An Inconvenient Truth

What if the apparent Warming effect so happened to be a natural cycle of the earth. I mean, we know empirically that the North Pole was once a lush, rainforest. What if all this fuss is humans worrying themselves to death? To be fair, yes, pollution is a problem. However, the rates of pollution today are far less than that of Industrial Revolution England and far less that 1980 Los Angelas. You might say, "Ya, but it all accumulates over time, depleting the ozone." But what if this is just another senseless scare tactic?It seems that the Discovery Channel, for instance, is obsessed with death, disaster, and catastrophe. The major networks are no better. There are alot of specials being aired on Tsunamies, hurricanes, earthquakes, Avian Flu's, SARS, AIDS, over population, Global Warming, etc. It almost seems like they are masochistically rooting for such a disaster. Secondly, all of these phenomena have always been around. We have a better handle on tsunamies, hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, plagues, etc than ever before. We have learned to mitigate much of those things as much as we could. Certainly, we could attribute this to awareness.I have not seen the movie and it may be a very persuasive movie. I'm not going to prejudge it. But what should happen if we are just going through a natural cycle and that very few of the problems have to do with anything?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Certainly, but I'm asking why ecologists are so certain that its global warming as opposed to a normal cycle. I'm not suggesting that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere don't have serious and adverse effects on the ozone. Certainly they do. I'm just asking how they have surmised that it isnt attributed to a natural cycle that we weren't around in the past to understand.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Okay, then perhaps I should have said the Arctic Circle instead."Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there. Where now a sheet of solid ice over a mile thick covers mountain and valley, and mighty frozen rivers called glaciers make their way to the sea and hatch icebergs, there was in earlier days a verdure-clad wilderness of luxuriant vegetation. Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia. Climbing vines festooned the trunks of these monarchs of an ancient forest with draperies of foliage, while close to the ground grew those curious dwarf trees called "cycads," somewhat resembling palms in miniature, in the midst of a tangled undergrowth of ferns and other flowerless plants that carpted the densely wooded areas."Tropical Greenland - Boston, MA - Jan. 13, 1897

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I was pretty adament on not making that point. I asked a simple question stemming from an inquisitive nature. How does Global Warming effect my Christian beliefs? They don't. I believe that humans and nature share a symbiotic relationship and its very important to protect that bond that God instilled. That's what I believe. However, I tend to see these Malthusian conspiracies as being based off of a fear more than it is an immediate, pressing issue. I also see it used by some as a tool of manipulation to slowly glean support for eugenics.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I understand that, but how would we really know either way? I mean, it seems to go in waves as far as I can tell. Some years are hotter, some are colder, some are ranier, some are drier. Again, I'm not undermining the fact that Global Warming exists, I'm merely asking what determining factor makes the case soley against human pollution rather than, perhaps, a mixture of human pollution and a natural cycle?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Because I object to sensationalistic scare tactics, like SARS, Avian Flu, and West Nile virus. Yes, those are legitimate diseases. Yes, Global Warming exists. But the way the media presents it just frightens people like my mother. You know, and a large part of that is people's draw towards people's curiosity about death, like wanting to rubberneck at a bad accident. I understand that. But its almost as if they want it so they can feel justified in their misery. I can't explain it more than that. So, I would prefer to know that these aren't veiled threats like SARS. I would appreciate an actual answer. Aside from which, the US has been locked on about Global Warming for nearly 20 years. We have lower emmisions now than ever before, more recycling, more conservation efforts underway. I know the UK and Canada and a few other nations are on the ball too. Who we need to get onboard, as someone pointed out, is China, India, Mexico, and other big contributors to pollution because it effects everyone. What does my political affiliation have to do with my question? If its natural then what do you want to do about that? All we can do is what we've been trying to do to mitigate the effects and raise awareness. High rises have to, by code, be engineered to mitigate earthquakes. That's great, but it isn't going to stop nature from doing her thing. Same thing for the rest of natural disasters. I lived in Miami for most of life. I grew up with the reality of hurricanes. My first one was the worst natural disaster in US history, until Katrina. I mean, what can you do? You can move. But South Florida has millions of residents. Can't get them all to move. So if it is just a natural occurance then there really isn't anything you can do to stop nature from doing its thing. That's all I'm saying. Now, if the Warming effect has greatly contributed to the intensity of these natural phenomenon, then like I said, we need to continue to do our part to slowly wean back into a natural cycle.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

