Global Warming (ignore the thread if you don't like the topi

Edison may have had a hand in saving the whales as electric lights eliminated the need for oil for lamps. I assume that would connect to the emerging petroleum industry as that and coal probably contributed to the electricty.

Well, Edison's invention, and the marketing prowess of Samuel Insull almost put Rockefeller out of business, actually. But he adapted like any good businessman and created an empire.



The whale business was well on it's way out the door by the time that the light bulb came around.

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//23/b/23bed567063744c57d54bb23996099b7.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

CougarClaw wrote:

I believe the "good steward" argument is being misused here as well. Stewardship is personal and NEVER gives license to apply tyranny over someone else. The argument given seems to be that tyranny is acceptable in some circumstances. Please show me in the scriptures where God makes that an option.

I'm also going to disagree with your stewardship definitions on a number of levels, the first is the very term means to manage something owned by someone else. I agree that a steward doesn't manage tyrannically since they are not the owner, but to call "stewardship personal" ignores the very counter-party arrangement that makes up a stewardship (unless of course the counter-party is God, but even then two people).

. . . .



You're right that I can't know how much CO2 is harmful for the environment, but most of the people who's JOB it is to know, tell me it's harmful. I'm not completely sold and there's a lot of points to be made(Hawkwing) about why they might not be a good source to rely on. So what if they're wrong? Going back to Boise's point. Then I've spent lots of money, and cleaned up the place. Ive set up some undeserving people in positions of power and limited economic development. All bad things. But what if (This time) they're right about climate change and we do nothing? We will have destroyed our planet, caused irreparable harm with our then solutions falling into the "stop all economic development altogether" category.



Seems like the latter consequences are worse. And sense you don't know, and I don't know, why not stay on the safe side and at least make steps in that direction?

Thanks for responding, I would like to focus on these two points (stewardship and what if?) if I may. These are good points worth discussing.



On "stewardship," I think the stewardship we are talking about is in relation to the things over which God has given us stewardship. Is that right? So the counter party we are talking about is God and only God. Or am I missing something? If that is the case, then it can only be a personal stewardship. I do not know of any examples of "collective stewardship" given by God. In fact, the very concept seems rather oxymoronic, for who can then be accountable under a collective view? To say that all are accountable equally is to say that no one person is and cannot be just. You cannot be held responsible by God for my actions and because of that you are not justified in assuming the power to dictate my actions. The collective has no more rights than any individual in the collective.



Also, we must maintain a distinction between a stewardship over the planet and stewardship of other people. They are not the same though commonly used interchangeably.



On the "What if?" scenarios, help me understand this because I don't get it. It seems that once you start going down the "what ifs" then it starts getting crazy because they are never ending. To justify aggressive actions based on possible scenarios is like trying to be everywhere at once, it cant' be done.



To use terms like "destroying our planet," and "irreparable harm," cannot be supported by "what if." I am not sure (nor is anyone else for that matter) that as humans we even have the power to destroy the planet if we tried. of course, we could make living conditions very difficult for a time, but destroy it, no, and irreparable harm denies scientific fact. The earth has been through a lot and none of it was irreparable harm. Puny human power is nothing. If you stand back and look at the terms, don't they sound like they deny God and give power to man over God? They do to me.

tww wrote:

tww wrote:

I believe the "good steward" argument is being misused here as well. Stewardship is personal and NEVER gives license to apply tyranny over someone else. The argument given seems to be that tyranny is acceptable in some circumstances. Please show me in the scriptures where God makes that an option.

I'm also going to disagree with your stewardship definitions on a number of levels, the first is the very term means to manage something owned by someone else. I agree that a steward doesn't manage tyrannically since they are not the owner, but to call "stewardship personal" ignores the very counter-party arrangement that makes up a stewardship (unless of course the counter-party is God, but even then two people).

. . . .



You're right that I can't know how much CO2 is harmful for the environment, but most of the people who's JOB it is to know, tell me it's harmful. I'm not completely sold and there's a lot of points to be made(Hawkwing) about why they might not be a good source to rely on. So what if they're wrong? Going back to Boise's point. Then I've spent lots of money, and cleaned up the place. Ive set up some undeserving people in positions of power and limited economic development. All bad things. But what if (This time) they're right about climate change and we do nothing? We will have destroyed our planet, caused irreparable harm with our then solutions falling into the "stop all economic development altogether" category.



Seems like the latter consequences are worse. And sense you don't know, and I don't know, why not stay on the safe side and at least make steps in that direction?

Thanks for responding, I would like to focus on these two points (stewardship and what if?) if I may. These are good points worth discussing.



On "stewardship," I think the stewardship we are talking about is in relation to the things over which God has given us stewardship. Is that right? So the counter party we are talking about is God and only God. Or am I missing something? If that is the case, then it can only be a personal stewardship. I do not know of any examples of "collective stewardship" given by God. In fact, the very concept seems rather oxymoronic, for who can then be accountable under a collective view? To say that all are accountable equally is to say that no one person is and cannot be just. You cannot be held responsible by God for my actions and because of that you are not justified in assuming the power to dictate my actions. The collective has no more rights than any individual in the collective.



On the "What if?" scenarios, help me understand this because I don't get it. It seems that once you start going down the "what ifs" then it starts getting crazy because they are never ending. To justify aggressive actions based on possible scenarios is like trying to be everywhere at once, it cant' be done.



To use terms like "destroying our planet," and "irreparable harm," cannot be supported by "what if." I am not sure (nor is anyone else for that matter) that as humans we even have the power to destroy the planet if we tried. of course, we could make living conditions very difficult for a time, but destroy it, no, and irreparable harm denies scientific fact. The earth has been through a lot and none of it was irreperable harm. Puny human power is nothing. If you stand back and look at the terms, don't they sound like they deny God and give power to man over God? They do to me.

TWW, you make some very good points that I need to ponder. For me there is entirely a proper basis for the collective to say we need and can set limits on where we place toxic waste dumps or where and how we spill waste water. We have every right in a democracy to vote for laws that set standards for that. I asked somewhat rhetorically last time but I will ask anew: you are glad are you not that there are laws that would not allow radioactive or toxic chemicals to be dumped by your neighbor on his land next door right? If you agree then at least we are in the same ball park and are simply deciding what if any thing to do about global warming. You might say we need to do nothing and I might say we ought to something. If you say we should do nothing because it it "dictatorial" then we are not in the same ball park and I'd like to know what you would do when your next door neighbor does start dumping such waste....As for the "what if" I will repeat what I have thought on it and it is this: CO2 in the atmosphere does have the effect of keeping heat trapped. CO2 levels are very high. The earth is warming. Man is spewing unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atomsphere. Is man's impact a difference maker? I confess anew that I do not know. Some scientists say no; many others say yes. I say that we ought to take steps to reduce CO2 until we do know more and that as a steward of this planet it is my duty to vote for laws that will do so. My understanding of what I think my stewardship, sounds, I know, very high and mighty sounding and comes off as believing I am more moral than you and I do not mean that. I have lots to learn and learn more about. I do respect your views. I know mine is the definite minority on this site, but I share hoping to learn better for me...

BoiseBYU wrote:



TWW, I respect your view; I simply disagree. To say there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful to the planet is incomplete. It is understood by all thatCO2 traps heat. If too much CO2 is in the air and this traps too much heat, this will warm the planet. And if the planet gets too warm, the ice sheeets melt to the detriment of hundreds of millioins of people, many too poor to address the issue. The artic ice cap and Greenland are melting at unprecedented rates. Is it because of man and his CO2? Many scientiests say yes; a number say no. I am not qualified to identify which for sure is right. But I do know that the globe is warming; that is undeniable. Also, it is not tyrannical to adopt laws governing our health and well being. Do you think it is tyrnanical that your neighbor can't invite and establish a toxic dump next door to your house and children? Surely you would not defend your neighbor's right to do such a thing....Assuming you support such a law, then actions similarly taken to protect the global neighborhood are not, in and of themselves, tyrannical.

Thank you, I respect your view as well. If I didn't, I am sure I would just ignore it.



You say that if the ice caps melt it will be to the detriment of hundreds of millions of people, many of them poor. Okay, let's assume that is true. As we do so we must also consider our true costs, or the trade off. Decisions of such import must be made by weighing out the human cost (whatever that may be) against possible scenarios. If we do nothing, what is the cost? If we act, what is the cost?



Sorry if this sounds trivialized but I am just trying to simplify in order to get to the heart of the matter and clarify what exactly we are talking about. If we do nothing and the seas rise then X number of people will have to relocate further up the new beach. Again, not trivializing, just establishing what we are talking about. Now, let's weigh the cost of acting to counter such a scenario, particularly on the poor. Power plants are shut down or prevented; Automobiles are too expensive to buy or drive; Shipping costs make all products more expensive; the number of people without refrigeration, needed more than ever, is compounded. Clearly, it is the poor that will suffer the most and suffer more than they would relocating but having affordable food and electric power.



The toxic dump hypothetical does not have the same cost balances so it is not a true comparison. In other words, people aren't going to starve or have a greater hardship than I if the dump is located elsewhere. Also, I would not be dictating that no "toxic dump" (whatever that is) could exist or discounting someone else's rights, only establishing that my rights must be given equal status.



As a side note, archeological evidence suggests that sea levels were higher in the past than they are today. Which only tells us that people have dealt with changing sea levels and can continue to do so if need be.

