No kidding.
But one would think that living in the US you would have at least heard somewhere along the line that it's a 'grace, not works' thing.
Screw Global Warming and to Hell with the Economy.
- Thread starter Hoofhearted
- Start date
No kidding.
But one would think that living in the US you would have at least heard somewhere along the line that it's a 'grace, not works' thing.
While there is always the bat shit crazy cult leaders and followers here and there and everywhere dotted throughout the world, I have serious doubts as to whether the majority of so called religious folk would share those thoughts you have expressed.
However, I agree that there are at least some who may share the nutshell view which you have rather nicely illustrated.
Maybe some in here who are of an evangelical or "tea partying", or other religious/political backgrounds can shed some light on this matter for us ignorant.
what a joke. those models all failed real time. they predicted warming and we have not warmed for 17 years and 10 months.
co2 follows change in ocean temps. that is seen in the data and disputed by no one.
its conjecture that man man co2 is currently causing warming.
NASA experiments show it also causes cooling.
the jury is not in and the consensus you cite... is based on 41 papers out of 11000.
which are now old... and based on failed models.
Proof that I am telling the truth...
You will present zero links which contain science showing man made co2 causes warming.
you just present graphs which show co2 lags temps.
co2 follows change in ocean temps. that is seen in the data and disputed by no one.
its conjecture that man man co2 is currently causing warming.
NASA experiments show it also causes cooling.
the jury is not in and the consensus you cite... is based on 41 papers out of 11000.
which are now old... and based on failed models.
Proof that I am telling the truth...
You will present zero links which contain science showing man made co2 causes warming.
you just present graphs which show co2 lags temps.
"The jury is out on Global Warming; while the changes may be man induced it is not yet clear whether or not the changes will be long-term beneficial or damaging to the inhabitants of the earth."
No, the jury has been in for quite some time. The consensus is overwhelming and the effects will definitely be bad, they are already starting. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have increased it's levels by 40%.
This what we are looking at. Among all the env. problems this is the most serious threat to all life on earth.
I wonder what Republicans think about this whole ME business...
There are plenty who are discussing it's consequences and potential solutions at the moment, but none that I am aware of within the discussion have disclosed an affiliation with the republican party.
Perhaps their absence in the conversation could be viewed as an admission of denial.
Or perhaps they are quite aware, and are quietly planning or waiting for the next tsunami waves of death to sweep the planet, hoping to survive its inevitable onslaught...
There are plenty who are discussing it's consequences and potential solutions at the moment, but none that I am aware of within the discussion have disclosed an affiliation with the republican party.
Perhaps their absence in the conversation could be viewed as an admission of denial.
Or perhaps they are quite aware, and are quietly planning or waiting for the next tsunami waves of death to sweep the planet, hoping to survive its inevitable onslaught...
I just googled "Do republicans believe in mass extinction?"
I'll share the first two links to have appeared.
The first seems to be an obscure political forum where the first comments to appear are from a member by the name of Dutchman182.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/13258/thread?pagenum=5
Dutchman182 says :"Do you REALLY believe all this liberal nonsense ? Listen: Europe basically destroyed most of it's wildlife and natural environment during the period between the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution. Are we dead yet ? Maybe you'd like Africa much better: all natural with big, bloated corrupt governments and people dying of diseases that could have been prevented. We have been there and we don't want to go back."
The second is a somewhat in-depth, albeit highly questionable article discussing the topic subject.
If you want the gist of the message, here is the article's conclusion:
"The late 20th century's predictions of imminent mass extinction happily proved wrong. The positive trends cited above provide good grounds to believe that the new ones will also turn out to be exaggerated."
http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/01/predictions-of-a-man-made-sixth-mass-ext
do you know what it means that when you drill into the data that... change in co2 matches but lags change in water temperature and that the co2 level does not track with man made co2?
Jem, is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Do you know what that is? Do you know we have raised it's levels by 40%, largely by burning fossil fuels?
Well, at least the crickets haven't gone the way of the Passenger Pigeon yet...