Global Warming

Actually this is one thing that I'm really not sure about. I haven't educated myself on the subject enough to have a worthwhile opinion so I'll just go ahead and tick the "not sure" box.

I hear from a reliable source though that it's all bs.

I believe that Global Warming is a natural process that's been sped up to a certain degree by man. Pollution does nothing good for the Earth or it's life and I believe it should be kept to a minimal amount. There's no way to stop pollution completely, but I'm sure there are ways to supress it for the most part.

I hear from a reliable source though that it's all bs.domatron23

I like that they accept the opinion of 650 scientists when thousands and thousands say otherwise, even when the Pope says that pollution is a deadly sin. But then again I'm sure many in the TCWU are protestants and don't give a flying **** what the Pope says.

Source, lol.  I tried to post there, forgot we're not allowed.  :)  So I kinda poached the topic, but wanted to see how our union felt about the subject.  I cannot for the life of me see how believing in global warming goes against the Bible.

I guess I should add my response to the question.  I think it is 100% caused by us. It's a perfect storm with pollution, massive population explosion, and no effort to curb any of it.  I'm fascinated by how once the ball gets rolling on temp rise it snowballs even more and more, ie: the loss of the Amazon Rain Forest.  No scientist worth his or her degree that I have ever heard or read thinks otherwise.  And if we go up 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years it will be catastrophic.

I cannot for the life of me see how believing in global warming goes against the Biblebtaylor2404

It really doesn't, what it goes against is their political affiliation.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I cannot for the life of me see how believing in global warming goes against the BibleTenP

It really doesn't, what it goes against is their political affiliation.

Very good point.

It's hillarious that some of my classmates when they heard that in case of the ice melt down in antarctica the sea level will rise a meter or two they simply said: "Pffff! So what is one or two meters!" Thinking propably that two meters would be enough to cover the sand in the beaches.Teenaged

Har har, not to mention that the ice in the polar ice caps is FRESH water and adding all of that FRESH water to all of that SALT water will have quite a devastating effect.

You know: animals and plants die, the gulf stream gets royally ****ed and the repercussions on land will be life threatening.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It's hillarious that some of my classmates when they heard that in case of the ice melt down in antarctica the sea level will rise a meter or two they simply said: "Pffff! So what is one or two meters!" Thinking propably that two meters would be enough to cover the sand in the beaches.TenP

Har har, not to mention that the ice in the polar ice caps is FRESH water and adding all of that FRESH water to all of that SALT water will have quite a devastating effect.

You know: animals and plants die, the gulf stream gets royally ****ed and the repercussions on land will be life threatening.

That outcome would have similar repercussions as this then: "A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died" - Revelation 8:8-9

I hear from a reliable source though that it's all bs.

domatron23

Denial of man's responsiblity for global warming is pretty much identical to (and usually accompanied by) creationism. That is to say, its an almost exclusively American knee-jerk rejection of well-established science on grounds that it contradicts certain people's worldview/agenda.

It's a classic case of manufactored contraversy; getting just the right amout important-looking PhD's with desks and business suits to say they disagree with something in order to confuse the ignorant public (again, creationism).

Of course, convincng the "skeptics" that it is true wouldn't make the least bit of difference, given their solemn vow to not care about the environment at all, ever. There are no "deforestation skeptics", "air polution dissidents" or "endangered species alternativists", but there are, however, plenty of folks willing to turn a blind eye to it all, lest they fall into the "pinko commie bleeding heart liberal pansy environmental wacko" pigeonhole.

Besides, Jesus did say about 2,000 years ago that the end of the world would be comming "soon", and it would be a most extravagent waste for every god-fearing Republican to be raptured out with parts of the planet left unspoiled.

/rant

I'm pretty sure that the recent warming is due to the greenhouse effect, which has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.

funnily enough, a distorted version of Pascal's Wager comes into play here, which pretty much destroys any 'no human responsibility' argument, unless convincing evidence was presented that would prove that humans aren't responsible.

I'm pretty sure that the recent warming is due to the greenhouse effect, which has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.

funnily enough, a distorted version of Pascal's Wager comes into play here, which pretty much destroys any 'no human responsibility' argument, unless convincing evidence was presented that would prove that humans aren't responsible.

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm pretty sure that the recent warming is due to the greenhouse effect, which has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.

funnily enough, a distorted version of Pascal's Wager comes into play here, which pretty much destroys any 'no human responsibility' argument, unless convincing evidence was presented that would prove that humans aren't responsible.

Funky_Llama

Not in the long run, as use of non-fossil fuel alternatives should save us money. Also, effort and time is unavoidable, as fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, so we must invest in alternatives.

And still the Pascal's wager link is apt, as mass floodings and deaths is surely worse than those three things you stated.

I can't believe in the world's most powerful nation -- America, a large percentage of people are still debating this.

In Britain, there is hardly any debate, as we accept what the well-informed scientists tell us. :(

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm pretty sure that the recent warming is due to the greenhouse effect, which has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.

funnily enough, a distorted version of Pascal's Wager comes into play here, which pretty much destroys any 'no human responsibility' argument, unless convincing evidence was presented that would prove that humans aren't responsible.

MetalGear_Ninty

Not in the long run, as use of non-fossil fuel alternatives should save us money. Also, effort and time is unavoidable, as fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, so we must invest in alternatives.

And still the Pascal's wager link is apt, as mass floodings and deaths is surely worse than those three things you stated.

And burning in hell would be worse than being bored in Church or something...

In Britain, there is hardly any debate, as we accept what the well-informed scientists tell us. :(

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

In Britain, there is hardly any debate, as we accept what the well-informed scientists tell us. :(

Funky_Llama

Okay, I'll elaborate.

With all the evidence that has been shown in favour of 'man-made' global warming.