Religion in schools again
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey, I thought they weren't supposed to teach religion in school. ;-) |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() i hate that this becomes an issue of debate. what is wrong with wanting to reduce pollution and green house gas emissions? why is it a talking point that the government is evil for regulating pollution levels? shouldn't we all want to keep it as clean as possible regardless? one side is obviously wrong while the other might be overly cautious. i'd err on the side of caution when the future of humanity and the entire global ecosystem rests in the balance.... |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() He's an interesting guy, to say the least. Definitely not some anti-science nut, he's got serious scientific credentials. He was one of the authors on the 1995 report on Global Warming. He was very angry about how the summary that was written took on a political slant but thought the science was excellent. He agrees global warming is happening, than man-made activity is contributing to the process, but that the models used to predict warming are inaccurate and don't take into account other factors which will eventually counteract the warming. He's also retracted some critical papers due to scientific errors. So I'm not going to his Temple any time soon. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Clempson i hate that this becomes an issue of debate. what is wrong with wanting to reduce pollution and green house gas emissions? why is it a talking point that the government is evil for regulating pollution levels? shouldn't we all want to keep it as clean as possible regardless? one side is obviously wrong while the other might be overly cautious. i'd err on the side of caution when the future of humanity and the entire global ecosystem rests in the balance.... Conservationalists like myself support reducing pollution. We don't buy into politically driven bs with goals based on financial gain though so I don't blindly follow the "global warming" crowd. Likewise, I don't buy into the business driven bs with goals based on financial gain so I don't blindly follow the anti global warming crowd. There is a balance and why err on either side when it's not necessary. Invoking an appeal to emotion with "...future of humanity and the entire global econsystem rests in the balance" is an immediate flag. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Clempson i hate that this becomes an issue of debate. what is wrong with wanting to reduce pollution and green house gas emissions? why is it a talking point that the government is evil for regulating pollution levels? shouldn't we all want to keep it as clean as possible regardless? one side is obviously wrong while the other might be overly cautious. i'd err on the side of caution when the future of humanity and the entire global ecosystem rests in the balance.... It may surprise you, but generally speaking I'm not in disagreement with you. I try to live a fairly green life, in that I buy fuel efficient vehicles, and I'm fascinated by alternate power and plan to install solar and wind at our next house in the country. I just don't buy into the alarmist viewpoint that has no science behind it. When it comes to personal choice I absolutely agree with you that we should err on the side of being good stewards of the resources we have. However, when it comes to the government spending 100's of billions of dollars to prop up "green" businesses that have no ability to succeed all in the name of saving the world from destruction I have a big problem. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]()
I think the people who take umbrage with global warming are the people who are sick of how the government uses it to do whatever the heck they want and to control us. Many agree that the EPA is out of control and a lot of their regulations make no sense whatsoever, and it is all done in the name of global warming. Take diesel engines for one. In 1997 you could buy a diesel pickup that would get 22-25mpg reliably. In 1998 the EPA instituted regulations on diesels that directly caused the mpg to drop. In 2007 the regs changed again and the mpg's dropped dramatically. I have an 06 diesel engine that gets 18-20mpg in my truck. My dad has the exact same truck but with an 07 compliant engine, he gets 12mpg. It is well documented that if he takes the EPA junk off the truck it will get 20mpg just like mine, the only reason he gets worse mileage is all the EPA required emissions stuff on his truck. So to save some tailpipe emissions we lower the mpg by almost 50%. I don't have solid numbers but I assume that the pollution created by drilling, refining, transporting etc. that extra 40% of fuel is far more than the tail pipe emissions they saved us from. This is just one example of how the government has used "global warming" to institute regulations that cost people a lot of money and do absolutely no good and may even make the situation worse. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4
I think the people who take umbrage with global warming are the people who are sick of how the government uses it to do whatever the heck they want and to control us. Many agree that the EPA is out of control and a lot of their regulations make no sense whatsoever, and it is all done in the name of global warming. Take diesel engines for one. In 1997 you could buy a diesel pickup that would get 22-25mpg reliably. In 1998 the EPA instituted regulations on diesels that directly caused the mpg to drop. In 2007 the regs changed again and the mpg's dropped dramatically. I have an 06 diesel engine that gets 18-20mpg in my truck. My dad has the exact same truck but with an 07 compliant engine, he gets 12mpg. It is well documented that if he takes the EPA junk off the truck it will get 20mpg just like mine, the only reason he gets worse mileage is all the EPA required emissions stuff on his truck. So to save some tailpipe emissions we lower the mpg by almost 50%. I don't have solid numbers but I assume that the pollution created by drilling, refining, transporting etc. that extra 40% of fuel is far more than the tail pipe emissions they saved us from. This is just one example of how the government has used "global warming" to institute regulations that cost people a lot of money and do absolutely no good and may even make the situation worse. I'd say the bolded statement sums up about 90% of the government. lol |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Just FYI - vehicle emissions standards based on putting equipment on a vehicle have nothing to do with global warming or GHGs. The emissions they're aimed at reducing - primarily particulate matter and NOx (but also CO and formaldahyde) are of no or little concern in climate change. They basically aimed at reducing smog (ozone formed from NOx) and human health effects (from particulate matter) from emissions. I think the people who take umbrage with global warming are the people who are sick of how the government uses it to do whatever the heck they want and to control us. Many agree that the EPA is out of control and a lot of their regulations make no sense whatsoever, and it is all done in the name of global warming. Take diesel engines for one. In 1997 you could buy a diesel pickup that would get 22-25mpg reliably. In 1998 the EPA instituted regulations on diesels that directly caused the mpg to drop. In 2007 the regs changed again and the mpg's dropped dramatically. I have an 06 diesel engine that gets 18-20mpg in my truck. My dad has the exact same truck but with an 07 compliant engine, he gets 12mpg. It is well documented that if he takes the EPA junk off the truck it will get 20mpg just like mine, the only reason he gets worse mileage is all the EPA required emissions stuff on his truck. So to save some tailpipe emissions we lower the mpg by almost 50%. I don't have solid numbers but I assume that the pollution created by drilling, refining, transporting etc. that extra 40% of fuel is far more than the tail pipe emissions they saved us from. This is just one example of how the government has used "global warming" to institute regulations that cost people a lot of money and do absolutely no good and may even make the situation worse. Reductions of GHGs through vehicle emissions standards (aimed at CO2 but also N2O and methane) are achieved through increased fuel efficiency standards (CAFEs). They're computed on a fleet basis, so if even your model truck's mpg decreased due to adding pollution controls, overall, the truck fleets mpg have increased - the standard for light trucks was 20.7 mpg in 1996 and 24.1 mpg in 2011. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Man-made global warming has all the key features found in any other religion; faith, repentance, indulgence, original sin, rituals, and so on. So I can't disagree with the professor on this one. I mean really, look at how the believers treat the heathens. It might as well be the Spanish Inquisition. Edited by Jackemy1 2013-09-06 12:16 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I really do not get why religious right is so anti global warming. They are command by God to take care of the earth. I guess it stems from a religious war on science which I somewhat understand but really not sure why its there. At my old church the last week I attended regularly I literally was sitting there, the leader had a chalkboard in front of him drew a line down the middle. Wrote either church or Jesus on one side and science on the other side. Said you are either with us or against us and that you could not believe in both. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by chirunner134 I really do not get why religious right is so anti global warming. They are command by God to take care of the earth. I guess it stems from a religious war on science which I somewhat understand but really not sure why its there. At my old church the last week I attended regularly I literally was sitting there, the leader had a chalkboard in front of him drew a line down the middle. Wrote either church or Jesus on one side and science on the other side. Said you are either with us or against us and that you could not believe in both. It's so ridiculous. God gave me a brain... why in the world would he not want me to explore his world and the wonders in it? It's just knowledge, it should not be a "moral" issue. Yet, the other side does just the same with it... that "science proves" God does not exist. Uhhh... no it doesn't. Why in the world would you think it does? It's all silly. Now as far as taking a text written by men as a historical and "scientific" recording of the world that it is only 10,000 years old. Ya, you loose a lot of credibility on that one. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Just FYI - vehicle emissions standards based on putting equipment on a vehicle have nothing to do with global warming or GHGs. The emissions they're aimed at reducing - primarily particulate matter and NOx (but also CO and formaldahyde) are of no or little concern in climate change. They basically aimed at reducing smog (ozone formed from NOx) and human health effects (from particulate matter) from emissions. I think the people who take umbrage with global warming are the people who are sick of how the government uses it to do whatever the heck they want and to control us. Many agree that the EPA is out of control and a lot of their regulations make no sense whatsoever, and it is all done in the name of global warming. Take diesel engines for one. In 1997 you could buy a diesel pickup that would get 22-25mpg reliably. In 1998 the EPA instituted regulations on diesels that directly caused the mpg to drop. In 2007 the regs changed again and the mpg's dropped dramatically. I have an 06 diesel engine that gets 18-20mpg in my truck. My dad has the exact same truck but with an 07 compliant engine, he gets 12mpg. It is well documented that if he takes the EPA junk off the truck it will get 20mpg just like mine, the only reason he gets worse mileage is all the EPA required emissions stuff on his truck. So to save some tailpipe emissions we lower the mpg by almost 50%. I don't have solid numbers but I assume that the pollution created by drilling, refining, transporting etc. that extra 40% of fuel is far more than the tail pipe emissions they saved us from. This is just one example of how the government has used "global warming" to institute regulations that cost people a lot of money and do absolutely no good and may even make the situation worse. Reductions of GHGs through vehicle emissions standards (aimed at CO2 but also N2O and methane) are achieved through increased fuel efficiency standards (CAFEs). They're computed on a fleet basis, so if even your model truck's mpg decreased due to adding pollution controls, overall, the truck fleets mpg have increased - the standard for light trucks was 20.7 mpg in 1996 and 24.1 mpg in 2011.
The gas trucks are getting slightly better in MPG but the diesel trucks suffered heavily from 07 to 2013 when more standards went into affect. So perhaps the gas trucks are coming up slightly but there is no way either set of trucks match those standards. So no, for those years the overall did not increase. Now with the new urea systems that are going on diesel trucks they have come back up a bit. But I guarantee there are no diesel trucks meeting a 24mpg "standard" and there are only 2 gas truck models that are currently doing it, both are V6 models. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by chirunner134 I really do not get why religious right is so anti global warming. They are command by God to take care of the earth. I guess it stems from a religious war on science which I somewhat understand but really not sure why its there. At my old church the last week I attended regularly I literally was sitting there, the leader had a chalkboard in front of him drew a line down the middle. Wrote either church or Jesus on one side and science on the other side. Said you are either with us or against us and that you could not believe in both. I think you are backwards on the global warming skeptics position because it doesn't have anything to do with the religious right. It has to do with Science itself and I'm arguing that the alarmist global warming crowd is ignoring and manipulating the science in order to forward a political (er religious) ideology. If you take a step back, it's almost exactly what you stated only the "religious global warmers" are the ones with a war on science. For example this scientific study was just published last week Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability. Here's a brief on the same study: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf The alarmist global warming community will ignore this study completely because it doesn't support their ideological (er religious) belief. I do agree with you completely that we have to take care of the earth, but having a government force taxes and spending down our throat in the name of a false doctrine and fear is not "taking care of the earth". |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Just FYI - vehicle emissions standards based on putting equipment on a vehicle have nothing to do with global warming or GHGs. The emissions they're aimed at reducing - primarily particulate matter and NOx (but also CO and formaldahyde) are of no or little concern in climate change. They basically aimed at reducing smog (ozone formed from NOx) and human health effects (from particulate matter) from emissions. I think the people who take umbrage with global warming are the people who are sick of how the government uses it to do whatever the heck they want and to control us. Many agree that the EPA is out of control and a lot of their regulations make no sense whatsoever, and it is all done in the name of global warming. Take diesel engines for one. In 1997 you could buy a diesel pickup that would get 22-25mpg reliably. In 1998 the EPA instituted regulations on diesels that directly caused the mpg to drop. In 2007 the regs changed again and the mpg's dropped dramatically. I have an 06 diesel engine that gets 18-20mpg in my truck. My dad has the exact same truck but with an 07 compliant engine, he gets 12mpg. It is well documented that if he takes the EPA junk off the truck it will get 20mpg just like mine, the only reason he gets worse mileage is all the EPA required emissions stuff on his truck. So to save some tailpipe emissions we lower the mpg by almost 50%. I don't have solid numbers but I assume that the pollution created by drilling, refining, transporting etc. that extra 40% of fuel is far more than the tail pipe emissions they saved us from. This is just one example of how the government has used "global warming" to institute regulations that cost people a lot of money and do absolutely no good and may even make the situation worse. Reductions of GHGs through vehicle emissions standards (aimed at CO2 but also N2O and methane) are achieved through increased fuel efficiency standards (CAFEs). They're computed on a fleet basis, so if even your model truck's mpg decreased due to adding pollution controls, overall, the truck fleets mpg have increased - the standard for light trucks was 20.7 mpg in 1996 and 24.1 mpg in 2011.
The gas trucks are getting slightly better in MPG but the diesel trucks suffered heavily from 07 to 2013 when more standards went into affect. So perhaps the gas trucks are coming up slightly but there is no way either set of trucks match those standards. So no, for those years the overall did not increase. Now with the new urea systems that are going on diesel trucks they have come back up a bit. But I guarantee there are no diesel trucks meeting a 24mpg "standard" and there are only 2 gas truck models that are currently doing it, both are V6 models. I have no clue on this topic, but I do tend to agree that logic doesn't seem to support an overall increase in MPG when all the diesels are getting less MPG. Sounds like somebodies cooking the books. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by chirunner134 I really do not get why religious right is so anti global warming. They are command by God to take care of the earth. I guess it stems from a religious war on science which I somewhat understand but really not sure why its there. At my old church the last week I attended regularly I literally was sitting there, the leader had a chalkboard in front of him drew a line down the middle. Wrote either church or Jesus on one side and science on the other side. Said you are either with us or against us and that you could not believe in both. I think you are backwards on the global warming skeptics position because it doesn't have anything to do with the religious right. It has to do with Science itself and I'm arguing that the alarmist global warming crowd is ignoring and manipulating the science in order to forward a political (er religious) ideology. If you take a step back, it's almost exactly what you stated only the "religious global warmers" are the ones with a war on science. For example this scientific study was just published last week Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability. Here's a brief on the same study: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf The alarmist global warming community will ignore this study completely because it doesn't support their ideological (er religious) belief. I do agree with you completely that we have to take care of the earth, but having a government force taxes and spending down our throat in the name of a false doctrine and fear is not "taking care of the earth". You are not actually trying to argue that a majority of global warming skeptics do indeed disagree with it on religious grounds are? Whether admitted or not... and I'm not at all saying this about you... religious conservatives most certainly make a large portion of those "skeptics". |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Science is simply God's miracles-reverse engineered. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by chirunner134 I really do not get why religious right is so anti global warming. They are command by God to take care of the earth. I guess it stems from a religious war on science which I somewhat understand but really not sure why its there. At my old church the last week I attended regularly I literally was sitting there, the leader had a chalkboard in front of him drew a line down the middle. Wrote either church or Jesus on one side and science on the other side. Said you are either with us or against us and that you could not believe in both. I think you are backwards on the global warming skeptics position because it doesn't have anything to do with the religious right. It has to do with Science itself and I'm arguing that the alarmist global warming crowd is ignoring and manipulating the science in order to forward a political (er religious) ideology. If you take a step back, it's almost exactly what you stated only the "religious global warmers" are the ones with a war on science. For example this scientific study was just published last week Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability. Here's a brief on the same study: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf The alarmist global warming community will ignore this study completely because it doesn't support their ideological (er religious) belief. I do agree with you completely that we have to take care of the earth, but having a government force taxes and spending down our throat in the name of a false doctrine and fear is not "taking care of the earth". You are not actually trying to argue that a majority of global warming skeptics do indeed disagree with it on religious grounds are? Whether admitted or not... and I'm not at all saying this about you... religious conservatives most certainly make a large portion of those "skeptics". lol, no not at all. I was just poking fun of the MIT dudes religion charge and how it is somewhat analogous to the behaviors of the alarmist global warmers. There are good scientists on both sides of this debate who are genuinely trying to figure out the science, and then there are politicians and alarmists who manipulate their data for their overall agenda's. I do agree that there are religious conservative types who are very much in the denial camp, but my experience has been that there's a pretty good balance of people who are skeptics. Most of the prominent scientists who consider themselves skeptics are pretty far left university types. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Well the CAFEs are fleet averages so yeah, I could see how diesels by themselves wouldn't meet them. I did see that Ford, GM and Dodge all have 2014 diesels that'll get at least 22 mpg though, so they're headed in the right direction. The gas trucks are getting slightly better in MPG but the diesel trucks suffered heavily from 07 to 2013 when more standards went into affect. So perhaps the gas trucks are coming up slightly but there is no way either set of trucks match those standards. So no, for those years the overall did not increase. Now with the new urea systems that are going on diesel trucks they have come back up a bit. But I guarantee there are no diesel trucks meeting a 24mpg "standard" and there are only 2 gas truck models that are currently doing it, both are V6 models. Nevertheless, the regulations requiring catalytic converters, other pollution control equipment and changes to use low-sulfur diesel had nothing to do with GHGs or climate change, that's all human-health related regs. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Jackemy1 Man-made global warming has all the key features found in any other religion; faith, repentance, indulgence, original sin, rituals, and so on. So I can't disagree with the professor on this one. I mean really, look at how the believers treat the heathens. It might as well be the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-09-06 3:45 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Well the CAFEs are fleet averages so yeah, I could see how diesels by themselves wouldn't meet them. I did see that Ford, GM and Dodge all have 2014 diesels that'll get at least 22 mpg though, so they're headed in the right direction. The gas trucks are getting slightly better in MPG but the diesel trucks suffered heavily from 07 to 2013 when more standards went into affect. So perhaps the gas trucks are coming up slightly but there is no way either set of trucks match those standards. So no, for those years the overall did not increase. Now with the new urea systems that are going on diesel trucks they have come back up a bit. But I guarantee there are no diesel trucks meeting a 24mpg "standard" and there are only 2 gas truck models that are currently doing it, both are V6 models. Nevertheless, the regulations requiring catalytic converters, other pollution control equipment and changes to use low-sulfur diesel had nothing to do with GHGs or climate change, that's all human-health related regs.
Good to know. Thanks! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Well the CAFEs are fleet averages so yeah, I could see how diesels by themselves wouldn't meet them. I did see that Ford, GM and Dodge all have 2014 diesels that'll get at least 22 mpg though, so they're headed in the right direction. The gas trucks are getting slightly better in MPG but the diesel trucks suffered heavily from 07 to 2013 when more standards went into affect. So perhaps the gas trucks are coming up slightly but there is no way either set of trucks match those standards. So no, for those years the overall did not increase. Now with the new urea systems that are going on diesel trucks they have come back up a bit. But I guarantee there are no diesel trucks meeting a 24mpg "standard" and there are only 2 gas truck models that are currently doing it, both are V6 models. Nevertheless, the regulations requiring catalytic converters, other pollution control equipment and changes to use low-sulfur diesel had nothing to do with GHGs or climate change, that's all human-health related regs.
Good to know. Thanks!
I work for a diesel engine manufacturer, and can talk at-length(ad nauseum, actually) about the in's and out's of diesel fuel economy, how it is intimately related with pollution controls, etc. If people are curious I can start a thread in CoJ. Or just hit me up with a PM. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() What he wrote was, "A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.” I think that is certainly one characteristic of a 'religion'. So yeah, I can see how global warming has become a religion to many. My personal opinion on global warming is it is inevitable. There are 7 billion people on the planet all needing to eat and breath and get from point A to point B and build houses and shopping malls. Maybe global warming and rising tides is the planet's way of regulating the number of people it can host? The planet has survived for 5 billion years.....people have only been here 0.0002% of that time. The planet will survive.....maybe we a few billion fewere CO2 producing people. World population is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050. So about a 30% increase. Does anyone really believe the world is going to collectively reduce carbon emission more than 30% by 2050? Doubtful. To carbon emission will continue to rise even if you turn in your SUV and drive a Prius. BTW, that Prius likey gets it energy from coal fire generator plants...... One final thought. The big global warming activists like Al Gore tend to live in 5,000+ sqft houses. These houses were made out of trees and took a tremendous amount of engery to build and now to maintain, heat and cool. A 'true believe' in the Church of Global Warming would live in a 500 sqft house and ride his bike to work...... |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Rogillio What he wrote was, "A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.” I think that is certainly one characteristic of a 'religion'. So yeah, I can see how global warming has become a religion to many. My personal opinion on global warming is it is inevitable. There are 7 billion people on the planet all needing to eat and breath and get from point A to point B and build houses and shopping malls. Maybe global warming and rising tides is the planet's way of regulating the number of people it can host? The planet has survived for 5 billion years.....people have only been here 0.0002% of that time. The planet will survive.....maybe we a few billion fewere CO2 producing people. World population is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050. So about a 30% increase. Does anyone really believe the world is going to collectively reduce carbon emission more than 30% by 2050? Doubtful. To carbon emission will continue to rise even if you turn in your SUV and drive a Prius. BTW, that Prius likey gets it energy from coal fire generator plants...... One final thought. The big global warming activists like Al Gore tend to live in 5,000+ sqft houses. These houses were made out of trees and took a tremendous amount of engery to build and now to maintain, heat and cool. A 'true believe' in the Church of Global Warming would live in a 500 sqft house and ride his bike to work...... The part I find fascinating about this whole AGW thing is I've yet to see any proof that more CO2 is a bad thing. This should be a fun month on this topic btw. The IPCC is releasing it's 5th assessment report (5AR) and the NIPCC will release it's second report (CCR-II) that they're saying is going to be a strong scientific counter to man made global warming. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Rogillio One final thought. The big global warming activists like Al Gore tend to live in 5,000+ sqft houses. These houses were made out of trees and took a tremendous amount of engery to build and now to maintain, heat and cool. A 'true believe' in the Church of Global Warming would live in a 500 sqft house and ride his bike to work...... You don't understand how this works. He could live in a 50,000 sq. ft. house and drive a Mack truck to get some Starbucks 200 yds away, he just needs to buy the carbon credits to offset it. |
|
![]() | |||
![]() | Prayer in School Pages: 1 2 | ||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() | Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners Pages: 1 2 3 |
| |||
|