Climate Change Discussion

[IH3444]

Greenhouse sceptics to congregate - National - theage.com.au

 

[MikePA]

I'm probably confusing this, but wasn't it common practice a few centuries ago to offer charity of some sort to the church in return for your sins being dismissed?

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
indulgence

In the Roman Catholic Church, a declaration by church authorities that those who say certain prayers or do good deeds will have some or all of their punishment in purgatory remitted.

Note: In the Middle Ages, indulgences were frequently sold, and the teaching on indulgences was often distorted. The attack by Martin Luther on the sale of indulgences began the Reformation.

 

[LMTC]

Eddie, I suspect you are referring to Papal Bulls (which I think were technically the lead seal on a document, including the purchased document granting remission of sin), wherein one could pay a certain amount and be freed from x number of years in purgatory. Kind of a "pay as you sin" program. There were also indulgences, referenced in a post above, which were a remission or forgiveness of a sin or sins, and eventually these were offered for a price...a cash price that is. Someone with better history knowledge of the Roman Catholic church might help us out here as I probably have some of the particualrs twisted, but this was clearly a corruption of the message of the Gospel, and was eventually discontinued.

oops...just peeked and Mike beat me.

 

[IH3444]

The Effect of Solar Variability on Climate

 

[vmarc]

I agree with Mike's earlier comparison of GW to religion. I think there is much truth in that argument. Carbon offsets are just like the old idea of selling indulgences.

Later,
Dan

Thats not what he said.He said so.....................I think

 

[MikePA]

Thats not what he said.He said so.....................I think

Thanks, but I can speak for myself.

GW has many aspects of a religion. Dan and I agree.

 

[hazmat]

The original idea behind carbon credits was to minimize the economic impact of reducing CO2 emissions. If an entity was above their limit, they could purchase carbon credits from someone who was below their limit to bring them into compliance. Of course the limits are set by a political body which makes the idea of a "free market" in carbon trading an oxymoron...

The concept makes sense in that it is not economically feasible to shut down a coal power plant that is still within it's usable life in favor of a "greener" technology.

Personal carbon credits are a perversion of the original economic idea and I agree with other's who have called them "indulgences"

In other news it seems that big businesses are taking climate change seriously - perhaps it is simply proactive risk management???

environmentalists hail takeover plan for texas utility

 

[dmccarty]

I noticed that the UN wants to tax those countries exceeding CO2 "limits". Which means the US. They don't say what the UN would do with the money. I'm sure pad more thugs pockets.

The UK was talking about a tax aimed at activities that produce CO2. This meant taxi's, cars, hotels, planes, etc. They never did say what the taxes would then be spent on.

Later,
Dan

 

[EddieWalker]

Don't forget they will only tax select countries. Others will be allowed to polute all the want. I guess there CO2 levels and the amount of polution they put into the atmosphere don't add to global warming. Only select countries have polution that affects Global Warming.

More proof that they don't really believe this and are out looking for a way to raise money.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

Alright, you've conviniced me. I'll pay the CO2 tax.

 

[bigdeer2000]

just looked at the last few posts so i don't know if anyone else has brought this up. back in the 1970's in grade school we were being told that the next ice age was starting and ice would cover the world in the next century.so what happened?

 

[LMTC]

just looked at the last few posts so i don't know if anyone else has brought this up. back in the 1970's in grade school we were being told that the next ice age was starting and ice would cover the world in the next century.so what happened?

Global warming saved us from the ice age I remember well all the focus on cooling and the supposedly coming prolonged winters that took place...seems like it began around the time we abandoned VN. I took it even then as just a shift in focus on the part of those who need a fear to utilize for control of others.

 

[EddieWalker]

The sad realization has overcome me. We are no longer debating this. Those who were debating earlier have gone quiet. Maybe they've developed some doubts as to what they are hearing in the media? Maybe they just go tired of not being able to convice anybody that there world is gonna end?

Too bad, there were a few good points brought up.

Eddie

 

[SkyPup]

On a personal level, I certainly like the current global warming much much better than global cooling we had ten years ago.

It sure was be tough trying to pull gag grouper and red snapper up out of the Gulf of Mexico while dodging icebergs.....

 

[N80]

Well, the UN taxing the US (gag, wretch) would be par for the course. We need to send that pack of thieves, mini-dictators, communists and terrorists to France and sell the UN building to Donald Trump to be made into a casino, which would be a far better use for US dollars than the UN and the World Bank.

But seriously, some people scoffed when the idea of GW primarily being an issue for the redistribution of wealth and the UN being the agent for that redistribution. What do you think now?

In a world where there are no morals and no absolutes, the only absolute is power and will (Neitzsche?). But the UN and the world want to turn that upside down and for some reason we seem willing to accept it. We have the power, we just don't have the will. Does this mean that I want us to be empricist? No. I just want us to have the guts and the will to tell the UN to go away. They're playing dirty pool on OUR pool table. Time for them to get their own. France might be okay but I suspect they're too cheap. I'm thinking Tehran maybe?

 

[hazmat]

The sad realization has overcome me. We are no longer debating this. Those who were debating earlier have gone quiet. Maybe they've developed some doubts as to what they are hearing in the media? Maybe they just go tired of not being able to convice anybody that there world is gonna end?

Too bad, there were a few good points brought up.

Eddie

Like most discussions, when most have said their piece, it slows down... I wonder if anyone has changed their view one way or the other based on what we have discussed?

I've learned alot from both "sides", but my view (that we are contributing and should take some action) is fundamentally unchanged.

-Alternate theories have been presented - natural cycle, sunspots, etc.
-Even if we have contributed, we should concentrate on dealing with the potential consequences, not the CO2
-Credibility of "consensus" science vs. scientific method (rightfully) challenged
-Correlation vs. causation
-Implications of govt. action (wealth redistribution etc) based on IPCC report
-GW likened to a religion
-Future impact of developing countries.

I think N80 summed it up best when he stated (roughly) that the big changes implied by the IPCC report require more substantial proof than consensus science.

I suppose I'm still stuck on the precautionary principle - it will "cost" (however you want to define it) us less to change our behavior now rather than later.

 

[riptides]

The sad realization has overcome me. We are no longer debating this. Those who were debating earlier have gone quiet. Maybe they've developed some doubts as to what they are hearing in the media? Maybe they just go tired of not being able to convice anybody that there world is gonna end?

Too bad, there were a few good points brought up.

Eddie

It was interesting while it lasted, but ended for me because some people dispelled, dismissed or distrusted methods and practices developed by dependant, independent, paid, not-for-profit individuals or groups based on their own myopic view and beliefs.

Nah, I think certain things were really exposed that went to peoples core values. Which was good, but certainly not enlightening.
-Who do you trust?
-Mankind is insignificant
-Science is religion


-Mike Z.

 

[IH3444]

The GW issue would be much more believeable if Ralph Nader was presenting it. He at least practices what he preaches, and researchs a subject before opening his mouth. I don't a cotton to all he says, but I do respect the man, and admire that he practices what he preaches.....and has actually done good for people. Al just blaters on, and on with doom, and doesn't even have an elementary grasp of the science. He never mentions solar activity, or the high solar eruptions we just experienced just a few years back, which caused major communications satillites to be moved behind the earth for protection. The sun erupted the greatest solar flares since late 1800's. He's pure politics, that's all. Although it looks like he is getting ready for a 4 month hibernation, or possible new little ice age comming back. He just keeps packing on da poundage.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote:Although it looks like he is getting ready for a 4 month hibernation, or possible new little ice age comming back. He just keeps packing on da poundage.

At this time of year it would be estivation -- esp with GW and all that!
larry

 

[thingy]

Right now we are indeed having some global warming here in southern w.v.,,,,cause spring is starting to show itself,,I predict this trend to continue till about next oct.,,,than global cooling will start again,,,,I'm willing to stake my reputation as a beer drinking deer killing redneck on this,,,,thingy