 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: |
The only thing about this electric cars thing that I can see as being a problem is that the electricity fueling these cars is produced from coal.
What I don't know is how much electricity is required, and how emissions from coal plants just to produce electricity for one car compares to the emissions from the same one car (and here I'd like to take into consideration the harvesting costs for both the coal and the oil).
My guess is that the electricity still has less impact on the environment than the oil, but that's all that is, is a guess. |
I've looked this up. Even if you are fueling your electric car with electricity generated at a coal power plant, the emissions are only 10% of what they would be if you owned a normal car.
If you get your electricity from nuclear or from clean sources, then the greenhouse emissions are 0% of what they would be if you owned a normal car.
They have little solar kits you can get with your electric car which you install into your home. If you live in California, then there's enough sunlight to charge your car for 40 miles of driving per day. This means that you could be off the grid. Fueling your car would no longer cost anything. You could drive for free!
And if you drive more than 40 miles per day, then the extra miles only cost you a fraction of what milage costs in a gasoline-powered car.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good to know about the electric cars, although just FYI:
- while alot of people live in California, it's still a small percentage of the United States.
- Most Californians drive well over 40 miles per day...it's just how the state is lain out, particularly in the south (long thin temperate coastline, rapid rise into mountains, desert on the other side).
As for Frank Singer..his credentials are pretty impressive, so I’m not one to dismiss him as a nutjob. Second, he seems to speak in terms of common sense. That impresses me.
As for Frank Singer's book, it has been reviewed and not wholeheartedly debunked. Granted, I'm not part of that community, so I'm using internet reviews...so far, the ones I've read have been fairly balanced along the lines of "Noted atmospheric physisist refutes global warming change citing natural cyclic occurance"
I do have a few questions…Why is it that a scientist that refutes the Global Warming theory is accused of being in league with the Oil companies, particularly if he’s received funding from them, but a scientist funded by overtly environmentalist organizations (such as GreenPeace) does not get tarred with the same brush? Are both not equally vulnerable to the “funding pressure” of pleasing the sponsor? If a scientist blames human consumption of oil products as the cause, would he receive funding from Exxon? So what if your funding comes from a environmentally oriented company?
Singer brings up a few other points that had me scratching my head (this goes back to the idea that temperature rise should lag slightly behind CO2 increase, but in an almost direct ratio of X ppm CO2 to Y degree temperature change). I assert that it doesn’t. While both have increased, it’s not close enough to also not accept that there are other factors (such as volcanoes…they release more CO2, but also ash which has a cooling effect).
Anyway, I ramble. Singer’s point was that most of the CO2 that would be responsible for today’s warming was released in the 1940s.
The scientific world had known about the sunspot connection to Earth’s climate for some 400 years. British astronomer William Herschel claimed in 1801 that he could forecast wheat prices by sunspot numbers, because wheat crops were often poor when sunspots (and thus solar activity) were low. Not only did the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) coincide with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Sporer minimum (1450–1543) aligned with the second-coldest phase of that period.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf
Here’s some other points to ponder. In our recent history (last 1000 years), the Earth was warmer. Vineyards grew in England. Vikings settled Greenland and Canada. The growing season was extended so that 2 crops could be turned out in one season. Fewer people died of cold. Project that to our modern age. Maybe oceans will rise slightly and folks have to move inland. Ok…larger tracts of Siberia and Canada would support settlement. More food available? Lower consumption of heating oil?
I'll tell you something else...If George Bush had brought this up as a problem...Dems would be against it. They'd threaten to cut funding for such an unsupported scheme. It's not about the planet....it's about politics.
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
I do have a few questions…Why is it that a scientist that refutes the Global Warming theory is accused of being in league with the Oil companies, particularly if he’s received funding from them, but a scientist funded by overtly environmentalist organizations (such as GreenPeace) does not get tarred with the same brush? Are both not equally vulnerable to the “funding pressure” of pleasing the sponsor? If a scientist blames human consumption of oil products as the cause, would he receive funding from Exxon? So what if your funding comes from a environmentally oriented company? |
Can you give me a single example of a climate scientist who was funded by Greenpeace? As I understand things, Greenpeace is not a corporation; it is a non-profit organization with very few resources and very little money. They rely on volunteers and they don't have money to spend on research.
The vast majority of climate scientists who believe that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame are funded by neutral funding agencies such as the NSF in the US and NSERC in Canada.
By contrast, my understanding is that something like 99% of the climate scientists who deny that global warming is happening or concede that it's happening but deny that humans are to blame are funded by oil companies. I remember watching a video produced by a think tank in Calgary (Canada's Houston) that gave all sorts of B.S. arguments claiming that global warming isn't happening. I dug a little deeper and found that (surprise, surprise), it was ENTIRELY funded by oil companies.
Another important point is that as a non-profit organization, Greenpeace doesn't have the legal standing that oil companies have. For example, it can't bribe / lobby senators or other government officials in the same way that corporations can.
One final point to consider is how oil companies would react if in fact global warming IS happening. Would they say, "Yeah, you guys are right; the planet is more important than our profits. We need to stop pumping oil and making money in this evil way." or would they be more along the lines of, "The environmentalists are a threat to us; by funding some b.s. studies, we will be able to generate enough public doubt to make sure that there is no political will to oppose us."
I argue that there are so many billions of dollars to be made that OF COURSE the oil companies are going to be proactive and OF COURSE they're going to do whatever they can to disinform the public. In fact, it is a corporation's duty to protect its profits. And it works; the b.s. studies that they've sponsored have given Bush EXACTLY the justification he's needed for saying things like, "The jury's still out on global warming.", when in fact the vast majority of climate scientists are agreed that it is happening and that humans are to blame.
In that sense, global warming denial isn't much different from holocaust denial or evolution denial.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pondering: as a counter example FYI. The scientists who swore that cigarettes didn't cause cancer were paid by the cigarette companies. Turns out they weren't reputable scientists, (their degrees might have been legitimate degrees though) and their science was deeply flawed. Still having the PHD behind their names gave them some credibility. People chose to continue to smoke because they really didn't want to quit and these "scientists" gave them the excuse they needed. Plausible deniability it is called.
On the issue of credibility you're right Pondering, how can we be sure that the scientists employed by Green peace has any more credibility than the scientists employed by the oil companies.
A Min/Max analysis shows that the oil companies have a great deal to be worried about since they might lose a great deal, and proving their point is a huge priority for them, one that might induce them to fudge the numbers (like the cigarette companies). If they are right they get to earn huge profits.
What does Greenpeace have to lose if they are wrong? If they are wrong well we can continue to do what we've been doing for a long time without changing. They lose whatever sense of righteousness they have because their cause was unjust. They no longer need to travel the globe on their quests to prove something that is no longer prove able. In the end not much to lose.
If Green peace is right, we will need to completely overturn the world's economy, change everything we've ever done in regards to how we "create/use" energy supplies, which will cause great emotional distress for awhile, dislocation of people and things and still it might not work because the future they suggest hasn't been worked out yet. They just point to the gloom and doom and warn us about something, not make constructive alternatives to the way things are.
Making a choice on such an important issue is not easy and as we delay it gets worse (according to Greenpeace anyway). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
- while alot of people live in California, it's still a small percentage of the United States.
|
California isn't special. All states at the same latitude get comparable hours of sunshine.
| Pondering wrote: |
- Most Californians drive well over 40 miles per day...it's just how the state is lain out, particularly in the south (long thin temperate coastline, rapid rise into mountains, desert on the other side). |
Sure, but like I said, all mileage beyond the 40 miles per day is considerably cheaper than mileage in a regular car, and they produce CONSIDERABLY less pollution than mileage in a regular car.
Have you seen the documentary 'Who killed the electric car'? If you haven't then I highly recommend it.
Also, have you heard about the company called Tesla Motors? Check it out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
Just look at the performance stats on their car!!! Zero to 60 in four seconds! One penny per mile!!!
Granted, the car is expensive right now, but it isn't even being mass-produced yet!
If and when they go public, it would be one heck of a company to invest in...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dim12trav wrote: |
On the issue of credibility you're right Pondering, how can we be sure that the scientists employed by Green peace has any more credibility than the scientists employed by the oil companies. |
I'd still like to see the names of scientists who have been funded by Greenpeace. I don't believe that Greenpeace funds climate research.
By contrast, I know for a fact that the main climate scientist (a dude by the name of Lindzen) at MIT who denies that humans have anything to do with global warming has received funding from oil companies.
Wikipedia's article on Lindzen is interesting. The following passage on the page caught my attention:
| Quote: | The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[18] Climatologist James Annan,[19] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[20] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[21] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[21]
Lindzen replied to Annan "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."[22]
According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree." |
This suggests to me that Annan has considerably more confidence in his position on global warming than Lindzen has in his.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
As of 2000, Greenpeace had offices in 43 countries and an operating budget of $134 million. Wikepedia and here http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10936
If they don’t do research (which they do), then where do they get their facts from? You think it’s free to send an expedition to the Artic? Somebody pays for that gear, flights, food…even if the researchers devote their time….and oh…visit their site. They do research, though most of their reports are appeals to emotion vice fact “When Heaven Melts” is a prime example from Project Thin Ice.
As for bribing….are you serious? Moreover, if they can lobby people to vote for Candidate X (which they do) that already supports their platform (pick your favorite Californian Congressperson), doesn’t that constitute “lobbying” for a policy position?
Here’s the crux…we’re talking about at least 3 separate things:
1) Scientific facts: Warming is apparently occurring. There is a cause for that. It may be man-made, it may be natural. This is an area for honest scientific debate.
2) Moral issue: IF man is causing this, then we SHOULD be morally obligated to do something about it. It also speaks volumes to our ideas that we CAN do something about it. That speaks more about man’s desire to control his environment than his actual ability to do so. It also speaks to the self-loathing so embodied by the Left since the 1970s. They despise themselves for their (and their parents) “wasting of natural resources” hoarding of wealth, and call for a form of asceticism that leads to a socialist view of economic distribution. It’s pathetic and condescending and is EXACTLY the opposite of how this country was built.
3) Political issue: It’s a scary topic and it polarizes people. Battlelines are drawn. On one side, Republican and Big Industry. On the other, Dems and “working class”.
Even your own PM says that the Kyoto accords were “a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html
As for the other points, agree with both of you. Concur that the Oil companies (like cigarette companies) are going to play hardball. For Big Industry, that worked for a long time. I’m just saying that I think the Left has learned how to play the game better…and not necessarily that it’s true.
Again, I’m actually with you on the conversion to alternative fuels/energy sources. For the US, I think ethonal is the way to go just because we can grow so much here… Kazakstan (or is it Uzbekistan, I get my Stan brothers confused) would also become rich….I’m just generally against rash public hysteria, and that’s what I think Global Warming advocates are doing.
Last note...don't point to the upcoming UN report on Global Warming. I think we've already debunked the UN as uncredible source...at least I have 
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
This issue is rapidly approaching the same type acceptance ToE enjoyed 150 years ago. Any descent from the popular opinion is marginalized as some right wing conspiracy corporate endeavor... and the facts seem to never get in the way of the truth.
Wonder why this is?
I think Ponderings citation to your Prime Minster's remarks are very telling. LOOK at the last paragraph:
| Quote: | | The Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country, except the United States, Australia and Monaco. |
How many of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol are meeting their requirements? 1, 2, 3? 
Nope.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
If they don’t do research (which they do), then where do they get their facts from? You think it’s free to send an expedition to the Artic? Somebody pays for that gear, flights, food…even if the researchers devote their time….and oh…visit their site. They do research, though most of their reports are appeals to emotion vice fact “When Heaven Melts” is a prime example from Project Thin Ice.
As for bribing….are you serious? Moreover, if they can lobby people to vote for Candidate X (which they do) that already supports their platform (pick your favorite Californian Congressperson), doesn’t that constitute “lobbying” for a policy position? |
And how much climate research do they do? Did they sponsor the Vostok Ice Core expedition? Do they sponsor the monitoring station in Hawaii?
Like I've been saying, they don't have a monopoly on global warming research in REMOTELY the same way as oil companies have a monopoly on anti-global warming research.
And even if they did, it's Greenpeace for crying out loud! They're the good guys! They're trying to protect the planet! If anything, they care so much that they'd be willing to ruin the economy in order to save it. Contrast that with oil companies who are willing to ruin the planet just so that they can make money.
Besides, if Greenpeace was unduly influencing climate research, you can bet your bottom dollar that the oil groups and the White House would be crying foul. They're not crying foul, so it must not be happening.
Let me ask you a question: will you concede that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | And even if they did, it's Greenpeace for crying out loud! They're the good guys! They're trying to protect the planet! |
Yeah... the good guys. 
Anyway, read
HERE
HERE and HERE.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Yeah... the good guys.
Anyway, read
HERE
HERE and HERE. |
Trinity, these are pretty weak protests against Greenpeace. Chlorine really is a dangerous element. The people who made the website you referenced are simply wrong. If you want to read a well-researched book on the subject, check out 'Living Down Stream' by Sandra Steingraber. PVC really is a carcinogen, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I can cite papers if you really want me to.
My favorite b.s. argument against Greenpeace and in support of Chlorine that you gave was this:
| Quote: | | Apart from the scientific value of the above declaration, Greenpeace didn't read The Holy Bible carefully. The Bible clearly links the devil to fire and sulphur! On the other hand, the New Testimony states that Christians are the salt of the earth and - maybe you know - salt is composed for 60% of chlorine... |
Why do you link to pages like this? It's like you're trying to make Greenpeace's opponents look like idiots! Are you secretly on my side in this debate?!? 
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The new global warming report is out:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html
And it confirms everything that I've been saying here using pretty strong language...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is written that the angels came to Sodom and Gomorrah to warn that people that God's wrath was coming upon them. And the people scoffed and said to Lot, give us the men that came into you so we can make sport of them. And they seeked to kill them. But they escaped with those that believed their words.
Today we have "religions" and "scientists" fretting together and warning the people that global change is occuring...
The question is....do we scoff at them and try to close their mouths and disclaim their insight and knowledge?
Or do we try to prepare and take cover from what is witnessed as a natural fact?
Have we ever undergone these changes before? Is it possible that at one time the floods spoken of that happened in the days of Noah and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded in the bible..actually may have taken place?
And we are told to watch for these things, and we are beginning to see them happen today.
All I'm asking is that you look at the words that are written as described by those who may have gone through these things before.
Can we learn how to survive together...if we think together and grow and learn from our mistakes in the past?
Consider Lot's wife..who turned back from fleeing and was destroyed by what she witnessed. And she herself became a pillar of salt...salt to remind us that the wound is curable.
And I speak to both sides of the isle...
Don't close the door on the witnesses of those things that have happened and are happening again...this is nature spoken through the spirit of Man.
And don't close the door on new knowledge, the things we are discovering about ourselves about our past about our future...
This is time crying...your running out..listen....
We are all going to have to come together and get through whatever it is that may occur. Even if not in this generation, then quite possibly the next. And if we don't lay the foundations and build an Ark or a City in which to flee to, then we all could be drowned or burned up..due to "climate change"/"God's wrath". Call it what you will...
And Noah took into the Ark two's and seven's of everything on the earth.."clean..religious" and "unclean..scientific"...and rode the storm out together.
They did not eat eachother up, they all emerged safely into the next generation.
Will we hear before it's too late? If not for us...then for our children's sake?
Put down your weapons...and start working together.
And if it doesn't come to pass....won't we be much better off still?
just passin through...
Peace
Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
First, for Lone...the strongest evidence that there is a God is the fact that there are people like you and I mean that honestly
For my eco-nemisis....
It doesn't "confirm"...it "restates." There is a difference.
I don't want to chase you all over 3 threads again, so I'll not go into detail and I've already ranted in the other thread about this report, so...I'll just move along now
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
