ocean is a climatic factor, it also plays into the weather on a daily basis.

My point is when you predict the weather over the next ten days you can do this solely on the data you have today. But when you are modeling the climate over the next 100 years it requires many, many assumptions not related to your data. Will there be a war? What will the economy do over the next 100 years (and not just US, but for the entire world), what will human population be?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So . . . are you a true believer or just another climate hypocrite like Ozone Al?

Have you sold your car, started riding the bus, and stopped drinking out of straws? What have you personally done to stop the rising ocean and save mother earth?

Nothing.

I have a car that gets 50+ mpg, but when you do the math that does not stop the rising ocean.

We wanted to get solar on our roof but the company turned us down. Still, as solar becomes more economic we will be feasible. However, doing that will also not save anything.

The only thing I have ever done that will have a lasting impact on the salvation of the world is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well I agree that the political agenda that has arisen over this,exemplified by Ocasio, is ill informed. It is as the old saying goes, all the harm in the world is done by "good hearted" people.

We are in a car speeding towards a horrific crash. There are no brakes. Screaming to "step on the brakes" is not helpful, what brakes? Who is supposed to step on them? Also, why should some idiot like Ocasio decide to shut down businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people even though this won't solve anything and she doesn't know how to solve the problem. It is like sending people to war to fight and die without the slightest strategy on how to win the war.

Reminds me of the disastrous "Children's Crusade" of 1212.

Is not the weather and the climate in God's hands? Does He not build the "car" Himself? Would He not warn mankind about fossil fuels if that was our greatest danger?

As far as bogus science is concerned, Dr. Patrick Michaels explains how their false science works. The irony of the "Russian model" is just too good to be true.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is when you predict the weather over the next ten days you can do this solely on the data you have today. But when you are modeling the climate over the next 100 years it requires many, many assumptions not related to your data. Will there be a war? What will the economy do over the next 100 years (and not just US, but for the entire world), what will human population be?

Dr Michaels address those "assumptions," in how the models are "parameterized."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nothing.

I have a car that gets 50+ mpg, but when you do the math that does not stop the rising ocean.

We wanted to get solar on our roof but the company turned us down. Still, as solar becomes more economic we will be feasible. However, doing that will also not save anything.

The only thing I have ever done that will have a lasting impact on the salvation of the world is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How about zeek?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So . . . are you a true believer or just another climate hypocrite like Ozone Al?

Have you sold your car, started riding the bus, and stopped drinking out of straws? What have you personally done to stop the rising ocean and save mother earth?

I'm not going to put my personal habits on display for judgment by a person that won't even disclose his real name.

Your logic is bass ackwards. The fact that medical doctors smoke tobacco doesn't prove that doesn't cause cancer. If Al Gore flies in jet planes that doesn't prove they don't contribute to the greenhouse effect.

What I do as an individual isn't going to significantly affect the climate change problem. I have consistently voted for political candidates who favor limiting greenhouse gases. Yet I'm inclined to agree with ZNP that none of them have done enough to solve the problem.

From the 1992 Rio Earth summit to the 2015 Paris conference there was supposedly a concerted international effort to stop climate change. Yet greenhouse gas emissions increased, atmospheric concentrations grew and the effects global warming became an observable fact of life. And that's despite a growing body of scientific evidence for more than 40 years.

At 7.7 billion people and growing, the world population is unsustainable. Politicians who address that problem won't get elected. Our failure to prevent or even respond significantly to climate change reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason the paralysis of our politics and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities.

The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places and ways of life will disappear in the coming years and decades. If the governments of the world got serious about it right now it would probably take a hundred years to reverse the climate situation. People seldom think that far ahead. Most of the fat cats in charge are all about short-term profits.

If the cooperative efforts of liberal democratic governments throughout the world don't deal with climate change, totalitarian dictators will arise to enact Draconian measures against ordinary people. The glaciers that supply water for millions of people are drying up. The famine war and pestilence the drives immigration is likely to get worse. Walls won't stop them.

Environmental disaster is the legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren to deal with. A growing number of them are aware of the enormity of the problem and are demonstrating to try to get the attention of the powerful. I stand with them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if you don't comply, you are now an enemy of Planet Earth!

And you're the enemy of fetuses. Because climate change deniers don't care if climate change is going to harm fetuses :

Climate change 'will increase the number of children born with potentially killer congenital heart defects'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...t-defects.html

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So . . . are you a true believer or just another climate hypocrite like Ozone Al?

Have you sold your car, started riding the bus, and stopped drinking out of straws? What have you personally done to stop the rising ocean and save mother earth?

Joh 15:13* Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.*

If we really care about the planet, the fetuses, and children's future, we should lay down our life for them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not going to put my personal habits on display for judgment by a person that won't even disclose his real name.

Your logic is bass ackwards. The fact that medical doctors smoke tobacco doesn't prove that doesn't cause cancer. If Al Gore flies in jet planes that doesn't prove they don't contribute to the greenhouse effect.

So funny. You just project your own lack of honesty at me for using a moniker online.

Hard to believe someone who models his virtue after the inventor of the internet, Ozone Al himself.

Ok, bye, nice talking to you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you're the enemy of fetuses. Because climate change deniers don't care if climate change is going to harm fetuses :

Climate change 'will increase the number of children born with potentially killer congenital heart defects'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...t-defects.html

So . . . in the twisted logic of leftist atheists, abortion is now "mercy" killing.

"How horrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter." -- Isa. 5.20

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So funny. You just project your own lack of honesty at me for using a moniker online.

Hard to believe someone who models his virtue after the inventor of the internet, Ozone Al himself.

Ok, bye, nice talking to you!

That's right. Make it about me, deny the facts and run away. Your pattern on alt views is well established. Better to post on the main forum, where you can hide behind a pious pose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Joh 15:13* Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.*

If we really care about the planet, the fetuses, and children's future, we should lay down our life for them.

The first post was funny, the second was overkill

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places and ways of life will disappear in the coming years and decades. If the governments of the world got serious about it right now it would probably take a hundred years to reverse the climate situation. People seldom think that far ahead. Most of the fat cats in charge are all about short-term profits.

If the cooperative efforts of liberal democratic governments throughout the world don't deal with climate change, totalitarian dictators will arise to enact Draconian measures against ordinary people. The glaciers that supply water for millions of people are drying up. The famine war and pestilence the drives immigration is likely to get worse. Walls won't stop them.

Environmental disaster is the legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren to deal with. A growing number of them are aware of the enormity of the problem and are demonstrating to try to get the attention of the powerful. I stand with them.

What this doesn't account for is that without fossil fuel we could not possibly support 7 billion people. So threatening that if we don't do something people will be harmed ignores the fact that all the solutions recommended also harm people. A totalitarian regime decides these people suffer, these people pay, these people die. How is that any different from people like Ocasio?

This path that we have been on has been inevitable for the last 200 years. So yes, I agree that this is due to man's actions, and these actions can be viewed as sins. But the sins were committed at the time of Solomon, that is the point where we could have really made a difference. I can't see the industrial revolution starting in the 1800s as having to be guilty of climate change, everything they did made it possible for more and more people to live better lives. Second, the idea that we could have done more with solar and wind may be true, but we are talking about 10 years at the best, hardly believable that anything the US did actually was a set back to the world.

The fact that everyone else (other than Jesus and a few apostles and prophets) have been clueless until the last 20-30 years is simply an example of how clueless those living in darkness are.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The first post was funny, the second was overkill

Thanks. As long as our population continues to increase there will never be hope of getting control of climate change causes. It's literally human caused, and not just by what humans do, but by being human.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What this doesn't account for is that without fossil fuel we could not possibly support 7 billion people. So threatening that if we don't do something people will be harmed ignores the fact that all the solutions recommended also harm people. A totalitarian regime decides these people suffer, these people pay, these people die. How is that any different from people like Ocasio?

This path that we have been on has been inevitable for the last 200 years. So yes, I agree that this is due to man's actions, and these actions can be viewed as sins. But the sins were committed at the time of Solomon, that is the point where we could have really made a difference. I can't see the industrial revolution starting in the 1800s as having to be guilty of climate change, everything they did made it possible for more and more people to live better lives. Second, the idea that we could have done more with solar and wind may be true, but we are talking about 10 years at the best, hardly believable that anything the US did actually was a set back to the world.

The fact that everyone else (other than Jesus and a few apostles and prophets) have been clueless until the last 20-30 years is simply an example of how clueless those living in darkness are.

The obvious difference is that unlike a totalitarian dictator, Ocasio was democratically elected and espouses democratic solutions. Of course such proposed solutions as the Green New Deal would require massive popular support which I don't see forthcoming as of yet. The rest of your post conflates science and history with your own peculiar and fantastical reading of the Bible. Have you persuaded one person other than yourself of your Solomon theory, for instance? I said nothing about sin or guilt. Apparently that's just you reading things into my words like you read things into the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's right. Make it about me, deny the facts and run away. Your pattern on alt views is well established. Better to post on the main forum, where you can hide behind a pious pose.

You're mad if I stay. You're mad if I leave. You're mad at my posts. You're mad at others' posts. You're just mad, way too mad. You really need help.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The obvious difference is that unlike a totalitarian dictator, Ocasio was democratically elected and espouses democratic solutions. Of course such proposed solutions as the Green New Deal would require massive popular support which I don't see forthcoming as of yet. The rest of your post conflates science and history with your own peculiar and fantastical reading of the Bible. Have you persuaded one person other than yourself of your Solomon theory, for instance? I said nothing about sin or guilt. Apparently that's just you reading things into my words like you read things into the Bible.

She has not espoused any solutions. Doing something is not equivalent to a solution.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're mad if I stay. You're mad if I leave. You're mad at my posts. You're mad at others' posts. You're just mad, way too mad. You really need help.

Now that's projection. The angry emotions you're feeling are your own. Disagreement is the fuel that keeps dialogue going. When everyone agrees all the time it gets boring. Everyone falls asleep and no one learns anything. So here's a question for you based on your argument earlier. If climate change is false because Al Gore and I who are preaching it are hypocrites, then is the gospel false because of all the hypocrites that have preached it over the centuries until now?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now that's projection. The angry emotions you're feeling are your own. Disagreement is the fuel that keeps dialogue going. When everyone agrees all the time it gets boring. Everyone falls asleep and no one learns anything. So here's a question for you based on your argument earlier. If climate change is false because Al Gore and I who are preaching it are hypocrites, then is the gospel false because of all the hypocrites that have preached it over the centuries until now?

Good question. Here is another one. If we agree that climate change is taking place, it is due to man's activity, and the change is very much aligned with some of the worst prophecies in the book of Revelation, then what is the solution? What is it that we can do?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good question. Here is another one. If we agree that climate change is taking place, it is due to man's activity, and the change is very much aligned with some of the worst prophecies in the book of Revelation, then what is the solution? What is it that we can do?

Why ask questions if you reject answers from the premier climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels?

Do we believe scientific models because they represent the actual data of history, or because we have numerous studies which basically copy one another's conclusions?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now that's projection. The angry emotions you're feeling are your own. Disagreement is the fuel that keeps dialogue going. When everyone agrees all the time it gets boring. Everyone falls asleep and no one learns anything. So here's a question for you based on your argument earlier. If climate change is false because Al Gore and I who are preaching it are hypocrites, then is the gospel false because of all the hypocrites that have preached it over the centuries until now?

Like I said, sell your car and stop using straws.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good question. Here is another one. If we agree that climate change is taking place, it is due to man's activity, and the change is very much aligned with some of the worst prophecies in the book of Revelation, then what is the solution? What is it that we can do?

Right. And here I thought the prophesies in the Book of Revelation lined up with the mid to late first century Roman Empire. Silly me. Please refresh my aging memory. Where's that trusty global warming verse in Revelation?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Please refresh my aging memory. Where's that trusty global warming verse in Revelation?

3*The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

According to the science of Climate change the carbon dioxide is causing the ocean to become acidic, we are getting bleached corals and other shell fish are finding it harder and harder to live. On top of that the added heat is going to result in dead fish. One possible outcome could be a shutdown of ocean currents, this in turn will kill the ocean. You will cut off the supply of nutrients, the water at the equator will be unlivable for fish, and there will be an overwhelming decrease in oxygen supply in the ocean.

8*The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9*They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

So far climate change has not really resulted in anything that could be described as searing heat, though this winter (summer in Australia) they have had 120 degrees summer and intense drought. But if enough ice from the poles melts it will change everything. The ice at the north and south pole are critical at keeping our climate even keel. Lose that and the weather at large portions of the earth can swing out of whack.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3*The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

According to the science of Climate change the carbon dioxide is causing the ocean to become acidic, we are getting bleached corals and other shell fish are finding it harder and harder to live. On top of that the added heat is going to result in dead fish. One possible outcome could be a shutdown of ocean currents, this in turn will kill the ocean. You will cut off the supply of nutrients, the water at the equator will be unlivable for fish, and there will be an overwhelming decrease in oxygen supply in the ocean.

8*The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9*They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

So far climate change has not really resulted in anything that could be described as searing heat, though this winter (summer in Australia) they have had 120 degrees summer and intense drought. But if enough ice from the poles melts it will change everything. The ice at the north and south pole are critical at keeping our climate even keel. Lose that and the weather at large portions of the earth can swing out of whack.

Who reading those verses before the advent of anthropogenic climate change would have imagined that human caused global warming was what the author of Revelation was describing? Can you show me one Bible exegete who predicted anthropogenic global warming before science demonstrated it was happening? I know of none.

The prophesies of Revelation express a future in symbols of such vagueness and ambiguity as to make interpretation nearly impossible before the event, rendering them useless as predictive tools. Now that a cataclysmic world event seems a likely possibility, however, Bible believers like yourself shoehorn details of the event into the prophecy in order to give the impression of an accurate "prediction".

Even now many Evangelical Christians like Brother Ohio deny that global warming is upon us or likely to happen in the near future. Why don't they see what you see? What is the point of a Biblical prediction that cannot be interpreted correctly before the event?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who reading those verses before the advent of anthropogenic climate change would have imagined that human caused global warming was what the author of Revelation was describing? Can you show me one Bible exegete who predicted anthropogenic global warming before science demonstrated it was happening? I know of none.

The prophesies of Revelation express a future in symbols of such vagueness and ambiguity as to make interpretation nearly impossible before the event, rendering them useless as predictive tools. Now that a cataclysmic world event seems a likely possibility, however, Bible believers like yourself shoehorn details of the event into the prophecy in order to give the impression of an accurate "prediction".

Even now many Evangelical Christians like Brother Ohio deny that global warming is upon us or likely to happen in the near future. Why don't they see what you see? What is the point of a Biblical prediction that cannot be interpreted correctly before the event?

There is your mistake, you think the prophesies are supposed to be predictive tools. Prophesies are like sign posts, NYC 5 miles. When you are close enough to realize what the prophesy is saying that is when it is important. Read the Gospels, no one used the prophecies as "predictive tools" instead they were sign posts that when they were fulfilled it helped them to realize who Jesus was and when and where they were.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why ask questions if you reject answers from the premier climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels?

Here are three reasons to doubt his opinions:

1)On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.

2)Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry. According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.

3) A 2005 article published by the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

[recoveringCK]

The core disagreement is simply whether or not Anthropogenic Global Warming exists at all or not. Whether or not climate changes over geologic time is not in question any more than whether or not weather changes over time.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is false not because Al Gore said it was true. Anthropogenic Global Warming is false because man-generated CO2 does not cause the earth to warm. The sun warms the earth. The sun provides most of the heat energy. The sun is the source of global warming. Changes in solar output is the primary cause of global average temperature variations on earth and other planets over geologic time. The "debunkers" lie. Al Gore's deceptions and fake science is false narrative. A planet full of “well-credentialed” pseudo-scientists does not change that.

That is the disagreement.

Al Gore, miscreant deceiver, is a key player in creating confusions behind the disagreement. Unfortunately, his deceptions work all to well. Look to Al Gore and say "the deception is strong with this one."

Al Gore is the obstructionist in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Miscreant deceiver is he. Truth sayer he is not.

He is an even better deceiver than the BBs.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

The core disagreement is simply whether or not Anthropogenic Global Warming exists at all or not. Whether or not climate changes over geologic time is not in question any more than whether or not weather changes over time.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is false not because Al Gore said it was true. Anthropogenic Global Warming is false because man-generated CO2 does not cause the earth to warm. The sun warms the earth. The sun provides most of the heat energy. The sun is the source of global warming. Changes in solar output is the primary cause of global average temperature variations on earth and other planets over geologic time. The "debunkers" lie. Al Gore's deceptions and fake science is false narrative. A planet full of “well-credentialed” pseudo-scientists does not change that.

That is the disagreement.

Well if that is the disagreement I don't know who disagrees with you, I certainly don't.

man-generated CO2? Certainly not the problem.

No, the problem has nothing to do with "man generated CO2". The problem comes when we burn 250 million years worth of sunlight stored in fossil fuel in 200 years. 100% sun generated CO2, a rich storehouse of CO2 saved for man's use by God. Would have been a tremendous blessing 3,000 years ago when population was small and when Israel was secluded from the rest of the world for several hundred years. By the time the rest of the world discovered this blessing we would have passed through the dirty initial phase of the industrial revolution. No, instead we had to wait until the 1800s, the whole world jumped on this at the same time, the population was far greater, and the impact was worldwide in less than a few decades.

[recoveringCK]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well if that is the disagreement I don't know who disagrees with you, I certainly don't.

man-generated CO2? Certainly not the problem.

No, the problem has nothing to do with "man generated CO2". The problem comes when we burn 250 million years worth of sunlight stored in fossil fuel in 200 years. 100% sun generated CO2, a rich storehouse of CO2 saved for man's use by God. Would have been a tremendous blessing 3,000 years ago when population was small and when Israel was secluded from the rest of the world for several hundred years. By the time the rest of the world discovered this blessing we would have passed through the dirty initial phase of the industrial revolution. No, instead we had to wait until the 1800s, the whole world jumped on this at the same time, the population was far greater, and the impact was worldwide in less than a few decades.

Glad to hear you are in agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood.


Otherwise additional clarification may be required. It is possible the meaning of the phrase “man-generated CO2” was not as clear as was intended.

“Man-generated CO2” was intended to refer human activity, primarily burning fossil fuels, increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's frequently cited as the driving force behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. Usually it is written simply as Global Warming with the understanding that it is caused by human activity, primarily CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Talented con men, master deceivers, including Al Gore push this dialogue for their own benefit. It's amazing people otherwise suspected of high intelligence, educational attainment and ability believe his deceptions.

But then once I believed WL was in effect the MOTA who spoke the truth from God and JC through the LSM, BBs and elders in the LCs. It was supposed to be the truth and the truth was not to be questioned. Boy, was I deceived -- after trust was carefully cultivated. Deceivers use accusation and deception to manipulate people for their own benefit to the determent of those who are deceived.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere when carbon based fuels are burned, yes. But the primary driver of heat for earth and the other planets in this solar system is the closest star, the sun, is the source of warmth for the globe. It is tempting to say the sun is the source of global warming except that it might be confused with Mr. Gore's deception frequently referred to as “Global Warming” when what is meant is “Anthropogenic Global Warming“ from human generated (man-generated) CO2 emissions.

Is it not true that it is considered much worse for a friend to betray a carefully cultivated trust than to be an enemy in the first place?

Remind me, in the bible, there was a character who was said to have “deceived the whole world.” What was his name and in which book does he show up?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Glad to hear you are in agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood.


Otherwise additional clarification may be required. It is possible the meaning of the phrase “man-generated CO2” was not as clear as was intended.

“Man-generated CO2” was intended to refer human activity, primarily burning fossil fuels, increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's frequently cited as the driving force behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. Usually it is written simply as Global Warming with the understanding that it is caused by human activity, primarily CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Talented con men, master deceivers, including Al Gore push this dialogue for their own benefit. It's amazing people otherwise suspected of high intelligence, educational attainment and ability believe his deceptions.

But then once I believed WL was in effect the MOTA who spoke the truth from God and JC through the LSM, BBs and elders in the LCs. It was supposed to be the truth and the truth was not to be questioned. Boy, was I deceived -- after trust was carefully cultivated. Deceivers use accusation and deception to manipulate people for their own benefit to the determent of those who are deceived.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere when carbon based fuels are burned, yes. But the primary driver of heat for earth and the other planets in this solar system is the closest star, the sun, is the source of warmth for the globe. It is tempting to say the sun is the source of global warming except that it might be confused with Mr. Gore's deception frequently referred to as “Global Warming” when what is meant is “Anthropogenic Global Warming“ from human generated (man-generated) CO2 emissions.

Is it not true that it is considered much worse for a friend to betray a carefully cultivated trust than to be an enemy in the first place?

Remind me, in the bible, there was a character who was said to have “deceived the whole world.” What was his name and in which book does he show up?

No one is referencing Al Gore or WL on this thread except you.

Yes, in the equation that represents Earth's temperature the Sun is a key component of that equation and the source of the energy that becomes heat. Greenhouse gases are also a component. Blankets do not contribute heat (excluding electric blankets) they simply prevent it from leaving. Everyone knows that if you add blankets to the bed you keep more heat in. The source of the heat is the person, yet we know that more or fewer blankets will have an impact on the temperature.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one is referencing Al Gore or WL on this thread except you.

Is my name "no one?"

I have been exposing Al Gore as a fraud for decades. He is one of the High Priests of the climate change and global warming cult. He has made millions off of his fraud. He is the Jim Jones of the "scientific" climate community.

None of his prophecies have come true. Should he not be "stoned" like the other False Prophets?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is my name "no one?"

I have been exposing Al Gore as a fraud for decades. He is one of the High Priests of the climate change and global warming cult. He has made millions off of his fraud. He is the Jim Jones of the "scientific" climate community.

None of his prophecies have come true. Should he not be "stoned" like the other False Prophets?

He is not part of the scientific community. He is not a scientist. He does not do research. At most he is a cheerleader. This would be like attacking the cheerleaders for the New England Patriots. If you feel so strongly about him start a thread.

His two "prophecies" as far as I can tell were about Arctic ice decline and polar bear decline. Both good examples of how the average american with a decent education but lacking a scientific grounding can make wild speculations -- proving the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". However, his movies are vetted more carefully and are not nearly as wild as his personal remarks.

Arctic Ice Decline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

Polar Bear Decline
https://www.worldwildlife.org/storie...-change-action

However, although his speculation has been typical of hysteria, the "debunking" of his "prophecies" seems equally irresponsible. To read them there has been no sea ice decline and polar bears are just fine, thank you.

To my opinion the most powerful part of the second movie was when he was standing in the street in Miami, the ocean was pouring in, it was obviously not a storm but an example of a common occurrence and govt officials from the city were talking about the issue.

I have seen the same thing in NYC. Our route to the grocery store gets flooded during high tide. They have tried to build up the road, but it is a very visible change that has taken place in the last 20 years.

[zeek]

Extreme Weather Is Already Breaking Records Around The World In 2019
Temperatures dipped to -38 degrees in Minnesota as Australia battled a heat wave that topped 115 degrees.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00906b26f9360

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Should he not be "stoned" like the other False Prophets?

...asked the self-righteous Pharisee who thought himself without sin.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3*The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

According to the science of Climate change the carbon dioxide is causing the ocean to become acidic, we are getting bleached corals and other shell fish are finding it harder and harder to live. On top of that the added heat is going to result in dead fish. One possible outcome could be a shutdown of ocean currents, this in turn will kill the ocean. You will cut off the supply of nutrients, the water at the equator will be unlivable for fish, and there will be an overwhelming decrease in oxygen supply in the ocean.

8*The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9*They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

So far climate change has not really resulted in anything that could be described as searing heat, though this winter (summer in Australia) they have had 120 degrees summer and intense drought. But if enough ice from the poles melts it will change everything. The ice at the north and south pole are critical at keeping our climate even keel. Lose that and the weather at large portions of the earth can swing out of whack.

It's corny to relate Revelation to climate change. It exposes that you have a Bible obsession.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

...asked the self-righteous Pharisee who thought himself without sin.

Since you have forsaken faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are you then a self-righteous Sadducee who considers himself without sin?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's corny to relate Revelation to climate change. It exposes that you have a Bible obsession.

If we cannot relate the future of the world to the book of Revelation, then our obsession is merely science fiction.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since you have forsaken faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are you then a self-righteous Sadducee who considers himself without sin?

No. I haven't, I'm not and I don't.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's corny to relate Revelation to climate change. It exposes that you have a Bible obsession.

You say that like its a bad thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

For those having a hard time following how "Bible obsession", "Self righteous Sadducees", etc., etc. are related to Climate Change lets boil it down.

No one is disputing the chemistry of the atmosphere has changed in the last 200 years and we now have much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nor has there been much discussion about whether or not that is due to the burning of fossil fuel.

No, the big debates have been over whether or not this is simply a natural cycle like the Maunder cycle of sunspots, though when you do the math you realize the difference in incoming insolation would be far less than the increase in energy kept in the atmosphere due to greenhouse gases.

Second big debate is that this has happened before (this very high level of carbon dioxide). There has been no dispute about that either, only that the last time this happened we had the biggest extinction in Earth's history.

Third big debate is over Al Gore, the "high priest" of "Climate change" according to at least one poster on this forum. He isn't a scientist, nor has he done any scientific research on this topic. However, his movies on the issue have been influential and his political position gave him a platform to speak. When you go online to discover what it is they object to it is not "prophecies" made in his movies, but that he said in personal speeches. The primary objection is to two: arctic sea ice should have disappeared by now according to Gore and Polar bears with it. Neither have happened. To read what many say you would be hard pressed to realize there has been a dramatic and (at least to someone my age) remarkable drop in sea ice, so much so that you can easily sail across the North Pole in the Summer. Likewise there has been a very significant drop in the population of polar bears (I think it is 40%). But Gore was clearly ill advised to make such wild predictions that were not supported by any scientific studies that I am aware of. So what they call "the high priest" I would call a typical american with a good education but without an adequate scientific background, who has succumbed to the hysteria.

None of these are worthy of any real debate. The true debate should be about solutions. Especially with people like Ocasio saying things I consider to be very irresponsible. I don't think we should be proposing the shut down of major industries, resulting in the loss of jobs for tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands unless we have a very clear strategy for a solution. No one has suggested anything like a solution.

Here is what a solution looks like -- A city that is carbon neutral (completely recycles all carbon that it uses). Although that does not solve the problem for the world, it is a strategy that the government and taxpayers should consider funding.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is what a solution looks like -- A city that is carbon neutral (completely recycles all carbon that it uses). Although that does not solve the problem for the world, it is a strategy that the government and taxpayers should consider funding.

Sorry Bro, but you been watching too much Science Fiction. There's never gonna be carbon neutral.

Wait till those folks in the upper Midwest have to heat their homes during the next Polar Vortex with Solar Panels and Windmills.

Look at what the Gun-Less "Yellow Jackets" did to Paris, France. Imagine if they had 2nd Amend rights? Do you think they would let the G'ment turn off their furnaces and take away their gasoline so that China, India, et. al. could keep polluting?

People would start burning down the forests and politicians houses to stay warm.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Bro, but you been watching too much Science Fiction. There's never gonna be carbon neutral.

Wait till those folks in the upper Midwest have to heat their homes during the next Polar Vortex with Solar Panels and Windmills.

Look at what the Gun-Less "Yellow Jackets" did to Paris, France. Imagine if they had 2nd Amend rights? Do you think they would let the G'ment turn off their furnaces and take away their gasoline so that China, India, et. al. could keep polluting?

People would start burning down the forests and politicians houses to stay warm.

We don't need fossil fuel to keep warm. Buckminster Fuller demonstrated that a dome that was large enough would capture enough air to have virtually perfect insulation. Every human generates heat as a by product of metabolism. A city is generating plenty of heat to keep itself warm. Also, in the marvels of geometry the larger the dome the cheaper it gets per cubic foot enclosed. I would also point out that like the New Jerusalem the height, width and length of a dome are all equal.

[ZNPaaneah]

5 degrees F yesterday, 51 deg F is projected for Monday. Has anyone ever seen a swing like this before?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5 degrees F yesterday, 51 deg F is projected for Monday. Has anyone ever seen a swing like this before?

I saw a drop from about 70 to 15 from early afternoon until shortly after dark. And I've seen it warm up during the night. But this is not unheard of over the period of recorded temperatures in the DFW area. This neither supports nor denies climate change. That is something else and could cause some of these things, though not be the only cause of them.

When looking at climate change, what happens to seasonal temperatures and weather patterns is a likely symptom. But those symptoms are not proof of climate change since they have occurred when there was no evidence of climate change. They are correlations, at best. But not exclusive correlations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I saw a drop from about 70 to 15 from early afternoon until shortly after dark. And I've seen it warm up during the night. But this is not unheard of over the period of recorded temperatures in the DFW area. This neither supports nor denies climate change. That is something else and could cause some of these things, though not be the only cause of them.

When looking at climate change, what happens to seasonal temperatures and weather patterns is a likely symptom. But those symptoms are not proof of climate change since they have occurred when there was no evidence of climate change. They are correlations, at best. But not exclusive correlations.

Yes, I do not mean to imply a rapid swing in temperature is evidence of anything. However, "climate change" is really a more energetic weather system. So although it may not be evidence of anything it may be indicative of what we might expect in the future. Also, this swing is from Chicago to NYC, it is a very large swath of the US.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5 degrees F yesterday, 51 deg F is projected for Monday. Has anyone ever seen a swing like this before?

I have seen temperature drops like this.

I remember one place out west that dropped like 40 deg in a couple hours.

[recoveringCK]

Everyone, Chill!

Good news. The polar bears will be fine. It looks like the anthropogenic global warming climate change mega-disaster is turning into a cooling spell. For anyone interested in objective evidence in the physical universe rather than alarmist ideological fiction: The Chill of Solar Minimum https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018...solar-minimum/

You might need a big coat though. Does anyone have a really good hot coco recipe.? No doubt Al Gore, miscreant deceiver, will merely state 'that is exactly what he would expect” from “Global Warming.”

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

Everyone, Chill!

Good news. The polar bears will be fine. It looks like the anthropogenic global warming climate change mega-disaster is turning into a cooling spell. For anyone interested in objective evidence in the physical universe rather than alarmist ideological fiction: The Chill of Solar Minimum https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018...solar-minimum/

You might need a big coat though. Does anyone have a really good hot coco recipe.? No doubt Al Gore, miscreant deceiver, will merely state 'that is exactly what he would expect” from “Global Warming.”

Help us out, are you trying to be funny or serious?

The article you reference shows that this is now the 7th solar minimum since 1940. So all of the melting glaciers, rising sea level, and increase temperature to the ocean has taken place despite 7 solar minimums.

[ZNPaaneah]

There is good news which is that Fusion will soon (5-20 years) be economically viable.

For those not aware of the benefits:

1. Unlimited fuel supply
2. No radioactive waste
3. No threat of runaway reactions

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is good news which is that Fusion will soon (5-20 years) be economically viable.

For those not aware of the benefits:

1. Unlimited fuel supply
2. No radioactive waste
3. No threat of runaway reactions

I heard those same promises about Fusion back in the 70's when I went to school. The environmentalists killed that industry. Nuclear technology has actually regressed, with most of the most brilliant minds dead or retired.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I heard those same promises about Fusion back in the 70's when I went to school. The environmentalists killed that industry. Nuclear technology has actually regressed, with most of the most brilliant minds dead or retired.

Are you confusing Fusion with Fission? In the 70s Fusion was considered science fiction. Fission does not have any greenhouse gases, but does have deadly radioactive pollution and there is always the danger of a runaway reaction (Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island). I have never heard of any environmentalists who are against fusion, but there are a lot who are against fission.

[awareness]

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is a pipe dream, that will never happen or be implemented :

OCASIO-CORTEZ: FIXING GLOBAL WARMING REQUIRES ‘MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION’

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasi...assive-governm

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is a pipe dream, that will never happen or be implemented :

OCASIO-CORTEZ: FIXING GLOBAL WARMING REQUIRES ‘MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION’

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasi...assive-governm

Can anyone think soberly for a moment. In order to deal with the carbon pollution in the US, representing 5% of the world's population, requires massive government intervention by who? Ocasio? Like that is ever going to happen. Even if she did swing it, what is she going to do about the other 95% of the people on this planet?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can anyone think soberly for a moment. In order to deal with the carbon pollution in the US, representing 5% of the world's population, requires massive government intervention by who? Ocasio? Like that is ever going to happen. Even if she did swing it, what is she going to do about the other 95% of the people on this planet?

The furthest-LEFT Senator Hirono has also protested the "Green Dream," saying that, with all air traffic grounded, high speed rails will never reach her state. Oh well, Hawaii, we all have to make sacrifices to make the dream come true.

And in her quest to destroy the billionaire President, we now have hundreds of other billionaires, 90% of them Democrat, running for cover. Obviously this century old myth of all rich folks being Republican is coming back to haunt them.


And no more wood-burning stoves for you!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Even if she did swing it, what is she going to do about the other 95% of the people on this planet?

O you know human nature. The rest of the world will see the Ocasio-Cortez example, and also too get rid of all cars and planes, and rebuild all their buildings ... plus make sure to pay those that don't want to work.

Then everyone, and the earth, will be a happy, as you like to put it, a eusocial world wide community ... singing Kumbaya, and holding hands.

That's the way people are ... in Ocasio's head. She's 29. I remember how idealistic I was at that age. But she's full of surprises, and manages to get everyone to talk and think about these matters. She's got quit a twitter following. That seems to indicate that she's got social clout/cult, and voter support. I love her young spirit. Something does need to change. But not the Ocasio way. Her dream can't be accomplished. Not unless the whole human race commits suicide.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

O you know human nature. The rest of the world will see the Ocasio-Cortez example, and also too get rid of all cars and planes, and rebuild all their buildings ... plus make sure to pay those that don't want to work.

Then everyone, and the earth, will be a happy, as you like to put it, a eusocial world wide community ... singing Kumbaya, and holding hands.

That's the way people are ... in Ocasio's head. She's 29. I remember how idealistic I was at that age. But she's full of surprises, and manages to get everyone to talk and think about these matters. She's got quit a twitter following. That seems to indicate that she's got social clout/cult, and voter support. I love her young spirit. Something does need to change. But not the Ocasio way. Her dream can't be accomplished. Not unless the whole human race commits suicide.

I think the Dems were happy she won, happy she is popular, but are not interested in failed plans that will go nowhere.

Choosing to take action that is doomed for failure is simply one typical response of people who are panicked and don't believe there is a solution. It is as faithless as those who chose to do nothing. The only difference is they are convinced they are the "good hearted ones" and that those who don't follow them to jump off the cliff are the evil ones.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

O you know human nature. The rest of the world will see the Ocasio-Cortez example, and also too get rid of all cars and planes, and rebuild all their buildings ... plus make sure to pay those that don't want to work.

Then everyone, and the earth, will be a happy, as you like to put it, a eusocial world wide community ... singing Kumbaya, and holding hands.

That's the way people are ... in Ocasio's head. She's 29. I remember how idealistic I was at that age. But she's full of surprises, and manages to get everyone to talk and think about these matters. She's got quit a twitter following. That seems to indicate that she's got social clout/cult, and voter support. I love her young spirit. Something does need to change. But not the Ocasio way. Her dream can't be accomplished. Not unless the whole human race commits suicide.

So, since she's idealistic, when she lies to us, she's not really lying?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, since she's idealistic, when she lies to us, she's not really lying?

That remains to be seen. Let's see if she racks up as many lies as Trump has told so far in 2 years. If so she'll be presidential material in 6 yrs.

[awareness]

And then there is this :

Satellite images reveal huge CRACKS in Greenland glacier, sparking fears massive chunk will break off and cause more ice to spill into the sea

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...d-glacier.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, since she's idealistic, when she lies to us, she's not really lying?

No, it is worse than that. If you believe what you are saying is true then you aren't lying. It follows the old saw "all the problems in the world are caused by the "good hearted" people". Or as the Bible says "pride goes before a fall".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, it is worse than that. If you believe what you are saying is true then you aren't lying. It follows the old saw "all the problems in the world are caused by the "good hearted" people". Or as the Bible says "pride goes before a fall".

I was merely contrasting with Trump. The Dems pretty much get a free pass on everything, yet Trump is continually condemned as a liar.

For example, using the latest SOTU, Dem "fact checkers" condemned his statement that "One in three women is sexually assaulted" on the journey north to the border. The number comes from a 2017 Doctors Without Borders report. The report found that 31.4 percent of women had been sexually abused during their transit through Mexico. But we know that 31.4% does not equal 33.33%.

Hence Trump "lied" again. We have "proof."

And gullible Americans believe this fake news.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was merely contrasting with Trump. The Dems pretty much get a free pass on everything, yet Trump is continually condemned as a liar.

For example, using the latest SOTU, Dem "fact checkers" condemned his statement that "One in three women is sexually assaulted" on the journey north to the border. The number comes from a 2017 Doctors Without Borders report. The report found that 31.4 percent of women had been sexually abused during their transit through Mexico. But we know that 31.4% does not equal 33.33%.

Hence Trump "lied" again. We have "proof."

And gullible Americans believe this fake news.

Actually, 1 in 3 is far closer to 31.4 percent than 1 in 4. Therefore the estimate is considered accurate given the precision of the statement.

This is not a "Trump" phenomenon, it is a political phenomenon. Trump as president tries to take credit for every good thing, and spin everything that happens as some miracle due to his expertise. The republicans applaud every self congratulatory comment because they all can be understood to say "give me a job again in 2 years".

The other party sits sour faced and throws shade at every single thing said, regardless of rhyme or reason, simply because polls show these are the hot button issues they need to hammer home. Their supporters have been sold that Trump is a liar (surely he has some responsibility for this impression) so they have to continue to hammer that home.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was merely contrasting with Trump. The Dems pretty much get a free pass on everything, yet Trump is continually condemned as a liar..

Because he is. The latest, if he hasn't lied a bunch since then, he just got busted for lying about El Paso in the SOTU. By everyone in El Paso, who say he's slandering El Paso with his claims that it's the most violent city, when stats show there's no truth to it at all, before the 2008 fence and after.

In fact, it's not true for any of the border cities.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02...-texas-feb-11/

Can we say fear mongering lies, for his man-child tantrum wall.

[awareness]

And then there's this :

Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'

The planet is at the start of a sixth mass extinction in its history, with huge losses already reported in larger animals that are easier to study. But insects are by far the most varied and abundant animals, outweighing humanity by 17 times.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...apse-of-nature

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And then there's this :

Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'

The planet is at the start of a sixth mass extinction in its history, with huge losses already reported in larger animals that are easier to study. But insects are by far the most varied and abundant animals, outweighing humanity by 17 times.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...apse-of-nature

Not just insects, but parasites are probably the most endangered of all. A species specific parasite is extremely vulnerable, and for the most part people don't appreciate the valuable niche they fill. We have developed extremely important and useful drugs based on parasites. A species specific parasite never kills its host, in fact their presence is evidence of a healthy ecosystem and they are very useful to the host for tuning their immune system.

[ZNPaaneah]

1.4 meters of rain in Queensland Australia. Approximately 4 1/2 feet for those of you who don't like metric -- and that is in one storm.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-weather-bingo

[ZNPaaneah]

Dear Fellow New Yorker,

The fact of climate change is indisputable, and the need to take action now is more urgent than ever.

With the Trump Administration ignoring science and putting the profits of the fossil fuel industry over the future of our planet, it’s up to states like New York to lead.

I’m proud to announce New York’s Green New Deal as part of our 2019 Justice Agenda: a nation-leading clean energy and jobs agenda that will put the state on a path to carbon neutrality.

Add your name as a citizen cosponsor of the Green New Deal!



New York’s Green New Deal includes the following proposals:
100% clean power by 2040 — the most aggressive goal of any state in the country
Quadrupling New York’s offshore wind commitment to 9,000 megawatts by 2035
Doubling distributed solar deployment to 6,000 megawatts by 2025
Delivering climate justice to underserved communities
Expanding the Bottle Bill (5¢ deposit on bottles) to include most nonalcoholic drinks
Banning plastic bags
Voice your support and become a cosponsor of the Green New Deal.

Climate change is a reality, and the consequences of delay are unacceptable.

We know what we must do. Now we need the vision, the courage, and the competence to get it done.

Ever Upward,

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Dear Fellow New Yorker,

Banning plastic bags
Voice your support and become a cosponsor of the Green New Deal.

Yeah, let's ban those evil plastic bags!

Whoa to you who bring lunch to work in a plastic bag!

Whoa to you who put your garbage in plastic bags!

Whoa to you who store your belongings in plastic bags!

Who to you who pick up doggie poop in plastic bags!

Yeah, let's ban those evil plastic bags!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, let's ban those evil plastic bags!

Whoa to you who bring lunch to work in a plastic bag!

Whoa to you who put your garbage in plastic bags!

Whoa to you who store your belongings in plastic bags!

Who to you who pick up doggie poop in plastic bags!

Yeah, let's ban those evil plastic bags!

NY did something about 10 months ago which I think has been great. They require that all homes compost their organic garbage. They gave us these little plastic bins, and large plastic bins and these green plastic bags which are said to be biodegradable. I never put out the compost trash, instead I put it into my compost pile. It is a plastic box that works well. When I filled one I bought a second, but the second fills up slower because in the winter you don't have to throw as much dirt on. I'll probably get a third and then just empty the first when the next two are filled.

The result is that almost all our garbage is recyclable. Garbage doesn't smell and the garbage trucks are not nearly so smelly, and you don't have animals rummaging through the garbage anymore. In addition I have a lot of premium mulch. I spent $200 on these plastic bins and will spend another $100. But all in all I think this was a really great improvement to garbage collection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

NY did something about 10 months ago which I think has been great. They require that all homes compost their organic garbage. They gave us these little plastic bins, and large plastic bins and these green plastic bags which are said to be biodegradable. I never put out the compost trash, instead I put it into my compost pile. It is a plastic box that works well. When I filled one I bought a second, but the second fills up slower because in the winter you don't have to throw as much dirt on. I'll probably get a third and then just empty the first when the next two are filled.

The result is that almost all our garbage is recyclable. Garbage doesn't smell and the garbage trucks are not nearly so smelly, and you don't have animals rummaging through the garbage anymore. In addition I have a lot of premium mulch. I spent $200 on these plastic bins and will spend another $100. But all in all I think this was a really great improvement to garbage collection.

I doubt that many in plush NY high-rises are in compliance, but I like the idea. Since I live in a suburban setting, I think it is crazy to send grass clippings to the land fill. I have one compost bin for veggie scraps, and a hill side behind the fence for yard debris. Grass is mulched. Compost is then harvested in the spring and fall for the garden.

But to start with smart composting and then jump to Socialist plans is ludicrous.

ZNP, are you the only NYer with a brain and a dose of common sense?

My brother lived there for several years, and he about went crazy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Some people are saying that carbon scrubbers that remove carbon dioxide from the air is the only solution.

The technology has been in use for many years.

However, the cost would run (most optimistic estimate) around $1 trillion per year.

That sounds like a lot, even if it were fairly shared by every country on earth.

However, if the carbon were converted to oil and gas it could easily be a break even technology -- the world market for oil and gas is several trillion dollars a year.

There is a technology that does that which is algae.

I suspect it is more expensive than drilling for oil, otherwise we would be doing it on a much greater scale than simply the R&D of today.

So a good approach for the US is not to throw billions after some technology that will wind up in private hands, nor is it to invest in non economic technology that is not ready for prime time. We have govt grants for research in these areas. Instead you could design tax policy to reward the use of renewable energy and begin taxing the burning of fossil fuel. The carbon tax could be focused on whether or not the source was renewable or not. We do this already encouraging the use of recycled paper and plastic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Summers in Phoenix pose a daily health threat to Leonor Juarez and her family. She and her five children have asthma, and struggle to breathe the ovenlike air that ripples off the sidewalks when they walk their neighborhood’s shadeless streets. The sun beats down on them at uncovered bus stops during the five-hour round-trip to the doctor, leaving them suffering headaches, dehydration and chest pains. “It feels like I’m having a heart attack,” Juarez says. “It feels like you’re drowning in a swimming pool or you have a pillow over your head.”
Stories like Juarez’s are not unusual in Phoenix, the nation’s fastest-warming big city, which hit triple-digit temperatures on 128 days last year—and where at least 172 peopledied of heat-related causes in 2017. With the urban heat island effect acting in concert with global warming, U.S. cities could be up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the afternoon and 14 degrees warmer at night by the end of the century, according to a recent study in Nature Climate Change. As temperatures spike, researchers and urban planners worry heat deaths will rise across the country.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Summers in Phoenix pose a daily health threat to Leonor Juarez and her family. She and her five children have asthma, and struggle to breathe the ovenlike air that ripples off the sidewalks when they walk their neighborhood’s shadeless streets. The sun beats down on them at uncovered bus stops during the five-hour round-trip to the doctor, leaving them suffering headaches, dehydration and chest pains. “It feels like I’m having a heart attack,” Juarez says. “It feels like you’re drowning in a swimming pool or you have a pillow over your head.”
Stories like Juarez’s are not unusual in Phoenix, the nation’s fastest-warming big city, which hit triple-digit temperatures on 128 days last year—and where at least 172 people died of heat-related causes in 2017. With the urban heat island effect acting in concert with global warming, U.S. cities could be up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the afternoon and 14 degrees warmer at night by the end of the century, according to a recent study in Nature Climate Change. As temperatures spike, researchers and urban planners worry heat deaths will rise across the country.

Illegal alien overpopulation is causing climate change in Phoenix via the the urban heat island effect.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Illegal alien overpopulation is causing climate change in Phoenix via the the urban heat island effect.

Perhaps aliens did this?

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...nsland-floods?
Up to 500,000 drought-stressed cattle killed in Queensland floods
After years of drought graziers were elated when the rain came. Now floods have created a humanitarian crisis
Ben Smee and agencies
@BenSmee
Mon 11 Feb 2019 02.20 EST Last modified on Mon 11 Feb 2019 05.22 EST

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps aliens did this?

They were ancient aliens?

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s/2812647002/?

Record shattering heat wave Australia, Argentina, and Chile


http://www.fox13news.com/news/florid...nd-in-the-air?

Florida's toxic algae crisis: Toxins found in air concern researchers - video

(Apparently the toxic algae that blooms can also get into the air and be breathed in, poisoning you).

[Ohio]

The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism


AOC says the world will now end in 12 years.

If AOC was a Christian "Prophet" ole awareness would be all over it, but because she is a Climate "Prophet," he has gone silent.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism


AOC says the world will now end in 12 years.

If AOC was a Christian "Prophet" ole awareness would be all over it, but because she is a Climate "Prophet," he has gone silent.

Here are his five points

1. Based on fear of extreme events
2. Emperor’s new clothes
3. They have been making predictions for decades
4. Graphical evidence has been tampered with
5. Proposed solutions are unworkable

1. Not true for me or for the scientists I studied. It is based on simple chemistry of the atmosphere.
2. Again, not true for me or the scientists I studied. When I first learned this in the 80s it was a minority of scientists and I was studying those who came up with this realization as a completely unique understanding.
3. Not familiar with these people, they had nothing to do with any of my study.
4. In my experience the people that say these things are as clueless about science and math as AOC.
5. The only point I agree with.

We have a solution, it is legitimately a solution for the entire world, yet AOC making all this noise about this other stuff, good as it might be, is imo more damaging than productive.

Nuclear Fusion is no longer a pipe dream. It has reached the stage where serious investment and government intervention can have a significant impact on the time it takes to implement this. The US, China and Europe are currently in a position where they can invest heavily in this and speed up development by 5+ years. Paving the way for implementation could already be done by governments. This is the only "solution". Everything AOC is demanding is simply a bandaid for 2.5% of the problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are his five points

1. Based on fear of extreme events
2. Emperor’s new clothes
3. They have been making predictions for decades
4. Graphical evidence has been tampered with
5. Proposed solutions are unworkable

1. Not true for me or for the scientists I studied. It is based on simple chemistry of the atmosphere.
2. Again, not true for me or the scientists I studied. When I first learned this in the 80s it was a minority of scientists and I was studying those who came up with this realization as a completely unique understanding.
3. Not familiar with these people, they had nothing to do with any of my study.
4. In my experience the people that say these things are as clueless about science and math as AOC.
5. The only point I agree with.

1. Scientists like Dr. Patrick Michaels is one I listen too. Like today's main stream media and evolutionary scientists, there may be hundreds of proponents, even scientists, but they live in an echo chamber of group think. Their models have never been accurate.

2. I first learned of these doomsday climate projections in the 60's following a natural cooling cycle. Industrial pollution and greenhouse gases would send us into the next Ice Age. Most of this nonsense was fueled by socialist/communist ideological sources to undermine American superiority and safety in the world. Nothing has changed.

3. They have everything to do with your studies.

4. Then why has no study or climate model ever been able to accurately predict the climate, going backwards and forwards? Their assumptions are just as valid, or just as clueless, as AOC's climate / economic theories.

5. Agreed, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

5. Agreed, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."

And it's the providence of God that the earth is to be fried. Stupid us, and our scientists and politicians, to think we can stop it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it's the providence of God that the earth is to be fried. Stupid us, and our scientists and politicians, to think we can stop it.

Stupid Socialist Democrats like AOC who think that sending America back to the Stone Age will "save" the rest of the world. Yeah, let's outlaw drinking straws so that our geriatrics choke to death! Can't fix stupid, folks.

What a hypocrite. AOC chases Amazon out of town because of displaced low-income housing, but her new digs in Wash DC feature gold-plated amenities like a rooftop infinity pool, a cycling studio with a dozen pricey Pelotons, men’s and women’s saunas, and a golf simulation lounge — but no affordable units for low-income residents, in spite of a local law that requires them, the news site reported.

awareness, no more hamburgers for you! Let's stamp out all farting!

[Cal]

Actually I think the ultimate energy solution is the simplest.

Use solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Collect the hydrogen. Release the oxygen into the atmosphere. Burn the hydrogen to generate electrical power. In doing so the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to produce only one "waste" material... water.

Repeat.

It's God's perfect energy cycle.

The problem is with storing and transporting hydrogen, which is extremely explosive and such a small atom that it easily escapes. It also tends to cause typical piping to become brittle.

Hydrocarbons are hydrogen bonded with carbon. The carbon gives the hydrogen substance and makes it easier to store and transport. But when burned the carbon is released, producing damaging pollutants like smoke, smog and... AOC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Actually I think the ultimate energy solution is the simplest.

Use solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Collect the hydrogen. Release the oxygen into the atmosphere. Burn the hydrogen to generate electrical power. In doing so the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to produce only one "waste" material... water.

Repeat.

It's God's perfect energy cycle.

The problem is with storing and transporting hydrogen, which is extremely explosive and such a small atom that it easily escapes. It also tends to cause typical piping to become brittle.

Hydrocarbons are hydrogen bonded with carbon. The carbon gives the hydrogen substance and makes it easier to store and transport. But when burned the carbon is released, producing damaging pollutants like smoke, smog and... AOC.

Yes, the devil is in the details.

Instead of using solar to make hydrogen gas you can also use solar to make hydrocarbons (algae). This is fully renewable and we have a complete infrastructure in place to use this fuel. Although we can go a very long way with electricity, perhaps 90% of our needs, we will still need jet fuel and other portable fuel sources.

But here is the interesting thing -- Fusion creates the same radiation that we call sunlight. It needs to be filtered, but one by product of a fusion plant could be the radiation that algae use to make hydrocarbons.

[ZNPaaneah]

Just an example of how storing, transporting and processing is a much bigger problem than it gets credit for.

In Philadelphia half of the recyclable trash they collect is incinerated.

Also studies have been done that collecting recyclable garbage and processing it has a negligible positive impact. The problem is that collecting garbage is a labor intensive and heavily polluting practice. Then they have to sort it for it to have any value at all. After that there is still an industrial process required to "recycle" it which also pollutes. Finally, the raw material they sell receives less than the cost of the process to the city. Hence it is cheaper for Philadelphia to simply incinerate half of it.

Worse, recycling gives people the false impression they are actually helping the environment. If you want to help the environment, don't buy the plastic bottle in the first place. Once you have purchased the plastic bottles and cardboard boxes the damage has already been done.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, no more hamburgers for you! Let's stamp out all farting!

AOC first.

[Cal]

Ten or so years ago, pundits were fretting about "peak oil," the idea that all the "easy oil" had been discovered, so availability was bound to decrease and prices to increase. They seemed right. Oil hit $170 a barrel a few years later and gasoline hit $4 a gallon and higher.

Then they found a way to get to shale oil. Oil is now around $50 a barrel again. And the shale oil-rich Dakotas have been turned into a boom area. When I moved back to Texas in 2004, gas here was about $1.68 a gallon. Fifteen years later you can get it for $1.85 a gallon. Based on 2% normal inflation per year, it should be $2.26 a gallon. The peak oil talk is over.

Next is sands oil. Western Canada is said to have more oil in its sands that Saudi Arabia. Harder to extract, but they will find a away.

I've found being a long-term prophet of doom is a poor bet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just an example of how storing, transporting and processing is a much bigger problem than it gets credit for.

In Philadelphia half of the recyclable trash they collect is incinerated.

'Moment of reckoning': US cities burn recyclables after China bans imports
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...na-ban-imports

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ten or so years ago, pundits were fretting about "peak oil," the idea that all the "easy oil" had been discovered, so availability was bound to decrease and prices to increase. They seemed right. Oil hit $170 a barrel a few years later and gasoline hit $4 a gallon and higher.

Then they found a way to get to shale oil. Oil is now around $50 a barrel again. And the shale oil-rich Dakotas have been turned into a boom area. When I moved back to Texas in 2004, gas here was about $1.68 a gallon. Fifteen years later you can get it for $1.85 a gallon. Based on 2% normal inflation per year, it should be $2.26 a gallon. The peak oil talk is over.

Next is sands oil. Western Canada is said to have more oil in its sands that Saudi Arabia. Harder to extract, but they will find a away.

I've found being a long-term prophet of doom is a poor bet.

That is only half of the story. In order to keep producing oil from strata that we didn't develop in the 70s we used Fracking. This involves exploding, and busting up the hard rock layer and steam cleaning it for oil. The problem is you destroy aquifers (hence oil and gas in the well water) which in turn causes cancer (bad for people, animals and crops). As for oil sands they are one of the most devastating processes for the environment that you could imagine, even worse than strip mining. So instead of just the oil running out we are also chewing through land just as fast.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is only half of the story. In order to keep producing oil from strata that we didn't develop in the 70s we used Fracking. This involves exploding, and busting up the hard rock layer and steam cleaning it for oil. The problem is you destroy aquifers (hence oil and gas in the well water) which in turn causes cancer (bad for people, animals and crops). As for oil sands they are one of the most devastating processes for the environment that you could imagine, even worse than strip mining. So instead of just the oil running out we are also chewing through land just as fast.

Maybe so. But cheap oil will win out over almost anything. That's just the way it will be, until we come up with another way to power our vehicles. We can wail about it, but it won't mean a thing. People will opt for cheap oil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is only half of the story. In order to keep producing oil from strata that we didn't develop in the 70s we used Fracking. This involves exploding, and busting up the hard rock layer and steam cleaning it for oil. The problem is you destroy aquifers (hence oil and gas in the well water) which in turn causes cancer (bad for people, animals and crops). As for oil sands they are one of the most devastating processes for the environment that you could imagine, even worse than strip mining. So instead of just the oil running out we are also chewing through land just as fast.

Fracking is a mile beneath the aquifer. Our local water supply is cheap because the land surrounding the reservoir is filled with fracking rigs. Obviously if the dangers were there, they would not frack next to the reservoir.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Maybe so. But cheap oil will win out over almost anything. That's just the way it will be, until we come up with another way to power our vehicles. We can wail about it, but it won't mean a thing. People will opt for cheap oil.

As proof, look at the Yellow Jacket protests in France.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Fracking is a mile beneath the aquifer. Our local water supply is cheap because the land surrounding the reservoir is filled with fracking rigs. Obviously if the dangers were there, they would not frack next to the reservoir.

You might want to tell your neighbors that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ng-wells-toxic

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0c0252e786d5e

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...lling/4328859/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You might want to tell your neighbors that.

The community has had endless discussion on fracking rights, yet the Municipal Water Authority had none. They just leased their land to Frackers.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The community has had endless discussion on fracking rights, yet the Municipal Water Authority had none. They just leased their land to Frackers.

http://priceofoil.org/2016/01/26/fra...operty-prices/

Studies show that fracking near your property drops the property value by 14% per year on average.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

http://priceofoil.org/2016/01/26/fra...operty-prices/

Studies show that fracking near your property drops the property value by 14% per year on average.

There's no fracking near my place. That reservoir/fracking is 10 miles away.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's no fracking near my place. That reservoir/fracking is 10 miles away.

That's too bad. So you can't heat your house by burning the water from your faucets?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's too bad. So you can't heat your house by burning the water from your faucets?

Years ago a guy with well water came home from work, hit the light switch, and his entire house blew up. Authorities concluded that a faucet was left running all day and the well was pumped dry, allowing odorless gas to fill the house.

That's the difference with fracking. Normal natural gas wells would go down to depths comparable to water wells. The house was supposed to be protected from gas infiltration. Fracking, however, goes much deeper, with casings protecting shallower depths. Or so they hope!

The key is safety via inspections. Once they cut corners to save money (Deepwater Horizon) or get drunk on the job (Exxon Valdez), we are in serious trouble. But not any worse than Obama/Warren Buffett's plans to transport Balkan Crude on rails thru big cities.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago a guy with well water came home from work, hit the light switch, and his entire house blew up. Authorities concluded that a faucet was left running all day and the well was pumped dry, allowing odorless gas to fill the house.

That's the difference with fracking. Normal natural gas wells would go down to depths comparable to water wells. The house was supposed to be protected from gas infiltration. Fracking, however, goes much deeper, with casings protecting shallower depths. Or so they hope!

The key is safety via inspections. Once they cut corners to save money (Deepwater Horizon) or get drunk on the job (Exxon Valdez), we are in serious trouble. But not any worse than Obama/Warren Buffett's plans to transport Balkan Crude on rails thru big cities.

Well your name is Ohio. I read years ago that Ohioans wanted fracking because they wanted the jobs. Ya can't blame 'em for wanting to put food on the table.

Time will tell, but it might be an example of caring about immediate needs and not caring about future life threatening consequences.

And this will continue -- immediate needs -- until we reach a catastrophe ... or until the Lord comes back ... if either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well your name is Ohio. I read years ago that Ohioans wanted fracking because they wanted the jobs. Ya can't blame 'em for wanting to put food on the table.

Time will tell, but it might be an example of caring about immediate needs and not caring about future life threatening consequences.

And this will continue -- immediate needs -- until we reach a catastrophe ... or until the Lord comes back ... if either.

Marcellus fracking has become a mature technology with numerous restrictions in place to safeguard workers and communities. The Utica gas field under Ohio is just starting to create jobs. Ohio is learning from Pennsylvania which has already developed Marcellus fracking. New York otoh has said there will be no fracking for them. Apparently they don't like Amazon jobs either. Brown boxes can be dangerous to one's health.

There will always be dangers with any emerging technology. The creek near me still has coal mine drainage from a century ago. The aluminum leaching out of the mines sometimes turns the creek blue-ish, which is not good for frogs and minnows. Apparently there are plans being developed to seal these former mines. I have also seen creek beds as orange as a Home Depot apron from sulfur runoff.

Since the dawn of time, there have always been dangers. Our life is in God's hands and it behooves us to daily trust in Him. Proverbs 3.5-7

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago a guy with well water came home from work, hit the light switch, and his entire house blew up. Authorities concluded that a faucet was left running all day and the well was pumped dry, allowing odorless gas to fill the house.

That's the difference with fracking. Normal natural gas wells would go down to depths comparable to water wells. The house was supposed to be protected from gas infiltration. Fracking, however, goes much deeper, with casings protecting shallower depths. Or so they hope!

The key is safety via inspections. Once they cut corners to save money (Deepwater Horizon) or get drunk on the job (Exxon Valdez), we are in serious trouble. But not any worse than Obama/Warren Buffett's plans to transport Balkan Crude on rails thru big cities.

Very comforting that it can't be any worse than Exxon Valdez or Deepwater horizon. The only real difference is those guys used to be limited to destroying the ocean, now they can destroy your land as well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very comforting that it can't be any worse than Exxon Valdez or Deepwater horizon. The only real difference is those guys used to be limited to destroying the ocean, now they can destroy your land as well.

I only provided examples of two dangers -- driving drunk and dodging regulations. Dangers exist every where. I think EMP's and Roundup are worse dangers than fracking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since the dawn of time, there have always been dangers. Our life is in God's hands and it behooves us to daily trust in Him. Proverbs 3.5-7

It's the "depart from evil" that gets me.

And how much stock do you have in Marcellus fracking?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's the "depart from evil" that gets me.

And how much stock do you have in Marcellus fracking?

Evil to the Lord is a heart of unbelief (Hb 3.12) and all that which proceeds from it. (Mark 7.21-23)

Every month I save $hundreds in reduced nat gas prices. And you want me to whine about it?

Everyone has their own definition of "evil." Some are convinced that eating food with a "face" is the worst evil on earth. AOC now campaigns against hamburgers. Years ago nuclear power was the top evil. Then it was Styrofoam cups. Then it was large SUV's, and that's why I drive a minivan!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Marcellus fracking has become a mature technology with numerous restrictions in place to safeguard workers and communities. The Utica gas field under Ohio is just starting to create jobs. Ohio is learning from Pennsylvania which has already developed Marcellus fracking. New York otoh has said there will be no fracking for them. Apparently they don't like Amazon jobs either. Brown boxes can be dangerous to one's health.

There will always be dangers with any emerging technology. The creek near me still has coal mine drainage from a century ago. The aluminum leaching out of the mines sometimes turns the creek blue-ish, which is not good for frogs and minnows. Apparently there are plans being developed to seal these former mines. I have also seen creek beds as orange as a Home Depot apron from sulfur runoff.

Since the dawn of time, there have always been dangers. Our life is in God's hands and it behooves us to daily trust in Him. Proverbs 3.5-7

You suppose God approves of your smug complacency.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You suppose God approves of your smug complacency.

What would you have him do?

The world is a system of human society for over 6 Billion people. Climate change is the result of pollution from 6 billion people. The only possible solution is one that works for all 6 billion.

We all need and use electricity. That is as fundamental as it gets. Unless you have a way to produce electricity without greenhouse gases you don't have a solution.

Wind and Solar are not a feasible solution. They are useful, they have their application, and as it makes sense the world is adopting these technologies. But without an incredible improvement in storage of electricity they are not the solution. We have already maxed out on hydro.

The only solution I see is Fusion, and that is not something that Ohio, or Zeek or I can do on our own. That requires Federal govt of US and hopefully EU and Japan as well. Maybe even China and Russia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What would you have him do?

The world is a system of human society for over 6 Billion people. Climate change is the result of pollution from 6 billion people. The only possible solution is one that works for all 6 billion.

We all need and use electricity. That is as fundamental as it gets. Unless you have a way to produce electricity without greenhouse gases you don't have a solution.

Wind and Solar are not a feasible solution. They are useful, they have their application, and as it makes sense the world is adopting these technologies. But without an incredible improvement in storage of electricity they are not the solution. We have already maxed out on hydro.

The only solution I see is Fusion, and that is not something that Ohio, or Zeek or I can do on our own. That requires Federal govt of US and hopefully EU and Japan as well. Maybe even China and Russia.

Contrary to popular demand, We don't really know the future, the future of our weather, nor how much pollution affects it. One thing I can guarantee is that, if the USA returns to the "stone age" as AOC and others would like, then the world would soon destroy itself. The US almost single-handedly has been a stabilizing force for peace, now going on for over 100 years. Why worry about climate change when we have enough nukes to demolish all life, many times over.

I do find the irony a little outrageous that the same folks here who have long mocked Christian doomsayers, now have become them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Contrary to popular demand, We don't really know the future, the future of our weather, nor how much pollution affects it.

This is why I prefer the term "unsustainable". That term includes a very clear understanding of the future. Burning up a reserve of fossil fuel that took tens of millions of years to produce and less than 200 years to burn up, that is unsustainable. So we know we have to continue to innovate and move on. I think the NT reveals that we will get fusion (the NJ has no need of the sun). Prophetically speaking I see that as the solution to many of these issues.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One thing I can guarantee is that, if the USA returns to the "stone age" as AOC and others would like, then the world would soon destroy itself. The US almost single-handedly has been a stabilizing force for peace, now going on for over 100 years.

I agree that I have no confidence in a kid like AOC who has no solution and no plan. When the kids come to congress to tell them to vote, if I were there I'd say "OK, I'll vote for this but you have to understand that your mother and father will lose their job, I hope that is OK". When the kids are shocked to hear this I would explain that although I don't know your parents or their job I do know that passing this will cost tens of thousands of jobs, and those people are parents. So it is irresponsible to push us to pass this knowing it will cost all those people their jobs if you are not willing to pay the same price.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why worry about climate change when we have enough nukes to demolish all life, many times over.

Because shortages in water, droughts, floods, etc will cause climate refugees. About 70% of the world's population will be directly impacted and that will cause a crisis that will result in disease, famine and war. Even the Pentagon agrees with that assessment. War is particularly disconcerting because many of these countries have nuclear bombs and can destroy the world.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do find the irony a little outrageous that the same folks here who have long mocked Christian doomsayers, now have become them.

All roads lead to the conclusion of the age. It doesn't matter if some mocked during the entire trip. They still arrive at the same place, that is because Jesus is Lord, not them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why I prefer the term "unsustainable". That term includes a very clear understanding of the future. Burning up a reserve of fossil fuel that took tens of millions of years to produce and less than 200 years to burn up, that is unsustainable.

I have long ago concluded that this old earth is disposable. It was designed to have a limited life span. Kind of like the old engineering adage about the Indianapolis 500, "if it don't fall apart crossing the finish line, it's over-designed."

I agree that I have no confidence in a kid like AOC who has no solution and no plan. When the kids come to congress to tell them to vote, if I were there I'd say "OK, I'll vote for this but you have to understand that your mother and father will lose their job, I hope that is OK".

When the young socialists resort to mocking the senior Senator from CA, you know their Party is in trouble. Reminds me of AOC walking down the halls of Congress, "You who Mitch, where are you? You can run, but you can't hide." NYers are now reaping the whirlwind, any one there with Amazonian buyer's remorse?

Because shortages in water, droughts, floods, etc will cause climate refugees. About 70% of the world's population will be directly impacted and that will cause a crisis that will result in disease, famine and war.

I see war, famine, disease, and death as the result of the sins of evil men, not the fault of creation, or the God who has created the earth.

All roads lead to the conclusion of the age. It doesn't matter if some mocked during the entire trip. They still arrive at the same place, that is because Jesus is Lord, not them.

Agreed. God has used the USA as a stabilizing force for world peace and protection for Israel. Current progressive policies, sold as "solutions" to our many evils, will soon undo this, but once it's too late, then they will realize their utopian plans were all lies. Perhaps socialists will then have their "Venezuelan Aha moment." Unfortunately for them, the big-city liberal "Blue" states will get hit the hardest. Rising oceans will be the least of your problems.

Perhaps their consolation prize will be sitting around all day cursing Trump. Like some of the posters here. Or cursing God, as the Bible says. Or both.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have long ago concluded that this old earth is disposable.

So much for being charged with tending the garden.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So much for being charged with tending the garden.

We are supposed to tend the garden. We also were given dominion. God obviously expected us to use fossil fuels to generate energy. He also knew those fuels would produce pollution. He didn't make it easy, which was a way of challenging us. There is a balance there somewhere. Who knows where it is?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So much for being charged with tending the garden.

I thought man was expelled from the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3.23-24)

Obviously the climate was so favorable in Eden, that the first couple needed not clothing, weapons, a house, or fossil fuels for warmth, transportation, jobs, etc. If there was some indication that we were here to "save the planet," there would be at least a fleeting reference in the N.T.

These references to the "tending the garden" reminds me of an old Cleveland band called the James Gang. (Not to be confused with the Lebron Cavs) They had a great hit called "Tend My Garden," but what Joe Walsh had in mind was not to "save the planet."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So much for being charged with tending the garden.

We don't care. Let the earth burn. There's going to be a new heaven and new earth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We are supposed to tend the garden. We also were given dominion. God obviously expected us to use fossil fuels to generate energy. He also knew those fuels would produce pollution. He didn't make it easy, which was a way of challenging us. There is a balance there somewhere. Who knows where it is?

I have already pointed this out repeatedly.

1. Solomon was "the wisest king".
2. According to the account he was very gifted at organizing and administrating his regime.
3. He operated at a time of peace which then continued for several hundred years.
4. We have discovered archaeological evidence of Solomon's mines and they were of an industrial scale.
5. The industrial revolution began with the invention of the steam engine to pump water. Contrary to popular misconception the big discovery in the industrial revolution was not the idea of a steam engine, but the precision of manufacturing. (First steam engines were incredibly inefficient because steam was leaking out everywhere). This is not an issue of insight, but one where government intervention can make a big help. This is why England was the place where the industrial revolution began -- their shipping industry required a higher precision of craftsmanship and tools.
6. Mines also lead to the development of a railroad because pulling a cart on rails is easier than on a dirt road. These carts were very heavy with ore. We have discovered these "rail roads" in and around the Mediterranean long before the invention of the steam locomotive. But once you have the rail road it is a simple matter to use a steam engine which was already being used to pump water out of the mine.
7. Solomon had everything he needed -- unlimited oil supply, an industrial mining operation, a kingdom that was in good order and operated in peace for several hundred years. Also, as wisest man on earth we can assume he would have been capable.

If Solomon had in fact gotten the industrial revolution started then imagine what Israel would have been like several hundred years later when the Babylonians visit? Trains, skyscrapers, airplanes, helicopters, etc. According to one of the Psalms God laments that "had His people listened to Him He would have fed them with the finest of wheat and her enemies would have come to them on their knees".

No -- the sin was Solomon running around getting a hundred wives and being totally distracted so that this didn't happen then. We are all paying for that sin.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already pointed this out repeatedly.

1. Solomon was "the wisest king".
2. According to the account he was very gifted at organizing and administrating his regime.
3. He operated at a time of peace which then continued for several hundred years.
4. We have discovered archaeological evidence of Solomon's mines and they were of an industrial scale.
5. The industrial revolution began with the invention of the steam engine to pump water. Contrary to popular misconception the big discovery in the industrial revolution was not the idea of a steam engine, but the precision of manufacturing. (First steam engines were incredibly inefficient because steam was leaking out everywhere). This is not an issue of insight, but one where government intervention can make a big help. This is why England was the place where the industrial revolution began -- their shipping industry required a higher precision of craftsmanship and tools.
6. Mines also lead to the development of a railroad because pulling a cart on rails is easier than on a dirt road. These carts were very heavy with ore. We have discovered these "rail roads" in and around the Mediterranean long before the invention of the steam locomotive. But once you have the rail road it is a simple matter to use a steam engine which was already being used to pump water out of the mine.
7. Solomon had everything he needed -- unlimited oil supply, an industrial mining operation, a kingdom that was in good order and operated in peace for several hundred years. Also, as wisest man on earth we can assume he would have been capable.

If Solomon had in fact gotten the industrial revolution started then imagine what Israel would have been like several hundred years later when the Babylonians visit? Trains, skyscrapers, airplanes, helicopters, etc. According to one of the Psalms God laments that "had His people listened to Him He would have fed them with the finest of wheat and her enemies would have come to them on their knees".

No -- the sin was Solomon running around getting a hundred wives and being totally distracted so that this didn't happen then. We are all paying for that sin.

I just don't buy the Solomon references, metaphor, whatever. I think it's forcing something onto scripture.

Like the scripture writers even knew anything at all about climate or weather, for that matter. Back then they attributed things they didn't understand to supernatural causes. A type of animism.

And that's what I think you are doing by forcing Solomon into the climate debate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

We don't care. Let the earth burn. There's going to be a new heaven and new earth.

And here we see the extremist views of the left. Anyone who provides push back on their apocalyptic projections, e.g. AOC said women ought to reconsider having children since we only have 12 more years until calamity strikes, are themselves guilty of "let the earth burn" climate denial.

I lived thru the "Ice Age" scare of the 70's, complete with impending starvation, nuclear plant meltdowns, pandemic medical scares, UFO's, and mutually assured destruction of all mankind.

The 80's, 90's, and '00's all had their scares. The left always uses fear-mongering to sell their deceptions. Why don't bright guys like awareness see thru the hoaxes, and call them on it? Don't you hate all the Christian false prophets and doomsayers? Haven't you spent much time mocking them? When we had that "Blood Moons" thread, you were all over it. Why the change?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I just don't buy the Solomon references, metaphor, whatever. I think it's forcing something onto scripture.

Like the scripture writers even knew anything at all about climate or weather, for that matter. Back then they attributed things they didn't understand to supernatural causes. A type of animism.

And that's what I think you are doing by forcing Solomon into the climate debate.

How about Igzy's point? If climate change is due to burning of fossil fuel then why did God provide it? Why is it a "sin" to use a gift given to us by God?

This is the issue that Igzy and Ohio basically have with all the hoopla over climate change. Since they believe that fossil fuel is a gift from God to us, it is difficult to convince them that burning it is a sin.

My point is that the sin is the sin committed by Solomon. I am not forcing anything onto the Bible to say that Solomon sinned. Nor am I forcing anything to say that the Bible instructed him not to go to Egypt for horses or Lebanon for cedars, but rather that his land was a rich land. If that is true, and it is certainly what the Bible says clearly for all to read, how can you justify that unless you are including all the oil in the Middle East as part of the equation? If you agree that the oil is part of the equation then what good is the oil without the industrial revolution?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How about Igzy's point? If climate change is due to burning of fossil fuel then why did God provide it? Why is it a "sin" to use a gift given to us by God?

This is the issue that Igzy and Ohio basically have with all the hoopla over climate change. Since they believe that fossil fuel is a gift from God to us, it is difficult to convince them that burning it is a sin.

My point is that the sin is the sin committed by Solomon. I am not forcing anything onto the Bible to say that Solomon sinned. Nor am I forcing anything to say that the Bible instructed him not to go to Egypt for horses or Lebanon for cedars, but rather that his land was a rich land. If that is true, and it is certainly what the Bible says clearly for all to read, how can you justify that unless you are including all the oil in the Middle East as part of the equation? If you agree that the oil is part of the equation then what good is the oil without the industrial revolution?

Good response bro ZNP.

Look, I understand that we believe that everything is the providence of God. In Isaiah God says he creates evil, so perhaps it's true ; even the bad stuff is His fault.

That said, maybe fossil fuels were initially a gift, but turned out not to be a good gift in the long run.

That too could be the providence of God, if we're included to think supernaturally, and not naturally.

And if it is the providence of God, why did God put our oil under their sand?

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3646187?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3646187?

Is that the providence of God, or just nature running by natural laws?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that the providence of God, or just nature running by natural laws?

Why do think that is two different things?

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...226-story.html

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why do think that is two different things?

Because one clearly has an agent behind it, while not necessarily so with the other.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Marcellus fracking has become a mature technology with numerous restrictions in place to safeguard workers and communities.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...rtment-1190762
An offshore drilling platform near California in 2015
A service boat carries workers back to shore from a platform off Seal Beach, Calif., in 2015.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Interior hands out nearly 1,700 waivers to offshore drilling safety rules

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...rtment-1190762
An offshore drilling platform near California in 2015
A service boat carries workers back to shore from a platform off Seal Beach, Calif., in 2015.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Interior hands out nearly 1,700 waivers to offshore drilling safety rules

Every one has to weigh the risks in their own life. For me, living in NYC is a risk I would never make. For others, fossil fuels are the greatest evil on earth.

Personally, I just like people to be honest. Don't tell us all that our carbon footprint is evil, and then fly your private jet around the world. Don't they know that they should only travel on electric trains?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every one has to weigh the risks in their own life. For me, living in NYC is a risk I would never make. For others, fossil fuels are the greatest evil on earth.

Personally, I just like people to be honest. Don't tell us all that our carbon footprint is evil, and then fly your private jet around the world. Don't they know that they should only travel on electric trains?

“You know what? I don’t care anymore, because at least I’m trying and they’re not,” she said.

She continued:

“So people are like ‘Oh it’s unrealistic, oh it’s vague, oh it doesn’t address this little minute thing’ and I’m like ‘You try! You do it!’ Because you’re not, so until you do it, I’m the boss, how about that?”

Ocasio-Cortez has also made some similar comments on her Twitter feed, such as this one:

Yup. If you don’t like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis.
Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats. https://t.co/h3KSJhHqDN
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 23, 2019

NYC gave you Trump and AOC!

AOC and Trump are both honest to the point of being a fault. I know some will scream that Trump is a liar, but he is so transparent about it that I view many of his lies as simply being honest to a fault.

[Ohio]

Trump is practical and pragmatic. He knows that the Green Deal will destroy America, while Russia and China take over.

Some may hate Trump's tweeting ego-transparency, but I prefer it to Obama's Muslam Apology Tour, Uranium One Sales, IRS hit squads, Benghazi abandonment, Iran Nuclear Giveaways, Coal shutdowns, Weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trump is practical and pragmatic. He knows that the Green Deal will destroy America, while Russia and China take over.

Some may hate Trump's tweeting ego-transparency, but I prefer it to Obama's Muslam Apology Tour, Uranium One Sales, IRS hit squads, Benghazi abandonment, Iran Nuclear Giveaways, Coal shutdowns, Weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

Wow, I read this and I almost think you didn't like Obama.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I read this and I almost think you didn't like Obama.

No, I liked him, hoped for the best, and even prayed for him.

I just didn't like his policies. I thought I conveyed that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, I liked him, hoped for the best, and even prayed for him.

I just didn't like his policies. I thought I conveyed that.

So you didn't like Obama's climate change policies, that Trump cancelled?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you didn't like Obama's climate change policies, that Trump cancelled?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate

Obama's policies did nothing for the environment. Obama, steeped in anti-colonial sentiments, saw America as evil and wanted to give away our wealth. The Paris Accord put no demands on other countries except our own, and gave billions away for nothing.

Obama's gift to Planet Earth was zero. All fake news!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obama's policies did nothing for the environment. Obama, steeped in anti-colonial sentiments, saw America as evil and wanted to give away our wealth. The Paris Accord put no demands on other countries except our own, and gave billions away for nothing.

Obama's gift to Planet Earth was zero. All fake news!

Yes, I recently heard a social studies teacher say that the US is the most racist country in the world. I thought this guy has no idea what the rest of the world is like. To my impression the US is on the forefront of trying to deal with racism, most other countries haven't even dealt with this issue. We are a melting pot, that is not common for most other countries.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I recently heard a social studies teacher say that the US is the most racist country in the world. I thought this guy has no idea what the rest of the world is like. To my impression the US is on the forefront of trying to deal with racism, most other countries haven't even dealt with this issue. We are a melting pot, that is not common for most other countries.

Studies show that "racism" has been on the rise since Obama took office, specifically since the Trayvon Martin shooting.

After my elderly neighbor started watching Al Sharpton every night, he believed that his neighbors were all racists because we had trees, and some leaves fell on his property. He wrote me a letter complaining that I was like a plantation owner, and he wanted compensation for his time and expenses cleaning up my leaves.

The media and the democrats want the world to believe that America is racist. Just go visit another country!

When the media speaks racism every day, they speak it into being, and certain minorities look at their life differently. Instead of achieving, they develop a toxic victim mentality. If someone accidentally bumps into me, I say "excuse me." Bump into some people, however, and they are now convinced it is a racist attack.

I am convinced that today most "hate speech" comes from the left.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obama's policies did nothing for the environment. Obama, steeped in anti-colonial sentiments, saw America as evil and wanted to give away our wealth. The Paris Accord put no demands on other countries except our own, and gave billions away for nothing.

Obama's gift to Planet Earth was zero. All fake news!

So Trump cancelling Obama's climate change policies is good to you, and not fake news.

If Obama's policies was fake news then why did Trump bother to cancel that fake news?

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/28/polit...ump/index.html

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am convinced that today most "hate speech" comes from the left.

But that's just your opinion.

The editor of a small-town Alabama newspaper published an editorial calling for “the Ku Klux Klan to night ride again” against “Democrats in the Republican Party and Democrats [who] are plotting to raise taxes in Alabama.”

https://www.joemygod.com/2019/02/ala...to-ride-again/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But that's just your opinion.

I've provided endless hate hoax incidents from the left. It's not just my opinion. The Left needs hoaxes to advance their agenda.

Where are all the race crimes from the right? Lots of accusations, but who got hurt?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Trump cancelling Obama's climate change policies is good to you, and not fake news.

If Obama's policies was fake news then why did Trump bother to cancel that fake news?

Trump canceled the Paris Climate accord that was never ratified by the Senate. That was not fake news, Trump really did it!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trump canceled the Paris Climate accord that was never ratified by the Senate. That was not fake news, Trump really did it!

You seem well informed. So how many accords has Trump cancelled?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You seem well informed. So how many accords has Trump cancelled?

I know he had a rolls royce, a Mclaren, a chopper, even a Tesla. But I am not aware that he ever owned an accord, maybe as a gift for one of the less desirable kids.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.thenation.com/article/cl...arian-crises/?
CLIMATE CHANGEMEDIAINEQUALITY
Climate Change Is Here—and It Looks Like Starvation

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...global-health/

Climate Change Is Having a Major Impact on Global Health

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...global-health/

Climate Change Is Having a Major Impact on Global Health

It used to be that cold weather gave people "colds." Now they worry about climate change. There is a far more serious health crisis at the border due to illegal aliens crashing our borders, but they are hiding this news from the public.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It used to be that cold weather gave people "colds." Now they worry about climate change. There is a far more serious health crisis at the border due to illegal aliens crashing our borders, but they are hiding this news from the public.

They aren't hiding it very well if you know about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It used to be that cold weather gave people "colds." Now they worry about climate change. There is a far more serious health crisis at the border due to illegal aliens crashing our borders, but they are hiding this news from the public.

Originally Posted by awareness

They aren't hiding it very well if you know about it.

I know about it because I don't waste my time with Fake News Media Outlets like you apparently do.

Here's just a small example of outbreaks, potential epidemics and pandemics . . .

200 Cases of Mumps Confirmed in Texas Migrant Detention Centers

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I know about it because I don't waste my time with Fake News Media Outlets like you apparently do.

Here's just a small example of outbreaks, potential epidemics and pandemics . . .

200 Cases of Mumps Confirmed in Texas Migrant Detention Centers

O silly boy. I saw that in "fake news" as you like to call anything not from the Fox news propaganda machine. Don't exclude Fox from fake news.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

O silly boy. I saw that in "fake news" as you like to call anything not from the Fox news propaganda machine. Don't exclude Fox from fake news.

Why is it silly to think that people from Central America have not had the same inoculations that Americans have?

We check incoming animals and fruit for diseases, why wouldn't we do the same with people? Every single Airport for international flights is equipped with infrared cameras to detect if people coming into the country have a fever.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is it silly to think that people from Central America have not had the same inoculations that Americans have?

We check incoming animals and fruit for diseases, why wouldn't we do the same with people? Every single Airport for international flights is equipped with infrared cameras to detect if people coming into the country have a fever.

Good point ZNP ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Italy faces olive oil crisis as climate change and disease cuts harvest by a record 57%
https://news.yahoo.com/italy-faces-o...171206440.html

The Bering Strait should be covered in ice, but it's nearly all gone
https://news.yahoo.com/bering-strait...170804881.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Italy faces olive oil crisis as climate change and disease cuts harvest by a record 57%
https://news.yahoo.com/italy-faces-o...171206440.html

The Bering Strait should be covered in ice, but it's nearly all gone
https://news.yahoo.com/bering-strait...170804881.html

According to AOC, the Socialist Spox, all'ya'all need to reconsider whether you guys want to have any more kids, since this world only has 12 more years of useable shelf life.

Interestingly, the year 2030 should be exactly 2,000 years since they nailed Jesus to the cross.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Italy faces olive oil crisis as climate change and disease cuts harvest by a record 57%
https://news.yahoo.com/italy-faces-o...171206440.html

The Bering Strait should be covered in ice, but it's nearly all gone
https://news.yahoo.com/bering-strait...170804881.html

Ouch! Not he olive oil!!! Stop climate change now!

Methinks that climate change deniers are like round earth deniers and deniers that the earth is not the center of the universe ; the crazy religious types.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ouch! Not he olive oil!!! Stop climate change now!

Methinks that climate change deniers are like round earth deniers and deniers that the earth is not the center of the universe ; the crazy religious types.

Tell Kyrie.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ouch! Not he olive oil!!! Stop climate change now!

Methinks that climate change deniers are like round earth deniers and deniers that the earth is not the center of the universe ; the crazy religious types.

When awareness stops burning wood to stay warm, and stops driving gas cars, and stops eating hamburgers, then I will start believing what he says!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tell Kyrie.

Kyrie olive oil?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When awareness stops burning wood to stay warm, and stops driving gas cars, and stops eating hamburgers, then I will start believing what he says!

So you'll believe me when I stop being human? You first.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you'll believe me when I stop being human? You first.

It's your darling heroine on the LEFT -- the crooked, socialist, hypocrite A.O.C. from NYC -- who is defining what it is to be "human."

Haven't you heard the new rules?

You got any high speed trains in your neighborhood?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kyrie olive oil?

Kyrie Irving is famous for being a flat Earther.

[ZNPaaneah]

AOC is very typical of what many 20 somethings think. She has received a tremendous amount of Backlash, including from her own party. Her justification is "at least I'm trying to do something" which is why I say all the problems on earth are from those "with a good heart".

People always justify their actions by saying they have a good heart. The issue is "do you have a solution or will this only make the problem worse". "At least I am trying to do something" is not an acceptable answer to that. If what you are trying to do will make things worse, how is that a justification?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

AOC is very typical of what many 20 somethings think. She has received a tremendous amount of Backlash, including from her own party. Her justification is "at least I'm trying to do something" which is why I say all the problems on earth are from those "with a good heart".

People always justify their actions by saying they have a good heart. The issue is "do you have a solution or will this only make the problem worse". "At least I am trying to do something" is not an acceptable answer to that. If what you are trying to do will make things worse, how is that a justification?

I agree, which only highlights what many have been saying about our liberal universities. They produce "brilliant" kids who have not an ounce of common sense.

AOC grows up in NYC and then projects her childish ideas on the rest of the world, as if subways and buses are the best way for farmers to get their crops to market. I would like to see Red-state farmers begin to protest these policies, and then ones like AOC might begin to understand that her cheeseburgers don't magically appear in some restaurant kitchen.

Socialism has nothing to do with Planet Earth. We see that with AOC. Socialism has to do with the elites having, and the rest of us not having. AOC ran on a platform of exposing "dark money," meanwhile she is more guilty than the rest of them for using it. AOC ran on a platform of mass transit and small carbon footprint, but as soon as she gets elected, her "principles" went out the window.

More evidence that every Democratic platform is merely smokescreen to get elected. These folks never practice what they preach.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Kyrie Irving is famous for being a flat Earther.

Perhaps he was making a point about social media and conspiracies?

[ZNPaaneah]

Ethiopia says $1.3 billion needed to assist displaced people
Associated Press
ELIAS MESERET
,Associated Press•March 7, 2019

[Ohio]

FAKE NEWS and FAKE SCIENCE debunked:

Great video on Climate Change History by one of its founders . . .

Greenpeace Co-founder Patrick Moore: ‘Climate Crisis’ Not Only ‘Fake News’ — ‘It’s Fake Science’

It's actually "good science" to study the other side of the debate -- CO2 Coalition

[Ohio]

These days lies and hoaxes sadly fill the news.

Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

[Ohio]

10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now

There's no real science here, but that don't stop fear-mongering Millennials for their votes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now

There's no real science here, but that don't stop fear-mongering Millennials for their votes.

Wow, writing a book makes someone an expert.

This is a response to AOC and Beto, both of whom are idiots who are appealing to the lowest common denominator. You can see how low the bar has gone for the "lowest common denominator".

Science has found next to no correlation with predictions that go out 5 years or more. We currently do not have the ability to make projections out that far. In contrast our ability to predict 6 months out is quite accurate (among "super forecasters"). However, "super forecasters" are not "experts" because the act of being famous and being effective at getting TV ratings is counter productive at being a good forecaster.

Here is the problem, all of the existing leaders are not responding to the evidence concerning climate change, as a result we are getting idiots who get a soapbox. Imagine what happens if one of them actually gets elected president.

If the US took positive action, similar to our space program, to combat climate change the whole country could chill out. What we need is a US govt program to build a Fusion reactor. That is a solution. That is something the entire govt can get behind. That doesn't eliminate anyones job. $5 billion for this project would get a whole lot more political traction than the $5 billion for the wall has gotten.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, writing a book makes someone an expert.

This is a response to AOC and Beto, both of whom are idiots who are appealing to the lowest common denominator. You can see how low the bar has gone for the "lowest common denominator".

Science has found next to no correlation with predictions that go out 5 years or more. We currently do not have the ability to make projections out that far. In contrast our ability to predict 6 months out is quite accurate (among "super forecasters"). However, "super forecasters" are not "experts" because the act of being famous and being effective at getting TV ratings is counter productive at being a good forecaster.

Here is the problem, all of the existing leaders are not responding to the evidence concerning climate change, as a result we are getting idiots who get a soapbox. Imagine what happens if one of them actually gets elected president.

We have a whole handful of brilliant Democratic Senators who have embraced the Green New Deal. There is no way we can discard AOC and Beto as idiots.

History has shown us that horrific revolutions can take place all based on lies and deceptions. Today, we have a majority of the electorate who willingly believe anything from those who hate Trump.

For example, contrary to all evidence of history, Millennials now believe that Islam is preferable to the Judeo-Christian religion. This, coupled with Islam's rejection of Jews, Christians, gay rights, women's rights, and endless other liberties that America provides, proves that idiocy is far more widespread than just a few Democratic politicians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have a whole handful of brilliant Democratic Senators who have embraced the Green New Deal. There is no way we can discard AOC and Beto as idiots.

History has shown us that horrific revolutions can take place all based on lies and deceptions. Today, we have a majority of the electorate who willingly believe anything from those who hate Trump.

For example, contrary to all evidence of history, Millennials now believe that Islam is preferable to the Judeo-Christian religion. This, coupled with Islam's rejection of Jews, Christians, gay rights, women's rights, and endless other liberties that America provides, proves that idiocy is far more widespread than just a few Democratic politicians.

Which millennial believe this? Are you talking about the girl who joined ISIS, and now wants to return saying she ruined her life?

I teach HS and the students in my classes are overwhelmingly Evangelical Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which millennial believe this? Are you talking about the girl who joined ISIS, and now wants to return saying she ruined her life?

I teach HS and the students in my classes are overwhelmingly Evangelical Christians.

The Millennials who are given the mic to speak for other Millennials.

The ones who get polled. Do you want their names? You have to ask the pollers.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Millennials who are given the mic to speak for other Millennials.

The ones who get polled. Do you want their names? You have to ask the pollers.

A false prophet is a prophet for hire. Just like lawyers, the ones that make the big bucks are not because they tell the truth, it is because they can make a criminal look innocent.

Polls are expensive to do right, but who is going to check. The people who pay for these, it isn't to know the truth, its to give the illusion that the truth is what they want it to be.

Since the pollers are not going to give me their names I give it the credibility it deserves and file it in the circular file.

[ZNPaaneah]

Cyclone Idai could be the Southern Hemisphere’s deadliest storm – 2.6 million people in need of immediate aid, more than 1,000 feared dead – “Everything is destroyed, everything” – Desdemona Despair

Record high US temperatures outpace record lows two to one, study finds
Scientists say AP study consistent with peer-reviewed literature and shows clear sign of human-caused climate change

[ZNPaaneah]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...limate-change/

This describes scientists success in creating a computer model that accurately models climate change during the last 3 million years (Quaternary period). This is a milestone in demonstrating that we do understand the factors involved in Earth's climate on the macro scale. It is hindsight so we can accurately grade the result, and even if someone argues that this model is specific to the last 3 million years it should still be very useful in extrapolating the next 100 years.


https://globalnews.ca/news/5119325/c...eid=92ab9342b2

This report supports my contention that policies that try to avoid Climate change indicate a lack of understanding. We cannot avoid the hurricane, it is time to figure out how to ride it out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Insect apocalypse --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTN...NgofSbJQsSfHVd

Rough estimate of a loss of 75% of insects over the last 50 years. That qualifies as a mass extinction.

The predators are most vulnerable to a decline in population and to insecticides. When the predators die off the result is you have an increase in herbivores even though the total number of insects has declined. This is known as a "plague". So one of the consequences we can expect from an insect extinction is great plagues of insect herbivores.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Insect apocalypse --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTN...NgofSbJQsSfHVd

Rough estimate of a loss of 75% of insects over the last 50 years. That qualifies as a mass extinction.

The predators are most vulnerable to a decline in population and to insecticides. When the predators die off the result is you have an increase in herbivores even though the total number of insects has declined. This is known as a "plague". So one of the consequences we can expect from an insect extinction is great plagues of insect herbivores.

Thanks for posting. I caught wind of this a couple weeks ago.

Let's face it. At bottom the problem is human population explosion. In 1900 the human population was less than 2 billion. Now it's pushing 8 billion.

It's not that we're running out of space. There's plenty of room for us humans. A year or so ago I had a fanatical prophecy nut correct me on the population. She said we could fit all the humans on the earth in the state of Texas (she was from Texas, and you know how nutty they can be ... they can be Waco -- or LC local central #2).

The problem is what's needed to support 8 billion humans and climbing. And what's lost ; like the 6th extinction.

Truth is : We don't need smaller footprints. We need less feet. And so do the critters ... they need less of our feet too. As your post exemplifies.

[awareness]

One million species risk extinction due to humans: draft UN report

https://news.yahoo.com/one-million-s...131407174.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

One million species risk extinction due to humans: draft UN report

Just think how many species were destroyed by all those dreaded "steel and glass skyscrapers" in NYC. An incredibly diverse ecosystem with millions of species all replaced by Norwegian sewer rats!

Finally, a courageous mayor named Fred DiBlasio Flintstone has decided to take them all down! An act of genius, inspired by AOC's Green New Deal!

Isn't it just incredible to see Socialists restoring us to the Stone Age Society of our forebears in the 21st Century!

Brother ZNP, how blessed you are to be right there in the forefront of this new movement.

Let me ask, is the United Nations Building a glass and steel skyscraper? If so, tear it down first!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

One million species risk extinction due to humans: draft UN report

https://news.yahoo.com/one-million-s...131407174.html

As of the days of Noah were so also will the end of the age be.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As of the days of Noah were so also will the end of the age be.

OH NO !!!! OMG !!! The Sons of God is (sic) comin' ... and Nephilim !!!

To hell with all the other species. We've got a bigger grandest-plan-ever to fill up our immediate needs and concerns .... !!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

OH NO !!!! OMG !!! The Sons of God is (sic) comin' ... and Nephilim !!!

To hell with all the other species. We've got a bigger grandest-plan-ever to fill up our immediate needs and concerns .... !!!

Really hard to know what you are saying, it would be nice if you could put some coherent sentences together.

The Lord warned us where we were heading 2,000 years ago, the world ignored Him, and now that we have arrived where we were warned we were headed you are going to mock?

On the one hand you claim that the story of Noah is a myth because there is no such thing as a worldwide flood in which it rains for 40 days and nights. This logic is called "the present is the key to the past" and was a governing principle in Geology for a hundred years. It was the primary reason that the theory the Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor was rejected for years until the evidence was so overwhelming those that objected appeared as idiots.

One might argue that there has never been a flood that went over the tops of the highest mountains (Himalayans, etc) except that the biggest floods in recent history occurred at the end of the last ice age when ice dams in the mountains collapsed. Biggest was in India, but the US also had a huge one as well.

One might argue that even if there was a huge flood worldwide associated with these ice dams collapsing the idea that Noah built a boat to save all the animals is absurd. Of course that ignores the 200 cultures with this story, all independent of each other, and 80 of these stories including an account of all the animals being saved in a boat. It also ignores the fact that all the large ungulates went extinct on all 6 continents at about this time. The US had 200 different species go extinct. There are only 18 domesticated animals and except for Llamas and guinea pigs, they are all native to Mesopotamia. Those domesticated animals gave the European/Asian civilizations that had them a huge advantage over all other civilizations.

Of course, even if Noah did build a big boat, fill it with all these animals like a giant barn, and there was 40 days and nights of rain, and floods out of the mountains you would expect the flood to roll the boat over. Since when have you seen a flash flood that a large boat like this would have survived? Except of course, we also know that the Black sea was a lake below sea level during the last ice age and that it flooded like a bathtub being filled up. So, a large boat in the black sea area could have easily survived this flood.

So then who is the one who is blinded by their delusions and ignoring all the facts and evidence? Looks like Awareness has been victimized by group think again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really hard to know what you are saying, it would be nice if you could put some coherent sentences together.

The Lord warned us where we were heading 2,000 years ago, the world ignored Him, and now that we have arrived where we were warned we were headed you are going to mock?

On the one hand you claim that the story of Noah is a myth because there is no such thing as a worldwide flood in which it rains for 40 days and nights. This logic is called "the present is the key to the past" and was a governing principle in Geology for a hundred years. It was the primary reason that the theory the Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor was rejected for years until the evidence was so overwhelming those that objected appeared as idiots.

One might argue that there has never been a flood that went over the tops of the highest mountains (Himalayans, etc) except that the biggest floods in recent history occurred at the end of the last ice age when ice dams in the mountains collapsed. Biggest was in India, but the US also had a huge one as well.

One might argue that even if there was a huge flood worldwide associated with these ice dams collapsing the idea that Noah built a boat to save all the animals is absurd. Of course that ignores the 200 cultures with this story, all independent of each other, and 80 of these stories including an account of all the animals being saved in a boat. It also ignores the fact that all the large ungulates went extinct on all 6 continents at about this time. The US had 200 different species go extinct. There are only 18 domesticated animals and except for Llamas and guinea pigs, they are all native to Mesopotamia. Those domesticated animals gave the European/Asian civilizations that had them a huge advantage over all other civilizations.

Of course, even if Noah did build a big boat, fill it with all these animals like a giant barn, and there was 40 days and nights of rain, and floods out of the mountains you would expect the flood to roll the boat over. Since when have you seen a flash flood that a large boat like this would have survived? Except of course, we also know that the Black sea was a lake below sea level during the last ice age and that it flooded like a bathtub being filled up. So, a large boat in the black sea area could have easily survived this flood.

So then who is the one who is blinded by their delusions and ignoring all the facts and evidence? Looks like Awareness has been victimized by group think again.

Did S-c-i-e-n-c-e teach you all that? Oh my!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really hard to know what you are saying, it would be nice if you could put some coherent sentences together.

The Lord warned us where we were heading 2,000 years ago, the world ignored Him, and now that we have arrived where we were warned we were headed you are going to mock?

On the one hand you claim that the story of Noah is a myth because there is no such thing as a worldwide flood in which it rains for 40 days and nights. This logic is called "the present is the key to the past" and was a governing principle in Geology for a hundred years. It was the primary reason that the theory the Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor was rejected for years until the evidence was so overwhelming those that objected appeared as idiots.

One might argue that there has never been a flood that went over the tops of the highest mountains (Himalayans, etc) except that the biggest floods in recent history occurred at the end of the last ice age when ice dams in the mountains collapsed. Biggest was in India, but the US also had a huge one as well.

One might argue that even if there was a huge flood worldwide associated with these ice dams collapsing the idea that Noah built a boat to save all the animals is absurd. Of course that ignores the 200 cultures with this story, all independent of each other, and 80 of these stories including an account of all the animals being saved in a boat. It also ignores the fact that all the large ungulates went extinct on all 6 continents at about this time. The US had 200 different species go extinct. There are only 18 domesticated animals and except for Llamas and guinea pigs, they are all native to Mesopotamia. Those domesticated animals gave the European/Asian civilizations that had them a huge advantage over all other civilizations.

Of course, even if Noah did build a big boat, fill it with all these animals like a giant barn, and there was 40 days and nights of rain, and floods out of the mountains you would expect the flood to roll the boat over. Since when have you seen a flash flood that a large boat like this would have survived? Except of course, we also know that the Black sea was a lake below sea level during the last ice age and that it flooded like a bathtub being filled up. So, a large boat in the black sea area could have easily survived this flood.

So then who is the one who is blinded by their delusions and ignoring all the facts and evidence? Looks like Awareness has been victimized by group think again.

Well at least you put together coherent sentences. And got to pontificated about Noah.

Okay, cuz the Bible says so, the flood happened, and Noah and 7 of all the critters bobbed around like a cork. But why did Noah save the mosquitoes? And couldn't he have left the bacterium and viruses to drown? Or did they hitch a ride on the critters?

In the end, the flood did not wipe out evil ... nor even the Nephilim ... nor did it change the fact that : "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

So what good did it do?

And are you saying by inference that when a million species go extinct it's a good thing? cuz it happened with the flood?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did S-c-i-e-n-c-e teach you all that? Oh my!

Of course. He's a science teacher.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well at least you put together coherent sentences. And got to pontificated about Noah.

You are making progress, so lets just focus on the improvement. It is a long journey to speaking in grammatically correct sentences, so lets just celebrate the process.

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, cuz the Bible says so, the flood happened, and Noah and 7 of all the critters bobbed around like a cork. But why did Noah save the mosquitoes? And couldn't he have left the bacterium and viruses to drown? Or did they hitch a ride on the critters?

There is a terrible misconception that bacterium are bad, in fact without them we would not live. We are in a symbiotic relationship with them, we need them, it is only fitting that they get to eat us when we die. Circle of life, etc. Mosquitoes would not be an issue if we didn't have the agricultural revolution. Finally, in my opinion of the facts Noah saved all the "domesticated animals". He didn't make some kind of ridiculous worldwide collection.

Originally Posted by awareness

In the end, the flood did not wipe out evil ... nor even the Nephilim ... nor did it change the fact that : "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

So what good did it do?

I just explained that the spread of the Judeao Christian civilization is a direct result of the Europeans having the lion share of domesticated animals.

Originally Posted by awareness

And are you saying by inference that when a million species go extinct it's a good thing? cuz it happened with the flood?

I'm saying that Noah saving all the domesticated animals was a good thing. I'm saying having a God that can warn you and advise you on how to ride out the storm is a good thing. I'm saying that Jesus who predicted this 2,000 years ago is far more qualified to be Lord than all these bozos who want to rule the world and can't see six months in front of their face.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are making progress, so lets just focus on the improvement. It is a long journey to speaking in grammatically correct sentences, so lets just celebrate the process.

But I was certain that you were/are sharp enough to get my cryptic passages. And you are. You just didn't want to.

You remarked "as in the days of Noah." Were those not the days of the sons of God sleeping with the young fair daughters of men, and the Nephilim? So if these are as the days of Noah shouldn't we expect them again? I'd ask if we should build an ark, but there's already plans for an interstellar ark, to save humankind, if and when we destroy ourselves ... or something else does ... like a meteorite ... or a pandemic.

Originally Posted by ZNP

There is a terrible misconception that bacterium are bad, in fact without them we would not live.

Yes. We have a symbiotic relationship with friendly bacterium. Noah did good there. Actually, bacterium was keeping Noah & Co. alive ... and prolly Adam and Eve -- "from the dust of the ground" [blended with bacterium]. They passed 'em down to all of us. But couldn't he/they have let the bad ones drown? But given how bacterium have been known to change and evolve, maybe the bad ones back then are good ones today.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Finally, in my opinion of the facts Noah saved all the "domesticated animals". He didn't make some kind of ridiculous worldwide collection.

That's a sensible modern day perspective.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I just explained that the spread of the Judeao Christian civilization is a direct result of the Europeans having the lion share of domesticated animals.

Okay. Thanks.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I'm saying that Noah saving all the domesticated animals was a good thing.

That's a value judgement. Another way of looking at it is that it was the beginning of The Takers. Not the ones that trusted in God for their daily bread, but those that told God "we don't need you, we've got this," and control by food.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I'm saying having a God that can warn you and advise you on how to ride out the storm is a good thing. I'm saying that Jesus who predicted this 2,000 years ago is far more qualified to be Lord than all these bozos who want to rule the world and can't see six months in front of their face.

A still small voice isn't a very loud warning, don't you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I was certain that you were/are sharp enough to get my cryptic passages. And you are. You just didn't want to.

You remarked "as in the days of Noah." Were those not the days of the sons of God sleeping with the young fair daughters of men, and the Nephilim? So if these are as the days of Noah shouldn't we expect them again? I'd ask if we should build an ark, but there's already plans for an interstellar ark, to save humankind, if and when we destroy ourselves ... or something else does ... like a meteorite ... or a pandemic.

Jesus Christ is the ark. If we are in Him we shall be saved. I am not interested in fallen angels for whom is reserved a severe judgement.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus Christ is the ark.

Not to quibble but there are no verses in the NT that says Jesus Christ is the ark.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to quibble but there are no verses in the NT that says Jesus Christ is the ark.

Yes, but the NT does say that Noah's ark and the flood prefigured baptism which saves us, and the NT says we are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.


• The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be "the door" to salvation (John 10:9).
• God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that are weary" (Matthew 11:28).
• The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was.
• Because God saved him, Noah "remained alive" (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28).
• In type the rain that fell was God’s wrath on a sinful world. It fell on the ark, not on those in the ark, in the same way that God’s wrath fell on Jesus on the cross and not on us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but the NT does say that Noah's ark and the flood prefigured baptism which saves us, and the NT says we are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.


• The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be "the door" to salvation (John 10:9).
• God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that are weary" (Matthew 11:28).
• The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was.
• Because God saved him, Noah "remained alive" (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28).
• In type the rain that fell was God’s wrath on a sinful world. It fell on the ark, not on those in the ark, in the same way that God’s wrath fell on Jesus on the cross and not on us.

Hey! Nice rebuttal ! Nifty! But not convincing. And I've never liked OT typology ... seems contrived, by those that believe the Bible is magic and omniscient.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey! Nice rebuttal ! Nifty! But not convincing. And I've never liked OT typology ... seems contrived, by those that believe the Bible is magic and omniscient.

But when your old buddy "Science" plays her games, using tricks and magic, then you are overwhelmingly "convinced" by her omniscience.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But when your old buddy "Science" plays her games, using tricks and magic, then you are overwhelmingly "convinced" by her omniscience.

Nonsense .....

[ZNPaaneah]

If you liked chernobyl you are going to love this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eid=92ab9342b2

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you liked chernobyl you are going to love this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eid=92ab9342b2

Except this floating Chernobyl will radiate the ocean and spread around the globe, worse than Fukushima.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Except this floating Chernobyl will radiate the ocean and spread around the globe, worse than Fukushima.

Hey, Russia learned from their mistake. Chernobyl poisoned and destroyed the surrounding area for decades. Rather than have that again, put the reactor out in the ocean so it will destroy and poison the ocean rather than parts of Russia. For all those who don't believe in hell, now what do you say?

[Timotheist]

Recently, I became interested in solar science after attending a lecture given by a NASA solar science specialist.

This exposed me to an 'alternative view' regarding climate change.

This article plays both sides of the debate so it seems to be a fair introduction to the subject. As a bonus, it is not too tedious to read.

https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html

Enjoy

[ZNPaaneah]

A chilling Australian policy paper outlining a doomsday scenario for humans if we don’t start dealing with climate change suggests that by 2050, we could see irreversible damage to global climate systems resulting in a world of chaos where political panic is the norm and we are on a path facing the end of civilization. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/1356865001/

‘It is horrid’: India roasts under heat wave with temperatures above 120 degrees
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other...ees/ar-AACrr1U

[ZNPaaneah]

'The Changes Are Really Accelerating': Alaska at Record Warm While Greenland Sees Major Ice Melt
"The numbers needing relocation will grow, the costs are going up, and people's lives and cultural practices will be impacted."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ees-major-ice?



https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/06...al-scale.html?

Study projects substantial declines in large fish and marine species with warming oceans – “There are substantial consequences for marine ecosystems on a global scale”

[ZNPaaneah]

Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting – The Washington Post

https://news.immitate.com/2019/06/14...shington-post/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting – The Washington Post

https://news.immitate.com/2019/06/14...shington-post/

WaPo has zero credibility with half of the population.

The Left has succeeded in making everything, from sports to family to the weather, political.

[ZNPaaneah]

Greenland Temps Soar 40 Degrees Above Normal, Record Melting of Ice Sheet

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-t...38907188.html?

36 Die in India Heat Wave, Delhi Records Its Highest All-Time Temperature

https://www.ecowatch.com/india-heat-...38801311.html?

How US climate deniers are working with far-right racists to hijack Brexit for Big Oil

https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/brexit-climate-deniers

On the frontline: why has environmental journalism become so dangerous?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/aud...e-so-dangerous

[ZNPaaneah]

https://grist.org/article/fire-hydra...campaign=daily

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

https://grist.org/article/fire-hydra...campaign=daily

The biggest farce about global warming is the Green New Deal. The Green Climate Cult is based on fear and superstition.

The US is now one of the cleanest countries. Compare our pollution levels to Russia and Asia. If fossil fuels were the source of the problem, then Siberia should be warmer than Greenland.

If the US could actually end the use of all fossil fuels, it would still have no effect on weather or climate.

God is in control. Read the Bible. He uses the weather to judge us, and to bring man to repentance.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The biggest farce about global warming is the Green New Deal. The Green Climate Cult is based on fear and superstition.

The US is now one of the cleanest countries. Compare our pollution levels to Russia and Asia. If fossil fuels were the source of the problem, then Siberia should be warmer than Greenland.

If the US could actually end the use of all fossil fuels, it would still have no effect on weather or climate.

God is in control. Read the Bible. He uses the weather to judge us, and to bring man to repentance.

You make some valid points. It is reasonable to consider carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as "pollutants". If the US decreases its level of pollution that will have a very small impact on the total pollution of the world. Since the green new deal is not legislating for the entire world, it really is not a solution at all.

That said some of the other things you say don't make any sense to me at all. For example, the comment about Siberia should be warmer than Greenland. Doesn't make any sense. These gases mix with the atmosphere and change the amount of heat being held in Earth, not for any one specific location, but for Earth as a whole. It is like putting a blanket on bed, the more blankets, the warmer it gets for those under the covers. The entire Earth is under this blanket of gases.

Also, I don't get the relevance of God using the weather to judge people. Couldn't God use other things as well? Couldn't a car accident be used? Perhaps as a result we would realize you can't mix alcohol and driving, and so we would change laws. Perhaps from another we would realize that seat belts save lives, so we would make that a law. Perhaps people would realize that we have more people dying in car crashes than in the Vietnam war so we would make safety in cars a key issue (might change speed limits, create a safety rating, invent air bags, etc). So if God is judging us with a car crash the proper response is to change what you are doing to make cars safer. Likewise, if God is judging us with climate change it seems the proper response is to change what we are doing as well.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...ing-heat-wave?

Europe prepares for devastating heat wave
Spanish meteorologist tweets 'hell is coming.'

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...ing-heat-wave?

Europe prepares for devastating heat wave Spanish meteorologist tweets 'hell is coming.'

Finally, an accurate prediction my a meteorologist. Yes indeed, hell is coming! Time to repent and believe the Good News of Jesus.

I always shake my head when I hear meteorologists astonishingly proclaim things like, "this is the hottest summer since 1888!!!" My question is whether people in those days (before A/C I might add) thought they only had 12 more years on earth. What if AOC had lived in those days?

But I would take A/C over AOC any day of the year.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Finally, an accurate prediction my a meteorologist. Yes indeed, hell is coming! Time to repent and believe the Good News of Jesus.

I always shake my head when I hear meteorologists astonishingly proclaim things like, "this is the hottest summer since 1888!!!" My question is whether people in those days (before A/C I might add) thought they only had 12 more years on earth. What if AOC had lived in those days?

But I would take A/C over AOC any day of the year.

You realize that the 1,000 years is called "the restoration of all things". The Lord has already factored in that it will take us 1,000 years to clean up the pollution from the evil world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You realize that the 1,000 years is called "the restoration of all things". The Lord has already factored in that it will take us 1,000 years to clean up the pollution from the evil world.

Right! I had always thought about all those messy nukes they would lob at Israel at the very end.