Creationist = Anti-Environmentalist?

Crash, this whole debate has been going on a lot longer than Soylent Green. Sire Thomas Malthus predicted, much in the same way, that the earth's population would grow out of control, to the point where humans would use up every natural resource, and thus, we would exterminate ourselves. Of course, Malthus neglected to predict the enormous impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agrigulture. Obviously, his prediction never materialized. But what remains today is that same climate of fear. Can I see these ten models? There were quite a few, which I have provided for you the last time we had this argument. If you'd like me to dig up the old thread, I will show you. Sure, since you would never be in shortage of reasons for why it would be. You are invoking reasons for the climate change without considering that this is what the climate does. I suppose you'd blame the last ice age on humans too if you could. What anthropogenic cause did that have? It happened. It was drastic. I'm sure it killed many, many species-- yet, it was entirely a natural phenomenon. What does an authoritarian have to do with it? Look at the kids drooling over MTV, Crash. That's their source of inspiration-- that drivel! And yet they call me the sheep?!?!? Look at those lemmings. Everything society tells them to do, they dutifully follow. Not an autonomous bone in their body. Yet they sneer at me? They have their Pied Piper. We have a few in the Middle East. Israel just happens to be the closely modeled after America as any western nation. Not for lack of desire on their part, I'm sure. We plead with them not to get involved-- even as SCUD's rain down on their cities. We stay their hand because we all know what will happen if we don't. But we can't expect them to sit on their hands forever. A friend in a sea of enemies and fair-weather friends. The natural cycle that has been a part of the earth's climatological history.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I'm aware of that. I'm simply rebutting your assertion that the entire history of climate science has been a monolithic consensus of impending ice ages totally reversing itself to a monolithic consensus of global warming.That's not what happened at all. Like most scientific issues, positions were staked out, early, across the spectrum of conjecture - "There'll be cooling." "There'll be warming." "Nothing will happen." "We don't know what will happen."As time went on, and evidence was uncovered and models were developed, people abandoned some of those positions. Other positions were strengthened. As all but one position was disconfirmed by the evidence, a consensus developed.In the 70's there was no climatological consensus. Some thought it would warm. Some, cool. Most people said that there wasn't enough evidence to decide.Now, in 2007, the vast weight of evidence supports a single scientific consensus - human industry, specifically the burning of fossil fuels for energy, has drastically increased atmospheric greenhouse gases and caused a distinct warming trend. It had nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution - indeed, the vast majority of crop production around the world is still done with Neolithic methods like hand weeding, ditch irrigation, etc. - and everything to do with Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution. Were it not for Borlaug everything Malthus predicted would have come true. Was about to come true. Instead Borlaug saved, nearly single-handedly, more than 1.5 billion human lives.Don't confuse dodging the bullet for firing blanks. File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Reconstructions

​

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

​

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. doi:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. doi:10.1029/2000JD900617
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
11. (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.

​

Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2

---

Greenhouse gas emissions by human beings during the last ice age - nearly ten thousand years before the discovery and analysis of petroleum - were, I think it is safe to say, negligible. I'm not sure what on Earth you're talking about, here. Yes, obviously. Additionally, we know that the cause of the last ice age, and the interglacial period we find ourselves in, was not human industry. Similarly, we know that human industry is the cause of the current warming trend we find ourselves in. That's the conclusion supported by the vast weight of data.Look, NJ, if 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted by humans every single year isn't up there causing warming, what is it doing? Where does it go? Does it just disappear, by magic? And then where is all the warming coming from? The sun is in a cooling period, so the "warming sun" model can't explain it. That Russian guy's lunacy about cosmic rays doesn't hold up from the data. That's what you were talking about. Authoritarianism. Rigid, lockstep following. Did you read the link? I'll take Bob Altemeyer's decades of research into the phenomenon of authoritarian thinking over your anecdotal examples, thanks. Did you read the link? You're sure? Based on what? So, you're admitting that we get nothing from all the help we give them. Leaving only the religious explanation. Which was what I was saying all along. That doesn't answer my question. What cycle? How long is the period of this cycle? What is its amplitude? What causes the cycle?There is cyclical warming and cooling of the Earth, to be sure. The CO2 concentrations that we're experiencing now is clearly above and beyond that normal cycle, as you can see here: File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png - WikipediaCome the fuck on, NJ. The science is bulletproof on this.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I assume you have evidence of said bribery? What I am doing is debunking your sweeping allegations. You neglect to say some, and instead, say all. It appears that Petro has asked you several times to corroborate your claims that creationists are anti-environment. If you want to stay on topic, then I suggest you cough up some proof. We'll start with just one name. Give me one name in order to keep this thread going. No. This might be your shining moment to substantiate your claim that creationists hate the environment. Holy cow, man. Listen one song-- any song.I'll give you a hint. Canada is a Democratic Socialist nation, which isn't entirely the same thing. And Canada does have our help. But more importantly, they don't require our help in the same way Israel does. And here is why:

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I completely agree. Fundamentalists are mentally on par with "kids drooling over MTV". Neither one has yet achieved enough education and maturity to be able to make decisions for themself.In the kids case, it's because they are 12.What's the fundamentalists excuse?

If I provide evidence of the bribery, will you admit that you are wrong, rather than just ignore the info? Let me explain how a "debunking" works. I linked Red States, Fundamentalism and Anti-Environmentalism. This is because Red States voted overwhelmingly for the Fundamentalist Anti-Environmental theocratic administration.Your response was to link Blue States with Walmart and "war policies".That's not a debunking. If anything, it's a "bunking"! Name one Creationist Fundamentalist who's denying human's role in global warming. Gee, I don't know, how about... YOU! Okay, Im not a "Rage" fan, so I goggled them - here's one of their songs, "Beautiful World" What's your point here? That Israel is small? That Muslims are "evil"? Why is it America's duty to protect Israel? Why isn't it America's duty to protect any other small country in the world?Is it because Israel happens to be the home of several sites that Fundamentalists have decided are important? The same site, by the way, that play a role in their plans for the rapture?

Becky Fischer, director of Kids in Ministry International, as featured in the documentary Jesus Camp.

Hands down, one of the scariest movies EVER.

quote:

---

Yes, meteorologists and climatologists who actively work in that field were predicting this new ice age. Why? Because it was statistically colder than in previous decades/centuries.

---

Why is it inconceivable that a similar ignorance will always exist? Why do you suppose that climatologists know it all know, just because they more than they did in the past?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

that's debatable.also, why are we allies with saudi arabia, then?

It's not just more, it's many orders of magnitude more.Certainly, there's more we could learn. But to say that we can't know anything until we know everything is to have a paralyzing obsession with certainty.It's simply a double standard on your part. You're perfectly willing to support the policies you wish to be enacted on the basis of imperfect, or even nonexistent, evidence; but because you oppose the very idea of trying to get a handle on human carbon emissions, you demand absolutely perfect, infinite data - which you know is an impossibility.You asked for the data, it's been presented. It's hard to imagine, NJ, any circumstance that could result in thousands of temperature measurements across the globe for decades being not only wrong, but all wrong in exactly the same way. Thermometer gnomes, is that it?

I have just started a book, entitled, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years, which allegedly chronicles earth's climatology, compiling evidence from dendrochronology and ice core samples, etc. Additionally, they add to the mix the reasons why climatology has become a cottage industry with huge political ties. Thus far, I see that those who have ascribed to the notion of anthropogenic global warming will not like the material presented in this book. But I guess what matters is we are getting both sides of an issue.I'll let you know when I'm done.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

NJ, did you have a specific response to the data that I've presented?Do you see how the sun can't be responsible for warming when its been in a decades-long period of general cooling? Ah, by Fred Singer, the guy who was paid handsomely by oil companies to conduct "research" against the scientific consensus, and then lied about it. I'm sure he's a source you can trust. Being one of the top-paid denialist guns-for-hire, he'd know, wouldn't he?

Hi, Nem. I'm not saying that it is inconceivable that ignorance on a topic can exist forever. I'm speaking about your implied point that if the conclusions of the concensus of a field changes, then that is a sign that we cannot trust their conclusions. You said:Here you are clearly implying that since the opinion of climatologists have changed, their current theories cannot be trusted. I am trying to explain that this isn't true when I say: The point I'm trying to make is that a change in the theory has no relevance to whether the current theory is correct. In fact, by itself it doesn't even raise suspicions that the theory might not be correct. In fact, we expect that details should change as scientists acquire more data and their understanding increases. A theory stands or falls on the evidence; just as the fact that scientists decided to change the theory of combustion by abandoning the concept of phlogiston doesn't imply that the current theory of chemical combination with oxygen is incorrect, so that increased understanding of the physics and chemistry in climatology led to a change from a prediction of an ice age doesn't imply that the current prediction of global warming is incorrect.Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed gratuitious statement. If you saw it, Nem, then I apologize for it.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Huh. Someone should make you a moderator; the current thinking among the admins is that fairness requires more moderators incapable of rational thought.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

I don't think fairness requires moderators incapable of rational thought, but I do think we need more moderator tolerance of nonrational thought. Most of the time most people operate in that mode, and there is much about intuitive, nonrational thought that is functional.I have great confidence that refutation of the irrational can be supplied when needed. We have that resource in plenty.Sometimes, when I listen to scientists talking to the religious, I hear American tourists shouting slow English because the locals don't understand an outside language.You are one of the best explainers we have here. You would make an excellent moderator.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------