So, you're telling me that when Greenland was apart of Pangea that it was situated near the equator? I don't think so. Aside from which, Siberia was once a desert. That seems highly unlikely. As far as anyone can tell, the earth was once a very lush place. For whatever reason, a cold snap occured and brought on an ice age. Now, what once was tropical is now a tundra.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I can't argue with that. You know, Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, gave a lengthy speech on SUV's and how terrible they are and everyone needs to get new, more compact vehicles that use FlexFuel. After the speech was over he got into his GMC Envoy, one of the largest SUV's on the market. Despite Obama's hypocrisy, I believe FlexFuel may offer some solutions to us. Some experts don't think that an alternative, organic fuel can sustain the requirement for America. Its working well for Brazilians, but then again, half of their country don't own cars, much less, food or homes. But one thing is certain: The oil is running out. And even though the Canadians have discovered the largest oil supply in the world, its only a temporary fix. It can't sustain the amount of vehicles on the road toaday for more than 20 years. Aside from which, every new car on the road is increased CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I think its possible, but I'm not sold out on the notion. This is what we know, absolutely. That the continents are indeed moving away from one another, at an average pace of about an inch a year. What we also know is that the earth's crust is composed of huge slabs or plates that shift, sometimes causing earthquakes and tremors. What is speculation is that the earth was once connected. Its an interesting theory and I appreciate the research, but the premise of theory, as best as I can tell, is to explain Australia's diversity. They needed someway to get Marsupials and Aborignese on that continent, and the isolation made for it a perfect candidate for the evolutionary model. Perhaps, but one thing I do know. In all of the Pangea simulations, they have to shrink Greenland and Africa by 30% to make it fit. Once. If you say so, then why couldn't the Warming effect be apart of this natural cycle that occurs every few million years. I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here. I think its an interesting topic. Yeah, I have serious concerns about Discovery's programs. Mythbusters rocks though, as well as many other of their programs. Its their theoretical ones that are disconcerting. They give these dialogues about certain dinosaurs that they could not have possibly known by looking at bones. Its really silly, actually. And the viewer is under the assumption that this is an absolute certainty. For instance, I was watching "Walking with the Dinosaurs," or something like that, and they had a creature who runs into dung to escape from predators. All this they surmise by looking at bones, often not even a full skeleton. I also find it a bit silly that they have dinosaurs with these deep growls, like roaring lions. This doesn't match any reptiles today. Reptiles hiss, they don't growl. All this surmise by looking at bones. Its specualtion like this that encroaches in on the textbooks, where imagination becomes fact. They just make things up and the general public nods in approval. Is it possible that that they rolled in dung or have deep, gutteral bellows? Sure. But how have they come to such conclusions by looking at fragmented bone? Therefore, I have to sometimes take Discovery with a grain of salt.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

AdminNosy: Sorry I missed the start of this but now it the time to drop this from this thread. Open a new one if you want. First of all, this information that the continents fit one another 'like perfect little puzzle pieces' does not come from Hovind. If Hovind used that argument, then he used that argument, and nothing more. If you haven't noticed, Hovind piggybacks off of the data supplied by actual scientists in the field, as opposed to him coming up with these arguments on their own. The reason I mentioned it is because that is dubious and misleading. I find it interesting that the conept of Pangea was first advanced by a French creationist. It is possible that it could be true, but then again, there are other theories just as plausible.http://www.scientificexploration.org/...s/pdf/14.3_pratt.pdf Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Yes. That's surprising to me. Let me guess the two: Richmond and Virginia Beach/Norfolk? I lived in Virginia Beach for about 6 months and it seemed very 'progressive' to me. I also joined the Navy at the Richmond MEPS station and I have a buisness associate who lives out there. Both seem fairly progressive cities to me. LOL! Grand Druid... that was funny. Uh, I'm not a fan of Gore at all, however, I would judge the movie based on the evidence it presents and whether or not its some sensationalistic tactic to further its own agenda which might have more political roots than it does ecological reasons. But as I said, I'm not totally sold out on the notion of Global Warming being the cause of humans. I happen to be leaning more towards Holmes on this one. Nonetheless, human actions can only exacerbate the phenomenon. I think we should live in a manner that should still seek to lower emissions and overall, pollution. I'm just not so sure that this isn't mostly the cause of a natural cycle. Despite my aversion towards the internet entrepreneur, Gore, I will still see it. I had an unwaivering aversion towards Micahel Moore, but I still managed to watch Fahrenhype 911.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal