Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
-Scott-

Global Warming -- Truth or Fiction

Recommended Posts

Yea there was a huge crisis that Global cooling was going to wreak havoc in the 1970's. I definitly agree though that there is a impact on human life from CO2 emmision's. I think the there is enough evidence to show that pollution does cause serious illness ranging from Asthma to cancer. However I think the planet is alot stronger then the human body, and that it would take a serious punch to knock the earth to its knee's. But i agree that we need clean energy for the sake of our general well being. Solar Panell's are quickly becoming more effecient and already is becoming a profitable market. I am doing research right now into the installation of sollar energy and I will most likely be installing sollar panell's for customer's in the city i live in because it is so profitable and actually will save you money. Neway's There are so many theories out there, but I think its safe to say pollution can and does kill people, and for that reason it is worth scrapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S can you imagine what it would like to see 6 billion people dematerialized onto another planet just before an asteroid were to hit us. Oh man that would be something else to see. imagine what that would do to the entire planet's pysche. haha i duno why im brining this up but it just seem's like such a crazy thing to imagine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask another question on this subject:

 

Why the angry emotional zealousness when anthropogenic climate change is questioned or refuted? Seems like the truth contained in a scientific theory should allow it to stand up to whatever scrutiny it is subject to.

 

You make an invalid statement when claiming that scientists who deny this theory are paid to do so and also that those of us who aren't buying the hype are "ignorant". Where is your evidence? I'm hearing a lot of accusatory, emotionally charged, words but little objective fact.

 

Maybe toning it down a bit and providing information to reinforce your premises that are very controversial and have not yet stood up to objective scientific analysis will help you to convey your ideas in a more successful manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would ask another question on this subject: Why the angry emotional zealousness when anthropogenic climate change is questioned or refuted? Seems like the truth contained in a scientific theory should allow it to stand up to whatever scrutiny it is subject to. You make an invalid statement when claiming that scientists who deny this theory are paid to do so and also that those of us who aren't buying the hype are "ignorant". Where is your evidence? I'm hearing a lot of accusatory, emotionally charged, words but little objective fact. Maybe toning it down a bit and providing information to reinforce your premises that are very controversial and have not yet stood up to objective scientific analysis will help you to convey your ideas in a more successful manner.

 

Why zealous? I hear people who are supposedly forward thinking (UB readers) espousing views and positions that, if accepted by many, will doom MY grandchildren to torment. You may as well be holding a gun to their heads. And there is in fact a great deal of evidence that many of the same supposed scientists who "refuted" the link of tobacco to cancer (and who were paid to do so) are now prostituting their academic credentials for cash payments by "refuting" anthropogenic warming. Was the tobacco link to cancer hype? Many tried to claim this long years after the evidence was conclusive. Same thing here. My premises are NOT controversial to anybody who is knowledgeable about climate history and they have very clearly stood up to objective scientific analysis, contrary to your (seemingly) cherished beliefs. If I come across as angry then perhaps it's time a stone was thrown into this particular hornet's nest. The facts concerned with anthropogenic climate change can indeed stand up to scrutiny... but only informed scrutiny is valid. Here I have heard only hyperbole and regurgitated Rush Limbaugh/Fox News neoconservative falsehoods. I have already tired of trying to talk to Bible based thinkers about such things because their minds are closed and shuttered. I am more than appalled to find the same phenomenon here.

 

Follow the TRUTH, wherever it leads.

 

Thomas

Edited by Doubting Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the term "global warming" is fraught with misunderstanding. In the scientific field it is generally understood to refer to that aspect of global climate change that is anthropogenic in origin. So when the term is used it implies changes wrought by mankind, particularly the unprecedented combustion of fossil fuels and the massive influx of carbon dioxide flooding the atmosphere as a result of that human activity. It is now known that human influenced "anthropogenic" atmospheric change dates back at least 5000 years... but has multiplied in intensity massively since the industrial revolution and then again in the internal combustion era. Up to about two gigatons per year of carbon dioxide (4,000,000,000,000 pounds) the earth's oceans can absorb and sequester carbon dioxide. We now put more than twice the CO2 into the air each year than the oceans can scrub out... meaning that the concentration inevitably rises.

 

Isn't it ironic that just when exponentiality is in full force - we have the technology to collect the data exponentially...? ;) But as you noted above - we are studying the RESULTS of human activity. So human activity is still the genesis - we are the CAUSE. Seems to me that we are blaming "Mother Nature" for being inadequate in keeping up with our need to live as kings...somewhere in the 2097 pages of The Urantia Book it is noted that because of our lazy "animal" natures - without the stimulation of Mother Nature, we are content to roll over, pick off a fruit or a tasty beetle and "multiple"...

 

The meaning of the fact that the UB does not talk about this subject is debatable.

