Bravus prepares himself for the flood of retractions and apologies...

[Guest]

Studying science without studying the Bible is what enables men to say with a straight face: "The encyclopedia brittanica could have come about from an explosion in a print shop".

[SivartM]

Studying science without studying the Bible is what enables men to say with a straight face: "The encyclopedia brittanica could have come about from an explosion in a print shop".

There's someone who can say that with a straight face?

[phkrause]

Not sure why this is such a big deal? Who really cares one way or the other. Its amazing that there are so many sarcastic remarks about a subject that has absolutely no baring on our salvation!!!!!! We either agree or don't! That's all that needs to be said.

[SivartM]

But if global warming is true we might have to change our decadent lifestyles... and maybe even give our hard-earned money to undo the environmental damage we've done...

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1922

(warning, couple of swearwords interspersed in some excellent points)

[phkrause]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1922

(warning, couple of swearwords interspersed in some excellent points)

Well that was interesting Bravus

[phkrause]

But if global warming is true we might have to change our decadent lifestyles... and maybe even give our hard-earned money to undo the environmental damage we've done...

The only thing that I see with this earth Sivart, its getting old and fading, which is fine with me. Because it just tells me that my, or I should say, that our Lord and Saviour will be returning soon, and that's fine with me.

[Bravus]

Indeed, PK, but the early Adventists 150 years ago (you know, before the vast majority of this damage was done to the environment) were saying the same things. The early Christians a century after Jesus was here were saying the same thing. So what if He delays his coming for another 150 years? It's not impossible... and we're responsible for the world our children and grandchildren will have to live in until the Second Coming. No Adventist theology I know has 'because we've managed to pollute the world to uninhabitability' as the trigger for the Second Coming.

[phkrause]

Good points Bravus, but some day it will happen. I do agree that we do need to take care of this earth, and we're not doing a very good job.

[Tom Wetmore]

I think it pains God to see His creation being spoiled. I don't think though that he will be inclined to intervene to cut time short at the expense of accomplishing what he has in mind just because we have pushed it to being uninhabitable. We may be faced with the divine version of the old saying, "You made your bed, now you'll have to sleep in it yourself."

I recall a person near and dear to some on here that said that what we don't accomplish when the going is easy, we will be forced to finish and accomplish under great adversity. The point being that if we would seek to prevent or delay the causes of that adversity we would extend the time and circumstances under which we might have a better chance of meeting our objectives with more success and fewer causalities that would succumb to the stresses and strains of the intense adversity.

That to me leaves us with a choice on the environmental concerns. We can work toward improving and extending the useful life of this old world and improving our working conditions to finish the Lord's work on his schedule, whatever it may be. Or we can make our work more difficult by letting it all go to pot and be stuck working in a much harsher environment to finish up the Lord's appointed tasks for us before His time runs out.

[Tom Wetmore]

Get to it! Don't dilly-dally. You've made a mess, now clean it up!

I should like some pudding, after all...

[SivartM]

Good news! Apparently CO2 is "green"! http://co2isgreen.org

The reasoning is impeccable. If we lower the CO2 levels in the air, the plants won't get enough. Never mind that back before we cut down most of the trees there was less CO2 and everyone was still fine. Never mind that the site is funded by oil executives (http://www.astrotruth.org/big-oil/co2-is-green) who probably aren't planning on replacing all the plants they've destroyed.

[Bravus]

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_ro...tic_groups.html

[phkrause]

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_ro...tic_groups.html

Interesting link Bravus.

[karl]

'It is time Koch Industries came clean and dropped its dirty, behind-the-scenes campaign against action on climate change,' said Greenpeace US research director Kert Davies.

In response, a spokesperson for Koch Industries said the company believed the, 'political response to climate issues should be based on sound science. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree.

'We've strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases.

'We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate, as it's crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy,' said the spokesperson.

---------------

Maybe its time for Greenpeace, the lamestream media, "academia" and the government to come clean and drop their dirty behind-the-scenes campaign to enslave all of us under the scare tactic that the sky is falling.

[Tom Wetmore]

Seems to carry about the same level of credibility as the tobacco industry's "scientific research" questioning the adverse helath impact of smoking...

[karl]

Seems to carry about the same level of credibility as the tobacco industry's "scientific research" questioning the adverse helath impact of smoking...

Apples and oranges, Tom. Not even close.

Even if it were proven that man-made contributions to greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate in a substantial way, there is plenty of evidence that global warming has been good for the planet and for humanity in the past.

On the other hand, tobacco smoke has been proven to be deleterious to humans. It is, in fact, immediately obvious to any sentient being who does not smoke. It is like being near the campfire when the wind shifts toward you. You instinctively avoid the smoke.

Global warming is not in this category.

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1928

[Neil D]

From the amplified bible of Revelation 16:

8Then the fourth [angel] emptied out his bowl upon the sun, and it was permitted to burn (scorch) humanity with [fierce, glowing] heat (fire).

9People were severely burned (scorched) by the fiery heat, and they reviled and blasphemed the name of God, Who has control of these plagues, and they did not repent of their sins [felt no regret, contrition, and compunction for their waywardness, refusing to amend their ways] to give Him glory.

[there buster]

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

scientific fraud

[Neil D]

you can find a rebuttal at the bottom of your link..I thought it appropoe.

Prof Lewis resignation was not picked up by any reputable orgs because he has lost his credibility.‏

Instead, they uncovered the truth about , the "HOAX" of the East Anglia E mails. Read the Washington Times and most reputable organizations say about that subject.

THESE ARE A VERY FEW OF THE ORGS THAT KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND NOT natural climatic changes the earth experienced for 10 billion years:

1) Journal NATURE

2) Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change I.P.C.C.

3) Smithsonian Magazine and Smithsonian Institute

4) NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

5) Journal SCIENCE

6) National Institute of Health

7) National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (N.O.A.A)

8) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

9) Helsinki University of Technology

10) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact

11) NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

12) UNESCO

13) Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change I.P.C.C.

14) NASA Goddard Science & Space Institute

15) Museo Antropologico de Mexico

16) Johns Hopkins University

17) University of Michigan

18) Harvard University

19) Sindicatum Climate Change Fdtn. (S.C.C.F.)

20) 98% Nobel Laureates

21) Scientific American Magazine

22) International Energy Agency (I.E.A)

23) Union of World Scientists

24) Encyclopedia BRITANNICA

25) Institut Français de l'Environnement

26) World Meteorological Organization ( W.M.O.)

26) National Geographic Society

[there buster]

Impressive.

A similar list could have been assembled opposing the notion that "childbed fever" was spread by doctors, or that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium.

Science is about evidence, not about consensus. And few sources have highlighted the professors letter because they have a monetary incentive to ignore him.

Quote:

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety

Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

lost all credibilty. uh huh.

[BobRyan]

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

scientific fraud

[Woody]

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

scientific fraud

Thanks there buster. Very impressive.

[phkrause]

Thanks there buster. Very impressive.

Yes it was impressive, but so was what Neil posted! As for me I'll go with Bob's post. He seems to be one of very few here that have no motive for either side to this issue! As most have an agenda as to who they have decided to back. I see the problem as being that both sides have partial truth! Which means that both sides of the issue obviously has partial error! Would that be correct? Than neither side has any validity at all!!