For a good look at another perspective, read Glenn Beck's "An Inconvenient Book." In My opinion, he talks some real sense, plus it is fun to read. Listen to it on CD to get Glenn's personality.

I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

For anyone interested in how to have an online disagreement/debate without getting personal, name-calling, accusations etc... refer to this thread. I love this stuff.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

I wouldn't say that **most** scientists in the 70's predicted a warming trend. The vast majority of scientists in magazines and publishing believed and warned that we were heading for something like another ice age. They attributed the same disasters, the same food shrtages, the same fake signs of the impending apocalypse as GlobWarm does today.



There were a very, very few who vocalized that the world was trending warmer.



Most of the GlobCooling people jumped off that ship once it sank over the next 20 years, and onto the Glob warming Oil Freighter.



I haven't seen one ounce of REAL (not fabricated or made up) evidence to convince me that we have anything to do with the warming and cooling of the Earth. And I have looked. If anyone out there has any, let me know.

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/stolepenguinice.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

I wouldn't say that **most** scientists in the 70's predicted a warming trend. The vast majority of scientists in magazines and publishing believed and warned that we were heading for something like another ice age. They attributed the same disasters, the same food shrtages, the same fake signs of the impending apocalypse as GlobWarm does today.



There were a very, very few who vocalized that the world was trending warmer.



Most of the GlobCooling people jumped off that ship once it sank over the next 20 years, and onto the Glob warming Oil Freighter.



I haven't seen one ounce of REAL (not fabricated or made up) evidence to convince me that we have anything to do with the warming and cooling of the Earth. And I have looked. If anyone out there has any, let me know.

With respect, I disagree. Of the many 1960’s and 1970s’ papers considering climate trends in the 21st century, only 10% thought we were headed toward future cooling. The fact of the matter is that most papers predicted future warming. Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson said 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The further fact is that by the time the possibility of global cooling reached the popular press in the '70s, temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern expressed in the climatological community about carbon dioxide’s warming impact on our world. Thus in 1976 the World Meterological Organization issued a warning that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.

I thought this page of the linked article was interesting, to say the least:



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875&page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It lists some of the major investors in the two electric car companies that have received over $500 million in DOE loans (same program as Solyndra)--a list that includes major Obama supporters and Mr. Gore himself. The "green" revolution is not about saving the planet---it's about a certain few leveraging uncertain science, bully-pulpits, and political power/position to make their own green.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

Interesting that in the video, it was pointed out that the scientists were pointing to CO2 as a cause of the COOLING.

snoscythe wrote:
I thought this page of the linked article was interesting, to say the least:



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875&page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



It lists some of the major investors in the two electric car companies that have received over $500 million in DOE loans (same program as Solyndra)--a list that includes major Obama supporters and Mr. Gore himself. The "green" revolution is not about saving the planet---it's about a certain few leveraging uncertain science, bully-pulpits, and political power/position to make their own green.

Disturbing and wrong. But Sno you overstate when you categorize the entire green movement as an effort to make money. There are some of us who (perhaps misguided in your view) who view the warming of our planet as a matter of great concern and seek for and want to work on ways to address that problem and we are not making a darn dollar as a result. Do not let the greed of some (or many) displace THE issue that should concern us--our planet is warming up and significantly so

IowaCougar wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

Interesting that in the video, it was pointed out that the scientists were pointing to CO2 as a cause of the COOLING.

Some scientists were indeed doing so....But please see my other post pointing out that even more scientists even in the 70's were predicting a warming planet due to CO2

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

I still haven't heard from anyone why the "global cooling" from the 1970's never happened.



(I posted a video on this thread to make it easier for you to "lookup")



**CRICKETS** :skeptic:

I'll "chirp" in.....The 70's did see a more cool than normal period of temperatures and there were proposed various theories for why this was happening. Interestingly, though, even in the 70's most scientists, noting the explosion in greenhouse gases into the air were predicting a warming trend...and that seems to be bearing out, yes?

Interesting that in the video, it was pointed out that the scientists were pointing to CO2 as a cause of the COOLING.

Some scientists were indeed doing so....But please see my other post pointing out that even more scientists even in the 70's were predicting a warming planet due to CO2

Right, but the warming level of the earth doesn't rise and fall with the rising and falling of CO2. In fact, there is a direct correlation between temperature rises CAUSING CO2 to rise, sometimes the temperature rises 800 years before CO2 does.



Isn't that a main part the argument? That as CO2 levels rise, the earth warms? See #4 in 35 errors in an "Inconvenient Truth"



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How hot is the earth, Al?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8



Al gets asked why the polar bears are thriving now (starts at 1:00 min)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OM9f74n0xs



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbj78civS-4&feature=related





And my personal favorite



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco

This is a very very good video on the topic: I suggest you all watch it.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk