• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

War on life

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m not so sure the burning of fossil fuels is the ultimate or only problem or just stopping is the only saving solution. That sounds too simplistic.
Stopping fossil fuel emissions is the only solution that will stop disastrous climate change that is currently going on. How to manage the transition from fossil fuels so that the economy and general living standards are not hurt is the challenge. But, yes, stopping it entirely over the next two three decades is the only solution. Science is clear on that front.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I’m not so sure the burning of fossil fuels is the ultimate or only problem or just stopping is the only saving solution. That sounds too simplistic.
Fossil fuels aren't the only problem but they are by far the main problem that's causing global warming and stopping to burn them is not the only solution but the only feasible solution in short and mid terms. We don't have the means to offset 35 billion tons CO2 annually of fossil fuel emissions.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yet, declaring war on CO2 is exactly what climate change activists have been doing, getting governments and corporations on board, involving tremendous propaganda and trillions of dollars by which some are hugely benefiting. It is definitely insane and delusional. Such people need deliverance from their pseudoscience mentality which is more in line with zealous religious cultism than science or reality.

———-

“There is no climate emergency
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”


“CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”

“To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,”

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
A little CO2 is good. Too much is bad. The ecosystem is an interdependent system, carefully balanced, too much or too little of any one component, living or chemical, will throw the balance out of kilter.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think you are projecting.
It’s not me, nor the link I posted, rather it’s the doom and disaster climate predictions and propaganda that is constantly blasted by governments, media and others that is doing the fear- mongering.
If anything "The Government" has been downplaying it. It's the scientists who actually understand the problem and who haven't been bought off by special interests, who are alarmed and trying to warn us.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay, granted the link I posted used a bit over the top melodrama language. I am sure no one sincerely concerned about climate issues or the earth wants to achieve a dead, dark, frozen planet. Nevertheless, some of the detrimental policies or ignorant human tampering may just lead to making things worse and damaging the planet further.
People are very good at ignoring clear evidence of impending problems.

The Ukrainians went about their business and poo-poo'd the Russian army massed on their borders, till it was too late.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
A little carbon is good. Too much is toxic.
Like most chemicals, salt, potassium, &c, a little is necessary for life, too much will kill you. There is a strict range that must be maintained.
The same goes for an ecosystem.

Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis. If we could get rid of all the evil CO2, all the plants of the earth would stop growing and then die. Without plants all animals who eat plants will die. Then the predators of the planting eating animals will die. The last life standing will be the scavengers eating the dead caucuses.

Experiments have been done where you increase the CO2 levels in greenhouses, way above the natural or background levels, to see the impact on plants. The result was the plants grow bigger and produce more food. You cannot overdose plants with CO2. They will fix the carbon into plant material and make oxygen. More oxygen in the atmosphere will allow humans with breathing problems to breath easier.

As CO2 increases and the earth warms, plants will prosper and begin an evolutionary heyday. This will make if easier to feed the growing world population.

This appears to be taboo to the Left. since they appear to hate CO2 and plants, based on their doctrines and the inevitable end game. Their end game appears to be a world run by the scavengers; Mad Max.

Is anyone aware that the average temperature of the earth over the past billion years is over 75F. The current average temperate of the earth is about 58F. We are in a cold spell or the end of an ice age in terms of the earth's natural history. The current warm up started over million years ago.

The earth goes through cycles and is starting to warm up back to its average. Global warming is natural since the earth is now much colder than average. Google makes it hard to find the truth since it directs you to the party line. But with a little ingenuity you can get around the censor since they cannot block all the angles.

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

ice_ages1.gif


For a more recent data set over the past 450,000 years, we have this diagram. Interglacial is where all the glaciers melt and glacial is when we have glaciers on earth.

ice_ages2.gif


This quote is from the link above;

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

The meager 1.5C temperature change over 120 years is small compared to what the earth has done even in the recent past. The magic trick is talking advantage of you.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yet, declaring war on CO2 is exactly what climate change activists have been doing, getting governments and corporations on board, involving tremendous propaganda and trillions of dollars by which some are hugely benefiting. It is definitely insane and delusional. Such people need deliverance from their pseudoscience mentality which is more in line with zealous religious cultism than science or reality.
If one's church tells them that this is the case, then let me recommend that they find one that doesn't support such nonsensical trash that defies the conformed science on climate change. It's our children's and grandchildren's future that we should be concerned with, but your source certainly doesn't seem much to care about them.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The earth goes through cycles and is starting to warm up back to its average. Global warming is natural since the earth is now much colder than average.
But at this point it would most likely be catastrophic, which is why even the DoD here in the States has estimated that it could put as many as 2 billion people at risk worldwide, thus causing much conflict.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Okay, granted the link I posted used a bit over the top melodrama language.
It wasn't just the link, you echoed the language and it wasn't just over the top, it was full of outright lies. If you really wanted a serious discussion about environmental policies, you couldn't have made a much worse start. I honestly think you'd be better off giving up on this whole thread, learning from your mistakes and then, if you want to, trying again.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis. If we could get rid of all the evil CO2, all the plants of the earth would stop growing and then die. Without plants all animals who eat plants will die. Then the predators of the planting eating animals will die. The last life standing will be the scavengers eating the dead caucuses.

Experiments have been done where you increase the CO2 levels in greenhouses, way above the natural or background levels, to see the impact on plants. The result was the plants grow bigger and produce more food. You cannot overdose plants with CO2. They will fix the carbon into plant material and make oxygen. More oxygen in the atmosphere will allow humans with breathing problems to breath easier.

As CO2 increases and the earth warms, plants will prosper and begin an evolutionary heyday. This will make if easier to feed the growing world population.
Do you know what a black-and-white fallacy is?
The meager 1.5C temperature change over 120 years is small compared to what the earth has done even in the recent past. The magic trick is talking advantage of you.
When, in the past, did the temperature change by 1.5° C globally in just 120 years?
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
If one's church tells them that this is the case, then let me recommend that they find one that doesn't support such nonsensical trash that defies the conformed science on climate change. It's our children's and grandchildren's future that we should be concerned with, but your source certainly doesn't seem much to care about them.
What are you talking about? I don’t get information about the climate from church.


https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
 

InChrist

Free4ever
It wasn't just the link, you echoed the language and it wasn't just over the top, it was full of outright lies. If you really wanted a serious discussion about environmental policies, you couldn't have made a much worse start. I honestly think you'd be better off giving up on this whole thread, learning from your mistakes and then, if you want to, trying again.
Irregardless, there is plenty of extreme fear-mongering language coming from those who are attempting to push policies which may in fact not be based on scientific reality and may end up being very detrimental to the environment and people’s lives.


“The problem is that these models have serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy. Specifically, three major problems exist. They are described below, and each one alone is enough to make one doubt the predictions. All three together deal a devastating blow to the forecasts of the current models.”

Flawed Climate Models
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Irregardless, there is plenty of extreme fear-mongering language coming from those who are attempting to push policies which may in fact not be based on scientific reality and may end up being very detrimental to the environment and people’s lives.
No, not "irregardless". You chose to post and promote a source that was complete and absolute trash. Your claim that other people do similar things doesn't change that (even if they did).

The fact you chose to link that source shows you were either ignorant of how meaningless it was or you didn't care, neither of which would make you a worthy source to criticise others claims. A good start for resolving that would be to express you own informed opinions on the topic rather than just blindly linking other people's words that happen to support what you apparently want to believe. Or admit that you can't.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What are you talking about? I don’t get information about the climate from church.


https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
It's all related because how we deal or don't deal with threats will affect others. As one priest in our church often cited, "Joe thought he was going to heaven for what he did on Sunday, but he went to hell for what he did on Monday". Basic Christian morality isn't just about saying prayers and singing hymns, it's also about how we treat others, directly or indirectly.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
It's all related because how we deal or don't deal with threats will affect others. As one priest in our church often cited, "Joe thought he was going to heaven for what he did on Sunday, but he went to hell for what he did on Monday". Basic Christian morality isn't just about saying prayers and singing hymns, it's also about how we treat others, directly or indirectly.
I still see no relationship between your post and the thread topic. Nevertheless, I agree with your off topic point. It is amazing how many people think they’ll go to heaven because they go to church, do good deeds, or otherwise consider themselves to be good enough.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What are you talking about? I don’t get information about the climate from church.


https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
I see, you get your info from dishonest science denial sites.

Let's say that a group of medical doctors signed a petition saying that one does not have to tune a car so that the spark plug fires at the top of a stroke. A bit before that is fine. Would you give them any credibility when mechanics disagreed with them? They are doctors after all.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
No, not "irregardless". You chose to post and promote a source that was complete and absolute trash. Your claim that other people do similar things doesn't change that (even if they did).

The fact you chose to link that source shows you were either ignorant of how meaningless it was or you didn't care, neither of which would make you a worthy source to criticise others claims. A good start for resolving that would be to express you own informed opinions on the topic rather than just blindly linking other people's words that happen to support what you apparently want to believe. Or admit that you can't.

As I said previously, there is plenty of extreme fear-mongering coming from those who are attempting to push policies which may in fact not be based on scientific reality and may end up being very detrimental to the environment and people’s lives.
This heavy bombardment of propaganda concerning climate is happening on a pretty much daily basis. And don’t you think there is anything strange or unnatural about the way big corporations are all in lockstep to push the the latest thing- climate change being a big one? That’s not the way real life works, so what’s the leverage being used to create this unnatural situation, this ideology? Money, of course. And who are the ones harmed? Not the corporate CEO’s making money, not the elites flying their fossil fuel private jets around the world or living in energy guzzling mansions while telling the common people, small business owners and small farmers to cut back, cull your herds, eat crickets instead of meat, or use wash clothes rather than taking showers.




“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I see, you get your info from dishonest science denial sites.

Let's say that a group of medical doctors signed a petition saying that one does not have to tune a car so that the spark plug fires at the top of a stroke. A bit before that is fine. Would you give them any credibility when mechanics disagreed with them? They are doctors after all.
Just because you disagree with their view does not make them or the source dishonest.
Are you saying that of those 1107 signatories none of those scientists are qualified to speak on climate?
What about Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, MIT? I thought he was one of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
As I said previously, there is plenty of extreme fear-mongering coming from those who are attempting to push policies which may in fact not be based on scientific reality and may end up being very detrimental to the environment and people’s lives.
I agree, but your sources are examples of the same kind of thing. Just because they happen to be presenting a different conclusion doesn't change anything.

Unless you're willing to acknowledge that, there is no point discussing anything further.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I agree, but your sources are examples of the same kind of thing. Just because they happen to be presenting a different conclusion doesn't change anything.

Unless you're willing to acknowledge that, there is no point discussing anything further.

Well, we don’t have to discuss it further. I don’t mind acknowledging that some of my sources are less than ideal, not the best, or as you said, “examples of the same kind of thong”. Are you saying that every source I’ve posted is of the same category or certain ones in particular?
 
Top