Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Abortion/Excommunication Mess | Main | OTC Fat-Blocking Diet Pill »

February 12, 2007

Comments

J.R. Stoodley

I still say if the vast majority of experts are very concerned about this we should be too.

Also I'll point out that in biology at least an uncertainty factor of 10% is gaining more support as acceptible, while 5% is still more common. Some other branches of science use smaller values because of the nature of what they are studying and how.

Very rarely if ever can we have 100% certainty, but to be reponsible people we must work with what science can tell us is very likely true.

Esau

Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Interestingly enough, my Chemistry professor made the same statement concerning the Ozone back in my undergrad days.

jared

I recently got into a discussion of this on an another board, so forgive me if this is overkill.

At one time, I believed everything that I was fed by the extreme environmentalist movement. However, the more I became involved, the more research I did and consequently, the more I came to see the agenda behind it and the shoddy "research" which passes for science in this movement.

My question hierarchy goes like this:

1: Is global warming occurring? (Most seems to say yes, although during the early to mid 1990s, NASA sattelites showed a 20-year cooling trend when measuring the temperature of the atmosphere. And during the 1970s, everyone was concerned about global cooling. But let's say that the majority of the studies are correct in showing a 1 degree F -- 0.6 degree C warming trend.)

If 1 is yes:

1A: Is it a problem? (This is up in the air--horrible pun--, too. 1 degree over 100 years is not a significant fluctuation in the grand scheme of things, especially keeping in mind that the world is still coming off of a "mini Ice Age" which hit during the Renaissance.)

If global warming of this scale or the potential scale is a problem, then we ask:

2: Did we cause/are we causing it to occur? (This is huge. This is probably our main conflict. Considering that solar flares are peaking right about now and that fact that Mars is also experiencing global warming--at about the same rate as that noted by most Earth studies--and that the temperature of the Earth has always/will always fluctuate, to think that our activities in this realm seems a bit extreme on its face. Our pollution caused Mars's temperature to rise?)

If it exists, is a problem, and if we created the problem then we ask:

2A: Can we fix it? (Now, many won't even ask this question. They assume that we can, if only we take drastic steps. But another problem is whether those steps are worth taking if they result in other bad effects, which they will, if Kyoto is any indication. It's a cost-assessment equation at this point. How much are we willing to sacrifice? If there are some whose lives will be impacted so negatively as to put those lives--or the standard of living in jeopardy, can that be justified? Or is there a better solution to be had by continuing our development of new technologies while making less drastic changes in current law for the time being?)

Assuming we can fix it, we ask:

2B: Should we fix it? (This is more clear-cut, if we decide 1A in the affirmative, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Are there positive aspects to be reached through a slightly warmer globe? Do we really need California or Florida? I joke on this California/Florida question but it brings up a good point regarding the lengths to which certain environmentalists will go when they so easilly dismiss the consequences of the legislation they propose. I've heard more than one make drastic proposals and simply dismiss the economic results. Yes, it boils down to money. But often, money equals life or at least quality of life. We must weigh all consequences.)

It's all VERY complex, much moreso than I understood as a freshman in high school (when I was an extreme environmentalist and bought a bunch of Earth Day posters at Wal-Mart ... posters which are probably rotting in a land fill at present). Al Gore calls it an inconvenient truth (which is ironic to me since that's what I titled a newspaper column I wrote ten years ago on this subject).

But it's inconvenient for some people if it turns out that we didn't cause this and that we can't do a bloody thing about it. Because that means less centralization of their power, less money in their research bowls, and less credibility and respect. It also means that we, as a species realize how small we look before nature and nature's God. It cuts both ways.

Jordan Potter

J.R., about 100 years ago "the vast majority of experts" were convinced that racism was scientific and made excellent social policy.

Global warming is not science, it's politics. Even worse, its pseudoscience in the hands of politicians, always a horribly deadly mix.

Barbara

Ditto what Jared just said....except for the Earth Day posters ;)

Come to think of it, we didn't have Earth Day when I was a freshman.

Jeff

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sailorette

I'm one of those annyoing folks who wants to know if the Dinosaurs lived in a warmer climate. Sure worked pretty good for them, hm?

Dr. Eric

I'm going to invest in Canadian real estate if this global warming thing is actually true!

The only thing that would stop this would be to go back and live in caves. The only ones who are doing this are the "freegans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism

I think my grandpa would call a freegan a bum!