 

I believe that I mentioned above that the UB does address the ORIGIN of the problem..."human activity". And how a "vainglorious generation" was threatening to disrupt the natural course of events - continuous adaptation to changing circumstances in an exponential manner. The UB is mostly dedicated to our SPIRITUAL eyes as one of the means by which we can sanely adapt. You don't have to agree that that is a factor - spiritual adaptation - but it might lessen your disappointment when you don't find a discussion on "anthropogenic" in the Papers...

 

It would certainly have been known and understood by any celestial scientist types who had any experience with midbreather worlds. But it is much much worse for believers to assume that it is not a problem because the UB doesn't talk about it.

 

 

Who did that here in your opinion...? I did not get that "read" from anyone on this thread. I see everyone, including you, scouring the Papers for some kind of "secret" other-wordly knowledge, so to speak, that could help in what has been dubbed "worshipful problem solving" for "global warming". I'm sure that with all of everything that is so "irregular" with Uranita, even Melchizedek is working out on a math formula for the UNIQUE "atmospheric" problems we have created for ourselves! It's not as if everyone did not try to warn us back in 1934 that we hit the "exponential" trigger...but did we listen? No.

 

Again I have to say that science is the ONLY valid approach to understanding physical reality... and my friends... the earth we live on is very much a physical reality... a spaceship-earth.

 

Sorry to digress for a second here, but staying in complete agreement with the fact that earth is a spaceship adrift in a VAST space - WHY is "science" so focused, not on "exponentiality", but on filing a patent for "big bang" subatomic activity...? It's stuff like that CERN collider going on line tomorrow that makes ME have my doubts about how useful "science" is going to be in solving any miserable, planetary-wide life-maintenance problems when "science" has been hijacked to experiments providing proof of theory. Why not start out with an easier task like controlling lightening or something like that...?

 

 

If we don't care for her... there is no reason whatever to assume that our celestial friends will come to save us from our folly.

 

Actually, according to the lore (I am comfortable with discussing UPapers as "fiction" with you, DT, if that's okay with you..?) in the Papers Urantia has a status in Nebadon that goes beyond it being a spaceship for JUST human beings. So far, as long as our "folly" has been limited to killing off ourselves and each other, they have not intervened in those free-will choices (non-intervention "law"). If we start to threaten the operations of the "celestials" - well, it seems to me they are quite capable of grabbing the baby before it sticks its hand in THEIR fire...just spinning a sci-fi episode here in my imagination. Recent cartoon in the New Yorker - a shot of sand on the beach and one grain of sand is saying, "I wish I was a bigger grain of sand..." ;) .

 

In fact... this may be our test of whether we're fit to belong to the system councils:

 

Can we work together across national, ethnic, racial, and tribal lines to confront a global crisis that threatens us all?

 

We have in the past so it seems we are capable of it, no? It depends on our intentions - Jack Kennedy made every POLITICAL move in the Cuba crisis to AVOID an all out nuclear war with USSR - at least that's how the movie "Thirteen Days" presents the story (and before this forum is hijacked by "details" disputing the depiction in that movie - please provide another website on the internet where anyone who is interested in educating themselves on history rewrite in the information age can go visit - something besides "wikipedia" ;) ) Bottom line remains the same even if you spend the next 10 years of your life questioning Kennedy's political INTENTIONS - there was no nuclear war and Kennedy was killed by an assassin. In the movie, after that war was averted, the 3 main characters realized a time-worn truth - the only thing that protects the sun coming up in east tomorrow morning on spaceship earth is "men of good will".

 

 

If not, we may not be considered WORTH saving.

 

I will do what I believe it takes to BE "worth saving" just for the hell of it (am I merely a rebel against the Lucifer rebellion? Is that a problem?) and because it's more FUN. Can't speak for anyone else - it's their choice to be "men of good will"....we don't get judged by the sin of another anywhere else than here on Urantia, where, because of the lack of reflectivity, the sins of another are always pinned on the innocent.

 

As a UB reader, I am keenly aware of needing to deal with the BIG PICTURE - what in your educated and knowledgeable opinion, DT, (not being sarcastic - truly am tipping my hat to you) is the POINT of the CERN Collider - any new science in the "results" that could be of benefit to "global warming" science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Let's try another avenue:

 

If there are overall cooling and heating trends that are caused by things like the sun, volcanic activity, cow farts, and deforestation. Would it be safe to say that human activity is really only causing minor fluctuations on a much larger "graph". For example, if over a 1000 year time period, the global temperature fluctuates 10 degrees across some midpoint, then we add human activity in the mix that causes an additional degree of fluctuation along that much larger spectrum. What's so disastrous about that? I'm a little confused by what catastrophic effect that 1 degree would have when it is overshadowed by the 10 degree natural fluctuation over a 1000 year time span.

