Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by StefanM, Feb 1, 2007.
What is your opinion on global warming?
"Global warming" exists. the earth's temp is never static, and recently the average temp globally has increased very slightly.
Statistically, we have absolutely no way to prove anything with this recent spike. Our temperature records only go 120 years or so back, so statistical comparisons are pretty much useless.
I don't think we have enough info to blame the whole thing on humans. What about previous warming cycles...who caused them? Gassy cows? We just don't know.
I'll try and not get too long with this example: Let's say I'm at a campfire. I'm sitting there. Suddenly, I start feeling warm. So it's obvious that I have a fever, and that a flu virus caused it...right? Face it...lots of things can cause me to feel warm. But dontcha think it would be worth looking at the fire before I blame the flu or something else? After all...that is the heat source. I find it funny that the Earth is magically just getting warmer, and no one is considering the Sun as a possible culprit.
Some of the strident advocates for man-made global warming are guilty of circular reasoning. Al Gore has said that "virtually all credible scientists agree that man is largely responsible for global warming." But then...he defines "credible scientists" as "those who believe in man-made global warming." Circular reasoning, besides being logic's version of nailing jello to a tree, makes for very bad scientific methodology.
In the past, we've been told horror stories about the climate. Heck, even a couple of decades ago, mankind was supposed to freeze his little petunias off by now. Let's keep in mind...Al Roker misses quite a few forecasts. I'm not ready for a group batting .500 or less to determine our economic future.
The economic global warming corrections offered in the past by the UN were blatantly anti-American. They allowed other countries to continue in their ways...but our economy would have tanked had we initiated the Rio Accord. Even our democrats realized that. It was voted down resoundingly several years ago.
I figure, it must not be too bad. Al Gore's still riding in his limo caravan, motor homes, and private jets. When he tones it down, I'll start worrying.
SOme of my points were more serious than others. In short, our planet changes, but I'm not sure that we humans have that much to do with it. I'm not for raping our planet, but I'm also not for living in grass huts and dying of malaria either.
Gobal warming? I think the GW group has a point.:1_grouphug: Here in Syracuse:tonofbricks: , I remember when the tempature would get down to -15 or even lower.
But thanks to global warming it has gotten all the way up to the single digits these past two weeks!!!:applause:
//Global warming" exists. the earth's temp is never static, and recently the average temp globally has increased very slightly.
* Statistically, we have absolutely no way to prove anything with this recent spike. Our temperature records only go 120 years or so back, so statistical comparisons are pretty much useless.//
Oklahoma records go back about 120 years.
Three of the five hottest years (out of the 120)
are three of the last five years.
If you were being sarcastic, you loose -- that really is an example
of Global Warming.
Human activity is not responsible for global warming or global cooling.
You should make a bumper sticker.
I was thinking red background, white letters.
Nuclear explosions happen.
as of the date above the vote is:
I see that the 'result of human activity' is running half the vote.
This is another issue dividing half-and-half the American voting
This issue is really divisive.
Somebody defined 'politics' as the process
of determinating who gets what stuff.
And Global Warming changes the dynamic of
who gets what stuff.
Strangely, the position of anti-"global warming caused by human
activities" folk in the USofA is very similiar to the similiar
policy which is an official stand of the government of Red China
Global warming has happened before, and, if the Lord tarries, we'll eventually be hearing about a book written by Al Gore VI ignorantly and hysterically screaming about how human activity has caused global cooling and the earth will be destroyed in 10 years.
It is the height of arrogance to believe that we could intentionally destroy what God has created, much less accidentally as the libs claim we have done now.
I Pet. 3:10 - now that's global warming. Relax, we couldn't destroy the earth if every nation on earth got together in an intentional effort to do so. God has reserved that action for Himself.
Whether you agree with him or not, Al Gore is not ignorant - he has been roundly ridiculed for his wonkiness. Nor does he hysterically scream; on the contrary, he has been criticised for lecturing in a boringly fact-filled manner.
In fact, there is a danger of global cooling caused by sun-blocking pollution, ie. global dimming. Clean air initiatives of the last century have greatly diminished that kind of air pollution in the States, which, ironically, may have helped the trend towards global warming.
10 years? Any reason for that number or did you just make it up for fun?
You don't think that a forest, a river or a species has ever been destroyed by men?
I suppose that even if we had a global nuclear war the earth itself would not be destroyed, but likely most the land mammals would be (including us).
No, we'd just have no living creatures with a large glowing green ball. Nuclear war could destroy all of us. Sure, God would have to allow it, but it is possible.
Of course...he's brilliant. He invented the internet.
To believe in the possibility of a nuclear war that would wipe all life off the earth as you and Daisy have stated is to deny or not know the teachings of Scripture. Regardless of eschatological position, Christ will at some point set up His kingdom on this earth with living people.
You have missed the point entirely. Humanity is physically capable of unleashing a level of destruction that could wipe out life on earth. BUT, God would have to allow it, as he must allow anything to come to pass. I do not believe that God will allow total destruction of the earth. But, I do not think it far-fetched to think that God would allow a destruction of a significant portion of it.
The fear of global warming is not the fear of the complete destruction of the earth--it is the fear of the drastic alterations in the earth's climate which may cause dramatic loss of life and significant geographic changes.
My point is this: simply because I do not believe that God would not allow complete destruction of the earth is no reason to deny the possibility of significant, catastrophic events due to human activity.
PastorGreg: //It is the height of arrogance to believe that
we could intentionally destroy what God has created,
much less accidentally as the libs claim we have done now.//
How do you fit the following passages
into your eschatology?
Red because Jesus said it:
Matthew 24:21-22 (KJV1611 Edition):
For then shall be great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning
of the world to this time,
no, nor euer shall be.
22 And except those dayes should be shortned,
there should no flesh be saued: but for the elects sake,
those dayes shall be shortned.
I note that all flesh can be killed without destroying the rocks.
2 Pe 3:11-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolued,
What maner of persons ought ye to be
in all holy conuersation, and godlinesse,
12 Looking for and hasting vnto
the comming of the day of God,
wherein the heauens being on fire shalbe dissolued,
and the Elements shall melt with feruent heat.
I basically have the same eschatology from 1952 to
1964 as I do today: Pretribulation Rapture,
Premillinnial Second Coming, Futuristic.
But before 1964 I thought Revelation good cause
God was going to zap all the bad guys. But in
about 1964 it became possible for mankind to kill
themselves. Now I see that God must intervene
in the affairs of mankind to keep mankind from
This is way out of my field, but I was reading that over the past 7 years there hasn't been a change and that the 1930's were warmer than today. I know from the 40's on I've seen some spans of time where weather was colder and had much more snow than others.
Since we've only been recording the temperature for 120 years, we really have no real idea what the earths temperatures have always been like, we don't know about long and short term warming and cooling trends. Therefore we have no real idea if global wrming is true or not if it's part of normal earths activity. I think we need long term temperature records to know for sure.