-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Everything a person does as an individual, affects those around them directly or indirectly, as well as those in the future. I eat a candybar, throw the paper away in the trash can... The trash-person isn't there, does that mean he/she doesn't exist?
It is pretty simple. future generations isn't a myth, and we do hold some RESPONSIBILITY, not for moral reasons, to give those future generations, no matter who or what they are, an equal or better life to what we had. I can be selfish all I want, and am a lot of times. Doesn't mean I shouldn't plan for the future of my son or daughter right now... for all I know, I may never have children, still doesn't mean I shouldn't plan, because with my selfishness, also comes with wanting to see those I spawn our those that are part of me (family, friends, etc.) have better and do better than I did at life.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rus-La
Everything a person does as an individual, affects those around them directly or indirectly, as well as those in the future. I eat a candybar, throw the paper away in the trash can... The trash-person isn't there, does that mean he/she doesn't exist?
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rus-La
It is pretty simple. future generations isn't a myth, and we do hold some RESPONSIBILITY, not for moral reasons, to give those future generations, no matter who or what they are, an equal or better life to what we had. I can be selfish all I want, and am a lot of times. Doesn't mean I shouldn't plan for the future of my son or daughter right now... for all I know, I may never have children, still doesn't mean I shouldn't plan, because with my selfishness, also comes with wanting to see those I spawn our those that are part of me (family, friends, etc.) have better and do better than I did at life.
You're just changing terms and hoping to skirt the issue. Why do we have this responsibility? I don't think see that we (generically) do, and noone has supplied a substantive argument to validate your RESPONSIBILITY hypothesis.
I have supplied a framework by which we can evaluate effects on future progeny, vis-a-vis my counter-example to the MS question posed by Duckbill. I might say that "I would like to have children, but I would not like to have a child with MS (if I could avoid it pre-conception)." You might say "I would like to have a child that... is poor, etc." That is valid and gets us somewhere. It does NOT, however, carry with it a RESPONSIBILITY or an OBLIGATION for the SAKE of those future progeny. It is a RESPONSIBILITY to uphold YOUR value judgements, for YOUR SAKE. Get it?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I say it's a responsibility because you owe a debt for your life. You were given it, so your yourself, should give it to someone else. It's one thing to not be able to, and another to not do it for the sake of not doing it. It is only right to give someone a future at least on par with what you had.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rus-La
I say it's a responsibility because you owe a debt for your life. You were given it, so your yourself, should give it to someone else. It's one thing to not be able to, and another to not do it for the sake of not doing it. It is only right to give someone a future at least on par with what you had.
I owe a debt for my life?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
I owe a debt for my life?
Yes.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rus-La
Yes.
Interesting, but I would hardly say so.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
randerizer, your argument about changing the group you are supposedly obligated to has absolutely no validity, as my hypothetical demonstrated. you feel no obligation to save unknown people from certain destruction, but that is because of your particular philosophy, not because of some farcicle paradox. anyone who feels an obligation to preserve his fellow man can feel the same obligation to future generations without having to resolve any paradox.
i can owe no obligation to people who never come to exist. however, if it is my duty to prevent suffering as much as it is in my power to do, then i have that duty to all who come to exist, insomuch as my actions affect them.
if you somehow caused a woman to become sterile, your crime is against that woman, not her children -- she has no children and never will.
one more hypothetical. you have an envelope that is full of a large sum of money. also in that envelope is a virus that will infect the person that opens the envelope. the virus will have no adverse affect on an adult, but if a woman becomes infected, she will pass the virus on to her children upon conception, and the virus will kill her child within two years of birth. you have the option to send the envelope to a very poor young couple that is trying to have children, or to destroy it. would it be morally acceptable to send the envelope to the couple? receipt of the envelope would no doubt change the environmental circumstances of the conception of that couple's child, thus changing who that child will be. so by not sending the envelope, you cause the very child whose life you would save to never come to exist. by your "logic" there is no moral difference between sending the envelope and destroying it.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
randerizer, your argument about changing the group you are supposedly obligated to has absolutely no validity, as my hypothetical demonstrated. you feel no obligation to save unknown people from certain destruction, but that is because of your particular philosophy, not because of some farcicle paradox. anyone who feels an obligation to preserve his fellow man can feel the same obligation to future generations without having to resolve any paradox.
If that is your argument, it is not logically constructed. You should know better. :)
The fact that I feel no obligation to save unknown people means nothing. My whole point is that "if you feel an obligation for..., then this is a paradox that you must account for."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
i can owe no obligation to people who never come to exist. however, if it is my duty to prevent suffering as much as it is in my power to do, then i have that duty to all who come to exist, insomuch as my actions affect them.
if you somehow caused a woman to become sterile, your crime is against that woman, not her children -- she has no children and never will.
That is a fair point, but it doesn't get you very far in attacking my position. In fact, if you make this argument, the logical conclusion is that we should disregard obligations to all future progeny -- if our actions lead to extinction, in fact, those future people would never exist and are of no value to the discussion. Right?
You can, in fact, owe no obligation to people who never come to exist (I completely agree). You also can owe no obligation to CREATE people that would not have otherwise existed. But, IF you claim to owe a moral obligation to future generations, the ONLY way you can do this (without committing a fallacy involving false identification, e.g., groupspeak when you omit the PARTICULARS of the group) is to owe an obligation to the prospective individuals of the future generation.
The ONLY way to maintain this moral obligation is to improve the lives of the prospective INDIVIDUALS that comprise the group that is the future generations. However, there is no way around the fact that your actions will NOT improve the lives of any prospective INDIVIDUALS, but will only REPOPULATE the hypothetical list of individuals that comprise the group.
NO ACTION that you can take can reduce the suffering of ANY (unconceived) individual in the future. You are building an argument that, instead, you can reduce the (NET) suffering felt on the planet in the future, which makes your action moral. But how do you arrive at the fact that reducing suffering is valuable? Ultimately, I see that you are separating some abstract value (reducing suffering) from why you hold that value (reducing the suffering of INDIVIDUALS, who are the only entities capable of suffering in the first place).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
one more hypothetical. you have an envelope that is full of a large sum of money. also in that envelope is a virus that will infect the person that opens the envelope. the virus will have no adverse affect on an adult, but if a woman becomes infected, she will pass the virus on to her children upon conception, and the virus will kill her child within two years of birth. you have the option to send the envelope to a very poor young couple that is trying to have children, or to destroy it. would it be morally acceptable to send the envelope to the couple? receipt of the envelope would no doubt change the environmental circumstances of the conception of that couple's child, thus changing who that child will be. so by not sending the envelope, you cause the very child whose life you would save to never come to exist. by your "logic" there is no moral difference between sending the envelope and destroying it.
Unless I disclosed the complete situation to the couple, I do not think it would be morally appropriate to do this. I am misleading them into thinking that they are getting something for free. In fact, if the couple seeks to have a child that lives beyond their years, and they value having a child that does that moreso than the money they received, you can see why that would be questionable. I would not find it morally questionable to disclose what they were up against... $1M in the envelope that could be theirs, but they would become infected by a virus that would basically make them incapable of raising a child beyond a certain age. It is their choice, not mine.
In truth, though, it should be recognized that the child that is born with the disease could not have been born any other way.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
If that is your argument, it is not logically constructed. You should know better. :)
The fact that I feel no obligation to save unknown people means nothing. My whole point is that "if you feel an obligation for..., then this is a paradox that you must account for."
that may be your point, but it was not your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
That is a fair point, but it doesn't get you very far in attacking my position. In fact, if you make this argument, the logical conclusion is that we should disregard obligations to all future progeny -- if our actions lead to extinction, in fact, those future people would never exist and are of no value to the discussion. Right?
You can, in fact, owe no obligation to people who never come to exist (I completely agree). You also can owe no obligation to CREATE people that would not have otherwise existed. But, IF you claim to owe a moral obligation to future generations, the ONLY way you can do this (without committing a fallacy involving false identification, e.g., groupspeak when you omit the PARTICULARS of the group) is to owe an obligation to the prospective individuals of the future generation.
yes, the prospective individuals, whomever they may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
The ONLY way to maintain this moral obligation is to improve the lives of the prospective INDIVIDUALS that comprise the group that is the future generations. However, there is no way around the fact that your actions will NOT improve the lives of any prospective INDIVIDUALS, but will only REPOPULATE the hypothetical list of individuals that comprise the group.
NO ACTION that you can take can reduce the suffering of ANY (unconceived) individual in the future. You are building an argument that, instead, you can reduce the (NET) suffering felt on the planet in the future, which makes your action moral. But how do you arrive at the fact that reducing suffering is valuable? Ultimately, I see that you are separating some abstract value (reducing suffering) from why you hold that value (reducing the suffering of INDIVIDUALS, who are the only entities capable of suffering in the first place).
this is the absurdity of your argument. it does not matter if the faces change -- if individuals will suffer as a result of my actions, it does not matter who those individuals are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
Unless I disclosed the complete situation to the couple, I do not think it would be morally appropriate to do this. I am misleading them into thinking that they are getting something for free. In fact, if the couple seeks to have a child that lives beyond their years, and they value having a child that does that moreso than the money they received, you can see why that would be questionable. I would not find it morally questionable to disclose what they were up against... $1M in the envelope that could be theirs, but they would become infected by a virus that would basically make them incapable of raising a child beyond a certain age. It is their choice, not mine.
In truth, though, it should be recognized that the child that is born with the disease could not have been born any other way.
you are skirting the question. in my hypothetical, you only have two choices: send the envelope with the contents described, or destroy it. just as daybreaker has no choice in your abuse of the environment, the couple in the hypo have no choice. the choice is yours: cause a child to be born diseased, or allow a child to be born as it will without your interferance.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
that may be your point, but it was not your argument.
It was my argument. Other people's interpretation of my argument just got jumbled because it was something they had not heard before. I have, from the beginning, claimed that the argument in no way changes MY moral position.
Again, from the beginning, the construction of the argument went...
Randy - we have no obligation to future generations
DB2 - What? You are being selfish. Of course we have an obligation to those good little boys and girls.
Randy - proceed with the rest.
If I have already stated that we have no obligation to future generations, why would it be a paradox to me? Potential people change, but no potential people have value/rights until they are ACTUAL persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
yes, the prospective individuals, whomever they may be.
There is no possible way that your actions can reduce the suffering of any particular individuals of a future generation. I would argue that the potential people that WOULD HAVE been born would probably prefer whatever suffering they would face to not being born at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
this is the absurdity of your argument. it does not matter if the faces change -- if individuals will suffer as a result of my actions, it does not matter who those individuals are.
Sorry -- other than the argument that it is absurd, you've yet to make a point. But, I'll go further... IF the individuals that are born into the future suffer IN ANY WAY, they suffer in that way as a result of your actions. That is, precisely, they would not have suffered otherwise, as they would not have existed. :rolleyes4:
IF this is your position, then your ethical standards have no appropriate base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
you are skirting the question. in my hypothetical, you only have two choices: send the envelope with the contents described, or destroy it. just as daybreaker has no choice in your abuse of the environment, the couple in the hypo have no choice. the choice is yours: cause a child to be born diseased, or allow a child to be born as it will without your interferance.
Sure, but the basis of my decision does not have to be the fact that a child is born with or without my interference. I do not think I would send the envelope, because I would be being hiding part of the package. In the same sense, I would not take a broken computer, make it look nice and pretty on the outside, and try to sell it as a functional machine. It is dishonest, and by my standards of dealing with others, that is something I'm not prepared to do.
-----------------------
Bob, I will agree wholeheartedly that my argument is unconventional. I am surprised by your blatant disregard for sound reasoning on this issue, though. You have yet to present any sort of real argument against this. If you read text-books, most international law, environmental law, etc., theorists accept that this person-changing issue is valid. They just choose to ignore it.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
How can we even represent to know what is in the best interest of these people. My assumption is that they would rather be born and live in a world of warming than to never exist. Whose best interest do you really have in mind?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
It was my argument. Other people's interpretation of my argument just got jumbled because it was something they had not heard before. I have, from the beginning, claimed that the argument in no way changes MY moral position.
Again, from the beginning, the construction of the argument went...
Randy - we have no obligation to future generations
DB2 - What? You are being selfish. Of course we have an obligation to those good little boys and girls.
Randy - proceed with the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Especially since changing the course of conduct in an effort to preserve specific things for "future generations" kills the individuals that would have existed had the course of conduct not be changed. You know...when a butterfly flaps its wings... :icon_wink:
i appologize, randy, i see that it was guiss that kicked the whole thing off. but this, in essence, is the argument you have been defending, and it is absurd. i have pointed out how rediculous this argument is in various ways, and you have ignored the main point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
If I have already stated that we have no obligation to future generations, why would it be a paradox to me? Potential people change, but no potential people have value/rights until they are ACTUAL persons.
There is no possible way that your actions can reduce the suffering of any particular individuals of a future generation. I would argue that the potential people that WOULD HAVE been born would probably prefer whatever suffering they would face to not being born at all.
the real paradox is how you reconcile the above bolded statements. how can a person who never comes to be PREFER anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
Sorry -- other than the argument that it is absurd, you've yet to make a point. But, I'll go further... IF the individuals that are born into the future suffer IN ANY WAY, they suffer in that way as a result of your actions. That is, precisely, they would not have suffered otherwise, as they would not have existed. :rolleyes4:
IF this is your position, then your ethical standards have no appropriate base.
you use the appropriate emoticon here. in a very remote sort of way, everyone who is born in the future is born as a result of my actions, but no more so than the actions of every person in the world. this is something that is beyond my control. thus i can take no responsibility for it.
as for CAUSING suffering, this truly is a silly argument. it is true that most people will suffer, and all will die, as a condition of their existence. but i am not causing them to come to exist, and even if i were, bringing someone into existence does not cause their suffering. surely you are not about to argue that the simple act of having children is a crime?
my argument was that contributing to one's suffering, no matter who, is immoral.
of course, i am having to argue ouside my own philosphical beliefs, because i seriously doubt that any person, or even all people combined, have the power to change WHO will be born. we may be able to affect genetic makeup, but not souls (but that is an entirely different subject).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
Sure, but the basis of my decision does not have to be the fact that a child is born with or without my interference. I do not think I would send the envelope, because I would be being hiding part of the package. In the same sense, I would not take a broken computer, make it look nice and pretty on the outside, and try to sell it as a functional machine. It is dishonest, and by my standards of dealing with others, that is something I'm not prepared to do.
so apart from the dishonesty, you see nothing immoral with sending the envelope?
ok, one final hypo, since you keep sidestepping the point. let's say you do have it in your power to cause people to come into existance. you have only two options. create ten perfectly healthy individuals, or create ten people who are diseased and in pain, and have difficulty even drawing enough oxygen to breathe. which is preferable?
i would argue that you have the obligation to this "generation" to create them healthy, even though the individuals of the healthy generation are not the same indivuduals as those of the unhealthy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
-----------------------
Bob, I will agree wholeheartedly that my argument is unconventional. I am surprised by your blatant disregard for sound reasoning on this issue, though. You have yet to present any sort of real argument against this. If you read text-books, most international law, environmental law, etc., theorists accept that this person-changing issue is valid. They just choose to ignore it.
when have i ever shown any contept for an unconventional argument? i enjoy an unconventional argument, much more so than a conventional one, as long as it is valid. however, you are the one referring to textbooks. that doesn't sound unconventional to me.
i will admit that it is a bit of a paradox, if you look at it as demonstrated by my last hypo, but not one that comes remotely close to something that should affect anyone's decisions. the reason the theorists ignore it is because it doesn't matter. decreasing overall suffering, no matter which individuals are doing the suffering, is always preferable to increasing it.
the above bolded statement is the reason your argument, as an argument against making things better (or avoiding making them worse) for future generations, is absurd.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
How can we even represent to know what is in the best interest of these people. My assumption is that they would rather be born and live in a world of warming than to never exist. Whose best interest do you really have in mind?
the interest of real people -- people who ARE.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
the real paradox is how you reconcile the above bolded statements. how can a person who never comes to be PREFER anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/image...s/viewpost.gif
If I have already stated that we have no obligation to future generations, why would it be a paradox to me? Potential people change, but no potential people have value/rights until they are ACTUAL persons.
There is no possible way that your actions can reduce the suffering of any particular individuals of a future generation. I would argue that the potential people that WOULD HAVE been born would probably prefer whatever suffering they would face to not being born at all.
There is no reconciliation. What people that WOULD HAVE been born would have preferred is not an argument that means anything to me. Neither is what people who WILL BE born significant. My argument is that you can't claim to care about the people that WILL BE born unless you reconcile that the people that WOULD HAVE BEEN born without your action will no longer be born at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
you use the appropriate emoticon here. in a very remote sort of way, everyone who is born in the future is born as a result of my actions, but no more so than the actions of every person in the world. this is something that is beyond my control. thus i can take no responsibility for it.
I agree. Hence, we have no obligation (responsibility) for THEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
as for CAUSING suffering, this truly is a silly argument. it is true that most people will suffer, and all will die, as a condition of their existence. but i am not causing them to come to exist, and even if i were, bringing someone into existence does not cause their suffering. surely you are not about to argue that the simple act of having children is a crime?
my argument was that contributing to one's suffering, no matter who, is immoral.
You DO cause them to come to exist. In that, if you were not involved, a different person would come to be. How exactly might I be contributing to one's suffering, if the result of my action is that one comes into existence that would not otherwise have existed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
so apart from the dishonesty, you see nothing immoral with sending the envelope?
If my intent is to prevent the couple from being able to have children that live for more than two years, then that is immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
ok, one final hypo, since you keep sidestepping the point. let's say you do have it in your power to cause people to come into existance. you have only two options. create ten perfectly healthy individuals, or create ten people who are diseased and in pain, and have difficulty even drawing enough oxygen to breathe. which is preferable?
Preferable to whom? The individuals that are created or to me? I would prefer healthy individuals. If I go through the effort to make something, I like to know it will last. The individuals who were diseased and in pain might prefer life to death, but might not. That is indeterminate. The individuals that are healthy would probably prefer to be alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
i would argue that you have the obligation to this "generation" to create them healthy, even though the individuals of the healthy generation are not the same indivuduals as those of the unhealthy one.
Is obligation really the word you would choose to use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
when have i ever shown any contept for an unconventional argument? i enjoy an unconventional argument, much more so than a conventional one, as long as it is valid. however, you are the one referring to textbooks. that doesn't sound unconventional to me.
Good point. But it is nonetheless unconventional. Most textbook writers that talk about it mention it then forget about it/ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
i will admit that it is a bit of a paradox, if you look at it as demonstrated by my last hypo, but not one that comes remotely close to something that should affect anyone's decisions. the reason the theorists ignore it is because it doesn't matter. decreasing overall suffering, no matter which individuals are doing the suffering, is always preferable to increasing it.
the above bolded statement is the reason your argument, as an argument against making things better (or avoiding making them worse) for future generations, is absurd.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making things better for future generations. I argue that the use of terminology like "obligation" or "imagine all the kids in the future that will..." is filled with philosophical obstacles. It is certainly used as an emotional talking point, but I find no place for it in this discourse. My "thought experiment" illustrates the paradox of applying the logic of "obligations" for "people of the future."
I also haven't even mentioned where the suffering argument leads us, though. To bring it full circle, I would point out that if our goal is to reduce overall suffering, the ONLY way we can do that is to reduce suffering by today's standards. That means making SACRIFICES for the future generations is perplexing for the reasons listed above. The only appropriate basis for a decision is for those already existence.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I'd rather my children not get screwed by Social Security rather than protecting them from a CHANCE on them being significantly affected by AGW.
Heck, *I* might get screwed by SS. Even deforestation is a much bigger issue than the possibility that we cause significant global warming.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
i don't have time to reply point by point. either your original argument was against consideration for future generations, or you we nit-picking semantics. your argument has been, and remains to be, silly on its face. it does not require a rebuttal. i am finished.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
I'd rather my children not get screwed by Social Security rather than protecting them from a CHANCE on them being significantly affected by AGW.
Heck, *I* might get screwed by SS. Even deforestation is a much bigger issue than the possibility that we cause significant global warming.
Who knows, mebbe your children will get more out of Social Security than they put in.. As for AGW, it's happening now, science has shown that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 results in higher global surface temperatures.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Global Warming advocates took a hit this week. Seems the melting ice cap at Greenland is due to a magma dome that has risen near the surface. Might still cause some problems, but nature, the Earth itself, is causing this problem, not man-made GW. Gee, too bad. How disappointing for those that endorse GW....
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
there was an article somewhere mid last week about the Artic ice cap refreezing at a record pace. It is already at levels equivalent to where it should be in February.
Google has too many pages of Koolaid articles to sort through to find the one I'm looking for at this time.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
atobulldog
there was an article somewhere mid last week about the Artic ice cap refreezing at a record pace. It is already at levels equivalent to where it should be in February.
Google has too many pages of Koolaid articles to sort through to find the one I'm looking for at this time.
I guess the Bali conference worked really quickly? :idea2:
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
You guys do know I dont even waste time reading this thread anymore.,,,
If your a scientist, or say you are, you better be ready to bring it.
Ive got an enormous amount of data, but rather than bore, you guys yap at me the FIRST time in YOUR REMAINING LIFETIME when I CANT post this...
...2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S....
The year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to preliminary data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year was marked by exceptional drought in the U.S. Southeast and the West, which helped fuel another extremely active wildfire season. Details...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Some food for thought , actual facts . Surface vs. satellite readings Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tech70
Some food for thought , actual facts . Surface vs. satellite readings Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
That has been proven to be 100% incorrect. Even the denier scientist who first proposed it now admits he was wrong.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
i don't have time to reply point by point. either your original argument was against consideration for future generations, or you we nit-picking semantics. your argument has been, and remains to be, silly on its face. it does not require a rebuttal. i am finished.
Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.
WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daybreaker2
Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.
WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).
I still stand by the argument. There is no operable value we can place on future generations. :)
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
I still stand by the argument. There is no operable value we can place on future generations. :)
Well it's easy to make that statement when you don't value any life but your own or those that can help your life.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daybreaker2
Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.
WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).
Sometimes things that are over your head actually seem stupid. Maybe it is you who lacks the mental ability to understand the paradox. Your argument that
(1) there will be a future generation of some sort, and
(2) it would be better to make that future better for whatever future generation that is
lacks any true moral calculus. It is just an assertion, and it makes sense to you because it appeals to you at an emotional level. Explain how an indeterminate group can have moral value to a moral decision maker. Furthermore, if there is a positive right, explain what creates the positive right.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Sometimes things that are over your head actually seem stupid. Maybe it is you who lacks the mental ability to understand the paradox. Your argument that
(1) there will be a future generation of some sort, and
(2) it would be better to make that future better for whatever future generation that is
lacks any true moral calculus. It is just an assertion, and it makes sense to you because it appeals to you at an emotional level. Explain how an indeterminate group can have moral value to a moral decision maker. Furthermore, if there is a positive right, explain what creates the positive right.
If you are a senior citizen and have several grandchildren and grand-grandchildren, it is not a moral abstraction about the kind of world they will live in in 50 or 70 years from now. Most people make emotional decisions. Even Ayn Rand recognized that happiness is when our values are fulfilled.
What the world will be like in 500 years is difficult to imagine so, yes, let the people that are alive then (if any) worry about their situation, but for the youngsters alive today, we do have a moral responsibility to leave the planet a better place than we found it.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
For something that isn't happening, global warming is sure having an impact on the world's economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...eaecono110.xml
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
In a way, this might be a little like us spending huge sums of money going after those WMDs that we knew were present in Iraq. :)
In all seriousness, there is little doubt that global warming hysteria (a word I'll use, but you might disagree with it) is creating markets that might otherwise not exist. That means there is money to be made by doing things that are or appear to be (in some cases, but not all, appearances really are deceiving) green. If people want to sacrifice certain inefficiencies to be (or to be perceived) as green, environmentally-conscious, etc., then by all means they should. And if enough people choose to do that, there will certainly be a change in market dynamics.
^ Until someone can demonstrate a reason for me to believe that humans are driving the warming trends that currently appear to be present, I will continue to believe that you are wasting your time and needlessly sacrificing your quality of life. But, as long as your solution stays grassroots, I've got no gripe with it.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Some good news. Global warming could mean fewer hurricanes hitting the US.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
are you saying that all that certain and well-established science might not have been quite as certain as you thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
09-11-2007, 07:22 AM - What the AGW crowd was saying back then (and are still saying) is
that there will more more of the CAT 5 storms since the surface water temperatures are increasing.
This has been shown by science to be true.
08-01-2007, 10:34 AM - OH no, Soonerdawg will be dumping a load when he reads this.....
Global Warming Causing More Atlantic Hurricanes (Update2)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Global
warming is causing more frequent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, according to a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The increased frequency of tropical cyclones ``is largely a response'' to a 1 degree Celsius rise in sea water temperatures since 1905 that was caused by greenhouse gases, the study found. Since 1995, the North Atlantic has experienced an average of 15 tropical storms a year, of which eight became strong enough to be called hurricanes. That compares with 10 tropical storms and five hurricanes per year from 1930 to 1994, the report says.
``There is an 80 percent chance that the majority of the current increases have been impacted by global warming,'' said Greg Holland, director of the research center in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the study. ``The bad news is that we've gone up in numbers overall, and in the proportion of major hurricanes as well.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=canada
05-24-2007, 08:29 AM -
Hurricanes are driven by water temperatures. AGW doesn't mean a change in the number of hurricanes, just that there will be more of the most intense ones.
Note: the reasercher in the above mentioned article made his conclusions based on indirect geologic evidence. Conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricane intensity are based on current observations of sub-surface water temperatures.
05-26-2007, 12:33 PM - What i'm saying is that the intensity of hurricanes is directly related to near surface water temperatures.
That has been proven by modern science. The "little ice age" you refer to occurred in Europe.......what the sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were during those years is not established to the best of my knowledge.
As far as El Nino and African Monsoon are concerned, it seems they are related to the frequency of hurricanes.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Full disclosure: again, I have to state my position on the GW issue, and that is, my beef is there is still no true scientific evidence that can categorically prove that man is contributing to GW to an extent that it makes any difference. Okay, I am NOT saying that man's activities do or don't, just that there is no real science that supports it.
Recently, 60 Minutes did a story on GW, and their reporter even stood on the ice cap, showing melting and said, look, man is causing the ice to melt. Hmmmm, where was even a mention that geologists have shown that the ice cap is affected by a magma dome that has risen closer to the surface? A "fair" report should have included mention of that fact. But, instead, CBS, locked onto the GW bandwagon purposely ignored that fact and painted a picture that the ice is melting stictly due to man's activities.
Ah, fortunately, the magma dome was mentioned on a FOX report. Glad I was able to find "fair" somewhere.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
BTW, I support the notion that the US needs to ween itself off of oil, as much as possible. I understand that won't be practicle on a wide-ranging basis, i.e. vehicles work best on gasoline, period. But there are other opportunities to reduce the use of fossil fuels. And wherever it is possible, we should be actively pursuing it. This should include the use of nuclear energy. If you are concerned about putting CO2 into the atmosphere, well then, hello! Yes, the issue of disposal of spent rods, etc. must be solved, but it is worth pursuing. And wherever it is feasible, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy needs to be used.
The US needs to become energy independent for political and economic reasons. And, as a sidebar, if that also helps the environment, well then great!
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
are you saying that all that certain and well-established science might not have been quite as certain as you thought?
No, not at all. Good to see you accepting AGW as a valid concept.:icon_wink:
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
No, not at all. Good to see you accepting AGW as a valid concept.:icon_wink:
i'm having a hard time under standing. you stated that global warming would cause more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes. you also stated, "this has been shown by science to be true," and, "this has been proven by science."
now you are saying that may not bee the case, but you're still convinced of the certainty of the science that led you to your original conclusion? please explain how you reconcile.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
i'm having a hard time under standing. you stated that global warming would cause more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes. you also stated, "this has been shown by science to be true," and, "this has been proven by science."
now you are saying that may not bee the case, but you're still convinced of the certainty of the science that led you to your original conclusion? please explain how you reconcile.
You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.
Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.
Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.
I have a serious question as I haven't really been following all the minute details of this issue, but, at one time, I saw a presentation using the graphs of the AGW advocates in which the graph actually showed that CO2 numbers rose after temperatures rose. This was from the information, as I said, that was provided by the AGW folks. Whatever happened to that argument?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
I have a serious question as I haven't really been following all the minute details of this issue, but, at one time, I saw a presentation using the graphs of the AGW advocates in which the graph actually showed that CO2 numbers rose after temperatures rose. This was from the information, as I said, that was provided by the AGW folks. Whatever happened to that argument?
DD, you've made an interesting observation. I know what graph you are referring to, the one that shows CO2 levels v. temperature when the Earth is coming out of an ice age. I agree with that graph because temperatures have to increase BEFORE natural CO2 PRODUCTION begins. Eventually, the natural CO2 production increases the temperature beyond that produced by increased solar radiation.
Today, however, we are not coming out of an ice age....the increases in CO2 levels we are experiencing are man made whereas all the other CO2 increases were natural.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I don't want to derail this thread, but I have a question for you Salty. You've been pretty clear that you support Ron Paul. Does he have any plans to address your concerns in regards to AGW?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.
Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.
no, "i got" one thing here. 1. you said that the impact of global warming on hurricanes was proven science (see the quotes i dragged up from this very thread), and now suddenly the science may not be as proven as you think. you are ignoring that fact.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
I don't want to derail this thread, but I have a question for you Salty. You've been pretty clear that you support Ron Paul. Does he have any plans to address your concerns in regards to AGW?
I haven't seen any plans from him about controlling CO2 emissions. However, when the Congress passes legislation in this area, like it will before too long, if Ron Paul is President, he can either sign it or veto it. I suspect he will sign it because he is a Christian and wants to protect God's creation as it says to do so in the Bible.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
I haven't seen any plans from him about controlling CO2 emissions. However, when the Congress passes legislation in this area, like it will before too long, if Ron Paul is President, he can either sign it or veto it. I suspect he will sign it because he is a Christian and wants to protect God's creation as it says to do so in the Bible.
Wow. Where in the Bible does it say that we are to "protect" God's creation?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
Wow. Where in the Bible does it say that we are to "protect" God's creation?
DD, I better let Johnny answer that one. :)
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
DD, I better let Johnny answer that one. :)
Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.
All right, all right. Hold my feet to the fire.
Can you give me a minute.......I'll have to see if I can find my Bible.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.
Ok, here it is. In the early chapters of the Old Testament, where the stories of creation appear, it is emphasized that humans have a responsibility to care for the Earth. (see Genesis 2:15, 2:19, 2:12, 2:9, and 1:27) In fact, further on in the Old Testament there are passages which give detailed instructions regarding care for the land and the environment. (See Leviticus 19:23-25, 25:1-7. Also Deuteronomy 25:4)
As a general overview of Christianity, its twin doctrines of creation and incarnation demonstrate the Lord's interest in and concern for the Earth and the life it contains. Consequently, are we not stewards of his work?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
it is certainly consistent with the Bible for christians to be good stewards of the earth. however, i'm pretty sure there is nowhere in the bible that says co2 is bad for the earth.
also, i'd like to point out that salty is still ignoring the fact that he just posted an article that contradicts what he previously called "proven science."
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
"Going forth and multiplying" is not exactly environmentally responsible.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
it is certainly consistent with the Bible for christians to be good stewards of the earth. however, i'm pretty sure there is nowhere in the bible that says co2 is bad for the earth.
also, i'd like to point out that salty is still ignoring the fact that he just posted an article that contradicts what he previously called "proven science."
The proven science is that there will be more of the most intense hurricanes. The most recent study that I posted stated that fewer hurricanes would hit the United States. Can't you see the difference? The two do not conflict.
As far as co2 not being mentioned in the Bible, can't you do better than that? Many things are not mentioned in the Bible, like crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should use it..
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The proven science is that there will be more of the most intense hurricanes. The most recent study that I posted stated that fewer hurricanes would hit the United States. Can't you see the difference? The two do not conflict.
As far as co2 not being mentioned in the Bible, can't you do better than that? Many things are not mentioned in the Bible, like crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should use it..
what the article says is that warming causes more wind shear, which makes it harder for hurricanes to form and strengthen. so, yes, this would decrease the likelihood of landfall in the u.s., but only because it decreases the likelihood of sustained major storms. which is completely contrary to the tune you were singing in 2006.
as for the bible question, my point is that we have to rely on science, not the bible, to determine what we should do regarding global warming. since the science supporting global warming is not very convincing, there is no biblical responsibility to reduce co2 emissions.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Ok, here it is. In the early chapters of the Old Testament, where the stories of creation appear, it is emphasized that humans have a responsibility to care for the Earth. (see Genesis 2:15, 2:19, 2:12, 2:9, and 1:27) In fact, further on in the Old Testament there are passages which give detailed instructions regarding care for the land and the environment. (See Leviticus 19:23-25, 25:1-7. Also Deuteronomy 25:4)
As a general overview of Christianity, its twin doctrines of creation and incarnation demonstrate the Lord's interest in and concern for the Earth and the life it contains. Consequently, are we not stewards of his work?
Salty, did you even read those scriptures or did you just google and paste? A couple of them, I saw no correlation at all. They still say nothing about "protecting" the earth. Now don't get me wrong, as arkbob says, I think it's clear that we be good stewards of the earth, but to say that these scriptures direct us to protect it, is a stretch. Actually, the first time it's mentioned in Genesis, we are to "rule" over everything. The next mention in Genesis, I think, one could argue applies to the Garden of Eden specifically and not the whole earth. I don't know what his naming the animals has to do with "protecting" them. The rest of the scriptures say nothing about protecting the earth. Now, if it had said, "don't tear down forests to make fields for your crops or towns. The Lord has provided land in plenty for your needs." That would be a different story. Once again, I don't dispute what arkbob says about being good stewards even though I'm not convinced that these scriptures even direct us to do that. I just get perterbed when a person who doesn't give the Bible any credence tries to create meanings that aren't there to use it to support his argument while not really knowing what the Bible says. Here are the verses so you can actually read them. Minus the ones that made no sense to the argument.
Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 2:15, 19
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Leviticus 19:23-25
23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. [b] For three years you are to consider it forbidden [c] ; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 25:1-7
1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. 5 Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. 6 Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, 7 as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.
Deuteronomy 25:4
4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
what the article says is that warming causes more wind shear, which makes it harder for hurricanes to form and strengthen. so, yes, this would decrease the likelihood of landfall in the u.s., but only because it decreases the likelihood of sustained major storms. which is completely contrary to the tune you were singing in 2006.
as for the bible question, my point is that we have to rely on science, not the bible, to determine what we should do regarding global warming. since the science supporting global warming is not very convincing, there is no biblical responsibility to reduce co2 emissions.
What we have here is a case of you reading more into the article than was presented. The article stated:
"In the study, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Miami in Florida link warming oceans to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean *NEAR* the United States."
Note: the article didn't say that there would be fewer hurricanes, did it? Read the title of the article and that should give you a hint..
As for strength of the science supporting global warming, you are welcome to your opinion. The vast majority of climate scientists think otherwise.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
Salty, did you even read those scriptures or did you just google and paste? A couple of them, I saw no correlation at all. They still say nothing about "protecting" the earth. Now don't get me wrong, as arkbob says, I think it's clear that we be good stewards of the earth, but to say that these scriptures direct us to protect it, is a stretch. Actually, the first time it's mentioned in Genesis, we are to "rule" over everything. The next mention in Genesis, I think, one could argue applies to the Garden of Eden specifically and not the whole earth. I don't know what his naming the animals has to do with "protecting" them. The rest of the scriptures say nothing about protecting the earth. Now, if it had said, "don't tear down forests to make fields for your crops or towns. The Lord has provided land in plenty for your needs." That would be a different story. Once again, I don't dispute what arkbob says about being good stewards even though I'm not convinced that these scriptures even direct us to do that. I just get perterbed when a person who doesn't give the Bible any credence tries to create meanings that aren't there to use it to support his argument while not really knowing what the Bible says. Here are the verses so you can actually read them. Minus the ones that made no sense to the argument.
Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 2:15, 19
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Leviticus 19:23-25
23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. [
b] For three years you are to consider it forbidden [
c] ; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 25:1-7
1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. 5 Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. 6 Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, 7 as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.
Deuteronomy 25:4
4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.
Yes, we are stewards of the Garden (Earth). We are God's gardeners and we are charged with taking care of His Garden. To me, that means protecting it from harm and making it better. He is very, very interested in what we are doing with His Garden because He specifically mentions how to be a gardener in the Bible.
Of course, one has to apply the Scriptures to modern times.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Yes, we are stewards of the Garden (Earth). We are God's gardeners and we are charged with taking care of His Garden. To me, that means protecting it from harm and making it better. He is very, very interested in what we are doing with His Garden because He specifically mentions how to be a gardener in the Bible.
Of course, one has to apply the Scriptures to modern times.
You do realize that the Garden of Eden is not Earth. You do realize that, don't you? It appears as though you are doing what you accused arkbob of doing-reading too much into something.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
You do realize that the Garden of Eden is not Earth. You do realize that, don't you? It appears as though you are doing what you accused arkbob of doing-reading too much into something.
DD, that is news to me. Of course the Garden of Eden is the planet Earth. Isn't it somewhere in Arkansas?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Of course the Garden of Eden is the planet Earth.
It is on earth, but it is not analogous with the entire Earth.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
It is on earth, but it is not analogous with the entire Earth.
Says who?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Says who?
The Bible
Unless of course you think that when God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden, they were cast onto a new planet. In which case, what planet are we on?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
The Bible
Unless of course you think that when God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden, they were cast onto a new planet. In which case, what planet are we on?
Ah, so you think that the Garden of Eden is a particular place on Earth? Another way of looking at the Scriptures is that the entire planet was the Garden of Eden and God cast Adam and Eve *out of it* by giving them Knowledge, ie, self-awareness.. Anyway, that's how I look at it. Physically, we are all still in the Garden of Eden.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Ah, so you think that the Garden of Eden is a particular place on Earth? Another way of looking at the Scriptures is that the entire planet was the Garden of Eden and God cast Adam and Eve *out of it* by giving them Knowledge, ie, self-awareness.. Anyway, that's how I look at it.
I haven't studied Genesis in an academic sense, but this is the first I've ever heard that proposition. I'll see if I can find some folks who take it like that.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Ah, so you think that the Garden of Eden is a particular place on Earth? Another way of looking at the Scriptures is that the entire planet was the Garden of Eden and God cast Adam and Eve *out of it* by giving them Knowledge, ie, self-awareness.. Anyway, that's how I look at it. Physically, we are all still in the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 2:8 describes it as a particular place. Even if you assume that Eden was what God called the planet Earth, the Garden was a particular place in Eden.
Genesis 2:8
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
It doesn't say the Eden was a garden. It says that a garden was planted in Eden the terminology which gives further credence that Eden, itself, was a place on Earth otherwise he would have said a garden was planted on Eden.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
What we have here is a case of you reading more into the article than was presented. The article stated:
"In the study, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Miami in Florida link warming oceans to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean *NEAR* the United States."
Note: the article didn't say that there would be fewer hurricanes, did it? Read the title of the article and that should give you a hint..
As for strength of the science supporting global warming, you are welcome to your opinion. The vast majority of climate scientists think otherwise.
what we have here is a case of you taking things at face value without considering the full implication.
you are correct that the study is very specific to the warmer waters near the u.s. that doesn't change the fact that it contradicts your categorical statement that higher near surface water temperatures = more severe hurricanes. furthermore, you adimtted in a more recent post that the science of how global warming affects the weather is not set in stone, which of course contradicts your claim that the above bolded statement is proven science.
all i want you to do here is admit explicitly that which you have already admitted implicitly, and which should be obvious to anyone can read this with an even remotely objective mindset: that which you called "proven science" was no such thing.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
what we have here is a case of you taking things at face value without considering the full implication.
you are correct that the study is very specific to the warmer waters near the u.s. that doesn't change the fact that it contradicts your categorical statement that higher near surface water temperatures = more severe hurricanes. furthermore, you adimtted in a more recent post that the science of how global warming affects the weather is not set in stone, which of course contradicts your claim that the above bolded statement is proven science.
all i want you to do here is admit explicitly that which you have already admitted implicitly, and which should be obvious to anyone can read this with an even remotely objective mindset: that which you called "proven science" was no such thing.
Sorry, higher near surface water temperatures = more severe hurricanes. Check out the physics of hurricanes.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dirtydawg
Genesis 2:8 describes it as a particular place. Even if you assume that Eden was what God called the planet Earth, the Garden was a particular place in Eden.
Genesis 2:8
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
It doesn't say the Eden was a garden. It says that a garden was planted in Eden the terminology which gives further credence that Eden, itself, was a place on Earth otherwise he would have said a garden was planted on Eden.
Hmmm. Maybe we all are reading too much into the Scriptures. :icon_wink:
What I'm saying is that the Garden of Eden in Genesis is a metaphor for Earth. I guess i should add that Adam and Eve are a representative couple of our earliest ancestors.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Sorry, higher near surface water temperatures = more severe hurricanes. Check out the physics of hurricanes.
read your own article. i'm getting tired of this. it may be time to bring back the silent bob avatar.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
read your own article. i'm getting tired of this. it may be time to bring back the silent bob avatar.
If I were to pick a dog in this hunt, i would have to go with higher water surface temperatures will mean more intense hurricanes just because of the physics of hurricanes. That article on wind-shear is based on observation and many scientists don't accept it.
As for the phrase "proven science", you come up with a source that says that the ocean surface temperature that a hurricane passes over doesn't influence the strength of a hurricane, I will re-consider.:D
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
If I were to pick a dog in this hunt, i would have to go with higher water surface temperatures will mean more intense hurricanes just because of the physics of hurricanes. That article on wind-shear is based on observation and many scientists don't accept it.
As for the phrase "proven science", you come up with a source that says that the ocean surface temperature that a hurricane passes over doesn't influence the strength of a hurricane, I will re-consider.:D
the surface water temperature obviously influences the strength of a hurricane. the problem is that you are only looking at one piece of the physics of hurricanes. the fact is there are so many factors that you can't just make a blanket statement like "higher temperatures = more intense hurricanes" as your article confirms.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
the surface water temperature obviously influences the strength of a hurricane. the problem is that you are only looking at one piece of the physics of hurricanes. the fact is there are so many factors that you can't just make a blanket statement like "higher temperatures = more intense hurricanes" as your article confirms.
The wind shear article didn't disprove the notion that higher water surface temperatures means more intense hurricanes. The author of that article thought that fewer hurricanes would make landfall in the United States.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Wind shear reduces the intensity of hurricanes.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The wind shear article didn't disprove the notion that higher water surface temperatures means more intense hurricanes. The author of that article thought that fewer hurricanes would make landfall in the United States.
do you think that the waters around the u.s. have special properties that make the wind-shear they create more disruptive to hurricanes than in other parts of the world?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkansasbob
do you think that the waters around the u.s. have special properties that make the wind-shear they create more disruptive to hurricanes than in other parts of the world?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0316182908.htm
Notice the part about wind shear over the North Atlantic.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
9701Dawg
Hardly. So we are finally have a cold winter. Enjoy it while you can. I heard that there is a foot of snow in Ruston!
BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
John McCain just said that scientist "overwhelmingly" believe that Co2 from humans are causing the greenhouse effect responsible for Global Warming.
I really like McCain. He's obviously not the same guy who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.
Have a great day!!
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
altadawg
John McCain just said that scientist "overwhelmingly" believe that Co2 from humans are causing the greenhouse effect responsible for Global Warming.
I really like McCain. He's obviously not the same guy who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.
Have a great day!!
I am sure McCain is qualified to opine on what the "scientific consensus" is.
"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?"
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
altadawg
John McCain just said that scientist "overwhelmingly" believe that Co2 from humans are causing the greenhouse effect responsible for Global Warming.
I really like McCain. He's obviously not the same guy who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.
Have a great day!!
Come on, alta. What difference does it make where he graduated in his class. I know quite a few people who didn't graduate who are very intelligent and analytical. Maybe he enjoyed his time there too much. Many times, those are the people who are more in touch with the real pulse of the people as they don't elevate themselves over them.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Wow. GW slipped all the way to page 7:
an opinion piece:
http://b937online.com/If-you-are-an-...five-k/1990532
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Interesting article about meltwater glacial lakes disappearing overnight in Greenland.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/G...d=13100D03C4CF
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Some food for thought.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2...8-05-23-01.asp
I luv the way Tyler says, "Don't worry, be Happy!"
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
I'm going to use one of your pat responses: the source of that particular article (Nationa; Resource Defense Council) is obviously so one-sided that it would be ridiculous to take it as a serious argument.
http://www.nrdc.org/about/
Honestly, if you want to make a logical, reasonable, scientific points re, global warming, don't reference something from these yahoos:
"NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.2 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals. "
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
I luv the way Tyler says, "Don't worry, be Happy!"
and I luv the way you are constantly being Chicken Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!."
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
The study was produced by researchers at Tufts University. You sound like you enjoy breathing air pollution. The sky IS falling.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You sound like you enjoy breathing air pollution. The sky IS falling.
For a supposedly educated person, you make some pretty uneducated statements.
So now CO2 is air pollution, breathing it in is bad, but exhaling it is not.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The study was produced by researchers at Tufts University.
Yes, at the request of and funded by the enviro-activists at NRDC. Do a little research into the bias towards the opinion of the fund giver that occurs in "research" of this type.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DogtorEvil
Yes, at the request of and funded by the enviro-activists at NRDC. Do a little research into the bias towards the opinion of the fund giver that occurs in "research" of this type.
Just speculation, not fact.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DogtorEvil
For a supposedly educated person, you make some pretty uneducated statements.
So now CO2 is air pollution, breathing it in is bad, but exhaling it is not.
The US SUpreme Court has ruled that man-made CO2 can be considered air pollution. I thought you knew that.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Just speculation, not fact.
pretty much sums up global warming science.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The US SUpreme Court has ruled that man-made CO2 can be considered air pollution. I thought you knew that.
well, the world's foremost experts on air pollution have spoken. it is now settled.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The study was produced by researchers at Tufts University. You sound like you enjoy breathing air pollution. The sky IS falling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The US SUpreme Court has ruled that man-made CO2 can be considered air pollution. I thought you knew that.
so, just to be clear, you think that it is unhealthy to breathe co2 in concentrations less than 0.1%?
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The US SUpreme Court has ruled that man-made CO2 can be considered air pollution. I thought you knew that.
They ruled 5-4 that the EPA had the authority to and must regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles as part of the Clean Air Act (even though there was nothing in the original regulation associated with regulating CO2). The EPA does not have to regulate CO2 vehicle emissions if it proves that CO2 is not a pollutant or that it cannot regulate it. Note - the EPA can decide to regulate by leaving current emissions standards as they're currently set.
I foiund this interesting (and rather stupid): Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the Clean Air Act’s definition of the term “air pollutant” “embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.”
Thus, nitrogen, oxygen and water (THE major greenhouse gas) could also be regulated.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Just speculation, not fact.
Not necessarily "fact", but much more than speculation. There have been multiple studies showing the relationship between researcher bias and research results.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Global warming worse than previously thought.
http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/25/top10.htm
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
It can't be worse than previously thought. WE'RE STILL HERE.
-
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Summer sea ice in the Arctic, for instance, shrank to a record low last year --- nearly 40 per cent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.
Can someone define for me what is meant by the long-term average between 1979 and 2000? Is this the same as saying the average between 1979 and 2000.