Seriously, those who think that the world is overpopulated I invite you to do the world a favor and kill yourselves!

Those who think that humans cause global warming I invite you to do the world a favor and live naked in the wilderness without shelter!

I doubt anyone will do either.

Hypocrites!

Josiah

I always thought cosmic rays caused super-powers.

dpm

Three years ago I was on a cruise in Alaska. We took the Inside Passage route which is mostly fjords between the mainland and coastal islands. These fjords are deep trenches caused by the slow movement of glaciers over millions of years. Eventually the glaciers receded and the trenches were filled in by sea water, creating the so-called Inside Passage.
Obviously the gas guzzling SUV's of pre-history and prehistoric manufacturing processes caused the global warming which caused the glaciers to recede. It's a shame Al Gore's prehistoric counterpart didn't put a stop to the receding glaciers. Oh well, it makes for a nice cruise line experience.

Brian Day

I am a climate holocaust denier.

Get the Story

Tim J.

"I always thought cosmic rays caused super-powers."

Thanks to my gamma-ray-induced telepathy, I KNEW you were going to say that!

Next, rising sea levels - caused by global warming (in turn caused by lawn mowers and McDonald's hamburgers) - will be linked to increased continental drift.

John E

Oregon governor wants to remove "state climatologist" title from OSU scientist who does not believe human activities are the main cause of global warming: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Whether human-caused global warming is true or not, it's stories like these that fuel the fire that global warming is more of a political phenomenon than environmental.

My overall impression is that whether or not global warming is true, the main concern for many politicians is to gain support for particular environmental policies. The "impending global warming disaster" is far-fetched, perhaps even in their own minds, but playing it up and saying they wish to avert it is useful to gain support for more drastic policies that would otherwise have little support.

So what are those policies? If humans have negligible effect on global warming, are these policies drastic or should they be implemented anyway? What is the true goal of such policies? Longer, healthier life for some? For all? How much longer? How much healthier? Is it even quantifiable?

Steve

Oregon governor wants to remove "state climatologist" title from OSU scientist who does not believe human activities are the main cause of global warming

Extreme environmentalism has always struck me as religion for humanists, so this does not surprise me. Dissenters will be excommunicated. Galileo in reverse...

DJ

The plane groundings immediately after 9/11 had a tremendous effect on the whether in a large number of places. While I do agree that much of the hoopla we're seeing is basically scare mongering, I don't agree that we're not causing some sort of significant effect on the environment.

We're supposed to be good stewards of the planet. And if we're not sure if something we're doing is harming the environment, but it could be, then we shouldn't be doing it until we know for sure.

Jamie Beu

"The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice." - G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, 6/11/1910 (see http://www.chesterton.org/discover/quotations.html>Chesterton quotes)

We don't know whether or not global warming is occuring or if it is man-made/caused, but we're willing to make policy based on it?

If I recall, the last time policy was made without a definitive answer on whether something was or was not true, 44 million babies were killed in the womb.

Randolph Carter

With all do respect, Mr. Stoodley, I think that I have found a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is most exemplified where you say:

Very rarely if ever can we have 100% certainty, but to be reponsible [sic] people we must work with what science can tell us is very likely true.

I am always, always distressed to hear people use the term "science" in this way, as if science was some strange entity with a mouth and tongue and lips; a majestic deity who every now and then steps down off his throne upon the Olympian heights to proclaim absolute truths to we mere mortals. Now of course I am being hyperbolic in describing your usage of the word. You seem to readily admit that the dictums handed down to us by scientists can be flawed; however, you still speak in such a way that seems to suggest that "science" has told us that global warming is very likely to be true, as if science itself is somehow capable of "telling us" anything.

The truth is that the abstract concept that we dub "science" can tell us nothing; scientists, and the Scientific Establishment which they comprise, are the ones who tend to tell us things. Now, in case everyone

You readily admit, Mr. Stoodley, that nothing in the field of the sciences can be known for certain; however, your estimate about just how much uncertainty we are faced with is dreadfully low. It should actually be higher; much, much higher; for in truth the vast majority of what is accepted as scientific truth in one era is seen to be false in the next, and it is the arrogance of our fair scientists that cause them to feign certainty where they have no cause to be certain.

Let us take the matter of global warming, for example. There are several questions which must be addressed about the whole issue, most of which Jared has already touched down upon. The ones I will consider here are: Is climate change occurring? is this climate change unusual when compared to past the climate change cycles of our planet? is this climate change man made? and is this climate change harmful to our planet?

