- #1
- 8,142
- 1,756
"If you love Jesus, you'll fight global warming"
Talk about a paradigm shift!
Talk about a paradigm shift!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1594855
If you love Jesus, you'll fight global warming
- News
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Global Global warming Love
In summary: Dumbest idea ever! But thats what scientists do, right? Debate things until they become absurd?In summary, the evangelical Christian leaders are supporting legislation to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and they are airing a television ad to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming. I do not think that we are going to stop global warming, and politicians cannot get elected by cutting the economy down 10 or 20 percent. Nuclear power may be the best solution to the problem.
- #2
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
It will take god's help.
Yesterday I saw a movie on global warming, narrated by Alanis Morisette (sp?). There was a disconnect between the two themes of the movie, on the one hand you had scientists stating the dire effects that global warming is already having on everything from rice paddies to midwestern asthma. One scientist stated that it would take tenfold times the Kyoto restrictions to halt GW.
The other thread was what we can do, and it was about turning out lights, and solar power ( which was going to bring in lots of "high paying technical jobs". Gee, I wonder who will end up paying all those high salaries?), and the rest of the you-can-do-it greenery from the 70's. None of this showed any feel at all for what "ten times Kyoto" means in economic, social, or personal terms.
I don't think we're going to stop global warming; it's just too big a thing. Politicians can't get re-elected by cutting the economy down 10 or 20 percent. Not here and not in Europe either.
Yesterday I saw a movie on global warming, narrated by Alanis Morisette (sp?). There was a disconnect between the two themes of the movie, on the one hand you had scientists stating the dire effects that global warming is already having on everything from rice paddies to midwestern asthma. One scientist stated that it would take tenfold times the Kyoto restrictions to halt GW.
The other thread was what we can do, and it was about turning out lights, and solar power ( which was going to bring in lots of "high paying technical jobs". Gee, I wonder who will end up paying all those high salaries?), and the rest of the you-can-do-it greenery from the 70's. None of this showed any feel at all for what "ten times Kyoto" means in economic, social, or personal terms.
I don't think we're going to stop global warming; it's just too big a thing. Politicians can't get re-elected by cutting the economy down 10 or 20 percent. Not here and not in Europe either.
- #3
kmarinas86
- 979
- 1
If everybody in alternative energy field focused on this plan (power via buoys), I'm sure it will succeed:
www.oceanpowertechnologies.com
I saw these people on "Discoveries this Week" on the Science Channel.
They have the best alternative energy program by far.
www.oceanpowertechnologies.com
I saw these people on "Discoveries this Week" on the Science Channel.
They have the best alternative energy program by far.
Last edited:
- #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Want my advice? Nuclear war. Less pollution, possibly even a dip in temperatures, antarctica will foot the bill.
That's actually the problem with politicians being... politicians. They really can't come out and give the perfect plan because there is no perfect plan. Someone is going to lose their job, someone is going to have to live a crappier life, blah blah blah... but no one wants to say it.
I say nuclear power. Damn it, the hell with what people's ignorant fears may be, go nuclear. We know how to do it, it makes a lot of power, it has minimal relative impact on the environment. The more people bicker, the bigger the problem is. Build it and use it until something better is designed. I really don't think anyone actually gives a crap about global warming. If people did care, they would look at Kyoto and wonder exactly why some of it is as stupid as it seems. That's really the problem here. No one is going to agree to what we NEED to agree to. Everyone has to be touchy feelie, we can't use nuclear reactors because people will cry and greenpeace will come out and make fools of themselves, etc etc. Real solutions call for real action, john wayne style. Pow pow, cowboys and indians, everyone dies... because if the indians don't die, you will!
Ok I am not sure what that last bit was about but nuclear power rules!
That's actually the problem with politicians being... politicians. They really can't come out and give the perfect plan because there is no perfect plan. Someone is going to lose their job, someone is going to have to live a crappier life, blah blah blah... but no one wants to say it.
I say nuclear power. Damn it, the hell with what people's ignorant fears may be, go nuclear. We know how to do it, it makes a lot of power, it has minimal relative impact on the environment. The more people bicker, the bigger the problem is. Build it and use it until something better is designed. I really don't think anyone actually gives a crap about global warming. If people did care, they would look at Kyoto and wonder exactly why some of it is as stupid as it seems. That's really the problem here. No one is going to agree to what we NEED to agree to. Everyone has to be touchy feelie, we can't use nuclear reactors because people will cry and greenpeace will come out and make fools of themselves, etc etc. Real solutions call for real action, john wayne style. Pow pow, cowboys and indians, everyone dies... because if the indians don't die, you will!
Ok I am not sure what that last bit was about but nuclear power rules!
- #5
Curious3141
Homework Helper
- 2,862
- 88
Pengwuino said:
- #6
- 8,142
- 1,756
selfAdjoint said:
Well, there could be a ten times Kyoto solution.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14470
Scary stuff...
And I would like to add that if you love Jesus, you will sacrifice your SUV; for demolition.
Last edited:
- #7
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Ivan Seeking said:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I was minutes away coming in here and asking if any such inert gas coudl be made that reflected the infrared back out into space. Or maybe a huge mirror! We can make the sun into a huge archimedes lens thingy!
