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: Of course you can't blame it on communists, there arn't many of them left! | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:00:29 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "You can't blame global warming on communism or fascism, only capitalism can pollute so much!" on 13:08:38 03/12/07 Mon A handfull in Cuba and a handfull of you leftist econuts. Not enough to amount to any pollution except all the hot air CO2 that spews out of their mouths. >>> 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 |
| Excuse me . Why resort to lies oro No one on this board is a communist | Bev | 14:16:50 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||