Our scientists fail to even consider any of these questions. They are already certain of their answers. They are certain that global warming is occurring, that it is unusual, that it is man made, and that it is harmful to our planet. Never mind the fact that climate changed has occurred before in our planet's past. Never mind the fact that the dinosaurs once frolicked in a world of jungle-ridden, searing hot climes, or that the woolly mammoth once reared its head over a world encased in a chrysalis of ice and snow. Never mind, too, that (as our scientists have so readily told us) our planet has oscillated back and forth between such extreme conditions many times in the past. Never mind, too, the great surge of warming that occurred in medieval Europe, which we interestingly enough term the Medieval Warm Period, when vineyards dotted the face of the British Isles, and Vikings sailed in waters that have since become too ice-plagued to allow passage. Never mind that our planet has survived all these past examples of climate change. And never mind that there is more in nature of which we mere mortals are totally ignorant than there is of which we are knowledgeable. Never mind all of that; global warming is real, because the Scientific Establishment says it is real, and the Scientific Establishment has never been wrong -- except for that Piltdown Man thing -- and that eugenics mess -- and cold fusion -- and the carcinogenic effects of DDT -- and, well, a whole other slew of stuff! But just because our scientists have had no idea what they were talking about in the past doesn't mean that we should question their creditability in the present -- that would make us anti-science, and fundamentalists, to boot!

On the other hand, a world no one freezes to death, where poor people do not have to pay costly gas bills to heat their houses in the winter, where the growing season is longer and food is abundant, where melted icecaps evaporate into rain water that brings green life to deserts, where I find myself floating on my back amidst the warm Lake Erie water under the pleasant heat of a tropical January sun -- where do I sign up?

Of course none of what I have said actually disproves the catastrophic global warming hypothesis; but it does cast sever doubt on its credibility. The real question with which we are faced, I think, is not whether or not there is room for doubt on the issue of global warming, but why would scientists fabricate evidence to make it look like there was a global warming, if there in fact was not.

A great holy man once said that "The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." Why indeed would scientists want to pull the wool over people's eyes about global warming? Because, I think, it benefits their interests greatly.

Criminologists greatly benefits from the idea of there being a global warming. They get research grants. They get fame. They get to speak before the United Nations, and the United States congress. They get to go on television, and write best-selling books, and do all kinds of things that they wouldn't ordinarily get to do.

This is not to say that everyone who professes the reality of global warming is a conman. Many scientists might believe in global warming due to a severe case of wishful thinking; they are people so hoping to save the Earth that they never really question whether or not it needs saving, and they only see the evidence that aggress with their theories, relegating the rest of the data to chaff.

So I think we can see how scientists might come to the conclusion that global warming is real, even if it is now. Whether or not it *is* real, I'll leave it up to you to decide for yourself; however I would take everything I hear on the matter with a grain of salt -- when walking on rice paper, tread lightly.

Brian Day

The plane groundings immediately after 9/11 had a tremendous effect on the whether in a large number of places.

DJ,
Source?

David B.

The U.S. must be catching some cosmic rays, in light of all this cold weather.
burrr.

John E

We're supposed to be good stewards of the planet. And if we're not sure if something we're doing is harming the environment, but it could be, then we shouldn't be doing it until we know for sure.

We should also be good stewards of our tax dollars. The question is whether we use our tax dollars and world influence to implement programs that may or may not have any effect on global warming, which may or may not be a problem anyway. For instance, are we willing to create policies that would make the industrialization of Third World countries more difficult, and it is shown that such industrialization would alleviated poverty and hunger, all because cleaner air in our country would add 3 years to our average lifespan? Framing the question that way, I think most people would say no. But if you say that in 50 years half of the U.S. will be under water unless we implement such policies, then they would gain more support.

Pseudomodo

"The plane groundings immediately after 9/11 had a tremendous effect on the whether (SIC) in a large number of places."

This has to do with the contrails of the aircraft that were grounded for 3 days.

Source = http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp


AnnonyMouse

Thanks Jimmy. I didn't know that.

It is hard to take the main stream media seriously because of political bias.
We use the local Sunday newspaper for adds, coupons and comics. Sometimes we read the Opinions because it is just that, an opinion.

Esau

They get research grants. They get fame.

AND

and they only see the evidence that aggress with their theories, relegating the rest of the data to chaff.


Unfortunately, scientists are not immune to the human effects of bias and, of course, pride.

I remember a few so-called scientists who would attempt to introduct evidence (i.e., data) into their research that would solely corroborate their own theories while minimizing or altogether ignoring that which contradicted them.

Why?

Amongst the many possible motives, one might be to secure that certain notoriety of proving to the world through distinguished journals and the like the soundness and seemingly absolute brilliance of their theories.

Moreover, as such scientists thrive only on certain monetary support (as grants), they may even feel the desparate need to commit this research "no-no" that goes against the very bounds of professional scientific research (not to mention, ethics) and operate on such shameful bias so as to skew the results of their research to their own advantage.


P.S. I would take issue though with Carter's classification of these scientists as "Criminologists"; Criminologists are actually CSI folks. "Criminology", as Webster defines it, is "the scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon".

These scientists who perform studies concerning the environment are better classified as environmentalists or environmental scientists.

Randolph Carter

Esau:

That should say "climatologist", not "criminologist". That's the last time I ever blindly trust a spellchecker to fix my one misspelled word :)

Esau

Randolph Carter:

Now that would make more sense!

Hey, by the way, your paragraph below got cut off:

The truth is that the abstract concept that we dub "science" can tell us nothing; scientists, and the Scientific Establishment which they comprise, are the ones who tend to tell us things. Now, in case everyone


Could you "fill in the blanks"?

I often like reading what you have to say and, unfortunately, for some reason, you didn't complete your thought here.

JohnD

Politicians will continue to suck a greater and greater percentage of your money away until you are in virtual slavery, if you're not there already.

Even if they get proven wrong on the forces of climate change, they'll think of another excuse in no time.

DJ

Here's an interesting article. It's much less related to global warming, but more to contrails...

Sadly, no matter what happens to the planet, we'll still have cockroaches.

Esau

Sadly, no matter what happens to the planet, we'll still have cockroaches.

Cockroaches can survive almost anything!

They say that even after a nuclear holocaust, they'd still be around, unlike the rest of us.

DJ

Oh, and Randolph Carter, JR Stoodley is not a he, she's a she..

I'm sure no offense was meant, just thought you might want to know..

Esau

Yowsers!!!
Thanks for the info!

Didn't actually know Randolph Carter and JR Stoodley were a "she".

Ladies, my sincerest apologies!

DJ

No, I wasn't talking about Randolph, I don't know about Randolph...just JR...

Randolph Carter

I suppose I should first begin by apologising to Miss (Mrs.?) Stoodley for wrongly fingering her as one so very afflicted by that most abominable of all diseases known as masculinity. Forgive me if I have caused any offence.

Secondly, Esau: I am not a she!!! I am a man, as my autonym should make clear, and I pity the young girl-child whose abusive parents would dub her "Randolph" (not that my actual name is "Randolph Carter", which is a pseudonym obvious to any who are at least passing familiar with the ancient art of shoggothery, but I generally tend to choose pseudonyms that are in alignment with my own sex, and which keep people from referring to me under the umbrella term of "ladies").

Now, as to the matter of this:

Could you "fill in the blanks"?

I often like reading what you have to say and, unfortunately, for some reason, you didn't complete your thought here.

I think this is the first time anyone has ever voiced the complaint that I talk too *little* (though the vast majority of humanity has made up for its laxity in this regard by voicing the opposite over and over again). Still, it does satisfy my rather frail and fragile ego to hear that there are human beings out there who don't just scroll past any comments I post here, and who actually take the time to read them and {*gasp*} even enjoy them.

Now, if you really want to know where I was going with that paragraph of mine which began:

The truth is that the abstract concept that we dub "science" can tell us nothing; scientists, and the Scientific Establishment which they comprise, are the ones who tend to tell us things. Now, in case everyone

That "in case everyone" was going to be followed by a "doesn't already know, scientists are far from infallible, they've bungled it up many times in the past, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam, et all, and so on, and so forth" sort of thing. But I decided to move that section further down in my post, and merely forgot to delete the little stub of it there.

J.R. Stoodley

I am not a she either. I hope Esau knows and was joking (I'm sure he was) in light of my previous comments about my girlfriend that he responded to!

David B.

DJ,

I thought the J.R. mention recently that (he?) had a girlfriend whose parents they were going to see for Christmas. Am I wrong?

David B.

J.R.,

Who *is* DJ? He/She said that he/she *knew* you were a woman.


Esau

Uhhh... Randolph Carter -- I believe I merely asked for completion of thought as regards that one simple paragraph of yours; not an actual dissertation on all things Sir Randolph Carter I. A little more restraint, dear Sir, on that frail and fragile ego. ;^)

Esau

Okay, David B., J.R. and DJ:

This is getting a bit creepy for my taste -- first, I had thought J.R. was a 'guy' due to a certain dialogue that had taken place in the past where there was mention of a girlfriend and such.

Now, I come to find out from DJ that J.R. is actually of the female persuasion.

Just goes to show that you really don't know who you're talking to when on the Internet!

J.R. Stoodley

This is all news to me. I think I must need to retake 5th grade "family life". Clearly I have been wrong about my gender all my life.

My girlfriend will be so disappointed. Knights of Columbus will probably have to kill me. How could I have been so stupid?

Esau

J.R.:

I think you should read DJ's post regarding you.

As David B. asked:

J.R.,

Who *is* DJ? He/She said that he/she *knew* you were a woman.

J.R. Stoodley

DJ is clearly Deus Jesus. Maybe Deus Jehovah. Otherwise I couldn't take serious his claim that I am really a woman despite all physical evidence to the contrary.

Esau

DJ is clearly Deus Jesus. Maybe Deus Jehovah. Otherwise I couldn't take serious his claim that I am really a woman despite all physical evidence to the contrary.


"Uhhhh... I could've sworn I was a man until DJ told me otherwise!" ;^)

bill912

The sun warms the earth? Oh, sure! Next you'll be telling us it also makes the daytime light!

Jared

This is probably overkill (again) on my part, but here's another relevant link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXw17pIuL0w&eurl=

This one's just a short video but it speaks quite clearly on the danger of legislating in this area before we know more.

And another:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Some examples of other "in-the-know" people who disagree with the people who believe man is responsible for global warming:

-Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg

-Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado

-Bjørn Lomborg, professor for the University of Aarhus, Environmentalist and former member of Green Peace

... and many, many more.

Esau

It's cows, I tell you, that's producing all this global warming!!! ;^)

Keyword of the Day: METHANE!!!

bill912

Fight Global Warming! Kill the cows! Eat more steak!

Esau

Anyone remember the Commercial:

S-i-z-z-z-z-l-e-r!

US bishops urge congress to address moral, environmental implications of climate change

Washington DC, Feb 9, 2007 (CNA).- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is urging Congress to address the moral and environmental dimensions of global climate change in light of a major international report released last week citing human activity as the likely cause of rising temperatures.

Read about it here

Steve

The world has gone completely insane - and we're arguing about the temp changing a few degrees.

Deck chairs and Titanic comes to mind...

Let the world heat up, shrivel, flood & shake-n-bake. The world will be better off.

jared

Steve brings up an important point. While we discuss the 1 degree F (.6 degrees C) change in the past 100 years, millions of unborn are legally slaughtered.

Priorities.

LJ

I am a professional truck driver. As a concerned citizen I would be willing to drive a team of horses (teamster) pulling a wagon load of freight instead of an eighteen-wheeler in order to save the planet. I am calling on fellow drivers out there to do the same.

However, we would need volunteers to follow behind and shovel the horse manure, preferably with experience. Anyone? Al Gore?

jared

LJ: I'm sure Gore would be happy to do that right after he flies in from his private jet trip.

Al Gore

Even though LJ is making a wonderful suggestion to help preserve our fragile environment, and would adjust his livlihood to ensure that this planet we call home will be safe and secure for generations to come, I regret that I would be unable to volunteer to assist in the removal of the horse manure. It's difficult to hold a shovel in one hand while holding the Nobel Peace Prize in the other.

And if I am elected president, I would make it my highest priority to have legislation passed that would extend tax credits to LJ and others like him who utilize alternative transportation methods. Of course, sadly, I would also have to enact new fees, named Collection and Removal of Anal Production fees, which will fund programs to enslave...I mean, enlist the private sector to further this noble cause. Those fees, even though they would be steep and require even greater sacrifice, will help turn the manure into fertilizer to sell to....um, wait a minute, fertilizer is bad. Well, then we'll use the fees to construct power plants that will burn the manure....no, no, that's not right either. Well, the costs involved and the detrimental effects of such actions are unimportant. It's the intention that matters. LJ, and other truck drivers like him, who make the heroic sacrifice to save our planet, will forever be remembered.

Thank you for your suggestion, LJ. It's forward thinking Americans such as yourself who will ensure that America will one day, surely, be standing shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the world, equal in wealth and proserity and a bright future for years and years to come.

Now please excuse me while I attend a meeting of geneticists who are developing a breed of horses without a digestive system....

Esau

I know what y'all are up to!!!

You guys are just jealous because of our Great Democrat(-ic) hero, Al Gore, the Environmental Giant that he is, who has finally gotten the recognition he deserves such as becoming nominated for the Academy Award for his "Inconvenient Truth" as well as the Nobel Peace Prize!

Need I remind you that the guy invented the Internet; the one you're on right now, in fact!?!!? ;^)

So, cue up the Dixie Chicks Music, please!

And, yeah, all hail Pelosi, full of grace!

Because I'm certainly Not Ready to Make Nice! ;^)

jared

I saw on a Snickers commercial that Al Gore invented pants, too. Which means he invented chaffing, which is pretty appropriate.

DJ

My bad. I thought JR was a girl from sometime back (don't remember when.)

I make ONE mistake and I get all this attention.

DJ

And I'm a male..Just for the record...

Esau

My bad. I thought JR was a girl from sometime back (don't remember when.)


DJ:

No matter; J.R. is a 'girl' regardless!
That's for you, J.R., for all your whining, just because somebody mistook you for a 'girl'!

;^P

(J/K)

AnnonyMouse

Excuse me? Whinning = girls?!!!!
grrrrr.
Maybe for your next birthday you will all get cheese to go with your WHINE!

Esau

Excuse me? Whinning = girls?!!!!

Uhhh... AnnonyMouse, didn't you read:

"That's for you, J.R., for all your whining, just because somebody mistook you for a 'girl'!"

AnnonyMouse

No matter; J.R. is a 'girl' regardless

That is what I am grrring about

Esau

No matter; J.R. is a 'girl' regardless

That is what I am grrring about


AnnonyMouse:

Just F.I.O., this is not a statement on 'women', but 'girls'.

Unless, of course, you're a little girl as well, then I do apologize.

Trad-Con

The author of the article may have a point about the cosmic rays and the clouds. Then again, he may not. It strikes me as extremely imprudent to behave as if our pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the fact that the planet is getting warmer.

At the moment I'm living in the south of Germany. Normally we have a couple of months of snow here each winter; this year it's been about four days in total. It's the mildest winter ever. In the ski-resorts in the alps they're having to use artificial snow. I can't read all these head-in-the-sand articles on the net attacking environmentalism without a deep sense of anger and depression. Especially as many of these articles are written by Christians and "conservatives" - although how a reckless indifference to the fate of the planet for the sake of a few corporate dollars can be considered either Christian or conservative is a mystery to me.

Prof. Peter Kreeft once wrote something to the effect of "I can't understand why the most passionate conservatives are not also the most passionate conservationists." I agree with him.

Steve

I can't read all these head-in-the-sand articles on the net attacking environmentalism without a deep sense of anger and depression.

I hope you're at least equally upset about abortion, homosexual "marriage", contraception, open dissent, renegade bishops & priests, etc. I am frankly a bit weary of catholics who are angry about environmentalism and other relatively minor worldly concerns, but have little or no desire to further the cause of Christ. Our perspective is skewed. There is alot to be angry about - but environmentalism is, relatively, an absolute joke.

John E

Thanks Trad-con.
Can you or anyone else here give more evidence that shows those who disagree that human activity is more than a negligible cause for global warming are recklessly indifferent to the fate of the planet for the sake of a few corporate dollars? I'm not saying there aren't any, but you made what sounds like a blanket statement.

Do you think it's only a matter of greed, or is there perhaps more to it?

J.R. Stoodley

Trad-Con,

My views are similar, but it is dangerous to use a single mild winter in a single area to support the idea of global warming. A single incident in one location doesn't demonstrate a long term global trend.

It also won't be affective on many people, like us in Syracuse, NY where it is currently 9 degrees F and it was well below 0 last night.

Tim J.

How about being recklessly indifferent to world economies upon which millions of people depend, the sovereignty of nations and the political stability of entire continents for the sake of handing a big slice of power to elite, un-elected, unaccountable trans-national bodies?

U.N. advisory committees uber alles? That doesn't sound very Christian... not to mention conservative.

J.R. Stoodley

Steve,

Yes, abortion is the biggest issue facing the world right now, with Euthanasia, homosexual marriage, and war issues also very important. Because they are so important they are the main thing that drives my voting.

However, that does not mean that other issues are not also important, such as economics, health care, or the environment and sustainability. These issues also deserve attention from Christians.

J.R. Stoodley

Tim J.

I agree. I don't support the Kyoto Treaty. However, I do think it is fairly clear that global warming really deserves to be a concern. This is a good debate to have. If the consensus ends up (and it definitely seems to be headed there, even in politics now not just science) that it is a real problem and we can do something about it, we should then way the predicted costs and benefits (including economic) of any action and try to make the best prudential choice.

Esau

At the moment I'm living in the south of Germany. Normally we have a couple of months of snow here each winter; this year it's been about four days in total. It's the mildest winter ever.


IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!
(at least, "The Day After Tomorrow" kind!)

The upstate New York town of Redfield is the hardest hit. Incomplete records prevent the weather service from calling the 11 feet, 9 inches of snow that fell there over the past 10 days an official record, but it does beat the 10 feet, 7 inches that fell in nearby Montague over seven days ending Jan. 1, 2002.

AJC.com Article: Upstate N.Y. Snow Continues to Pile Up

NY Times Article: 8 Days, 10 Feet and the Snow Isn’t Done Yet

bill912

Can anybody authoritatively state what the ideal temperature of the earth is?

Esau

Excerpt:

Rising Temperatures
The average surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1°F in the past century. To many, a 1°F temperature change may seem trivial. However, consider "the year without a summer" - 1816. Atmospheric ash from a volcanic eruption in Southeast Asia decreased solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, lowering the global mean temperature. As a result, frost occurred in July in New England and crop failures occurred throughout the world. Yet the temperature change caused by this eruption was less than 1°F (Stommel et al. 1979).

Surface temperature increases are projected to increase 1.8-6.3 °F in the next century, with scientists' best guess being about 3.5 °F. Scientific modeling suggests that the surface temperature will continue to increase beyond the year 2100 even if concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilized by that time. However, if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase at present rates, a quadrupling of pre-industrial CO2 concentration will occur not long after the year 2100. Projected temperature increases for such an atmospheric concentration are 15-20 °F above the present day mean annual global surface temperature.

The following is an adaptation of the analysis of potential outcomes of climate change delineated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their second assessment report: Potential Outcome Report

LJ

Every measure I've ever seen a government implement to curb emissions has hurt the little guy, already just barely able to survive, just so that the limousine liberals can feel better about themselves at their cocktail parties.

Seems to me they may care about the planet, but very little about the real people that inhabit it, despite their claims to the contrary.

jared

Bill: Yeah, I can.

Ideal temp's by species:
-Dinosaur ... pretty hot.
-Mammoth ... pretty cold.
-Southern Californian ... very hot (but must be equipped with air conditioning -- which my car lacks -- 24/7)
-Midwestern boys (such as myself) ... closer to Mammoth than Dinosaur ... far less whining about the "cold" (say 65 F) than SoCal folk.

Point being the same as yours ... there ain't no such animal as absolute ideal temp.

Tim J.

I think we should do all we can to avoid polluting and abusing the environment - just because it's wicked to do so. It demonstrates a lack of gratitude for what God has provided for us.

I don't need an environmental boogey-man to motivate me.

Some Day

Man-made. Possibly.
Man-caused. Without a doubt.

We have been getting so bad for the past 500 years, it is about time God showed His Justice, which as much todays people don't believe in, will rise.

Exsurge Deus, quare obdormis?
Noli tardare tempus faciendi!

Esau

I don't need an environmental boogey-man to motivate me.

Al Gore?

J.R. Stoodley

Some Day,

You may actually have a point. Moral evil and physical evil are connected in some way or other. That issue seems to be one of the less clear parts of the faith however.

I could definitely see an Ents vs. Saruman type of thing going down in the not too distant future. That does not mean though that we should be complacent though and not try to stop human suffering because we think it is God's justice. It doesn't work that way. I would continue but I just remembered something important I have to do.

Sailorette

Esau! I posted here when I was just a girl, so BOO!

Esau

Esau! I posted here when I was just a girl, so BOO!

My apologies, then, Sailorette. ;^)

Sailorette

Re: the year without summer-- that caused problems because of bad timing with a frost. A small change *up* doesn't wipe out a crop like a small change *down* will-- lower output, but there's still an output. Our technology is also a LOT more advanced than back then, in relation to saving a crop.

Sailorette

My apologies, then, Sailorette. ;^)
Lo, those many years ago....

Esau

Our technology is also a LOT more advanced than back then, in relation to saving a crop.

Actually, Sailorette:

Ninety-three (93) million boxes of California citrus valued at about $1 billion were on the trees when a mid-January Siberian Express cold front sent temperatures into the low teens and upper 20s in most citrus growing areas. Sixty million of those cartons were Navel oranges.

Major damage from the cold also has been reported to the state’s avocado crop in Southern California where strawberry growers also have been put six weeks behind in strawberry shipping volume due to bud damage to plants, according to the California Strawberry Commission.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday proclaimed a state of emergency for California due to the extremely low temperatures.


State of emergency for California due to the extremely low temperatures:

Artic blast heavily damages Western citrus crop


Citrus Freeze a Disaster for Workers:

Citrus freeze a disaster for workers

Esau

Sailorette:

Lo, those many years ago....

Wait until you reach the next decade; you'll feel like a senior citizen and long for the days when you were at your twenties!

Sailorette

That's cold again, Esau, and a luxury good besides.

(Although come summer when my mom can't have her aligator fruit, it'll seem like a staple crop)

You'll notice that no-one is going hungry because all the grain/corn/alfalfa died, right? (although my folks are nervous that this'll be a long, nasty winter.)

Esau

Sailorette:

Although come summer when my mom can't have her aligator fruit, it'll seem like a staple crop

Tell me about it; I love citrus fruits!


although my folks are nervous that this'll be a long, nasty winter.

It's been a long, nasty winter for some folks as it is already.

Don't know if you read the other article I posted above where upstate New York experienced 11 feet, 9 inches of snow that fell there over the past 10 days!

Brrrr!!!!

Sailorette

Yeah, freak winters *do* happen-- 11 foot of snow is not that freakish. We had a normal winter with six foot, nobody started planning an ice age.

Still stands, getting slightly warmer--especially since, if we believe natural history, the earth has been getting warmer on average for all of history-- isn't a horrible thing. (I'm refering to the lack of mammoths and huge icepacks in Cali.)

Esau

I'm refering to the lack of mammoths and huge icepacks in Cali.

Sailorette:

Excellent point!


Just as I raved about this yesterday:

It's cows, I tell you, that's producing all this global warming!!! ;^)

Keyword of the Day: METHANE!!!

Esau

Hey, Sailorette, let's go do our part for the environment and go to Sizzler! ;^)

Sailorette

Sounds good to me!

Esau

Sounds good to me!

Kewl!!!
You set the time/date and I'll pick you up in my sporty Electric Vehicle! ;^)

Jordan Potter

"At the moment I'm living in the south of Germany. Normally we have a couple of months of snow here each winter; this year it's been about four days in total. It's the mildest winter ever. In the ski-resorts in the alps they're having to use artificial snow."

I live in the Midwest of the U.S., and we're having the coldest and snowiest winter in about 25 years.

"I can't read all these head-in-the-sand articles on the net attacking environmentalism without a deep sense of anger and depression."

It's not "head-in-the-sand" to note that there's no scientific proof human activity is to blame for the possibility that the earth might a teeny bit warmer today than it was 100 years ago, or to note that the earth getting a teeny bit warmer is hardly the apocalypse.

"Especially as many of these articles are written by Christians and 'conservatives' - although how a reckless indifference to the fate of the planet for the sake of a few corporate dollars can be considered either Christian or conservative is a mystery to me."

Imputing evil motives to people you don't know and will never meet, in the absence of evidence, can't be considered Christian either.

Sailorette

Nicely said, JP.

Dutch Bill

It's NOT about solving "global warming" - it's all about CONTROL!!

It seems to me that the folks that scream the loudest about "global warming" seem to drive the biggest cars. I think you can do more for the environment if you pick up trash on the ground than pontificating on how bad humanity (read: US Capitalism) is on the environment.

BTW, which age do you want us to "conserve" - the Precambrian, the Jurassic?

LJ

Listen, if Yellowstone ever blows, the point will be moot. Vulcanologists estimate the result of that as akin to the old Nuclear Winter scenario. The only real draw-back would be the six feet of ash covering most of western USA and Canada. Oh well, can't have everthing.

However, if they are serious about some global cooling, it might be an idea to set off a few minor volcanoes here and there to block out the sun a bit and lower the temp. It's a thought.

Al Gore

I'm asking the United Nations to pass a resolution to prohibit Yellowstone from erupting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31