Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Capitalism caused the Gulf Coast huricannes and floods????LOL! | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:06:04 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "Re: And again..." on 13:02:03 03/12/07 Mon > It doesn't matter what non-religious people think >about the flood, it matters what religious people >think about it, for those of us who are religious, a >prediction - prophesy of a global catastrophe, >remarkably similar to the flood of noah, should be >taken seriously. > > Interesting that scientists used science to bash >religion, and now are being put in the position that >in the past was the role of the religious? It is >somewhat a form of justice by God, but it also shows >that God respects them, he is punishing them by making >them prophets. Why would God find scientists worthy >of this after they misused science to attack religion? > I believe that in spite of the anti-religious nature >of many scientists, they have nevertheless committed >themselves to finding the truth, which is a virtue, >and God finds them worthy of repentence. Also, the >religious leaders have been corrupted, it is >understandable that people challenge religious >institutions, sometimes it is necessary. There is no >redeeming values to capitalism, it devours society, it >destroys God's creation in it's entirety, in the end >capitalism will be swamped by the flood it created, as >it was in noah's days, it was recently on the gulf >coast. > >>Just a couple weeks ago people on this board were >>making fun of the belief of Noah's Flood. I guess >>whatever suits the moment for the agruement! >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> the scientists have never found evidence of a >>>global catastrophe to explain noah's flood, although >>>there were regoinal catastrophes around the time the >>>bible claims it happened. The description of noah's >>>civilization is remarkably similar to that of western >>>civilization, it was a selfish, individualistic, >>>materialistic society with no central government, and >>>it was accompanied by major advances in technology. >>>The civilization of noah went through a period of >>>denial of noah's prophesy, very similar to the global >>>warming deniers of our time. There was an incredible >>>amount of sexual depravity, and eventually slavery, >>>just as capitalism has done to western civilization. >>> >>> In the bible, water is a symbol of materialistic >>>prosperity, the flood represents the overconsumption >>>of that generation, and perhaps our generation. >Water >>>vapor is the dominent greenhouse gas, except in the >>>polar region. The after effects of the flood were >>>shorter lifespans and increased desease, and that is >>>exactly what scientists warn us of in our flood. >>> >>> the evangelical movement was the largest source of >>>votes for the republicans, it looks like that support >>>is starting to crack, just like those huge glaciers >>>atop greenland. >>> >>>>OPINION By PHILIP STOTT >>>>March 9, 2007 — From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the >>>>post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate >>change >>>>cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and >>>>sinfulness. >>>> >>>>In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The >>>>Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: >>>>Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts >>>>expect," while The New York Times announced, "A >major >>>>cooling of the climate is widely considered >>>>inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming >>represents >>>>the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding >>>>sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven >>>>ways. >>>> >>>>But neither history nor science bolsters such an >>>>apocalyptic faith. >>>> >>>>History and Science >>>> >>>>Extreme weather events are ever present, and there >is >>>>no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the >>>>tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer >>>>world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in >>>>permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to >>"crisis" >>>>with warming. >>>> >>>> >>>>Sea levels have been rising since the end of the >last >>>>ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In >>>>recent centuries, the average rate has been >>relatively >>>>uniform. The rate was higher during the first half >of >>>>the 20th century than during the second. At around a >>>>couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of >>>>much larger positive and negative changes locally. >>The >>>>risk from global warming is less than that from >other >>>>factors (primarily geological). >>>> >>>>The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed >>>>during the second half of the 20th century, yet >>>>agricultural output increased markedly. The impact >on >>>>disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like >>malaria, >>>>are not so much a matter of temperature as of >poverty >>>>and public health. Malaria remains endemic in >>Siberia, >>>>and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to >>>>cold is generally more dangerous. >>>> >>>>So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause >>>>of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on >>>>temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with >>>>increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse >>>>gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor >>>>even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or >>>>greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient >>>>benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer >>>>models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C >warming. >>>> >>>>What is rarely noted is that we are already >>>>three-quarters of the way into this in terms of >>>>radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 >>>>(+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose >>>>that all of this is due to humans. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Indeed the system requires no external driver to >>>>fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of ocean >>>>disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also >>>>alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the >sun, >>>>water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth >>>>remembering that modelers even find it difficult to >>>>account for the medieval warm period. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The Real Crisis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Our so-called "crisis" is thus neither a product of >>>>current observations nor of projections. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>But does it matter if global warming is a "crisis" >or >>>>not? Aren't we threatened by a serious temperature >>>>rise? Shouldn't we act anyway, because we are >>stewards >>>>of the environment? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming >>>>hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die >of >>>>waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go >hungry. >>>>A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. >This >>>>does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting >>>>about "saving the planet." What is wrong with us >that >>>>we downplay this human misery before our eyes and >>>>focus on events that will probably not happen even a >>>>hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause >>>>of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we >>>>can and must act. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The global warming "crisis" is misguided. In >>>>hubristically seeking to "control" climate, we >>>>foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable >>>>change. There is no way we can predictably manage >>this >>>>most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. >>>>The inconvenient truth is that "doing something" >>>>(emitting gases) at the margins and "not doing >>>>something" (not emitting gases) are equally >>>>unpredictable. >>>> >>>> >>>>Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is >>both >>>>an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for >4 >>>>billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty >>>>water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By >>>>contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria >of >>>>the pampered rich. >>>> >>>>We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human >>>>doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The >>>>"crisis" is the global warming political agenda, not >>>>climate change. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the >>>>University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he >>was >>>>the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| You can't blame global warming on communism or fascism, only capitalism can pollute so much! | jw | 13:08:38 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||