 

Or to test another scenario:

The oceans rise 50 feet and the global temperature rises 10 degrees in the next year: What is the worst that will happen--Coastal cities become flooded, some animal species lose some fur or even die, millions of people are inconvenienced and have to start over, North Face sells a few less units of designer winter gear? Doesn't really sound that bad to me. In fact, every time that sort of upheaval has happened in my life, I have grown spiritually and gained new appreciations for higher truths and sublime cosmic meanings and values. I actually found The Urantia Book after one such upheaval many years ago.

 

So from a cosmic perspective, what's so bad about a little catastrophy? Spiritual growth and service of our fellows is the gague of our success on this world so maybe society needs a little shock to break it free from the fetters of material-mindedness and some of the unspiritual tendencies that are contributing to the overall decline in society's march towards the realization of the Brotherhood of Man. Think of all the service opportunities that will present themselves when our poor material-minded breathren don't have that material stuff any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. We start using clean energy for the simple fact it is cost effective, and nice to breathe in. and it seem's like we are moving towards that direction anyway's. I think the argument comes down to pollution is avoidable, and increasingly so. So If we have the technology we should avoid pollution, and i agree and I do not think any human being really want's to live in pollution etleast no for a long period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be safe to say that human activity is really only causing minor fluctuations on a much larger "graph".

 

No. Take just ONE factor, the clean up of 7 BILLION bowel movements a day. I can hear the little brain wheels of modern day "pharisees" churning into action - a "law" is being drafted outlawing daily dumping! ;) Then a whole counter "movement" will begin, led by a medicine man who will provide data that it's unhealthy to NOT do a movement every day. ;) And so it goes...

 

 

Think of all the service opportunities that will present themselves when our poor material-minded breathren don't have that material stuff any longer.

 

There will always be "stuff" needed when it comes to life maintenance. As "boomshuka" notes, what would be so tragic FOR THE FUTURE if we CHOOSE "stuff" that is less polluting...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you (NUF/Boomshuka). There's no harm in a healthy concern and awareness of environmental impact of our activity along with action that is measured and based on real scientific conclusions that have stood the scrutiny and analysis of established scientific method. My issue, along with millions of others, is the the irrational environmental panic that has ensued in the past few years. Action should be taken, but only action that will have an effect that does not cause other consequences that are far more immediate and costly to humanity and the world economy.

 

I would say that a positive result of the "Global Warming Panic" is that it has definitely helped, along with Terrorism and high has prices, to focus attention on development of cleaner burning, alternative sources of energy. I am all for that, but it takes time. Maybe we have even embarked on that path that will lead to the discovery of that unknown source of energy they mention in The Urantia Book in several places.

 

One can only hope that when it is discovered, irrational, misled, agenda-driven politicians, do not decide it will help them get elected by turning it's discovery into a sign of the first step toward the distruction of the universe. That would be a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joe;

 

When you say "Real Scientific conclusions" Is that code for one that I[Joe] will accept that matches your instinct/bias?

 

They Science[scientist] are way past proof and into the prevention mode.

 

But it is nothing to get emotional about that they didn't consult you and moved on ;)

 

Just playing ;) I have not the ability to know for sure but do know where it is headed.

 

Like you I agree there is nothing wrong with doing the right thing FOR THE PLANET

AND our sons and daughters.

 

Who is saying it will hurt all of us economically?

 

The billionaires are worried?

 

PHIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with both of you (NUF/Boomshuka). There's no harm in a healthy concern and awareness of environmental impact of our activity along with action that is measured and based on real scientific conclusions that have stood the scrutiny and analysis of established scientific method. My issue, along with millions of others, is the the irrational environmental panic that has ensued in the past few years. Action should be taken, but only action that will have an effect that does not cause other consequences that are far more immediate and costly to humanity and the world economy.

 

I would say that a positive result of the "Global Warming Panic" is that it has definitely helped, along with Terrorism and high has prices, to focus attention on development of cleaner burning, alternative sources of energy. I am all for that, but it takes time. Maybe we have even embarked on that path that will lead to the discovery of that unknown source of energy they mention in The Urantia Book in several places.

 

One can only hope that when it is discovered, irrational, misled, agenda-driven politicians, do not decide it will help them get elected by turning it's discovery into a sign of the first step toward the distruction of the universe. That would be a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Phil, even though you are "playing", you must realize that millions of people, perhaps even a majority are not buying it and would like to see a bit more research and scentific conclusion that justify the haphazard and alarmist action being taken by various governments throughout the world.

 

Several posts ago, a list of scientists whose research has shown the Global Warming Hype is either unfounded or exagerated was referenced and I personally give these scientists and equal level of credibility with those on the other side of the issue. Wikipedia is not the only source of this information. Proportionate numbers of climatologists around the world are not supporting anthropogenic climate change. If there were more agreement among the segment of the scientific community on this matter, I'd be selling my SUV and riding a bicycle too. There isn't though and I will continue to ride my bicycle for the sheer enjoyment until I see something real. Its a personal decision really. I'm just not seeing it yet and I'm not alone.

 

There is however a pretty widely accepted premise among economists that environmental legislation causes additional costs to be incurred by business. These increased costs are passed directly to the consumer (you and I) and cause our cost of living to increase. If our groceries, our cars, and our homes cost more, we have less money to spend on other things. That strains other businesses and causes them to have to let employees go or raise their prices to compensate. This slows down the economy. These are basic economic realities and are the reason I say what I do about excessive environmental zealousness having a negative impact on the world economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all for that, but it takes time.

 

Here's the game, Joe.

 

It's all about who gets access to the world's supply of silica - and "silicon valley" got it. Which means that the solar industry lost it (solar batteries need the same grade of silica).

 

This happened 30 years ago. I'm working on a article that documents HOW Ronald Reagan killed solar - as experienced by an entrepeneur who had a thriving solar housing business in California in the early 1970s...

 

About half of the entrepeneuring hippies who could tell you the TRUE tale are either dead or suffering ill health from being PUSHED back into poverty and "jobs" in the polluting power industries.

 

Which means that enough TIME (30 years) has gone by to where history COULD be rewritten now and the bs pick-up line "it takes time" could work one more time.

 

I got my answer to what the CERN Collider will provide in the way of "innovation" - a new kind of computational "GRID" for the internet...which could only mean that instead of 27 people calling me within 24 hours after I made a financial move that credit agencies were privy to and then the agenicies promptly "shared" (AKA as SOLD) that PRIVATE info to every Tom Dick and Harry who hatched a scheme for getting their hands on this newly discovered egg-laying chicken I had, my grandchildren can expect 1 BILLION people to know within one minute when their private info gets sold via the internet by "credit agencies".

 

But I am of good cheer. The TIME it will take for all REAL people to get off of the "grid" will be far shorter than the time the CERN collider "reveals" how Paradise shot out the first ultimaton - but will they figure out how the Unqualified Absolute modifies the laws of physics "at will" in response to the SPIRIT will of God...?

 

Not sure which "father" is going to show up - the one who lets his child burn their finger in the fire to teach them a lesson, or the father who takes the TIME to stop the child and educate them about "fire"..?

 

We need a political coup in this country - overthrow the incompetant delusional "political class" with REAL people from civilization who work in operations. That would solve two problems at once - like throwing a stick in the spoke of a bicycle wheel (cruel bully trick, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do...right?) - the bicycle stops and the kid riding it is knocked down. Just a little TIME out since it all "takes time".... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joe;

 

There are articles everywhere;

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7050401214.html

 

An international scientific panel for the first time yesterday put a price tag on what it would take to avoid the worst effects of global warming, concluding that the effort would be affordable and would be partially offset by economic and other benefits.

 

 

 

Overall, the report said, blunting the consequences of global warming will require different lifestyles, higher prices for basics including gasoline and electricity, and a much greater investment in research and development efforts. The impact of those costs, however, would be significantly offset by the benefits of a less carbon-dependent economy, including a cleaner environment, more secure sources of energy and in some cases reduced costs for more energy-efficient cars, appliances and houses, the report said.

 

While the report did not specify what that price should be, it outlined how much benefit would come at various cost levels -- $20, $50 or $100 per ton of emitted carbon. The world could meet the goal of stabilizing the level of greenhouse gases by 2030, the report said, at a sacrifice of less than 3 percent of the projected growth in the world's total economic output, or 0.12 percent annually. In other words, the world economy could still grow robustly, but at a slightly slower rate, while nations take steps to avoid severe climate change.

 

nations do not begin to control emissions better, that level of heat-trapping gases is projected to increase by an additional 25 to 90 percent by 2030, with potentially calamitous results, especially in poorer nations. The effects would include a surge in ocean levels, the disappearance of a large number of species, abrupt climate changes in tropical zones and possibly large migrations of displaced people.

 

 

 

 

The panel's reports are based on research by a broad range of scientists, and the resulting policy assessments were negotiated by government representatives until they reached a consensus. Some climate experts said that process led to conservative documents that do not take into account the most recent discoveries -- such as findings that the Arctic ice cap appears to be melting at a much faster rate than described in the February IPCC report.

 

The two biggest producers of greenhouse gases are the United States and China, and both objected to many conclusions of the draft report sent months ago to the 120 participating nations.

 

This article seems well thought out,researched no spin,over emotional reaction

 

When Corporations were dumping chemicals in peoples drinking water and outbreaks of disease

 

followed what did they say;

 

"[prove it] based on real scientific conclusions that have stood the scrutiny and analysis of established scientific method.

 

List of scientists whose research has shown the Global Warming[CHEMICAL DUMPING CAUSES DISEASE] Hype is either unfounded or exaggerated was referenced and I personally give these scientists and equal level of credibility with those on the other side of the issue. SINCERELY CEO SLOW DEATH INC. ;)

 

I will work for those looking for solutions[even if you are right and its a false alarm] and

 

leave the results in the Hands of "The Most High's"

 

 

Not a Greeny Weeny but concerned Urantian

 

PHIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the game, Joe.

 

It's all about who gets access to the world's supply of silica - and "silicon valley" got it. Which means that the solar industry lost it (solar batteries need the same grade of silica).

 

This happened 30 years ago. I'm working on a article that documents HOW Ronald Reagan killed solar - as experienced by an entrepeneur who had a thriving solar housing business in California in the early 1970s...

 

About half of the entrepeneuring hippies who could tell you the TRUE tale are either dead or suffering ill health from being PUSHED back into poverty and "jobs" in the polluting power industries.

 

Which means that enough TIME (30 years) has gone by to where history COULD be rewritten now and the bs pick-up line "it takes time" could work one more time.

 

I got my answer to what the CERN Collider will provide in the way of "innovation" - a new kind of computational "GRID" for the internet...which could only mean that instead of 27 people calling me within 24 hours after I made a financial move that credit agencies were privy to and then the agenicies promptly "shared" (AKA as SOLD) that PRIVATE info to every Tom Dick and Harry who hatched a scheme for getting their hands on this newly discovered egg-laying chicken I had, my grandchildren can expect 1 BILLION people to know within one minute when their private info gets sold via the internet by "credit agencies".

 

But I am of good cheer. The TIME it will take for all REAL people to get off of the "grid" will be far shorter than the time the CERN collider "reveals" how Paradise shot out the first ultimaton - but will they figure out how the Unqualified Absolute modifies the laws of physics "at will" in response to the SPIRIT will of God...?

 

Not sure which "father" is going to show up - the one who lets his child burn their finger in the fire to teach them a lesson, or the father who takes the TIME to stop the child and educate them about "fire"..?

 

We need a political coup in this country - overthrow the incompetant delusional "political class" with REAL people from civilization who work in operations. That would solve two problems at once - like throwing a stick in the spoke of a bicycle wheel (cruel bully trick, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do...right?) - the bicycle stops and the kid riding it is knocked down. Just a little TIME out since it all "takes time".... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I meant by it "taking time" was that the shift to cleaner, renewable sources of energy (which I am emphatically in favor of developing and using to replace current ones) is still in its infancy technologically and practically. Hydrogen power, wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc currently are not able to collectively generate the levels of energy that we currently consume. If the potential were here now, I'd like to see it used, but I don't think it is--yet. I do, however, see us a being on the right track, thanks in part to the "green" movement.

 

Do you feel that we have enough capacity to meet current demand with current levels of technology in the alternative energy tool chest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi NUF;

 

Thanks for the uplifting post ;)

 

Well I guess I will need to get rid of my phone and also get a much bigger mail box. jez....

 

We will get and always have got the Father who "TOOK THE TIME"

 

but WE MOST LIKELY WILL STILL STICK ARE FINGER IN THE FIRE.

 

YOU WROTE;

 

We need a political coup in this country - overthrow the incompetent delusional "political class" with REAL people from civilization who work in operations.

 

REPLY;

 

As long as the "Real People" don't get drunk with power and become "Incompetent and delusional"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the game, Joe.

 

It's all about who gets access to the world's supply of silica - and "silicon valley" got it. Which means that the solar industry lost it (solar batteries need the same grade of silica).

 

This happened 30 years ago. I'm working on a article that documents HOW Ronald Reagan killed solar - as experienced by an entrepeneur who had a thriving solar housing business in California in the early 1970s...

 

About half of the entrepeneuring hippies who could tell you the TRUE tale are either dead or suffering ill health from being PUSHED back into poverty and "jobs" in the polluting power industries.

 

Which means that enough TIME (30 years) has gone by to where history COULD be rewritten now and the bs pick-up line "it takes time" could work one more time.

 

I got my answer to what the CERN Collider will provide in the way of "innovation" - a new kind of computational "GRID" for the internet...which could only mean that instead of 27 people calling me within 24 hours after I made a financial move that credit agencies were privy to and then the agenicies promptly "shared" (AKA as SOLD) that PRIVATE info to every Tom Dick and Harry who hatched a scheme for getting their hands on this newly discovered egg-laying chicken I had, my grandchildren can expect 1 BILLION people to know within one minute when their private info gets sold via the internet by "credit agencies".

 

But I am of good cheer. The TIME it will take for all REAL people to get off of the "grid" will be far shorter than the time the CERN collider "reveals" how Paradise shot out the first ultimaton - but will they figure out how the Unqualified Absolute modifies the laws of physics "at will" in response to the SPIRIT will of God...?

 

Not sure which "father" is going to show up - the one who lets his child burn their finger in the fire to teach them a lesson, or the father who takes the TIME to stop the child and educate them about "fire"..?

 

We need a political coup in this country - overthrow the incompetant delusional "political class" with REAL people from civilization who work in operations. That would solve two problems at once - like throwing a stick in the spoke of a bicycle wheel (cruel bully trick, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do...right?) - the bicycle stops and the kid riding it is knocked down. Just a little TIME out since it all "takes time".... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But PHIL,

 

For every article supporting the general topic (be it cause, effect or both) of Global Warming on the internet, there is one refuting it:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

 

 

Here's a whole blog that seems to be on the side of we who deny it:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

 

With this much diversity of information, how can one make an educated decision on what the truth is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Global Warming discussion needs a place to flourish without diluting the original topic of how various topics in The Urantia Book support or refute this controversial and sometimes personal subject.

 

Have at it folks--you know you want to say something! The initial posts have been moved from here.

 

Forum rules regarding personal attacks and proselytizing personal beliefs and sarcasm will be very scantly enforced if at all. Should get interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you feel that we have enough capacity to meet current demand with current levels of technology in the alternative energy tool chest?

 

Yes for "agricultural" and "home" operations, and at least half of the manufaturing facilities of consumer and food goods.

 

No for airplanes and automobiles and "cigarette" speed boats ;)

 

Pretty please, can I just throw in one more quote from UB and get all the sarcasm out of my system?

 

Thanks - you're a peach...!

 

Page 716 - "To Andon, the larger food animals were symbols of creative might and sustaining power....Very early the Andonic peoples formed the habit of refraining from eating the flesh of the animal of tribal veneration. Presently, in order more suitably to impress the minds of their youths, they evolved a ceremony of reverence which was carried out about the body of one of the venerated animals; and still later on, this primitive performance developed into the more elaborate sacrificial ceremonies of their descendants. And this is the origin of sacrifices as a part of worship. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle, by the Apostle Paul as the doctrine of atonement for sin by "the shedding of blood"...."

 

Since we aren't even interested in letting go of the atonement doctrine because of the satisfaction we get from the selfishness of it - the least we could try to do as UB readers is to pick a NEW symbol for "creative might and sustaining power" and offer it up in a sacrifice ritual to purify our attempt on this forum at "worshipful problem solving" for both green weenies and wall street weenies and military industrial complex weenies who are 10 minutes behind us chosen ones in their "enlighten-ment".

 

I suggest we gather around your SUV, Joe, and offer it up as the NEW sacrificial lamb, whose OIL can be shed for our sins. ;)

 

Giggling.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I must atone for not telling the complete truth--I drive a Diesel pickup that, when I'm feeling particularly naughty, emits copious amounts of black smoke upon ignition as well as when the pedal is to the metal. In the spirit of saving Uranita from the human race, I hereby sacrifice it and offer it to Moses--the original environmental extremist. Great excitement wells up in me at the thought of all the extra, accumulated body mass I will shed by pulling my 11,000 pound boat and trailer with my bicycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something we can all agree on, I think.

 

Pollution which is preventable should be dealt with. If it is, or if it is not, a contributor to global warming. Barring something really big happening, we are here for the duration, and the poor midwayers are too. So it is in our selfish interest to work on this problem. Every time I see those huge patches of junk floating in the middle of the ocean on PBS I cringe. When I see people who will never go off road traveling along in their little trucks (that is what SUVs are) getting abysmal MPG I wonder what happened to their brains. When the price of gas drops and people start driving more instead of remembering the lesson of moments ago I wonder again have they lost their minds.

 

I will take a look and see if I can find If anyone has looked into the effect of the cutting of the rain forests and the resultant loss of natural CO2 processing machines compared to the burning of carbon fuels as a pollution factor. It may be just a question of balance.

 

Sooner or later we will run out of carbon based fuels. (I just did a quick search to find where the revelators take a shot at us for still using fire, but I could not find it. Perhaps someone else can.) When this happens we will need to find a clean source of power. It is inevitable. The problem seems to be getting this fact taken seriously as a long term project.

 

I think "global warming" is a red herring. The question should be minimizing pollution and finding more efficient power sources.

 

Bill,

Faith son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know here In Canada the Green interest is taking the country by storm and is usually the number 1 issue that Canadians are willing to talk about. Im not saying na na na boo boo to America im just saying that there is change in this direction where I live and it is really positive. Already we are giving tax break's to people wanting solar panel's and Geothermal energy. being off the grid is an attractive thing and I know my city is shifting towards that area. In plumbing we get asked all the time about making the most effecient and most green system as possible.

 

maybe it will just take one country to lead the way. Cough Canada hahaha. Im not trying to be an ass, but the people in this country are relatively very interested as a whole on this topic and there are no real debates to wether it should be impliminted. As canadian's we do just flat out agree with each other on a lot of topics like this. Neway's sorry if this came off as Canadian propaganda. haha I will admit though that The United states' has system's that work much better then our's it just when it comes to green our country does hold a special interest in this topic, and its only a matter of time before we go completly green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is something we can all agree on, I think.

 

You hope ;)

 

Pollution which is preventable should be dealt with. If it is, or if it is not, a contributor to global warming. Barring something really big happening, we are here for the duration, and the poor midwayers are too. So it is in our selfish interest to work on this problem.

 

I think this assumption about "selfish interest" is what keeps us from getting EFFICIENT about doing it. Not only was the collective "feeling" people had for the beauty and bounty of USA lands attacked by SOCIAL engineering (ie "global warming" debates) as early as the 1920s when hydroelectric public works like Hoover Dam were thriving (water power) - but "selfish interests" hijacked the legislative branch of USA government during the entire 20th century - with the grand finale one-finger salute to the EPA known as "Grandfather" allowances for tons of pollution. We're not going to get anywhere until there are "Grandchildren" allowances to counteract the "grandfather" allowances....we do NOT have a COLLECTIVE "selfish interest" consciousness (ie. my selfish interests are the same as yours) in USA - never did and never will. So let's deal with that fact...otherwise we'll end up starting from a delusional premise ;)

 

Every time I see those huge patches of junk floating in the middle of the ocean on PBS I cringe. When I see people who will never go off road traveling along in their little trucks (that is what SUVs are) getting abysmal MPG I wonder what happened to their brains. When the price of gas drops and people start driving more instead of remembering the lesson of moments ago I wonder again have they lost their minds.

 

It's the "born again" thing - they "get over it".... ;)

 

I will take a look and see if I can find If anyone has looked into the effect of the cutting of the rain forests and the resultant loss of natural CO2 processing machines compared to the burning of carbon fuels as a pollution factor. It may be just a question of balance.

 

PBS aired a documentary about a group of international scientists in Brazil who approach the problem from a different angle - they have determined how much acreage is mandatory to maintain the health and balance of the rain forest itself (in the area of Brazil that they were studying - acreage will differ on small volcanic islands, for example - but at least the method for determining the acreage has been found and can be applied to ALL forests (rain and other). PHIL's data on "paper" is not up to date - the increase in paper generated by the "computer age" has been astronomical - so that "sell" about using less paper is/was a lie.

 

 

Sooner or later we will run out of carbon based fuels. (I just did a quick search to find where the revelators take a shot at us for still using fire, but I could not find it. Perhaps someone else can.)

 

Here's the one that was easiest to find in the amount of time I have today for my God studies - Page 748 - "...These primitive men would not consent to experiment with steam power, notwithstanding the repeated urgings of their teachers; never could they overcome their great fear of the explosive power of confined steam....". :P I want to find the quote later about how we are heading backwards when it comes to utilizing animals...

 

When this happens we will need to find a clean source of power. It is inevitable. The problem seems to be getting this fact taken seriously as a long term project.

 

Seems to me WE are serious - "selfish interests" are also serious.

 

I think "global warming" is a red herring.

 

One thing to throw a red herring into the room - quite another to start slapping someone with it which is what the "grandfathers" have been doing to the "grandchildren" - not nice...

 

The question should be minimizing pollution and finding more efficient power sources.

 

"Energy" is all around us - I keep getting back to lightening bolts as the example...as for "pollution" - well the stats widely disseminated via network TV last week during an hour of fund raising called "Stand Up to Cancer" noted that about 500,000 people are dying in the USA per year from "cancer". At least there is tacit agreement to not start a red herring debate about whether or not "pollution" is the cause....arguing about it is a waste of time....ie. NOT EFFICIENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again. There are so many facets to the problem we are discussing that the breadth of the issue itself becomes an impediment to discussion so I will attempt a broad overview, something like an opening statement you might hear from an instructor if you were to enroll in a doctoral level course of study in Planetary Environmental Dynamics.

 

********************************************

 

We humans inhabit a small planet somewhere out in the less-populated regions of the Milky Way galaxy. It is the only planet we have, and the only one we know. We are absolutely and ultimately dependant upon this planet and its sun for out lives and therefore it is important for us to understand it. The most important factor of our living environment upon this planet is the climate. Climate determines where we can live, how we gain our sustenance, and sometimes even how we interact with each other when we come into conflict over resources. We have available to us a broad historical record of climate change which we can reference... using historical documents, pollen studies, ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, coral reefs, and the geological record. This record shows some clear patterns, and occasional deviations from those patterns. Gaining a grasp of that record is a career in itself. Then we have a broad astronomical/planetary understanding of orbital mechanics and stellar evolution... a grasp of the varying obliquity of the earth's axis, variation of the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit around the sun, the precession of the equinoxes, and the changes in our star as she ages. All these are known to affect climate. Then we have the variable feedback effects of the earth's dynamic system, particularly the interaction of oceans and atmosphere, which can tend to mitigate small variations but accentuate larger ones. Added to these are long term tectonic influences and the occasional asteroid impact. Combining the historical record of climate with the understanding of the processes involved we begin to construct "models" of climate. These are not static models in the sense of a model airplane, but dynamic models in the sense that they define a series of processes that we assume to have certain effects. We begin refining the models and those assumptions by trying to calculate the current climate state based on past information. As the models are refined to the point that current known states can be correctly predicted based only upon known precursors we gain confidence in the accuracy of the models as well as the assumptions, and venture to predict future climate based on current known factors. When we run these models and project the future climate we must make assumptions about certain variables of the future which we do not know. One of these variables is the amount of carbon dioxide that will be injected into the atmosphere by human activity. So we run the models several times... several "iterations" of the models using different numbers for the variables... and then we compare the results.

 

This entire process of data collection and analysis and model building... the assumptions included... the variables tested for... is conducted by the entire scientific community. It is vetted by the process of testing and challenge that characterizes the very nature of scientific inquiry, and it is accepted by a vast majority of scientists qualified in the field. This is the climate science that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Nobel Laureate Vice President Al Gore have been referencing in their efforts to alert the planet to the increasing probability of a climate catastrophe. The call for action to mitigate the effects of this catastrophe has turned a scientific debate into a pollitical one, with deeply entrenched financial interests doing everything they possibly can to derail or delay any action. The "tragedy of the commons" scenario as described by Garrett Hardin (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ) shows clearly that the concept of the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith ) is inapplicable in a commons situation... and our earth has become the universal commons of our species. The rest of this course will take each of these effects in turn, there will be a lot of reading... about 100 pages per day for the next two years. The final part will focus on the creation of climate models. With any luck a Cray supercomputer will be available to us for that semester. Your dissertation work will be expected to focus upon some aspect of one of the many less-understood problems.

 

********************************************

okay, we're out of the conceptual classroom now and these are some personal comments:

 

While individual actions are wonderful and every little bit helps, only collective action can take place on a scale large enough to confront a threat to the commons itself. In our current state of planetary evolution, only governments are sufficiently large entities to have effects on a global scale. Of the governments of this planet, the United States of America holds the place of the largest per capita consumer of resources as well as the largest economy. Therefore it falls to the US to be the leader in any effort to build concensus and collective action.

 

But the US has failed to provide any such leadership... instead being the most recalcitrant nation in the world on this subject.

 

Thus the political decision:

To do nothing... wait and gather information only until it is too late... in effect eating the last canned food off the pantry shelf without any thought to restocking it.

or:

To begin acting now... investing time and energy into building a sustainable social system that can weather the difficulties ahead and build for the future.

 

As others on this board have noted... Canada and most of the rest of the world have already decided that green is better, and have embarked on a program to reduce energy use, replace carbon-based energy systems with renewables, and increase support of sustainable social systems. As noted by Nameless-Until-Fused there are reasons beyond concern for Global Warming that would be cause enough to work for the planet so that our great-grandchildren might enjoy a life of joyful service. I leave it to others to explain to me how anybody could in good conscience argue against caring for our planet.

 

I can imaging Michael on high... busy with the doing of millions of worlds... watching with one eye the events on our little planet. I imagine that he would far prefer to come back to a beautiful world brought back from the brink of destruction by industrious and hard working people, willing to make sacrifices of personal comfort and convenience for the sake of a sustainable future rather than to a wasteland of environmental destruction and death. Far better for him to return and praise us for our efforts than to return only to save us from our folly and have to forgive us our trespasses yet again.

 

In Truth

 

Thomas

Edited by Doubting Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear D.Thomas,

Far better for him to return and praise us for our efforts than to return only to save us from our folly and have to forgive us our trespasses yet again.

I need to say it again: your posts are a delight to read. And thank you for an excellent overview.

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy reading your posts as well DT, but not for the same reasons. I am seeking out a PhD level climatologist to help us in a scientific discussion of this matter. I hope he or she will be gracious enough to contribute to this thread and bring a level of credibility to this discussion. I would invite you to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...