Stand For Christ #fundie

Stand For Christ #fundie onenewsnow.com

Considering that Global temperature hasn't risen/changed since 1996 proves that what the schools and climategate are teaching is an out right lie. The BIBLE has historical facts about society and climategate has none it's not hard to see which one is based on factual evidence.

57 comments

old comment by John_in_Oz

It doesn't matter how true and obvious any topic is, somewhere there will be an idiot who also supports it. This guy is proof of that.
In the past five years my country Australia has spent billions of dollars reducing our greenhouse emissions. If we hadn't spent those billions of dollars, the world's CO2 levels would have reached their alarming levels 12 hours sooner than they actually did. We've reduced the CO2 in the Atmosphere to 99.96% of what it otherwise would have been. This has reduced the world's temperature by a smaller figure than we can measure. The amount of heating you can get from extra CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns, while the amount of cooling down increases proportional to the fourth power of the temperature above 3 degrees Kelvin.
Even if we stop all future anthropomorphic CO2 this second, the world will still experience droughts, floods, cyclones and natural climate change.
I've read the critiques of Lomborg's work, and they are picayune. He's right, the environment is better served by using our resources elsewhere than on addressing climate change.
Climate scientists accept sceptics have actually been proven right about a number of issues. The big ones, in my opinion, are: Mann has admitted he used inappropriate proxies in his iconic 'hockey stick' graph. The original hockey stick graph was statistically invalid. The 'little ice age' and 'medieval warm period' were genuine phenomena. The current warming is neither unique in rate or magnitude in the historical record. There are many other instances.
When Mann and Jones each replaced proxy data with the instrumental record they gave a misleading impression of the accuracy of their proxies. This is why they did it, and it was scientific fraud. Their apologists do not make them more credible; they make themselves less so.

old comment by John_in_Oz

I do not deny the physics of Greenhouse gasses, they are inarguable and unalarming. Doubling the atmospheric level of CO2 will increase the temperature by approximately one degree C. The 'crisis' of CO2 is due to the speculations about further feedbacks. So far the observational support for these further feedbacks does not match the models.

The figures I use above about what Australia has achieved are based on the published figures of Australia producing 1.5 percent of Global CO2, and reducing our increase by 108% instead of 110% of our 1990 GDP, and having signed the Kyoto protocol in 2007.
xyz's graph is impressive, but doesn’t take into account that global temperature was rising at the same rate naturally, for centuries before his start date, before the industrial revolution. It answers Stand for Christ effectively, but doesn’t show what he thinks it does.

@ Leighton Buzzard
The figures for the melting of the Greenland icecap vary from 2000 to 13000 years. I believe we have more immediate problems to address.

old comment by Anon

>>Mattiedef

I do agree with John that global warming would happen with or without humans<<

NO.

A certain amount of anthropogenic global warming will happen even if every fossil-fuel-burning device were to be switched off tomorrow, because we have already put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. If we had not done that, then we would not have this problem.

It is also very wrong to say that because each additional ton CO2 causes less of a perturbation to the amount of heat that escapes the Earth we should not care about adding more to the atmosphere than we already have. There are a large number of non-linear feedback loops in the climate system, and pushing the planet too much runs the risk of pushing things out of the stable zone and into a climate far different from what it is now.

We should switch to carbon-neutral (or ideally a carbon-negative) energy sources as soon as possible in order to minimize the climate perturbation and limit the amount of mitigation that is necessary.

old comment by Mattiedef

@Anon
I oppose pollution. Whether or not the reasons for it agree with your reasons should not cause you to rage. Your over focus on Carbon specifically has no say for the many other negative ways that other types of pollution effect us. The deaths caused by coal plants is optimally what motivates me against them and natural gas. They are by far the most dangerous power source on the planet, actively causing many deaths per year to humans. There is also water pollution that causes deadzones in the water, and plenty of other craptastic effects.

I'm an environmentalist. I just don't need a rocket up my ass like Climate Change to see that there's an issue. There would be one regardless of climate change or not.

Stand For Christ #fundie onenewsnow.com

57 comments

Confused?