Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

Yes, that is also the reason to be careful with the planet that sustains us.
We are conducting an experiment through our activities, caution is warranted.

Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

Some areas might benefit, others not so much.

The real problem is nobody knows if there will be a sudden disruptive change.

Should we panic? No. Should scientific consensus be ignored? No.

There are reasons other than global warming to abandon petroleum as a fuel.

Originally Posted by flaja

I expected a reply that is this lame because the internet proponents of evolution seldom put much time and thought into their efforts.

This passage does not support evolution; it merely reflects the order in which God created living things.

Originally Posted by flaja

I expected a reply that is this lame because the internet proponents of evolution seldom put much time and thought into their efforts.

This passage does not support evolution; it merely reflects the order in which God created living things.

Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

The real problem is nobody knows if there will be a sudden disruptive change.

Originally Posted by flaja

Are you familiar with the theory of pole shift?

When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis
Rand Flem-Ath, Rose Flem-Ath

What about Immanuel Velikovsky’s book, Earth in Upheaval and the wooly mammoth found in Siberia frozen solid with grass in its mouth?

Sudden cataclysmic changes to the earth may very well be possible and they may very well be possible without any human cause.

Originally Posted by flaja

Are you familiar with the theory of pole shift?

When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis
Rand Flem-Ath, Rose Flem-Ath

What about Immanuel Velikovsky’s book, Earth in Upheaval and the wooly mammoth found in Siberia frozen solid with grass in its mouth?

Sudden cataclysmic changes to the earth may very well be possible and they may very well be possible without any human cause.

Originally Posted by Lookagain

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm

IGNORE THIS.................AHAHAHAHAHAHAH............sor ry dude......I couldn't resit mate;-)

Originally Posted by flaja

Note: I consider global warming to be a political issue, not a scientific one.

Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.


If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists. This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.