Global Warming ???

[LuisDantas]

I'm no expert, BalanceFX. But I don't understand why you brought chelation therapy as a subject matter.

Nor do I understand your skepticism about bloodletting. Are you doubting that there are toxins in blood?

 

[Sententia]

I'm no expert, BalanceFX. But I don't understand why you brought chelation therapy as a subject matter.

Nor do I understand your skepticism about bloodletting. Are you doubting that there are toxins in blood?

The toxins in your blood are normally dealt with by your body. (Liver, Kidneys etc...) If some toxin was not being eliminated by your body but was instead building up in your blood I am not sure blindly bloodletting would be the best course of action. If on the other hand if you suspected you had a build up of some kind of heavy metal then I guess depending on the heavy metal your Dr might recommend chelation therapy. Ritualistic blood letting such as regularly giving blood is not likely to be bad or good for you. (There are exceptions)

I had cancer as a kid so I can not give blood and was often iron deficient to the point of needed multiple iron treatments a day. I am normal now since my body is regulating everything correctly. But I do give blood for testing and as a runner I noticed increased fatigue on days where the tests took a few extra vials of blood. Which makes sense to me.

If I was worried about a particular exposure though I would ask my doctor to test for it and she probably would or at least explain to me why I am mistaken prior to refusing it.

 

[iholdit]

The toxins in your blood are normally dealt with by your body. (Liver, Kidneys etc...) If some toxin was not being eliminated by your body but was instead building up in your blood I am not sure blindly bloodletting would be the best course of action. If on the other hand if you suspected you had a build up of some kind of heavy metal then I guess depending on the heavy metal your Dr might recommend chelation therapy. Ritualistic blood letting such as regularly giving blood is not likely to be bad or good for you. (There are exceptions)

I had cancer as a kid so I can not give blood and was often iron deficient to the point of needed multiple iron treatments a day. I am normal now since my body is regulating everything correctly. But I do give blood for testing and as a runner I noticed increased fatigue on days where the tests took a few extra vials of blood. Which makes sense to me.

If I was worried about a particular exposure though I would ask my doctor to test for it and she probably would or at least explain to me why I am mistaken prior to refusing it.

I would argue that regularly donating blood is beneficial in many cases. Besides the studies which show reduced risk of cardiovascular problems associated with blood donation(see link i posted earlier), there are studies which also show cholesterol related benefits as well.
Beneficial effects of blood donation on high densi... [Atherosclerosis. 2002] - PubMed result

 

[Reverend Rick]

Kathryn, Rick claimed that scientists are predicting an ice age. How does your list support that claim?

Alceste, I said "some scientists are beginning to believe another ice age is coming". I can't believe you are surprised. It's not like they have not made this prediction before.

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Wait, wait, wait a damn minute.

I am not denying climate change is occurring. I have never once denied that.

All that I have done is answer the challenge to provide evidence that many credible members of the scientific community question the theory of global warming.

My issue with the entire subject is that it IS so politically charged, and that's unfortunate because it makes finding the truth challenging.

Being the skeptic that I am, I take a hard look at topics like this one, and I try to determine the agenda of those touting their opinions.

That doesn't mean I bury my head in the sand and deny facts, and in particular one fact that I think is obvious is that we are experiencing climate change. What I am trying to do is determine the reasons, and to put this particular change in historical perspective.

I am not a scientist specializing in this field, so unfortunately all I can do is gather facts and information from those who are. The distressing thing is that their voices can be hard to hear over the cacophony of those who would use climate change to further their own personal agendas.

I agree, Revoltingest. The very fact that I pay some attention to conflicting viewpoints is suddenly grasped upon as rank ignorance - when in reality it's healthy to weigh the agenda of those touting something as truth while determining whether or not to believe in the information they're presenting.

I am skeptical of people on both sides of the question of global warming. And I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm NOT a scientist.

And I don't know of any other RF members who are professional scientists either.

OK, so you do accept climate change--not the consensus on what's causing it, but the change itself?

Here's the thing, Kathryn: As honorable as it may seem to look at both sides of the issue, doing so with climate change science is pseudoskepticism. It would be like my claiming not to know whether the earth was round or flat, whether the periodic table should have 100+ elements or just four (air/earth/water/fire), etc. That humans are in the process of actively changing the climate via CO2 emissions is a documented fact, like it or not.

scientist discover only and make an theory but they cannot expalin the rapid melting of ice..they forget to read in the revelation in the bible that God command His angel to hold the wind in the FOUR corner of the earth.

Welcome to RF! Speaking of a flat earth, does this mean you believe in it?

Alceste, I said "some scientists are beginning to believe another ice age is coming". I can't believe you are surprised. It's not like they have not made this prediction before.

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years

That's not a peer-reviewed scientific study.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that there is compelling scientific evidence that points to climate change.

My skepticism lies with the Spin Meisters, not with honest and sincere scientists who are not fueled by political agendas.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, I said "some scientists are beginning to believe another ice age is coming". I can't believe you are surprised. It's not like they have not made this prediction before.

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years

Rick, that's ONE scientist, and "Prison Planet" is hardly a reputable scientific journal. How do you know they've accurately represented Herrera's research?

Edit: scratch that. On further investigation, it seems Herrera hasn't published any climate research. That's because he's a theoretical physicist, not a climatologist. His opinion on the subject of climate carries no more weight that yours or mine.

 

[Alceste]

I believe that there is compelling scientific evidence that points to climate change.

My skepticism lies with the Spin Meisters, not with honest and sincere scientists who are not fueled by political agendas.

Lol, which is why you're repeatedly posting the GOPs infamous "list of scientists who disagree with the concensus", presumably. Clearly there's no spin or political agenda going on there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After Katrina, people predicted more hurricanes the following year. We had zilch, nada that year.

Which "people"? I wouldn't be surprised if that started out as a claim that the long-term rate of hurricanes is increasing, which got interpreted by the media as "we'll have more hurricanes next year."

Predicting rare events is tricky, statistically speaking. There will always be some "noise" in the data just due to random fluctuations.

I deal with this problem a bit in my work when it comes to safety analysis: the collision rate for, say, an intersection will go up and down from year to year due to variability. If you had no collisions there last year and 3 collisions the year before, this doesn't necessarily mean that the intersection got any safer. It could mean that you just happened to have had a lucky year.

Same for hurricanes: you'll naturally have variation from year to year, so a better measure of the overall trend is an average of several years.

Notice that the new phrase seems to be "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming."

Much more convenient.

Much more accurate, actually.

While the claim that the Earth's overall average temperature is going up, the specific effects of this in different areas is going to vary.

BTW - here, more snow is generally a sign of warmer winters, and many parts of southern Ontario have had record snowfall levels for several years in a row now. This is largely due to the increased lake effect snow off the great lakes to the west: you only get lake effect snow when there's liquid water on the surface, so colder weather means more ice cover, which means less snow downwind.

 

[Kathryn]

Lol, which is why you're repeatedly posting the GOPs infamous "list of scientists who disagree with the concensus", presumably. Clearly there's no spin or political agenda going on there.

Hey, you asked for a list of scientists - I gave you one.

I didn't say I agreed with the list, or with the opinions in the article.

I haven't disputed the theory of global warming either for that matter.

 

[Father Heathen]

scientist discover only and make an theory but they cannot expalin the rapid melting of ice..they forget to read in the revelation in the bible that God command His angel to hold the wind in the FOUR corner of the earth.

Perhaps they "forgot" to read it because it's nothing more than irrational, unsubstantiated superstition.

 

[Alceste]

Hey, you asked for a list of scientists - I gave you one.

I didn't say I agreed with the list, or with the opinions in the article.

I haven't disputed the theory of global warming either for that matter.

I doubt that. As a general rule, I don't ask for lists of names of global warming skeptics, creationists, or people who subscribe to the theory of geocentrism. I may have asked Rick to specify which "scientists" are "predicting an ice age", as per the OP. Not quite the same thing.

 

[iholdit]

For those that do believe climate change has been impacted by humans. What can we as individuals do to reduce that impact, without waiting for government legislation?

Feel free to discuss ways we can help with any other environmental issues here.
www.religiousforums.com/forum/groups/earthly-paradise.html

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I believe that there is compelling scientific evidence that points to climate change.

My skepticism lies with the Spin Meisters, not with honest and sincere scientists who are not fueled by political agendas.

Then what's the holdup?? Why won't you just accept the science already?

Hey, you asked for a list of scientists - I gave you one.

I didn't say I agreed with the list, or with the opinions in the article.

I haven't disputed the theory of global warming either for that matter.

Sigh. You know what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense, right?

 

[dmgdnooc]

For those that do believe climate change has been impacted by humans. What can we as individuals do to reduce that impact, without waiting for government legislation?

Feel free to discuss ways we can help with any other environmental issues here.
www.religiousforums.com/forum/groups/earthly-paradise.html

Try Dr Suzuki's page, or a host of 'carbon neutral', 'carbon footprint' sites.
Climate change | Issues | David Suzuki Foundation
Be a leader of the societal changes that are necessary.
Carbon Footprint Of Best Conserving Americans Is Still Double Global Average
Use your political rights to pressure local officials, representatives and the political establishment into taking action.
Individual and political action on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Every email they don't receive indicates a lack of will in the population.
　
Once you begin searching for things that can be done a wide vista of possible individual actions will open up.
　

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Be a leader of the societal changes that are necessary.
Carbon Footprint Of Best Conserving Americans Is Still Double Global Average

To be fair, the average American also probably has several times the number of heating degree days per year as the global average as well.

Heating is mandatory in a way that air conditioning is not. If you go without air conditioning in the tropics in the summer, the average person will find it uncomfortable but survivable. If you go without heating in the northern US in the winter, the average person will die.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I would like opinions as to whether or not the US, and all the signatory countries, should be taking actions in line with the 1987 Convention on the Ozone Layer where they all recognised that - Annex 1.4.ii -
"Carbon dioxide has significant natural and anthropogenic sources, and affects stratospheric ozone by influencing the thermal structure of the atmosphere."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/26.html
　
And is inaction contrary to the 1972 undertaking of the Conference on the Human Environment that recognises States "must shape their actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences" and have a "responsibility to ensure that activities .... do not cause damage to the environment of other States".
- article 6 and principle 21 -
-- Stockholm 1972 - Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) --

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Being the skeptic that I am - in general - I immediately started googling the names of these particular scientists, and from what I could tell, they are indeed well respected and legitimate scientists.

I know the site you posted is not your view. I just want to respond to the their comments.

I am not a scientist so I am unable to process the complexity of the information without years of study. What I have noticed about tracing you site back to a few of their source info. Some comments don't seem negative but neutral toward global warming.

I also remember when their was a minority of well respected legitimate scientists who said smoking does not cause cancer. The vast majority turned out to be right.

If I had ten experts come to my house and investigate a gas line problem and 8 of them told me my house might blow up and kill my family. But the other two just said all the facts are not in we need more time study the problem. What should I do? From what I understand the numbers are not even close to 2 out of 10 scientists who don't believe in global warming.

Here are the facts about our planet:

-Species are going extinct at a high rate.
-Areas of coast that over a billion poor people live, might be under water in the future. The human suffering might be worse then WWII.
-Oil will run out anyway, if it does not run out sooner then later.
-The price of oil will only increase dramatically. Due to the industrialization of places like India and China. This alone could hurt our economy more then both the housing bubble, and the tech collapse of the 90's put together.
-It is oil that is funding our enemies that we are fighting in our Wars. It is causing our children to spill their blood.

I can see no logical reason not to act as soon as possible other then short term greed. Does it not say somewhere the love of money is the root of all evil.

 

[dmgdnooc]

To be fair, the average American also probably has several times the number of heating degree days per year as the global average as well.

Heating is mandatory in a way that air conditioning is not. If you go without air conditioning in the tropics in the summer, the average person will find it uncomfortable but survivable. If you go without heating in the northern US in the winter, the average person will die.

Fully agreed that local environment will impact heavily on the footprint.
　
I posted that link to demonstrate why societal change, at the governmental level, is so important.
The national energy policy must be addressed and individuals can not do that, but they can have input.

 

[iholdit]

To be fair, the average American also probably has several times the number of heating degree days per year as the global average as well.

Heating is mandatory in a way that air conditioning is not. If you go without air conditioning in the tropics in the summer, the average person will find it uncomfortable but survivable. If you go without heating in the northern US in the winter, the average person will die.

Although that is true, there are still things that can be done. For example how many northern u.s. citizens are shutting their water heaters off in the summer when they go to work or go to sleep etc.? Having lived in the northern u.s. i can say not alot of people i know there were doing this. Yet this is a complete waste of electricity to have water being heated when nobody is there or awake to use it.