Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

I appreciate and advocate for dissenting opinion. However, I am quite amazed that there are still folks out there that don't see something very real is happening to our environment.

 

Yeah, it's warmed all the way up to 19 degrees today.

Do you guys realize almost 50 people have died in America's winter storms, so far this year.

Nothing like tring to force a lifestyle change on hard working folks without even a fair debate.

 

What does that mean? I'm staring at snow outside of my window in a region that typically doesn't get snow, it proves nothing. However, the fact that the ice caps on Mt. Hood are pretty much gone is pretty interesting. The fact that Portage Glacier in Alaska is now a lake, that's interesting. Glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising but we close our eyes, cover our ears, and speak no global warming. I'm not talking about causes or solutions, I am talking about being honest with ourselves that something very serious is happening or has happened to our environment.

 

Ice caps, caribou, the spotted owl, the kangaroo mouse, shrimp-fish in Colorado, the list is endless.

You want to force a lifestyle change, without a fair open debate, and I find that extremely offensive.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Empirical evidence indeed shows a warming. The issue is that of cause. Is man responsible? In my opinion, in no possible way could man effect the temperature of the earth.

And Bro. Curtis, don't forget my personal favorite, the Snail Darter, the most powerful, (in terms of wasted money) useless fish in history.

 

==I think the concept of academic freedom has been lost on many people in the academic world. They don't wish to debate an issue so they attempt to create a situation in which they can say that everyone who disagrees with them is not qualified to do so. It is called academic snobbery and, believe it or not, it is a wide-spread problem in many fields of academic study. In the field of New Testament, for example, I have heard simular comments made by John Shelby-Spong. I heard once heard him in an interview imply that scholars needed to have certain degrees from certain schools for him to take them seriously.

This climatologist simply does not wish to debate those who disagree with her. It is that simple.

While the globe certainly seems to be warming the direct cause of that warming is debatable. As is the answer to the question "has this happened before?".

Ed Nye, the "science guy", was on CNN the other day claiming that the warm winter was the new norm. Meanwhile several western states were covered in deep snow and one day later, I believe, I read an article on accu-weather stating that the warm winter was coming to an end. Guess what? It has. The fact is there are several reasons why we have had a warm winter (so far) and there are several reasons that may now be changing. Global warming, whatever its causes, is only one part of the puzzle.

I think humans have been silly to believe that, on this massive planet, the "norm" would always remain the "norm".

 

This subject is on par with the evolutionist vs. creationist debate. Their (secular progressive scientists) theory of evolution is allowed in schools to be stated as fact. I have done a few lectures on this in church and taken science books from local public schools that clearly state the earth is 40 million years old, another states the earth is 100 million...which is it...they are both stated as pure fact, not in terms of "according to some scientist the earth could possibly be xx years old..." and then state the reason why they believe this to be true.

But you counter that with the theory of creationism, back it up with science (something evolutionist have a very hard time doing) and they cry you are teaching a religion. I am all for both being taught in school, but as theories, not false facts shoved down our throat only later to quietly be discredited on page e-10 of your local newspaper and not even worthy enough to make it to television news.

This arguement of global warming is exactly the same. There is, as stated above, emperical evidence to validate a change happening. However, there are several theories of why that is happening, none have been proven to be factual. The theories again should be taught and considered, however, do not force us to believe one side.

Then the logic for allieviating the problem is just outrageous. such as the ban on refrigerants. They claim that CFC's have caused much of the global warming problem, so they banned them from our ACs, spray bottles, etc. Yet I had a chemistry professor show us exactly why that could not possibly happen. CFCs are much heavier than air and have no way of making it up to the upper atmosphere. When this problem was posed to one scientist he stated that the winds aloft carried them up there. Well uhmm, I am not a scientist, I am a pilot and I know that the air gets less dense as you go up, so wouldn't the CFCs also be relatively heavier the higher you go up?? Its just insane and yet they want to force their beliefs on you with no proof whatsoever. This has cost billions of dollars to change out AC systems, find new propellants, etc.

Sorry about the rabbit trails, but felt I had to use a few examples to make my points!! :jesus:

 

Why is it very serious? Who said it is serious? What evidence is there that these changes mean a serious event is on the way? In the 70s the earth was headed for an ice age. Now we are headed for a warming. The climate goes up and down. There is no real long term norm never has been. How ever global warming goes along way to further socialist junk.

 

The Bible perhaps?

"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" - 2 Peter 3:12​

 

The error is the name

The error was naming the phenomenon "global warming" instead of "accelerating climate change."

 

What?

 

What? What? You are looking for global warming to occur at some point right? Is it not possible that the things we are seeing is stagesetting for the verse I quoted or perhaps the one below as well?

"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire." - Revelation 16:8​

Thus, wouldn't the Bible say that this is serious?

 

I am not looking for global warming to happen at all in the characature that the proponents have laid it out. And I do not relate the earths climate changes to Eschatology. I would be interested to know under what set of teachings you would aquire that from.

 

If it's angels & prophecy behind global warming, I'd like to know how Rufus thinks we should combat it.

 

It's a set of teachings where I take this book I have, I turn a bunch of pages to the left, sort of lean forward and I train my eyes to go from the left of the page to the right of the page. There are characters in the pages in that book, when combined, suggest that the sun is going to get real hot and the elements are going to melt. Then I do one of the rarest of things...I believe it.

 

Rufus recommends Luke 21:36 as an effective means of dealing with global warming.

 

The earths climate change has nothing to do with God's judgement. But keep flipin maybe you will figure it out.

 

Yup. I disagree with that verse supporting a "save the world" movement. I think that verse is a promise to the faithful.