HAHAHAHA You really are pathetic. Bend over and pick your a** off up of the floor. It just got reamed. And that's the best you got?So because the guy is religious, he's incorrect or lying? Now you're stretching it, aren't you?
#28501 May 17, 2014
#28502 May 17, 2014
Daily Caller? HAHAHAHA
#28503 May 17, 2014
Hey troll, can you tell me what month is was when you ever offered anything of substance to our discussions? See, that's why you're a troll.
#28505 May 17, 2014
This is about as tough a question as there is. But I'm going to give you a straight answer. It's not that this fellow is religious, but that his religion trumps his science.(And he is a serious scientist, too.) Because of his religious beliefs, he assumes our world must be self-correcting. A real scientist must confront the horrible truth that we could screw it up.
I think most folks would accept that if we got into a sustained nuclear war, we could trash this planet. But if you subscribe to the idea that God can fix anything we throw at this pebble, why sweat it?
I do think that this planet is resilient, and can bounce back from very serious insults. However, that recovery may not include fragile humanity.
#28506 May 18, 2014
I don't consider my self very religious because I have no religion I subscribe to. But I do believe in God. I agree with this scientist 100%; not because of my belief in God, but because without a cleanup mechanism that we don't understand yet, our existence on this planet would have ended long ago.
Remember that our earth is encapsulated and nothing leaves the planet unless we fly it into outer space and release it. All the water on this earth is the exact same amount of water that was here ten thousand years ago. It may have taken different shapes such as ice or vapor, but it's the same amount of water. Same holds true of all the pollution created by fires and volcano eruptions. It doesn't leave and pollute the moon. It stays here and yet by some magical process, it gets cleaned up.
If we set off every nuke on earth, all we could do is kill every living thing on it, but we cannot destroy the planet. It's just not possible. And in a few hundred years or so and God's will, some sort of life would start all over again.
But whatever reason this scientist believes the earth can take care of itself, it doesn't discount the fact that thus far, nobody has challenged his findings of these computer models that I know of.
#28507 May 18, 2014
#28508 May 18, 2014
Don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't like the stupid you constantly prove. Why didn't you join the other millions of the compatriots just like you in D.C Friday to arrest Obama? Looks like a whole lot of them wore some really good camo. You couldn't even see them.
#28509 May 18, 2014
You agree with this scientist "100%" because you share share the same faith that God won't let this planet become inhospitable to his creations. Of course, this ignores the fact that there have been 5 major extinction events on this planet. The most recent, 65 million years ago, destroyed all larger land animals. Weren't these God's creations, too?
So, you admit that we could change the planet in a way that would make mankind extinct? That would suggest that we can't count on God to protect us from our bad choices.
"A few hundred years or so"? This is just magical thinking on your part. It took a billion years for the simplest life forms to emerge on our planet. It took more than 4 billion years for those primitive forms to evolve into human beings.
#28510 May 18, 2014
If you would take the time to read what Dr. Spencer is actually saying, he does not deny that the planet is getting warmer, as the models predicted. He is saying that 95% of the models over-estimated the amount of warming that has occurred since 1979 by about .2 degrees Celsius.
The research of James Hasen does challenge Spencer's implied notion that mathematical models are ineffective tools for studying climate change:
"In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show good agreement with subsequent observations (Hansen 2006).
Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007)."
#28511 May 18, 2014
If you are going to use the God thing as some sort of reason that a scientist would tilt the scale a little, is it not fair then to assume that atheist scientists might do the same only in reverse?
Extinction is nothing new. It goes on today. Species of animals die off and new ones are discovered. It's as natural as the climate of the earth changing. It is God's plan just as you and I will not be here in fifty years. Or as the atheists might call it, mother nature.
I don't think I've ever said there is absolutely no change in climate because of man. There is, just as animals contribute the so-called greenhouse gasses to the earth. So they say, the most dangerous gas of all is water vapor. How much more natural can you get than water vapor?
The real question is if our so-called carbon footprint is any danger to us or our planet. Would God make a planet that was not capable of withstanding activities from the main animal he planned to occupy it? But then again, you wouldn't take that question seriously unless you did believe in God.
As for predictions, I can give you a list of massive destructions of global warming predicted 20 years ago or so that never came true. It's like buying stock. You have a 50/50 shot right from the beginning.
#28512 May 18, 2014
Whether one believes in global warming or not, most should agree that humans shouldn't be needlessly contributing to it.
Another point that should be agreed on is that pressure should be put on China to curb it's growth in air borne pollutants that travel around the globe ! It is so very bad that they even shuttered factories around Beijing for miles & miles for WEEKS to still have crappy air for the Olympics.
That is an obvious admission of a very serious problem. Citizens wear dust mask just to walk the streets.
#28513 May 18, 2014
So it might thin out the chink population
#28514 May 18, 2014
That's the other point Pops.
We create all these massive environmental regulations on businesses to the point they're pressured to move to places like China. Then they pollute all they desire. All we really accomplished is the loss of jobs. We still (globally) have the same amount of pollution if not more.
Nobody is against cleaner air, cleaner water, alternative energy. Our concern is the cost. That's where the problem is. Our second concern is the inconvenience.
You show Republicans or conservatives a cleaner and just as reliable energy source that's in line with what we pay for our current energy, I'll show you Republicans and conservatives that are right behind the idea if not part of it.
#28515 May 18, 2014
If you assume a God, you can always use that to justify your opinions, even in the absence of objective evidence . The "atheist scientist must rely upon objective evidence.
Animal species take a long time to develop, but extinction can happen very quickly and is permanent. The discovery of a new species doesn't mean that it is a replacement for what was lost.
Who is "they"?
For a guy who says he believes in God, but not any particular religion, you certainly have a lot of very specific beliefs. Why do you believe that human beings are "the main animal"? Where did you get the idea that God created a planet that can withstand whatever we throw at it? You've already admitted that we could eliminate human life on this world by using nuclear weapons. How did God let that one slip by?
Sure, I'd like to see that list. You say that any person would have a 50/50 shot at being right in their predictions. That might be true if you made a single prediction about a binary event (such as "the Yankees will win this game.") But, what if you made many predictions, and they came to pass?
"A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.
"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."
Remarkably, between the years 1850 and 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did increase by very close to 25 percent, and global average surface temperatures also increased by just about 0.6°C during that time."
#28516 May 18, 2014
"In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans."
"Many of the most influential members of the energy lobby are among the top polluters in the United States, with Conoco, Exxon, and General Electric ranking in the top six. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency,“Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.” The energy lobby is criticized for using its influence to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change."
#28517 May 18, 2014
Why is it so surprising that the energy industry would support Republican and conservative causes? What party do the unions mostly give to? How about any organization related to the environment? Who do the trial lawyers support?
The Democrat party is the enemy of the energy industry. Look at what DumBams's EPA has done to the electric companies. He closed down some of the coal burning electric plants. The ones he left open had to make multi-million dollar improvements. Do you think any political contributor associated with the coal industry will support the Democrats?
As for our refineries, the US hasn't built one in over 30 years because of all the EPA nonsense. It's too damned expensive to build any new ones and certainly not worth the investment of any gasoline company.
Here is a long list of contributors to both parties. Let me know what you think:
#28518 May 18, 2014
"Refineries sprout in North Dakota, bucking the trend"
#28519 May 18, 2014
I truly understand, 1st, I am not a 'tree hugger' & I do want jobs. But I also want to NOT tell people that they can't eat the fish that they catch because of mercury. Or have pollutants run off of their roofs into their cisterns. Tons & tons of road salts make it's way into streams & ponds. Etc Etc.
WE should NOT be forced to buy CFL's to burn less coal & replace it with the mercury in the CFL's.
I don't mind that almost all car batteries are recycled in Mexico even tho that has cost some jobs here.
Lets also admit that union wages & the cost of living in America are additional reasons that so many jobs go overseas.
And even tho everyone would like to earn more money, just wait until the progressives have their way & minimum wage goes to $10 or more. Then MORE manufacturing jobs will go off shore, meaning that taxes will likely go up for income earners & employers to feed the social programs that care for the additional unemployed & those still under employed.
This administration has accomplished NOTHING that improves jobs which of course would increase the number of wage earners & thusly increase "Revenue Enhancement". I laugh every time that I hear or use that term! What a B.S. phrase !
But there is a balance out there for those that are in touch with national & global reality.
#28520 May 18, 2014
Well, this is a step in the right direction although the refinery will mostly produce only diesel fuel and is a smaller refinery at that. But there were some paragraphs that caught my eye:
"The state has one of the lowest population densities in the United States and has little of the political, environmental or community opposition that's helped scuttle all other refinery projects since Jimmy Carter was president."
"When it seemed for a time that no new refineries would come, North Dakota politicians - known for their conservative track record - mulled what many saw as unthinkable: using state funds to back risky refinery loans to attract investors."
#28521 May 18, 2014
How about the auto industry? How about the UAW? BOTH reliant on petroleum. Who do they contribute to?
It's a complicated picture.
Not arguing, just adding colors to the picture. That is merely one example as to why we should all simply agree to disagree at times. It's a complicated world. There is room for multiple opinions. It's a sort of 'checks & balances' thing.
You realize that, which is likely a reason that YOU do NOT engage in shameless name calling. You're aware & accepting of differences.
Add your comments below
|Walter Scott family singing spirituals||7 min||Pam||6|
|Obama Admits Communist Davis “Schooled” Him||8 min||Ecossais||65|
|Hillary Clinton has to be THE grouchiest lookin...||14 min||hmmmmmmm||23|
|Columbus Man Charged With Aiding ISIS||15 min||They cannot kill ...||7|
|Why Republicans Should Fear ‘Ready for Hillary’!||42 min||d pantz||27|
|Hillary for President (Apr '14)||42 min||BizzyBee||170|
|A QUESTION FOR hillary….||45 min||Mayor Coleman||3|
|Columbus man on a deadly mission, caught||52 min||Kenny||67|
Find what you want!
Search Columbus Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC