Christians and Climate Change

192885_5_.jpg


Not to mention that people charge their electric cars most often using electricity generated by burning coal or oil.

Not to mention the harm that can be caused by putting expired electric car batteries in landfill. 

Not to mention that CO2 is a GOOD thing in many ways.  Plants love it.  And if it really does cause a slight increase in temperature (the verdict is still out on that), that will increase the growing season. 

Which raises the question, what do global warming alarmists have against food? 
 
Food allows people to live.
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Izdaari]I don't actively believe or disbelieve in climate change. I'm waiting for more evidence. But I don't trust the political motivations and agendas of either side in the debate, so that's mainly what I'm skeptical about.
Click to expand...

Yes, this.
[/quote]

In the 70s one side said man is going to cause another ice age.
They lied.

Then the same people said man is going to cause a global catastrophe by heating the earth' atmosphere.
They lied.

Now, the same people say man is causing 'climate change' that will lead to destruction.

It doesn't take an Einstein to decide who the lying liars are in the debate.  ;)
 
I've played SimEarth and seen what havoc a small change in the atmosphere can wreak.

Just because liars are saying it, doesn't mean it's false. All the same, I'll need to hear it from better sources before I'll believe it.
 
Izdaari said:
I've played SimEarth and seen what havoc a small change in the atmosphere can wreak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, SimEarth has a really accurate climate model.  In fact, I think that's what IPCC, NOAA, and NASA use.  Oh, and University of East Anglia.  Definitely the University of East Anglia. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Izdaari said:
I've played SimEarth and seen what havoc a small change in the atmosphere can wreak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, SimEarth has a really accurate climate model.  In fact, I think that's what IPCC, NOAA, and NASA use.  Oh, and University of East Anglia.  Definitely the University of East Anglia.
Click to expand...

^^^^ :D
 
Izdaari said:
I've played SimEarth and seen what havoc a small change in the atmosphere can wreak.

Just because liars are saying it, doesn't mean it's false. All the same, I'll need to hear it from better sources before I'll believe it.
Click to expand...

The video game!?
That's like teaching your teen how to drive by playing Fast and Furious with them.
 
Gotta love the "climate change" crowd, when global warming wasn't working, they changed!  :) :D
 
The greatest thing about global warming is that it's such a crock that it's an endless source of humor.

An Inconvenient Truth from Futurama

I love the South Park episode where, to reduce smog, everyone gets a hybrid.  And they think so highly of themselves for saving the planet that it leads to severe smug alerts. 

 
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease"
 
Some interesting predictions:

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

I can't fault Viner much here, since he was probably using SimEarth for his climate modeling. 

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

I must have missed that news story in 1995.

"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

Present trends?  What present trends could he have been talking about in 1970?  Climate frauds scientists have been telling us that the trend has been all warming all the time since the industrial revolution began. 

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb", Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

I'd take 10-1 odds against any global warming predictions. 

"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Too bad this one didn't come true.  It could have solved man-made global warming.  If global warming was man-made.  Or global.  Or warming. 

 
2014: THE COOLEST U.S. SUMMER ON RECORD

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/28/2014-The-Coolest-U-S-Summer-on-Record

As Homer Simpson said, "Warming makes it colder!"

Interesting comment:

Climate alchemy pretends that a single parameter controls a vast, dynamic, chaotic system. More than 98% of the mass of our little solar system is in the variable output SUN, that Earth orbits in a variable distance elliptical path, with variable magnetosphere protection from particle bombardments, which cause variations in Earth's fission driven volcanic systems, causing variable internal heat.

More than 30% of the incoming solar energy is reflected or absorbed by Ozone, Oxygen and water vapor in the 250 to 2000 nanometer range. CO2 absorbs in the 2.7, 4.6 and 14.7 micron range, but the Sun heated Earth only gets hot enough to radiate in the 14.7 micron range, therefore more CO2 will filter MORE incoming than outgoing energy, therefore more CO2 causes more COOLING.

See..."Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami"
Click to expand...

 
More interesting stuff.  I bet the climate models (which are nonsense, anyway) don't take this into account. 

http://www.fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Gas_Ptolemaic_Model.pdf

Carbon Dioxide absorbs in the 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm range, but with its low Infrared emission, based on its low 210o to 310o  K temperature range, the Earth only emits energy in ONE CO2 absorption range. The CO2 molecule is linear, with central Carbon atom and one Oxygen atom, exactly opposite each other. With this molecule structure, CO2 has only one vibrational mode, and absorption results in a billionth of a second vibration, followed by an emission, which due to the Laws of Energy Conservation, MUST be lower energy and longer wavelength. The now excited CO2 molecule then releases this excess energy to the adjoining 79% atmospheric Nitrogen and 19% atmospheric Oxygen. This energy is then removed from the lower atmosphere to the upper by convective currents and does NOT travel down to the Earth. The planet wide lapse rate of 2o C (3o F) for every 1000 ft of altitude increase is proof that this energy is being removed in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I love the opening graf. 

Accused of being “flat Earth deniers of settled science” requires placing the Ptolemaic Model in perspective. Discussed for two centuries by the Greeks, Aristotle in 400 BC gave a solution involving approximately 50 transparent concentric spheres which rotated to provide the movements of planets and stars observed on a fixed, flat Earth. The fact that mathematical formulas provided some accuracy on the beginning and end of planet retrograde motions gave some empirical proof of concept. The fact that NO empirical evidence points of Carbon climate forcing has not bothered the “settled” scientists, which we will examine. In 1543 Copernicus proposed a circular orbit, heliocentric solar system, but by 1609, Kepler had proven the elliptical orbit model. Galileo’s discovery of moons around Jupiter in 1610 ended the useful period of ‘Flat Earth Center of the Universe’ Ptolemaic Model. For two thousand years humans believed a false model, with some mathematical support, but their “beliefs” did not alter reality. Greenhouse gas belief does not alter reality either, as we will soon prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top