- #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
I say start building nukes. Everyone seems to be good at sitting on their butt and theorizing about the ultimate way of dealing with global warming or complaining about this and that but no one wants to go out and do something!
If you love jesus, you love MOX.
If you love jesus, you love MOX.
- #9
- 8,142
- 1,756
Pengwuino said:
So you are speaking here as a chemist? As an atmospheric scientist? Or out of ignorance? What can you tell me about it; speaking as a scientist.
- #10
SOS2008
Gold Member
- 42
- 1
A chemist...maybe...one who needs to stop taking what he makes in the bathtub?Ivan Seeking said:
- #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Ivan Seeking said:
I was laughing at the fact that i was just about to come in here and ask about the feasability of just such a solution outlined in the link you put up.
Turn off your auto-insult mechanisms
- #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
SOS2008 said:
How rude, please refrain from such behavior.
- #13
Art
What is the latest thinking on GW? A while back I saw some studies that concluded whilst greenhouse gasses do cause warming the effect is beneficial because it promotes plant growth and mitigates against a natural cyclic event which is leading us into the next ice-age.
- #14
Zlex
- 40
- 1
Art said:
Really? I've read some studies too, seemed mostly like junk to me.
Do you remember seeing statements of uncertainty with all these precise 'measurements' of global warming, cooling, whatever? Seldom, never.
It's one thing to attempt to integrate out space born satellite measurements--available for the last few decades, not centuries or millenia, and even THAT requires a model and assumptions, and those things do not have zero uncertainty. Where is THAT data fro the 1800s? the 1700s?
So, what means of measuring 'the' global temperature in centuries past exist, and, much more important, what is the uncertainty of those methods? Oh, we dig up sparsely sampled glacial ice, then look at trapped gasses, then take a WAG uncalibratable guess at how this local measurement relates to 'global' agregates, and then, here is the kicker, DO NOT publish our uncertainties--not even, estimates of same. Nope; "4.31 deg C change" in 'the' global temperature, or whatever. And, we compare that with modern space born data from radiometers, which, by the way, measure scene radiance, not even scene temperature, and certainly, not surface temperature. To try to convert to a surface temperature, a hand waving model of the atmosphere must be employed, give or take a Pinatubo eruption, and in the end, simply brute force correlated with surface bouy data. As imprecise as all of THAT is, we pretend to compare it with data extracted from ancient history? Or, my favorite--future history? Jesus H. Christ.
If the change being claimed is substantially less than the uncertainty of the methods used, then what does that tell you?
As well, the absolute biggest driver in all of this; solar 'constant,' poorly named.
In all of this observational science, there is one thing that is the least uncertain; in the end, no matter how long we hold our breath, the entire Universe is going to be a dim 3 deg Kelvin cloud of nothingness. In a cosmic sense, it's totally OK if we leave some greasy naked ape fingerprints along the way; it's of no more cosmic significance --nor permanance--than the wake of surfboard left on the ocean.
- #15
- 8,142
- 1,756
Pengwuino said:
Sorry about that. I don't know how that happens...sometimes I completely misread things. I guess I try to rush through too quickly and just don't read things.
- #16
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Ivan Seeking said:
Well most things i see funny aren't funny to other people :tongue2:
- #17
- 8,142
- 1,756
Well, it's like I always say, penguins have a unique sense of humor.
- #18
Entropy
- 478
- 0
"[God will] bring to ruin those ruining the earth."-- Revelation 16:14
Just a thought for all the "Chirstians" out there working for oil companies and such.
1. What is the connection between loving Jesus and fighting global warming?
The connection lies in the belief that as stewards of the earth, it is our responsibility to protect and preserve the environment. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors and care for the vulnerable, and fighting global warming is one way to fulfill this teaching by protecting those who are most affected by climate change.
2. Is there evidence in the Bible that supports fighting global warming?
While the term "global warming" may not be directly mentioned in the Bible, there are numerous verses that speak to the importance of caring for the earth and its inhabitants. For example, in Genesis 2:15, God instructs Adam to "take care of" the garden, which can be interpreted as taking care of the earth. Additionally, in Leviticus 25:23, God reminds us that the earth belongs to Him and we are simply tenants, reinforcing the idea that we should be good stewards of the earth.
3. How can I, as an individual, contribute to fighting global warming?
As an individual, there are many small actions you can take to make a big impact in the fight against global warming. These include reducing your carbon footprint by using renewable energy sources, conserving energy, reducing waste, and supporting environmentally-friendly businesses. Additionally, you can advocate for policy changes and support organizations working towards a more sustainable future.
4. How can the church play a role in fighting global warming?
The church can play a significant role in fighting global warming by educating and mobilizing its members to take action. This can include incorporating creation care into sermons and teachings, hosting events and discussions about environmental issues, and partnering with local organizations to make a positive impact in the community. The church can also use its influence to advocate for environmental policies and support sustainable practices within its own operations.
5. What are the potential consequences of not addressing global warming?
If we do not take action to fight global warming, the consequences could be severe. The earth's temperature will continue to rise, leading to more extreme weather events, sea level rise, and the displacement of millions of people. Biodiversity loss, food and water scarcity, and negative impacts on public health are also potential consequences. By taking action now, we can mitigate these risks and create a more sustainable future for all.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion