God is Green

[Redzeppelin]

In general, we are to be good stewards of the blessings/gifts God gives us - this includes the earth. According to Genesis, we were given the earth to "fill" and "subdue." I think we've been given the latitude to make decisions as to how we should use our resources, but I believe we're supposed to make those decisions based on Biblical principles - i.e. how does my use of the environment serve the community, serve God? I don't think we're free to "rape" the earth down to the bones for our own selfish purposes; but, neither do I think it's biblical to preserve the environment at the cost of human life and reasonable survival. Environmentalists are capable of being very PETA-like in their zeal, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Virgil]

1) Climate change is definetely happening, this is evident in any number of ways - reduced glacial depth, increased summer temperatures/heat waves in places which never used to be effected by such problems, delayed winter, increased rainfall instead of snow etc

2) The only real question is how much of it is natural & to what extent it has been caused by the actions of people, there is unfortunately no complete definitive evidence which shows what the exact cause is.

That is probably true, although I'm not completely convinced yet. But let us assume it is true that climate change is occuring. Where we differ then is how much is man made and how much is not.

Here's an interesting note and is roughly in line with what I think:

Global warming skeptic simply man of reason
Originally posted on February 28, 2007

Michael Crichton, whom most people probably know as the author of "Jurassic Park" and the creator of the television series "ER," is no dummy or hack writer, although he's used the theme of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" a number of times (good-intentioned science produces a monster).

He's probably one of the smartest guys in America today, and he's been raising issues that are far more important than the legal circus surrounding the death of a glamorous tramp or the problems of Britney Spears.

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University. He received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. His books have been translated into 36 languages. Thirteen films have been made from them. He has also received a Technical Achievement Academy Award for his pioneering work in using computer programs in film production. His knowledge of computers is extensive.

BOGUS SCIENCE

His recent book about global warming, emphasizing the pseudoscience involved and the hype, riled the world, although his conclusions often have been misstated. He thinks global warming is occurring, and he predicts a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius during the next century. In other words, he doesn't buy all the catastrophic predictions that have even filtered down to my 7-year-old grandson, who casually informed me that New York would soon be under water. Crichton scoffs at computer modeling, which he says is not supported by the data.

Charlie Rose, the best interviewer on television, recently showed dismay that Crichton would stand alone against the great consensus. Thinkers have been doing that for millennia. There was once a great consensus that scurvy was an infectious disease, despite years of reports by sea captains that crew members recovered as soon as they were able to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. The history of science and medicine in particular is a history of the consensus being shattered by individual thinkers. Doctors, for example, no longer bleed patients, a practice that probably killed many of those in their care.

At any rate, Crichton is concerned about two problems. One is the politicizing of science. Another is the commercialization of university research. The old idea that new scientific knowledge should be shared with the world is giving way to a desire to patent it and make money from it. In fact, as the old gangsters knew so well, the world is all about money.

CRISIS SELLS

As anyone familiar with fundraising can tell you, pending catastrophes and crises sell; reason doesn't. Climatologists who said, "There is some gradual warming, but we don't know for sure what will happen in the future, so we'd like some money for further study" would get few grants. I've heard people talk about Hillary Clinton's fundraising ability, but I guarantee you that Republicans will raise tons of money to "stop Hillary" as if she were the Medusa or a female version of the Antichrist. Hype and exaggeration seem to have infected every aspect of American life.

In this atmosphere, Crichton is like Ayn Rand's fictional ideal man of reason. Look at the data. Apply reason. Make sure the data is correct. Even I, a techno semi-illiterate, know that computer modeling is simply a fancy straight-line projection. Unfortunately, life is more about circles and cycles than straight lines. Global warming is taking on the aspect of a religious belief rather than science. No matter what happens — hot or cold, wet or dry — it's blamed on global warming. And, like the Darwinians, the global-warming folks treat dissenters as if they were evil heretics.

May I suggest that you go to Crichton's official Web site and read the text of several of his speeches? I think you will find the intelligent conversation refreshing.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs....702280330/1015

[Orionsbelt]

In the Judaeo-Christian tradition God is portrayed as a loving father who is mostly concerned with the way people treat one – another. There is all sorts of subdue the earth, use the earth and animals as you like talk in the Old Testament. Buddhist, Hindu, traditions are similarly concerned with men and our interaction with the universe (not other species) as a being.

The underlying assumption is that the earth will take care of itself or somehow God will sustain us. While assumption may be a matter of trust for some people, for others it is becoming clear that the human burden on the planet is extracted at the cost of other forms of life. It is also possible that we are beginning to exceed its capacity. I have to agree that there is not enough evidence to suggest that man is solely responsible for the current warming trend. The fact of the matter is that man has contributed something. More of a concern is the sum of man’s impacts. As has been pointed out the great forest of Europe and the Eastern USA have been severely diminished. The equatorial belt is currently being trashed. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that had those forests remained somewhat intact, the trees would have consumed some of the CO2 emissions. Large areas of habitat have been destroyed many species of trees, fish, and animal are in peril or very unhealthy. The fish catch both in size and quantity are getting poorer every year. The population of deer and hunted species is solely under regulation. Instead of being balance by nature it grows and is trimmed based on the decision of men. There are literally thousands of cases like these worldwide.

Mankind as a whole seem unable or unwilling to concede that we just cannot continue to do whatever we want whenever we want. We have already done ourselves harm in such ways as pointed out by Harold Robbins, Rachel Carson, Arne Naess, Warwick Fox and others. Even if you think these folks are somewhat alarmists you have to concede that the argument they are making is worth consideration. I believe religious beliefs support our attitude and system of sentiments with regard to the world as well as other people. The only religious tradition that I am aware that regard other natural things with any respect at all are disregarded as pagan and dismissed out of hand.

There is a story about a rabbit eating the bark off of an oak tree. When it was pointed out that the rabbit was damaging the tree he replied “Who care as long as I have all of these acorns.”

If you believe that all life is sacred in some sense; If you believe that you have a moral obligation to support life in it’s many forms, then ecology is in some sense religious. If you beleive that these things are just tools, Don't worry there are plenty of acorns.

[kilted exile]

Yeah, I know crichtons argument. dont want to completely hijack this thread with discussion of it but suffice to say his has flaws also.

[Virgil]

I read National Geographic and they are way pro environment on everything and they supported the global warming "myth." So this is quite remarkable that they are printing this.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say"
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[Il Penseroso]

Even if that is true, an overabundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can't be good. Why take the chance and dismiss the theory? Why not just clean up our act, or do the best we can?

[Thorwench]

Even if human influence would be small, it is still some. The more we can reduce our impact, however small, the less worse it may become. The greenhouse-effect is not the only reason to cut down on energy consumption and gaseous waste. Fossile energy resources won't be there forever, in fact, they have diminished quite dramatically. This has not only an effect on petrol prices or general availability of energy but also on manufacturing. Some beloved and very much needed products like aluminium require vast amounts of energy for production. We should not only take care of the environment and our resources in case of clear and present danger but because we are endowed with reason and should be able and willing to think ahead beyound the time frames provided by election terms.
Just to give you an example how far human impact goes: before the wall came down we all heated our houses by burning brown and quite salty coal. The air in our town smelled of sulphur all through the winter. Lots of children had respiratory problems. After 1990 most heating changed to gas or oil with cleaner and different gaseous waste. You actually can breath again and smell a few flowers now. So much for human impact.

[Virgil]

Even if that is true, an overabundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can't be good.

How do you know that? Who says that it's all man made or even mostly man made?

Why take the chance and dismiss the theory? Why not just clean up our act, or do the best we can?

Even if human influence would be small, it is still some. The more we can reduce our impact, however small, the less worse it may become.

I'll answer both of you here. Because it would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars. We're not talking about going to clean up your room. We're talkiing about spending an incredible amount of money world wide, especially in countries that are not wealthy, on something that is either completely false or natural. Did you ever think that since it may be natural, by changing it you might be doing more harm than good?

The greenhouse-effect is not the only reason to cut down on energy consumption and gaseous waste. Fossile energy resources won't be there forever, in fact, they have diminished quite dramatically.

Actually it hasn't diminished. I posted an article somewhere else that estimated that since the world has been using oil (must be a good 150 years now) we have only consumed 18% of what is available. When it runs out, we'll switch to something else. In the US we are supplementing oil with synthetic oil made from vegetable products. It's just not as efficient. When oil runs out, we'll switch to something else. What's the big deal?

This has not only an effect on petrol prices or general availability of energy but also on manufacturing. Some beloved and very much needed products like aluminium require vast amounts of energy for production. We should not only take care of the environment and our resources in case of clear and present danger but because we are endowed with reason and should be able and willing to think ahead beyound the time frames provided by election terms.
Just to give you an example how far human impact goes: before the wall came down we all heated our houses by burning brown and quite salty coal. The air in our town smelled of sulphur all through the winter. Lots of children had respiratory problems. After 1990 most heating changed to gas or oil with cleaner and different gaseous waste. You actually can breath again and smell a few flowers now. So much for human impact.

Absolutely agree with this. It is stuff like this we should be focusing on, not wasting money on something fictitious as global warming. May I speculate and say the reason your area was burning coal was because it was cheaper and that was what was affordable. When your economies improved after the wall fell, the influx of money (and I'm sure this took a little time, not instantaneous) allowed your town to switch to a cleaner way to heat. That is what I mean by improving one's standard of living. By wasting trillions of dollars on something that is erroneous then you are taking money away from where it can bbe best put to use.

As to applying reason, it seems unreasonable to waste money on something that is either natural or of no importance. People who disagree with global warming are applying as much reason as those who don't. Frankly I think we're applying more. It's the global warming people who seem to be reacting emotionally.

[Thorwench]

Actually it hasn't diminished. I posted an article somewhere else that estimated that since the world has been using oil (must be a good 150 years now) we have only consumed 18% of what is available. When it runs out, we'll switch to something else. In the US we are supplementing oil with synthetic oil made from vegetable products. It's just not as efficient. When oil runs out, we'll switch to something else. What's the big deal?

I don't know, the estimates I have seen say that we have enough oil for another 50 to 100 years (depending on the rate of consumption). This is not much really. I also think that "available" is not the same as "being there". There may be lots there but is isn't available because there are restrictions on exploitation either for nature protection or for technological reasons. There is, for instance, a lot of methane on the bottom of the sea but it cannot be exploited because it is difficult to get to (they are trying) and difficult to get it out without causing uncontrollable problems. Frank Schaetzing's novel "The Swarm" describes these issues in an, admittedly, apocalypse-mongering manner but it is well researched and I found it quite an exciting read.
Resources are a big deal indeed. There are wars fought over them.
Regarding the temperature rise I think it is not the fact THAT temperature is rising which is worrying but the SPEED by which this happens. Of course the pole caps would have melted anyway but this would have needed a long long time. Now you can really visibly perceive how fast the ice is going. Humans have not caused the process but they certainly SPEEDED IT UP. Hence the difficulties to adjust. For any risk management you always have to assume the worst case scenario in order to get the most results. Our knowledge of Mars is very incomplete and we therefore cannot rest our case on a very small number of contrary or sceptic opinions. If they should turn out to have been right, we all will be very happy and pin the Nobel Prize on them. But this is not something we can rely on. If Titanic hadn't relied on the conviction that it is unsinkable she would have had more lifeboats. They would have been superfluous if there hadn't been an iceberg but they would not have hurt anyone or damaged anything. However, there weren't enough lifeboats and many people drowned or froze to death. Mainly 3rd class passengers (but who cares about them anyway?).

[Virgil]

OK, we have both made our points. It was a nice discussion.

[Virgil]

Hey i wonder how many have seen this film:

Debunking global warming myths

By LICIA CORBELLA

The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is, well ... great.

The program, which aired last Thursday in the U.K. to much buzz, has since been watched by hundreds of thousands of others around the world via the Internet. It exposes numerous lies and myths presented as fact by those who believe in the unproven hypothesis that human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of the Earth's warming climate.

The same broadcaster -- Channel 4 in the U.K. -- that recently exposed the extremist ideology being preached in Britain's supposedly "moderate" mosques has now similarly helped to tear away the veil of lies and religious zeal surrounding the global warming industry.

The film features an impressive group of experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, biogeography, meteorology, and paleoclimatology from reputable institutions such as NASA, MIT, The International Arctic Research Centre, the Pasteur Institut in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Jerusalem, Alabama and Virginia.

That should help top the claims there is a consensus of scientists who believe in man-made global warming.

Expert after expert in this film blasts craters into the theory that CO2 -- which only makes up 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere -- has ever driven climate. Ice core records, in fact, prove the opposite, that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years.

The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.

What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place.

Then, when carbon dioxide emissions rose markedly in the post-war economic boom period, temperatures fell for the next three decades, again, in direct contravention of the theory being espoused and believed by so many.

Ironically, in the 1970s, just as scientists started predicting another climate catastrophe -- an impending ice age -- the planet started warming again.

The documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia.

"There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious," he says with a chuckle.

"It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."

See the film at:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...4/3748254.html