Going "Green"

[Hekuran]

You don't have to look too far to find information about the causes of the ice ages. Atmospheric conditions, the position of the Earth relative to the sun, variations in the Sun's output, and the movement of continents are interrelated. An internet search will get you some good quality information if you are inclined.

But my argument is not based on human activity being the cause of global warming. The scientific evidence is compelling – overwhelming – but I am not a scientist and I am happy for you to continue that debate with others.

My argument is based on the observation that the convenience of the rich is acquired at the cost of the poor.

An irresponsible attitude to the environment has a real human cost. And the price is being borne by those who can least afford it. This is at its most serious on a worldwide scale with global warming, but can be seen in other areas too.

Cheap cotton.

Vast amounts of pesticides are used in cotton production - especially in India - to produce cheap clothes for us. This has a grave effect on poor cotton picker's health, and on the environment. Rivers are polluted, damaging ecosystems and fish, an important food source.

If we in the West could be content to consume a little less and waste less - cut out the disposable clothes habit, be prepared to spend more on organic cotton, or cotton that comes from ethical sources, it would make a real difference to poor people.

Try this. Get a Bible dictionary or do an internet search on the word "poor" in the Bible. I think you will find that there is a consistent message about God's attitude to poverty.

 

[Boanerges]

Radicalism generally accomplishes little other than a few small news articles.
The United States of America feeds more poor people than any nation in history. It is a platform that has sent out more missionaries and freed more people from tyranny than the rest of the planet combined. The average person in the US is giving and caring and does not mind learning to live a little smarter but there is no support to adopting an 1800's lifestyle.
Perhaps you are confusing greedy corporations and business that operate without conscience outside of our jurisdiction with the people pf this great nation.
You wish everyone to give up their healthy lifestyle (which has just pushed the life expectancy to it's highest ever in the USA), I wish to give others a hand up to a higher standard of living. One does not have to be mutually exclusive of the other, perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[Boanerges]

Also there are a lot of scientists who dispute global warming. As radicals are prone to due the established environmental groups tend to diss them and discount their opinions much the same as they do with scientists who believe in intelligent design.
John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel has called global worming the greatest scam in history. While my views of it are certainly not as radical as his I do believe it is more of a left winged conspiracy to control and manipulate the population than it is fact.
While I realize we will never agree on this I am certainly not alone in my opinion.
From the Petition Project and Worldnetdaily:
Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

 

[Hekuran]

I am writing from the perspective and with experience of my great nation, the UK, not yours.

 

[Boanerges]

My objective in this discussion is not to argue but to show a general bias against a large body of scientists who believe this is more of a money making scheme then scientific fact.


From the US Senate Committee on Environmental Works (public domain)


This article was written in response to environmental nazi Heidi Cullen's assertion that those who did not believe her theories on global warming should be de-certified by the American Meteorological Society.

The Weather Channel Mess[

January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

]If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

 

[Hekuran]

As a Christian you should know better than to describe anybody as a nazi so lightly. Shame on you.

 

[Boanerges]

Sorry my friend but those who seek to act as tyrants over the lives of other seeking to enforce their will at any cost should be called out.
I am not ashamed of my statement but if I have offended you I am sorry for that.
I seek only to show the other side of that coin so to speak.
Your disapproval of my comment is noted but it should do nothing to disprove the facts I have presented.
Again, if I offended you I am truly sorry.
Your brother in Christ,
Larry.

 

[Lion_of_Judah]

As a Christian you should know better than to describe anybody as a nazi so lightly. Shame on you.

This analogy is not so uncommon now-a-days here in the US, as the metafor is appropriate.

Hitler caused an entire country to believe in his idealogues and deceived them. Matt. 24:3,4
The global warming phenom' is cut from the same enemies cloth. Rev. 20:10 Luke 4:9-11

If he can decieve an entire planet of people, finacial resources will be considerably cut back as people adjust to the loss of income for themselves and to help others, as well as readjusting for their own well being as higher energy bills with new taxes are passed onto the consumer.. again lessening what could have gone to charitable organizations. Funds will now pour into government coffers for what...? To lace their pockets. Money that will be 'redistributed' is the name of the game. And that money will not make it's way to any churches where the word of God can be proclaimed.. Instead, to community orginizations co-opted with government money who'll be singing praises in the melody of the Beatles, "All you need is government help".


You think greed was a problem before??


And since when is carbon dioxide a pollutant??
The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.


Common sense seems not to be so common these days, and is more like a precious commodity.



-
LoJ

 

[Lion_of_Judah]

If its me, then it's me.

If you really don't find the case for global warming convincing, then that's up to you.
Something needs to be done.

It will mean a fairly radical overhaul of the contemporary western aspirations, and that will not be easy for many of us. But that is really the only responsible option.

But my argument is not based on human activity being the cause of global warming. The scientific evidence is compelling – overwhelming –.

But your argument seems convoluted Hekuran.



We as westerners must overhaul our contemporary aspirations..
But your argument is not based on human activity.



???



Why do we need to change, if its not human activity driving it?


And mind you, we do not tell other countries what they can/cannot do in their own back yard.

 

[Hekuran]

My argument is not based on human activity being the cause of global warming because the thread is not just about global warming, not because human activity isn't having an effect on climate.

My post stated clearly what my argument is based upon, and provided a relevant example.

 

[Night Light]

I Haven't read all the posts.

I think going green is a tricky area.

I've seen some really dumb things in Australia.

There was a movement to get rid of plastic bags at supermarkets here.

Instead of bringing back the brown paper bags (from the 70s), all the supermarkets decided to make money and promoted these canvas carry bags (for a price).

So all these people and check out operators are being smug/high and might about saving the planet.... and the corporates are milking it for all their worth.

I look around the supermarket and seee all the plastic packaging and wonder to myself how can they be so self righteous??

Sometimes the public are mindless sheep being lead around by wolves.

 

[Hekuran]

I look around the supermarket and seee all the plastic packaging and wonder to myself how can they be so self righteous??

Better to be inconsistently conscientious than consistently negligent.

Applaud the move from plastic to canvas bags, and then ask "what next?"

 

[Boanerges]

I Haven't read all the posts.



There was a movement to get rid of plastic bags at supermarkets here.

Instead of bringing back the brown paper bags (from the 70s), all the supermarkets decided to make money and promoted these canvas carry bags (for a price).



I look around the supermarket and seee all the plastic packaging and wonder to myself how can they be so self righteous??

That my friend is all about the enormous cost of the paper bag vs the plastic ones. A supermarket I used to work for used to go through several pallets of them each month.

 

[Boanerges]

Watch out fido!!!

Al Gore stands to make somewhere around $ 700,000,00 on his global warming conspiracy. The whole global warming conspiracy is one of the biggest $ scams in the history of mankind.
Changes in weather patterns are as much the norm for the planet as extinction of some species they cause.

Here is an excerpt I read today the eco-nazis are going to be coming after our pets.
Here is some of the insanity (from

Previous researchers have argued that cows and sheep are big threats to the climate, but a recent analysis by two New Zealand architects has concluded that Fido and Fluffy, besides being warm and cuddly, are also warming the planet. As the Dominion Post explains:

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said. "A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.
​

Their solution: Fido fricassee. The Post continues:

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.
"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."
​

Considering that there are about 72 million dogs and 82 million cats in the U.S., that would mean that their ecological paw prints are roughly comparable to that of the entire U.S. US passenger fleet.

 

[Hekuran]

This is direct from the UK's Economist magazine, which does not have any particular ideology to push regarding the environment. It makes some interesting observations on climate-rise scepticism.

I

F THE forthcoming United Nations meeting in Copenhagen truly is a precious chance to save the planet from rising seas and advancing deserts, then one might expect voters all over the world to be egging on their leaders to make bold decisions.

That is the impression created by a wave of eye-catching demonstrations—such as the globally co-ordinated protest on October 24th that called, ambitiously, for carbon concentration in the atmosphere to be kept at 350 parts per million (see above). But awkwardly, there are clear signs in several democracies of sentiment moving in the other direction.


Perhaps the most astonishing evidence of a rise in climate-change scepticism was revealed by a poll published last month by the Pew Research Centre, based in Washington, DC. In the United States the share of citizens who thought there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures had plunged to 57% from 71% in April 2008. The share blaming rising temperatures on human activities had fallen over that time from 47% to 36%.

An uptick in scepticism was evident across a wide spectrum, but it was extra-sharp among Republicans, including those near the political centre. A majority of all Republicans (57%) saw no hard evidence of global warming, and among moderate and liberal Republicans, believers in the phenomenon had tumbled, as a share, from 69% to 41%. Only two groups have been getting more worried about the global climate: liberal Democrats, and voters aged under 30.

What the poll suggests is that, for Americans, climate change is becoming more divisive: one of those touchstone issues, like abortion and the death penalty, in which the opposing camps see one another as not just mistaken, but bad. That is exactly the opposite of what would be needed if, now or in future, an administration wanted to rally the nation behind the idea of sacrifices for the sake of posterity.

For some green-minded Americans, the picture is not quite so gloomy. As Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club, a conservation group, points out, many Americans want to burn less fossil fuel for reasons other than climate change, including to clean up the air and cut the country’s dependence on energy imports. The recession has taken people’s minds off climate change, but surely not for good.

In Europe, where sentiment is generally greener than it is in America, the economic downturn has also displaced warming on people’s worry list. A poll published in July by the European Commission showed that early in 2009, the number of European Union residents who saw climate change as the world’s gravest problem had dropped to 50% from 62% in spring 2008. But that was partly because the numbers citing global recession as the main worry had surged from 24% to 52%.

A more fundamental shift towards scepticism seems to be occurring in Australia, despite the Labor government’s efforts to push the country in a green direction. A poll in July by the Lowy Institute showed the numbers willing to shoulder “significant costs” to tackle global warming had fallen to 48%, down from 60% last year and 68% in 2006. In both America and Australia the public seems to be growing more doubtful even as policymakers feel more certain of the need for action.

Some research recently given to the British government suggests that voters are sending a subtle combination of signals on the issue of climate change. At opposing ends of the spectrum, there are committed greens, perhaps a fifth of the population, and people who are either sceptical or feel too poor to care. In the middle, about half the electorate seems to agree that climate change is a problem, but only partly accepts the need for drastic measures.

Within that middle ground, feelings are mixed. On one hand, some people are turned off by talk of doom. In the words of Ashok Sinha, co-ordinator of a demonstration in London which a cluster of NGOs will stage on December 5th, there are some citizens who react to dire predictions by “battening down the hatches or going into retreat.” On the other hand, research suggests that people react well to a positive message, one that portrays a happy low-carbon future of electric cars, well-planned towns and affordable transport. They also like the idea that citizens as well as politicians have a choice between eco-disaster and a greener, better world.

Britons apparently want their government to make clear plans, with a timetable, to tackle climate change, and they relish the idea of playing a part themselves. But they fear two extremes: top-down measures, and policies that put all the onus on citizens to make sacrifices by say, flying less. Everybody fears free-riders, either countries or conspicuous consumers.

Taken together, these impulses suggest a public that would make sacrifices if they believed that something like a war of national survival was looming—but they have yet to be convinced, and they want to be certain that the burden is being shared.

As well as studying opinion polls, today’s politicians might ponder some recent history. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter clumsily launched a new energy policy. After telling Americans he wanted “to have an unpleasant talk” with them, he called his drive to save energy “the moral equivalent of war”. Many listeners were unmoved; perhaps his mistake was not to spell out clearly what would constitute victory, and why it was worth having.​

 

[TheSilentHero]

I think that God gave us this earth to have dominion over. So we are responsible for keeping it clean and healthy. But God created nature. And the earth, (I believe) was created with the ability to clean itself up if it has to. Ever notice how much cleaner the air is when there is rain? Earhquakes, Tidalwaves, Tornadoes, Monsoons, whatever, all of these process were designed for cleaning the world up. Unfortunately, because our earth is so polluted right now, I think that the storms are getting stronger and even though the earth is capable of cleaning itself up, I think we have to consider what massive damage major storms cause to our homes and to people. If we took care of this planet like we are suppose to then those storms wouldn't progressively get worse. So, all and all, I think that even though God has control of everything, this planet can and will get worse as a consequence to how we live. So it is very important to recycle and do what you can. Not cause you think you are God. People who think that that's the reason are kinda lame.:coocooeople who want to help our planet aren't trying to play the role of God. I mean really. Would it be better to continue the same course? It's like, Yeah, God has control of our bodies, but if we eat too much, don't exercise, smoke or drink, excessively, we will be unhealthy. We will get cancer, diabetes, liver failure, heart failure, any number of things. God has the ability to heal of course, but seriously? What is he suppose to think when we have done it to ourselves? Same with the planet. God can heal it, but to show that we appreciate this home, we should take care of it. It's just the polite thing to do if anything else. Plus, if we show an effort to take care of what he has given us, I think he will help us instead of think we are trying to take his role. Our efforts will be blessed. But if this world doesn't heal now, God has promised a new earth free from sin and hatred and sadness. So do not fear what becomes of this world either. God will rebuild it and this time, sin won't be in it and it will more beautiful than anyone could ever imagine. So do what you can because you appreciate God's work. It's not ungodly in the least bit.

 

[hx8]

We are free to go green, and we are free to pollute. Choose whatever your conscience tells you to choose, and stick to it, but don't be a hypocrite about it. He that observes going green does it, unto the Lord; and he that does not go green observes it not, unto the Lord. So whether you go green or not, you do it unto the Lord in thankfulness. Let your conscience be your guide in this matter, and do not put a yoke upon your brother.

We have 10 commandments, and we have 4 things from Acts 15 we are to observe. None of them include the necessity of using reusable materials. Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[Boanerges]

ClimateGate

With all the new evidence being released about the UN's main source of "global warming proof" having deliberately corrupting, hiding and manipulation the evidence to fit their agenda we can easily see that Global warming was a complete hoax and in fact globally the temperatures have gone down in the last 10 years. Thta is not even to mention the fact that they delibrately deleted information from scientists with opposing views from their reports.
Below is just a few excerpts (taken form the TelegraphUK) and listed on many news sources:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
​

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
​

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
​

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
​

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
​

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
​

 

[johnpaul]

Greenism = paganism

I can't see the difference between Green 'worship' and wicca. The Green movement is just as demonic as any other pagan cult. God alone determines the course of our planet, no one else.
love 'n light
johnpaul

 

[TheSilentHero]

I can't see the difference between Green 'worship' and wicca. The Green movement is just as demonic as any other pagan cult. God alone determines the course of our planet, no one else.
love 'n light
johnpaul

Going green doesn't have to be demonic. People can use anything the wrong way. The Christmas Tree, The Easter Bunny, you name it. If I decide to recycle something it's because I want to take part of taking care of this planet. With our decisions come consequences. That is both the blessing and the curse of freewill. Our consequence for not taking care of the planet is drastic changes in climate which effects our climate and crops and animals. I'm not limiting God in anyway. And of course he decides what becomes of this world in the end. But this planet is OUR responisbility. It's like maxing out a credit card when you're a teenager and saying, "Oh well my parents are in control so I don't have to worry about it." Like really? Of course they'll have to pay it but really? The world is here for OUR dominion it is OUR responsibility and if we don't take care of it we suffer the consequences. That's a law GOD made. Wasting energy depletes our recourses. It's science. Which God also created for us to use. God can take care of us and will take care of us but we need to follow his instructions or he'll just sit back until we do. We have to do our part too. Don't diss people who bother to think about the consequence of their actions when they don't take care of this planet. It's our home and it's our responsibility. God is in control of us, but if we don't take care of ourselves we ruin and desicrate his temple. That is free will that GOD gave us. If we can ruin our bodies what makes you think we can't ruin our home? Going green simply means making smart decisions to keep our planet Green. I feel sorry for any who worship the earth or trees but that's not what this movement is for. Don't be so quick to condemn people.