Al Gore's Inconvenient Global Warming

[IrishLass]

If rising temps were really related to man made carbon pollution, shouldn't we expect the temp. data to rise at or near the same rate as our carbon usage has increased? And yet- that is not at all the case..... world-wide energy consumption has skyrocketed the past ten years, and yet the trends show that temps have remained about the same....



http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/ehret214/hadcrut_1998-2008-1.png

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/ehret214/giss_1998-2008.png

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/ehret214/uah_1998-2008.png

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/ehret214/rss_1998-2008.png

[IrishLass]

Helping slow down global warming doesn’t require “staking one’s life” – but failing to do so may. After all, which is more important to you, getting a bigger SUV, or what you’ll say to Jesus about how you reacted to the possible degradation of his creation?

Sometimes it seems like some people (I’m not saying you) don’t really, deep down, believe in Jesus or that they’ll ever be face to face with him - so the never imagine defending their actions in front of someone who not only has all the data, but knows that you've seen data (such as on this thread) and also knows that you didn't seek out more from those who've studied the data themselves, and knows exactly what steps you did and did not take to slow down global warming. But I guess that's not a surprise in these days we live in.


-Edward

I can't believe that you are suggesting that Jesus is more concerned about whether or not we drive an SUV when men's souls and hearts are further and further from Him?

Our commission is to go out and spread the gospel...... THAT, above all else, is what we will be answering for- not whether or not we saw some charts and decided to trade our SUV in for a sedan.

So folks, if you need to take those plane trips to go on missions, or use that big old van to load up with goods to take to the poor, please don't think it would upset God in any way if your "carbon footprint" is higher than the next guy because of it.

The Lord told us in the scriptures that creation itself would groan for His coming.... do you really think that we should be trusting in men's graphs (which are ever changing depending on their limited knowledge and/or agendas) in the hopes that we can actually change this? No, the LORD is coming, creation is groaning, and scripture tells us to expect these birth pangs... and THAT is why we are seeing an increase in wild weather, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes etc....

So let's stop worrying about those things that we can not change, and start being about the business of our Lord. (I say that as much or more to myself as anyone else). Time is short- Maranatha!

[OnceWasLost]

Well, Edward, rather than copy your posts, I will just offer simple replies, and some obvious questions.

The increase in temps is pretty minimal, over the last century, and inconsistent verses the dogma. It wouldn't take many poorly placed sensors to throw off the sample and skew the data sample. I would further tend to believe that conspiracy :spy since placing the sensors in that way would help to demonstrate their presupposition. It cannot be denied that opponents of "man made climate change" are seen as apostates, no matter what their credentials.

The arguments made for global warming are the same as the global cooling of the 70's. That was junk science then as global warming is now, IMO. Yet there are those who are pointing to "global cooling" again, but for much different reasons. All this causes me to thing we are assuming the cause of what is natural and cyclical.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080304113132.aspx

With this much difference of opinion, within the scientific community, how in the world should we go with the extreme faction and change our lives, as Kyoto would take us?

Your life will be changed if we have to abide by Kyoto, or some other such regime, since the U.S. would suffer worse than any others. Even if we revert to Kyoto it will not change the overall problem. The third world, who will not
be forced to abide by Kyoto, are the biggest source of the alleged problem. Yet, we will have to scale back industry and production here in the U.S.

Wait and see what that will do to the entire world when the leading producer is taken back almost two decades. :tsk

More Co2 is not a danger as is being peddled by the global warming crowd since it has fluctuated, naturally. Anyone, in the scientific community, who dares question the dogma is attacked, here is an example.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992468/posts


Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

Is there an alternative to ice-core samples, which are but proxies from which assumptions about the historical composition of the atmosphere can be made? "Yes, there are several other proxies, and they lead to different findings about CO2," Dr. Jaworowski states. "But we don't need to rely on proxies at all.

"Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 -- they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels.

I want to see absolute "proof" to support the theory. If it was as clear cut as proponents make it, why are so many scientists saying it's not the problem the al gore's of the world make it? Unlike al gore many scientists don't see man as the sole reason, nor do they reach the same conclusions resulting from the "science"

Furthermore, why do critics not have the same voice? If it was so clear cut, how could there be any disagreement within the scientific community? Is not science based on observable truth? How can different outcomes be reached on the same available data?

In fact more and more say it is a cycle, thus glaciers have existed where the are no longer present. They melted long before man made Co2, something caused the melting. We are told we are the cause for warming yet we have undergone warming and cooling before, why do we assume we are the cause this time only?

http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/images/usgeol.gif

http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/pleistocene.html

[EdwardK]

kerri wrote:

world-wide energy consumption has skyrocketed the past ten years, and yet the trends show that temps have remained about the same....

Sure. Looking at only one small portion of a large data set is a sure way to avoid seeing a long term trend. What you’ve pointed out is the same thing that Mr.Mann pointed out (and that we’ve discussed) since post #3 & post #54 (did you look at the graph in post #54? Your data is already on there.)

Another case of this is the short discussion about the noise between around 1940 and 1950. Or pick any of the dozen or so times that the red line goes down on the graph on post 54. If you want more short periods of “cooling”, just go to the graph on post #57. They are all “cooling” and they are all irrelevant.

An example of this would be if I measured my son’s height every day for a month. It wouldn’t show much increase, and maybe even a decrease. So based on that, I go on to claim that this idea of “child growth” is bunk. Silly? Of course it is.


I can't believe that you are suggesting that Jesus is more concerned about whether or not we drive an SUV when men's souls and hearts are further and further from Him?

Of course having Jesus in your heart is most important. And so if Jesus is in your heart, will you act to care for Jesus’ creation, or will you disregard any concern for Jesus’ creation?


So folks, if you need to take those plane trips to go on missions, or use that big old van to load up with goods to take to the poor, please don't think it would upset God in any way if your "carbon footprint" is higher than the next guy because of it.

Well, again, sure – I agree – if missionary activities increase your carbon footprint, then still do them. But how much of the increase your carbon footprint is due to missionary activities? Do you haul so many bibles that you need an SUV? On your last drive, was your vehicle full of fellow missionaries? Let’s answer those one honestly for ourselves. Or are most of us able to cut back our carbon footprint while maintaining or even increasing our witness? Are we using the Gospel as a cover for simply selfish behavior? What kind of heart does that indicate?


So let's stop worrying about those things that we can not change

So kerri is physically unable to choose a more fuel efficient car when she buys her next car? Are you unable to resist the urge to leave lights on that you don’t need? Is it impossible for you to urge others to help slow the degradation of Jesus’ creation when global warming comes up in discussion? Just because an effect is global doesn't mean we can't contribute our part. Islam is rapidly overtaking Christianity globally - but of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't witness for Jesus ourselves.

Why not help preserve the creation while we go about doing the lord’s work? I would think that having Jesus in one’s heart would touch all aspects of one’s life, wouldn't you?


Once wrote:


I would further tend to believe that conspiracy

Well, if you are going to disregard all the data based on a conspiracy idea, then all rational discussion goes out the window. I hope you don’t disregard the data that shows that smoking causes cancer or that medications can lower cholesterol as similarly unreliable due to a conspiracy. Those findings are all also supported only by data - maybe it's all been faked by an anti-tobacco conspiracy?


With this much difference of opinion, within the scientific community

There really isn’t disagreement in the scientific community any more. There was legitimate reasons to be unsure of global warming in the 1990’s, but by this decade the data is very clear, and no major groups of scientists doubt global warming. You found a lone dissident. Did you read what I wrote back in post #63:

(I hope you aren't basing your scientific ideas on news reports by the media - those oversensationalize each new idea, and never take the time to rationally compare conflicting views. Or nearly as bad, based on what one scientists said at one point - one can always find a few crackpots who'll say anything, like you can still find "scientists" today who'll say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, that AIDS isn't related to a virus, etc.)


There are literally dozens of scientific organizations that have formal statements in agreement with this statement from the IPCC:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

There are exactly zero major scientific organizations that disagree with the above statement. There were many in the 1990, before more complete data analyses were available. During the last 10 years they have all dropped any dissent and agreed with the above statement. The last one was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which dropped their dissent last year. You can read their curent statement here

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf.



If it was as clear cut as proponents make it, why are so many scientists saying it's not the problem the al gore's of the world make it? Unlike al gore many scientists don't see man as the sole reason, nor do they reach the same conclusions resulting from the "science".

As described above, there is no real disagreement. Out of literally hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, who are real people with all kinds of backgrounds, etc, it’s inevitable that a few here or there will have any opinion you can pick. Do the math – if 99.99% of 300,000 scientists say that smoking causes cancer, that leaves 30 who say that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Do you think that means it’s perfectly safe to smoke, since there is disagreement in the scientific community? I hope not.

You've linked to one. You can probably link to several more if you look hard - simple math says that they have to be out there.

About the Pliestocene – are you saying that the earth is millions of years old, and that God didn’t make creation to fit his plan – but instead that it goes in cycles or randomly changes? It seems to me that if God wanted a cooler or warmer period in the past, then fine – that is different from us humans forcing it. On day 4 in the week of creation, there were no birds – does that mean it’s ok for someone to try to wipe out all birds today? I would say no, because that wouldn’t be respecting God’s wisdom of making birds (and creation) a certain way in the first place.

-Edward

[IrishLass]

Plus, and most importantly, let's not forget that climate "science" is SO easy to bend to fit whatever position one desires (as evidenced in this thread).....

If one wants to "prove" the earth is warming, they simply go back to the late 1800s or early 1900s as their reference point (the end of the little ice age)- if you start measurement at the end of a cooling cycle, you will naturally have a warming trend.....

Likewise, if one wants to "prove" another cooling period, they merely use a warmer starting point and measure from there.

But in reality, these cycles are affected more by sun cycles and/or volcanic activity than by anything man has done.

[OnceWasLost]

Well, Edward, there is not consensus. There are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe to your view of climate change. I have posted articles that show that, those are only a couple of countless such articles from countless scientists.

As to the age of the earth, there are other threads for that. How they arrive at the dates is not as important as the fact that glaciers existed. That is the point.

[IrishLass]

kerri wrote:


Sure. Looking at only one small portion of a large data set is a sure way to avoid seeing a long term trend. What you’ve pointed out is the same thing that Mr.Mann pointed out (and that we’ve discussed) since post #3 & post #54 (did you look at the graph in post #54? Your data is already on there.)



Likewise (considering the last mini ice age lasted 500 years, with periods of ups and downs in between) I don't think 100 years is a large enough portion of time to "prove" the earth is suffering from "man-made global warming" rather than merely cycling ;)

and yes, I looked at the other data, but added mine as well to show a close up of the more recent "trend"



Another case of this is the short discussion about the noise between around 1940 and 1950. Or pick any of the dozen or so times that the red line goes down on the graph on post 54. If you want more short periods of “cooling”, just go to the graph on post #57. They are all “cooling” and they are all irrelevant.

An example of this would be if I measured my son’s height every day for a month. It wouldn’t show much increase, and maybe even a decrease. So based on that, I go on to claim that this idea of “child growth” is bunk. Silly? Of course it is.


No- an example of "reality" would be to show your sons growth over 80 years.... during that time, he would grow, sustain for a short time, then begin to shrink according to the natural cycle of things.

Now, if we use this same type of example in comparison to the global warming hysteria we see of late.... it would be like measuring your sons growth rate from the age of 0-18 and assuming entirely from those results that he will be roughly the size of a 2 story building by the time he retires, at which point, you then decide to start planning for his death by the age of 27, since his organs would no longer be able to "sustain" him at that large a size.

Now, THAT is what I call silly.



Of course having Jesus in your heart is most important. And so if Jesus is in your heart, will you act to care for Jesus’ creation, or will you disregard any concern for Jesus’ creation?

hmmm..... that is not at all the point I was making, and I'm left wondering if you either intentionally are manipulating or simply misunderstood.... But the fact you snipped out the part of my post that fully explained my position makes me very suspicious of your motives....

So, I will repost my sentiments (including bolding the portion you snipped), to make my meaning clear (again):


I can't believe that you are suggesting that Jesus is more concerned about whether or not we drive an SUV when men's souls and hearts are further and further from Him?

Our commission is to go out and spread the gospel...... THAT, above all else, is what we will be answering for- not whether or not we saw some charts and decided to trade our SUV in for a sedan.

So folks, if you need to take those plane trips to go on missions, or use that big old van to load up with goods to take to the poor, please don't think it would upset God in any way if your "carbon footprint" is higher than the next guy because of it.

The Lord told us in the scriptures that creation itself would groan for His coming.... do you really think that we should be trusting in men's graphs (which are ever changing depending on their limited knowledge and/or agendas) in the hopes that we can actually change this? No, the LORD is coming, creation is groaning, and scripture tells us to expect these birth pangs... and THAT is why we are seeing an increase in wild weather, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes etc....

So let's stop worrying about those things that we can not change, and start being about the business of our Lord. (I say that as much or more to myself as anyone else). Time is short- Maranatha!"

so let me be more clear- our COMMISSION (i/e: the specific job Jesus told us to be doing until He comes back for us) is not trying to save the planet - but souls.

...and thinking we ever could truly "fix" the planet ourselves, when these things that are happening (in conjunction with the other end time prophecies being fulfilled even as we speak) are scripturally prophesied to happen.... is utterly prideful and foolish to boot.



Well, again, sure – I agree – if missionary activities increase your carbon footprint, then still do them. But how much of the increase your carbon footprint is due to missionary activities? Do you haul so many bibles that you need an SUV? On your last drive, was your vehicle full of fellow missionaries? Let’s answer those one honestly for ourselves. Or are most of us able to cut back our carbon footprint while maintaining or even increasing our witness? Are we using the Gospel as a cover for simply selfish behavior? What kind of heart does that indicate?


What *I* do makes no difference to YOUR argument that we all need to be selling our cars, houses, and whatever else to be able to lesson our carbon footprint..... *YOU* are the one trying to place guilt and shame on the readers by suggesting that Jesus would be ashamed of (and judge) those with a larger carbon footprint. I don't believe that hogwash for one minute. It's manipulative, agenda driven drivel.

To be good stewards of creation, we need only listen to the Holy Spirit within us, and He will most certainly guide us in if/when/how that should best be done.... He doesn't need you to threaten judgement by YOUR standards of what should or shouldn't be done.



So kerri is physically unable to choose a more fuel efficient car when she buys her next car? Are you unable to resist the urge to leave lights on that you don’t need? Is it impossible for you to urge others to help slow the degradation of Jesus’ creation when global warming comes up in discussion? Just because an effect is global doesn't mean we can't contribute our part. Islam is rapidly overtaking Christianity globally - but of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't witness for Jesus ourselves.


This is ridiculousness.... if I choose a more fuel efficient car, it will NOT be because I think I can somehow save the planet (when God Himself has said otherwise), it will be for various other, much more realistic, reasons.

And your comparison of global warming to Islam is mind-numbingly inappropriate.



Why not help preserve the creation while we go about doing the lord’s work? I would think that having Jesus in one’s heart would touch all aspects of one’s life, wouldn't you?

-Edward

Seriously, your tone is so condescending and manipulative.... you really must think that Christians are all morons or something. I assure you, if that is your belief, you are very mistaken.

As I said before, the Lord doesn't need you to play the part of the Holy Spirit for Him.

[kalanaka]

:agree

Outstanding post IrishLass... :thumb

In Christ... :hat

[svend]

Well said Irish Lass!

We are to worship the Creator not the creation, God gave us Dominion over what he had created until man sinned at which point, Satan got his 2 cents in to the mix. But when Jesus Died in perfection for sins He did not commit, He took back dominion of this earth from Satan.

Having said all this the earth will warm and the earth will cool, in fact the earth cooled so fast that the mammoths were flash frozen so cold that stomach contents were preserved intact, those that believe mammoths were living on tundra grass have to wonder how tundra grass could have supported animals that large. funny thing though buttercups were found in the stomach contents of one of these large animals that was thawed out. In the future might be a short future we will again have mass temp gradients

[lyngraphics]

Even if you needed a large vehicle for missionary or charity things once a week, wouldn't that be enough? Should we park our SUV's, vans and trucks for the rest of the time?
I have a problem with people pushing their agenda's onto others and trying to make them feel guilty about what they DON'T do- instead of thanking them for what they do to be good stewards. There are plenty of people here who do their part to take care of the earth with God gave us....

NO ONE on this earth has the power to destroy it.