Dealing With Evangelicals in Regards to Global Warming

Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Dealing With Evangelicals in Regards to Global Warming

It may be impossible!

When I was an evangelical, I was convinced global warming was a hoax, scientists had an agenda, dependence on oil wasn't a problem, my small impact on the Earth couldn't do any real harm etc...  I had many debates about the issues with "environmentalists".  I head the text book response countless times, and yet it never made so much as even a dent in my view of the Earth.

My spiritual deconversion was a completely seperate thing that happened independently of all environmental issues, but as "evangelicalism" left my body, my concern for environmental issues increased proportionately.  My worldview, with all sincerity, included the idea that Jesus would be coming back within my life time.  So while I didn't admit it out loud, or perhaps even to myself, I didn't care if we were on track to run out of oil in 200 years, or if global warming would harm the planet in 100 years, or if we lose some dumb beetle species.  Also, my worldview dictated that God had created a balance, so that how could we as humans mess up God's plan in any significant way?  My mind was made up, and I collected "convenient" evidence that supported my ideas in my closed mind. (temperature changes in cycles!  volcanoes release far more greenhouse gases than we ever could!  etc...)

So while we complain about fundamentalists trying to "shove their views down our throats"...  they claim the same thing when we try to change behavior.  So its a wash, end of discussion.

Some of the progress being made in the evangelical community is due to the view of "protecting God's creation"...  and while that movement may have positive consequenses, I don't want to validate their delusion.

Sigh... 


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: My spiritual

Andyy wrote:
My spiritual deconversion was a completely seperate thing that happened independently of all environmental issues, but as "evangelicalism" left my body, my concern for environmental issues increased proportionately. My worldview, with all sincerity, included the idea that Jesus would be coming back within my life time. So while I didn't admit it out loud, or perhaps even to myself, I didn't care if we were on track to run out of oil in 200 years, or if global warming would harm the planet in 100 years, or if we lose some dumb beetle species. Also, my worldview dictated that God had created a balance, so that how could we as humans mess up God's plan in any significant way? My mind was made up, and I collected "convenient" evidence that supported my ideas in my closed mind. (temperature changes in cycles! volcanoes release far more greenhouse gases than we ever could! etc...)


A few questions for you:

1.) Is it your assertion that global climate does not change in cycles? If not, then on what basis do you conclude that any change in climate observed today is not part of a natural cycle?

2.) Is it your assertion that erupting volcanoes do not produce millions of cubic tons of CO2 in a single eruption?

3.) How do you know that "global warming" will harm the planet in 100 years? Why not 50 years? How can you rationally accept the predictions of climate change 100 years into the future, when we cannot accurately predict the climate more than two weeks in advance?

Now, I'm certainly for protecting the environment, within reason, but I'm just not buying the global warming hype. 30 years ago, scientists were absolutely sure that we were heading for a new ice age, and they too had all the evidence they needed to back it up. Now, scientists (and to a greater extent, the irresponsible media) are telling us that a runaway greenhouse effect is causing devastating global warming, based on a single factor: elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not only does the hype misunderstand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, global climate is effected by a myriad of factors, of which CO2 is simply one tiny, relatively insignificant factor. There's no real evidence that CO2 correlates with temperature increase at all, and may in fact actually follow temperature increase, not cause it.

Besides, what's so bad about a few degrees increase in global temperatures? All historical data suggests that there have been warming trends like this in the relatively recent past, some of which were warmer than what scientists are predicting today, during which human civilization flourished. So what scientific data do the scientists have to suggest that global warming is actually bad for us?

The Saint


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The Saint wrote:

The Saint wrote:
1.) Is it your assertion that global climate does not change in cycles?

Of course the global climate changes in cycles. But what we do is artificially influence this cycle.

The Saint wrote:
If not, then on what basis do you conclude that any change in climate observed today is not part of a natural cycle?

The natural cycle does not include billions of tons of man made gases, which otherwise would never be released into the atmosphere. It does not include deforestation et cetera.

The Saint wrote:
2.) Is it your assertion that erupting volcanoes do not produce millions of cubic tons of CO2 in a single eruption?

Is it your assertion that humans do not produce billions of tons of CO2 every year?

The Saint wrote:
3.) How do you know that "global warming" will harm the planet in 100 years? Why not 50 years?

The effects already show today, it will just worsen over the next decades.

The Saint wrote:
How can you rationally accept the predictions of climate change 100 years into the future, when we cannot accurately predict the climate more than two weeks in advance?

Do you even know how their climatic models work? I doubt it. They don't want to predict the fucking weather of 2100. They want to see the global trends...

The Saint wrote:
Not only does the hype misunderstand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, global climate is effected by a myriad of factors, of which CO2 is simply one tiny, relatively insignificant factor.

What you just said doesn't make any sense. I'd like you to point out a peer-reviewed source backing up that claim anyway.

What's the big factor in climate change, when CO2 is only a "tiny, relatively insignificant factor".

The Saint wrote:
There's no real evidence that CO2 correlates with temperature increase at all

Oh ok. So CO2 does not increase the heat capacity of air? I suppose what I learned in physics is all wrong then.

The Saint wrote:
and may in fact actually follow temperature increase, not cause it.

Follow? How does that work? The concentration of CO2 increases after the temperature increases? Does this mysterious reaction - actio reaction also include anthropogenic gases?

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I honestly don't know if

I honestly don't know if global warming is true or whether it's part of the cycle of the planet. Either way, what we're doing is bad, destroying the environment and wasting away our natural resources so all these changes put forward by the global warming crew are changes that are beneficial anyway.

It's something we can't afford ignore whether we believe those who put forward global warming or not. That's the biggest disservice by both sides, either you do believe and you make these changes, or you don't and you keep abusing the environment. Nobody on either side is arguing that changes need to happen either way.

 

As an aside, another gripe I have is that all the "things you can do at home" only seem to affect thsoe who live in houses.  There's bugger all information about what those who live in units can do other than very minor things like shutting all electrical devices off, changing light globes & using water-efficient shower heads.  I'm sure there's a lot more I could do as an individual without having to become an activist in any way shape or form, but I can't find any information. 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Fair enough Thingy :) I

Fair enough Thingy Smiling

I think what annoyes me the most is that the government always uses the same excuse: "It would hurt our economy to use green energy!" or "Green energy destroys jobs!". Or similar statements, which are obviously false. The job-market in renewable energy is steadily growing and sooner or late well have to use them anyway, since the natural resources will run out one day.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey Saint.  Mattness

Hey Saint.  Mattness answered your specific questions just as well as I could...  but my whole point of the post isn't even to bring up a general debate on global warming...

The whole point is that for "some" reason, evangelicals hold your views in a higher proportion than non-evangelicals, and non-evangelicals  have concern about global warming in a higher proportion than evangelicals. (this is of course, only based on my experience, and I have no formal study to back this Laughing )

I propose that the reason this is, is because evangelicals TRULY believe that Jesus will come back soon and that's the end for the earth!  Lack of of concern about environmental issues is, sadly, logical in the mainstream evangelical worldview.

Saint - do you truly believe Jesus will come back to earth in the next hundred years or so?  (not sure if you are evangelical... or what...)  And if so, if we did prove to your satisfaction, that our actions were casuing great harm to the earth that would destroy humanity in 1000 years, would that concern you?
 (last question is purely hypothetical...  I've just never had any evangelical tell me straight out "Jesus IS coming back, so it doesn't matter...  I know that's how I thought in my evangelical days, but I never would have admited it...)


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: Hey Saint.

Andyy wrote:
Hey Saint. Mattness answered your specific questions just as well as I could... but my whole point of the post isn't even to bring up a general debate on global warming...


Ah.  I suppose then I will have to address Mattness on these matters, since he went through the trouble to answer for you! Smiling

Quote:
I propose that the reason this is, is because evangelicals TRULY believe that Jesus will come back soon and that's the end for the earth! Lack of of concern about environmental issues is, sadly, logical in the mainstream evangelical worldview.


I'm not so sure that's the Evangelical viewpoint, or even a Christian one in general.  Christianity does not teach that when Jesus returns, that that will be the "end of the earth", but that there will be a "new heaven and a new earth"--that is, God will transform and glorify his creation, not destroy it.  Even so, I don't know a lot of Evangelicals, so I cannot speak to whether they take such a cavalier attitude towards the environment as you claim.  Most Christians I know are pretty reasonable when it comes to conservation.

Quote:
Saint - do you truly believe Jesus will come back to earth in the next hundred years or so? (not sure if you are evangelical... or what...) And if so, if we did prove to your satisfaction, that our actions were casuing great harm to the earth that would destroy humanity in 1000 years, would that concern you?


Yes, I do believe that Jesus will come back, but I do not know when, and neither do the Evangelicals, despite what they may at times claim.  That said, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our actions are in fact destroying the earth, then yes--it would concern me.  However, there is no rational basis for the claims being made by Al Gore et al, and for every dozen scientists who tow the Global Warming line, I can provide another dozen qualified scientists who argue that it's literally hot air.  In short, there is no consensus, and the science is far from "settled".  Until I see something more substantial than a mere manipulation of statistical analysis for shock value, I remain skeptical of the entire Global Warming agenda.

The Saint


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote: Of course

Mattness wrote:
Of course the global climate changes in cycles. But what we do is artificially influence this cycle.


There's no evidence to support this conclusion.

Quote:
The natural cycle does not include billions of tons of man made gases, which otherwise would never be released into the atmosphere. It does not include deforestation et cetera.


Perhaps not. However, since CO2 is heavier-than-air, most man-made CO2 emissions do not find their way into the Troposphere, but dissipate at ground level. Compounding the problem is that we know that previous temperature increases have occurred throughout human civilization that cannot be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, and their own data proves that almost half of the temperature increase they attribute to CO2 emissions occurred before the widespread industrialization blamed for Global Warming. Since there is no clearly observable link between human activity and global temperature, and historical data proves that global temperatures fluctuate on regular cycles despite human activity, the claims of the Global Warming alarmists amount to little more than a post hoc fallacy.

Quote:
Is it your assertion that humans do not produce billions of tons of CO2 every year?


No. It is my assertion that human activity does not significantly effect global temperature. To date, there is no conclusive evidence to support the claims of the Global Warming alarmists.

Quote:
The effects already show today, it will just worsen over the next decades.


There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

Quote:
Do you even know how their climatic models work? I doubt it. They don't want to predict the fucking weather of 2100. They want to see the global trends...


If this is so, then why do Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore cite such climate models to "predict" what the mean global temperature is going to be in 2100?

The Saint wrote:
Not only does the hype misunderstand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, global climate is effected by a myriad of factors, of which CO2 is simply one tiny, relatively insignificant factor.


Quote:
What you just said doesn't make any sense. I'd like you to point out a peer-reviewed source backing up that claim anyway.


Well, the composition of the Greenhouse Effect is pretty basic science--I wouldn't think a peer-reviewed paper would be necessary to reinforce High School level climate physics. However, according to my university-level Geophysics textbook, water vapor makes up 36% of Greenhouse gases, CO2 12% and O3 3%. Water vapor absorbs roughly 5 times more terrestrial radiation than all other gases combined, and accounts for the warmer temperatures found in the lower Troposphere. As for the other factors that influence global climate, I suggest you read "Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since the Mid-17th Century" by G.C. Reid.

Quote:
What's the big factor in climate change, when CO2 is only a "tiny, relatively insignificant factor".


Solar activity, for starters.

Quote:
Oh ok. So CO2 does not increase the heat capacity of air? I suppose what I learned in physics is all wrong then.


Yes, if that's what you learned. CO2 absorbs all the radiation available to it. However, since CO2 does not absorb high frequency radiation from the Sun, it can only absorb the low frequency infrared radiation reflected from the earth. Since CO2 is transparent to high frequency solar radiation, simply adding more CO2 into the atmosphere cannot increase surface temperature without a corresponding increase in infrared radiation.

Quote:
Follow? How does that work? The concentration of CO2 increases after the temperature increases? Does this mysterious reaction - actio reaction also include anthropogenic gases?


Your conclusion assumes that increased CO2 alone is responsible for increased global temperatures. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

The Saint


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Saint wrote: Ah. I

The_Saint wrote:
Ah. I suppose then I will have to address Mattness on these matters, since he went through the trouble to answer for you! Smiling

You guys can have the orthadox global warming debate. I'm more interested in the religous psychological aspect in this thread.

 

Quote:
I'm not so sure that's the Evangelical viewpoint, or even a Christian one in general. Christianity does not teach that when Jesus returns, that that will be the "end of the earth", but that there will be a "new heaven and a new earth"--that is, God will transform and glorify his creation, not destroy it. Even so, I don't know a lot of Evangelicals, so I cannot speak to whether they take such a cavalier attitude towards the environment as you claim. Most Christians I know are pretty reasonable when it comes to conservation.

According to Sam Harris' well published research, 22% of Americans are certain that Jesus will be back with in the next 50 years, and an additional 22% think he will probably be back. The evangelicals, in general, are more passionate about the end times than catholics or other mainstream denominations of Christianity. And when Jesus comes back and God transforms creation, it won't matter how polluted everything is, God will fix it, right?? Laughing When people hold the belief that a man who died many years ago, will come out of the clouds and physically transform the entire physical world, its not surprising that they don't give too much credability to science and reason.

Again, to the 22% who are CERTAIN that Jesus is coming back within 50 years, lack of concern about future environmental issues seems to be a logical conclusion. To the addition 22% who think he will 'probably' be coming back, it also seems a logical position.

Do you believe Jesus will 'probably' be back in the next 50 years? Or is 10,000 years just as likely?



Quote:
Yes, I do believe that Jesus will come back, but I do not know when, and neither do the Evangelicals, despite what they may at times claim. That said, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our actions are in fact destroying the earth, then yes--it would concern me. However, there is no rational basis for the claims being made by Al Gore et al, and for every dozen scientists who tow the Global Warming line, I can provide another dozen qualified scientists who argue that it's literally hot air. In short, there is no consensus, and the science is far from "settled". Until I see something more substantial than a mere manipulation of statistical analysis for shock value, I remain skeptical of the entire Global Warming agenda.

If you think that scientists are divided on the issue, then why aren't there many 'anti-global warming' articles being published in peer reviewed scientific journals? Do you really believe that the debate that you are trying to raise is taking place in any serious sense in universities or science labs? Do you think that the vast majority of scientists are in on some big conspiracy?


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The Saint wrote: Until I

The Saint wrote:
Until I see something more substantial than a mere manipulation of statistical analysis for shock value, I remain skeptical of the entire Global Warming agenda.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report or ICPP Report for short. I figure you might have heard of this "mere manipulation of statistical analysis".

"According to a flash animation on the front page of the IPCC's website, people from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC 4AR over the previous 6 years. These people included:

  • 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
  • 850+ Contributing authors
  • 450+ lead authors.

Of these, the contributors to the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included

  • 600 authors from 40 countries
  • Over 620 expert reviewers
  • A large number of government reviewers
  • Representatives from 113 governments."

The Saint wrote:
However, there is no rational basis for the claims being made by Al Gore et al, and for every dozen scientists who tow the Global Warming line, I can provide another dozen qualified scientists who argue that it's literally hot air.

I'm looking forward to see your 1220 qualified experts who disagree with the Working Group 1 (if you want you can provide me with another one or two thousand scientists who disagree. For the other working groups).

The Saint wrote:
In short, there is no consensus, and the science is far from "settled"

There is a consensus, people just ignore it (or maybe don't know about it?). There's a huge amount of anti-global-warming propaganda going on in the US, which makes it look there is a real debate going on, but there is a consensus in the scientific community anyway.

Quote:
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 for the complete article. It's very enlightening Smiling

 

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: According to

Andyy wrote:
According to Sam Harris' well published research, 22% of Americans are certain that Jesus will be back with in the next 50 years, and an additional 22% think he will probably be back. The evangelicals, in general, are more passionate about the end times than catholics or other mainstream denominations of Christianity. And when Jesus comes back and God transforms creation, it won't matter how polluted everything is, God will fix it, right?? When people hold the belief that a man who died many years ago, will come out of the clouds and physically transform the entire physical world, its not surprising that they don't give too much credability to science and reason.


That's one way to spin on the statistics, I suppose--one could just as easily say that 78% of Americans are not certain when Jesus will return. Either way, the statistics themselves do not prove your assertion that Evangelicals are careless with the environment.

Quote:
Again, to the 22% who are CERTAIN that Jesus is coming back within 50 years, lack of concern about future environmental issues seems to be a logical conclusion. To the addition 22% who think he will 'probably' be coming back, it also seems a logical position.


It might seem to be a logical conclusion, but where's the evidence to support it? There seems to be a disconnect between what you claim Evangelicals believe, and what Evangelicals actually do. For example, you claim that since some Evangelicals believe that Jesus will return in the next 50 years, they therefore logically take a rather cavalier attitude towards the environment. But is this actually true, or are you simply making an unwarranted assumption based upon your own prejudices against Evangelical Christians? While I admit that I know few Evangelicals, those I do know are as environmentally responsible as anyone else I know. There's also a growing movement within the Evangelical community to increase environmental awareness, which seems to cast doubt on your characterization of Evangelicals as careless spoilers and wasters of earth's resources:

http://www.creationcare.org/

Quote:
Do you believe Jesus will 'probably' be back in the next 50 years? Or is 10,000 years just as likely?


I honestly do not know, and it would be foolish of me to even attempt to guess. Christian teaching says that no one--not even Jesus--knows the day or hour:

"But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - Mark 13:28

Quote:
If you think that scientists are divided on the issue, then why aren't there many 'anti-global warming' articles being published in peer reviewed scientific journals? Do you really believe that the debate that you are trying to raise is taking place in any serious sense in universities or science labs? Do you think that the vast majority of scientists are in on some big conspiracy?


Of course I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but I'm also not naive enough to think that the peer-review process is completely objective and absent of any bias. Theories which contradict the mainstream often have difficulty getting past the peer-review process, not because the science is flawed, but because the process itself tends to be biased towards accepted theories--especially ones as charged as Anthropogenic Global Warming. Swedish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was publicly attacked by the president of the AAAS as unqualified, and compared his skepticism of global warming to that of a Holocaust denier, despite the fact that his book did pass the peer-review process. Noted Paleontologist Robert Bakker had considerable difficulty getting his groundbreaking work on dinosaurs past his peers, who were monolithic in the conventional stance that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, stupid, plodding beasts that died out because they couldn't adapt. They considered his hypothesis that birds were descended from certain species of dinosaurs to be a crackpot notion, not worthy to be called science. Bakker's theories, once considered fringe and unscientific, are now the mainstream.

The bottom line is, science is never, ever done by consensus.

As for the question of whether I believe that Global Warming skepticism is taking place in universities and science labs? Absolutely. There are dozens of professors and scientists all over the world expressing their skepticism of the current alarmism, including:

• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus of climatology at Colorado State University
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

The list is long, and getting longer as more and more scientists come forward to express their skepticism of the fraudulent "science" behind the Global Warming alarmism.

The Saint


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The Saint wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Mattness wrote:
The natural cycle does not include billions of tons of man made gases, which otherwise would never be released into the atmosphere. It does not include deforestation et cetera.

Perhaps not. However, since CO2 is heavier-than-air, most man-made CO2 emissions do not find their way into the Troposphere, but dissipate at ground level.

CO2 is only 1.53 times heavier than air. But when it comes to the behavior of gases, the effect of gravity is small anyway. Gases diffuse!! Even if a heavy gas is spread out along the floor, it will eventually rise up to spread evenly throughout the whole room... Have you ever wondered why we don't walk through a layer of oxygen and nitrogen here on the surface? That's because they diffuse and don't exist as seperate layers in our atmosphere. CO2 is, compared to other gases, rather light and small, it can easily be carried with wind, air currents and diffuse.

The Saint wrote:
previous temperature increases have occurred throughout human civilization that cannot be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions

You can't compare the past to what's happening today. Back then it was solar activity + vulcanic activity. And some other things like the Milankovitch cycle. The situation today is wastly different.

The Saint wrote:

Mattness wrote:
Do you even know how their climatic models work? I doubt it. They don't want to predict the fucking weather of 2100. They want to see the global trends...

If this is so, then why do Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore cite such climate models to "predict" what the mean global temperature is going to be in 2100?

There's a huge difference between "predicting" the weather and "describing a trend". We need huge amount of data to predict the weather, because it's a very complex system. Meteorology and chaos theory are very close in these forecasts. But what these models are supposed to give us are trends, not precise forecasts. They are supposed to simulate different scenarios, ie. "How will the melting of the ice caps influence global warming?" ;

"How will the heat capacity of the atmosphere change?"

Questions like these can be answere in simulations.

The Saint wrote:
Not only does the hype misunderstand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, global climate is effected by a myriad of factors, of which CO2 is simply one tiny, relatively insignificant factor.

Mattness wrote:
What you just said doesn't make any sense. I'd like you to point out a peer-reviewed source backing up that claim anyway.

Well, the composition of the Greenhouse Effect is pretty basic science--I wouldn't think a peer-reviewed paper would be necessary to reinforce High School level climate physics. However, according to my university-level Geophysics textbook, water vapor makes up 36% of Greenhouse gases, CO2 12% and O3 3%. Water vapor absorbs roughly 5 times more terrestrial radiation than all other gases combined, and accounts for the warmer temperatures found in the lower Troposphere. As for the other factors that influence global climate, I suggest you read "Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since the Mid-17th Century" by G.C. Reid.

You're right that water vapor is the strongest natural greenhouse gas it causes around 36-70% of the greenhouse effect. But CO2 causes around 9-26%. I wouldn't call this negligible, especially since the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by more than 3% (!) each year between 2001-2004, according to an international team of scientists (The article can be found in the "Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences" if you want to look it up). The atmospheric mixing ratio of CO2 has increased globally by about 100 ppm (36%) over the last 250 years.

The Saint wrote:

Mattness wrote:
What's the big factor in climate change, when CO2 is only a "tiny, relatively insignificant factor".

Solar activity, for starters.

"According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

All reliable sources I found thus far indicate, that at most a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. The by far largest part is attributed to greenhouse gases.

The Saint wrote:
Yes, if that's what you learned. CO2 absorbs all the radiation available to it. However, since CO2 does not absorb high frequency radiation from the Sun, it can only absorb the low frequency infrared radiation reflected from the earth. Since CO2 is transparent to high frequency solar radiation, simply adding more CO2 into the atmosphere cannot increase surface temperature without a corresponding increase in infrared radiation.

As I've already pointed out. Sun activity does not have a strong influence on the climate (the NASA press release). For the sake of diversity... now the ICPP report:

ICPP wrote:
Radiative forcing (RF) is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strength of different human and natural agents in causing climate change. [...]

The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

Also you assert, that there's more CO2 to absorb the radiation than there is radiation in the first place.

The Saint wrote:
Since there is no clearly observable link between human activity and global temperature, and historical data proves that global temperatures fluctuate on regular cycles despite human activity, the claims of the Global Warming alarmists amount to little more than a post hoc fallacy.

See above.

The Saint wrote:

Mattness wrote:
Follow? How does that work? The concentration of CO2 increases after the temperature increases? Does this mysterious reaction - actio reaction also include anthropogenic gases?

Your conclusion assumes that increased CO2 alone is responsible for increased global temperatures. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

I'm concluding that CO2 plays a major role, it is by far not the only factor. Pointing out that there is no supporting evidence, is like pointing out that there are no transitional fossils. Of course there is no evidence, when you just ignore all scientific studies.

 EDIT: I'm sorry for highjacking your thread Andyy. :/

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:

Mattness wrote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report or ICPP Report for short. I figure you might have heard of this "mere manipulation of statistical analysis".


As far as the ICPP is concerned, "mere manipulation of statistical analysis" is a gross understatement, and as someone who (I assume) holds the Scientific Method in high regard, you should be concerned about the manner in which the IPCC arrived at its conclusion. The IPCC first released its summary conclusion that human activity is responsible for global warming, before the report was actually finished, and then actually had the audacity to state that they would edit the report to corroborate its conclusions. This is not science.

No surprise that proper methodology is not high on the list of priorities for the IPCC, because the IPCC is a political organization with a political agenda. Its claim to "2500 scientific experts" is only true in a vague sense that 2500 scientific experts may have contributed in some fashion, however the Report's conclusion was penned solely by a small core of 20 activist scientists who are hardcore believers in human-induced global warming. The 2500 scientific expert reviewers do not actually review the IPCC's conclusions, but instead review only small parts of the whole, and their input becomes only one small part of the overall review. Many scientists who were invited to contribute have expressed concern and outrage over what they consider to be a sham review process, citing that their opinions and contributions were either severely edited, or omitted completely, because they contravened the IPCC's predetermined conclusion: that human activity is inducing global warming. One notable scientist, after reading the report, requested that his name be removed from the list of contributors, and only after he threatened to sue did the IPCC comply with his request.

Quote:
I'm looking forward to see your 1220 qualified experts who disagree with the Working Group 1 (if you want you can provide me with another one or two thousand scientists who disagree.


I'll see your 1220 qualified experts, and raise you 17,000. That's the number of scientists who, since 1998, have signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, citing the fraudulent science underlying the claims of human-induced global warming. Like it or not, global warming is not "settled science"--there is a growing opposition to the current alarmism in the scientific community.

Quote:
There is a consensus, people just ignore it (or maybe don't know about it?). There's a huge amount of anti-global-warming propaganda going on in the US, which makes it look there is a real debate going on, but there is a consensus in the scientific community anyway.


Consensus does not equal fact--as an atheist, I would assume that you of all people would know that. After all, the vast consensus of the human population believes God exists, but you and I both know that consensus does not make it true.

The Saint


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The Saint wrote: As far as

The Saint wrote:
As far as the ICPP is concerned, "mere manipulation of statistical analysis" is a gross understatement, and as someone who (I assume) holds the Scientific Method in high regard, you should be concerned about the manner in which the IPCC arrived at its conclusion. The IPCC first released its summary conclusion that human activity is responsible for global warming, before the report was actually finished, and then actually had the audacity to state that they would edit the report to corroborate its conclusions. This is not science.

Do you have a link or an article were I could read this up? I do hold the scientific method in high regards, but I don't agree with everything you said. The summary conclusion was indeed released before the complete report was finished. Which is not as bad as you make it sound. Only the working group 1 was working on the global warming research, the other's which were released later only concerned, for example, how to counter it.

I do think it's terrible that politicians were allowed to review the report and that they were allowed to meddle with the content. I heard some scientists even stood up and shouted at them during the conference Eye-wink

But the point is:

Those politicians (especially from the US, China and India) tried to water down the report. That is, if it wasn't for their interference, but a pure scientific work, it would have been even more dramatic.

The Saint wrote:
Consensus does not equal fact--as an atheist, I would assume that you of all people would know that. After all, the vast consensus of the human population believes God exists, but you and I both know that consensus does not make it true.
I'm not that naïve, of course it would be an appeal to authority. I just wanted to point out that there is, in fact, a consensus.

 

Do you want to continue the discussion? We're completely of topic Wink

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote: Do you have

Mattness wrote:
Do you have a link or an article were I could read this up? I do hold the scientific method in high regards, but I don't agree with everything you said. The summary conclusion was indeed released before the complete report was finished. Which is not as bad as you make it sound. Only the working group 1 was working on the global warming research, the other's which were released later only concerned, for example, how to counter it.


Here's a link to the fraudulent methodology of the IPCC, as stated by its own procedures text. Page 4 states:

"While the large volume and technical detail of this material places practical limitations upon the extent to which changes to these Reports will normally be made at Sessions of Working Groups or the Panel, "acceptance" signifies the view of the Working Group or the Panel that this purpose has been achieved. The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/

The IPCC's summary was released a full 3 months before the actual report was finished, and the above text proves that changes were made to the Working Group in order to comply with the pre-released summary conclusions of the IPCC. In other words, they made their conclusions first, then doctored the science to correspond with their pre-released conclusions.

Here is as a link to an open letter written by Professor Chris Landsea to the IPCC. Chris Landsea was the IPCC's lead hurricane expert, but requested that he be removed from the panel after becoming frustrated with the IPCC's politicizing of the issue:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Quote:
I'm not that naïve, of course it would be an appeal to authority. I just wanted to point out that there is, in fact, a consensus.


I agree there is a consensus among some scientists that humans are contributing to global warming. There is equally a consensus among some scientists that the science underlying these claims is bogus. Thus, the science of the matter is not "settled" by anyone's account. Ironically, previous IPCC reports on the climate included caveats that are absent from the latest report, the most important of which is the chaotic and inherently unpredictable nature of the global climate:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather, the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states" (UN IPCC WGI Technical Summary, pg. 78)

Climate models can only deal in hypotheticals and probabilities, yet the latest IPCC has presented its findings as unequivocal fact, and is openly hostile to anyone who dares to question its findings. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, the current post-hoc claims of human-induced global warming will collapse under the weight of its own bogus science as real research into climate change gives us a better understanding of the real mechanisms behind climate change.

The Saint


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:   EDIT:

Mattness wrote:

 

EDIT: I'm sorry for highjacking your thread Andyy. :/

 

No problem!  I figured there was a good chance the discussion would go this way anyway, so its nice to have you here to field these questions and I can focus on what I want Smiling 


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Saint wrote: That's

The_Saint wrote:


That's one way to spin on the statistics, I suppose--one could just as easily say that 78% of Americans are not certain when Jesus will return. Either way, the statistics themselves do not prove your assertion that Evangelicals are careless with the environment.

I used to be an extermely devout evangelical. I attended an evangelical university. Most of the immediate and extended family are evangelical, as well as most of my friends growing up. I spent 6 months of my life doing missions work with evangelical missions teams in other countries. I've led teenage ministry outings, led prayer groups, bible studies, and evangelism outings. In addition to the books I read in University, I had also read dozens of books on 'living the christian life' by evangelial authors.

You have implied a couple times that you are not evangelical, and you personally don't know many.

While its not scientific proof, my experience and understanding and of the evangelical mind causes me to intuitively come up with this 'hypothesis' so to speak. This thread is an attempt to throw the idea out there and see if others have observed this same thing.

And while you've distanced yourself from the term 'evangelical', you appear to have a similar distrust in science (at least in regards to this issue) that I've observed in the evangelical community. You also believe Jesus will physicaly come down to earth out of the sky and physically transform the natural world. And though you wouldn't answer yes or no if you believe he will 'probably' be back in the next 50 years, it sounds as if you're ready for it any day now.

Do you see how the world view of physical Jesus coming to earth and physically transforming reality can cause people to not give as much concern to the evironmental state of the planet? (especially in regards to long term issues?)

And I have read a bit of the new 'evangelical environmental' movement. I do welcome it, even if I think their motives are absurd. However, I've seen no evidence that the movement is gaining any real momentum. I've just read a few articles in mainstream newpapers.


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: While its not

Andyy wrote:
While its not scientific proof, my experience and understanding and of the evangelical mind causes me to intuitively come up with this 'hypothesis' so to speak. This thread is an attempt to throw the idea out there and see if others have observed this same thing.


As you say, anecdotal evidence is not scientific proof, and in my meager experience, I haven't witnessed any less environmental conservation from Evangelicals than I have from anyone else--including some atheists I know.

Quote:
And while you've distanced yourself from the term 'evangelical', you appear to have a similar distrust in science (at least in regards to this issue) that I've observed in the evangelical community. You also believe Jesus will physicaly come down to earth out of the sky and physically transform the natural world. And though you wouldn't answer yes or no if you believe he will 'probably' be back in the next 50 years, it sounds as if you're ready for it any day now.


First, if it seems that I "distance" myself from the term 'Evangelical', it is because A) I am not one, and B) I don't know that many, therefore I'm not qualified as an expert on all aspects of Evangelical thinking.

Second, I don't know how you have arrived at the conclusion that I have a "similar distrust in science" on this, or any other issue. Do you deduce this simply because I am skeptical of the claims of human-induced global warming, or do you simply assume that because I am a Christian, I must by default distrust science? Either way, your conclusion is erroneous. I do not accept the party line in regards to anthropogenic global warming, because the entire argument is predicated on faulty premises. The Earth may indeed be getting warmer, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that human activity has, or even can influence the global climate.

Outside of this singular issue, it may interest you to know that I accept Evolution as scientific fact, and regard the various scientific disciplines in extremely high regard. My religious beliefs do not come into conflict with scientific fact, because truth cannot contradict truth.

Quote:
Do you see how the world view of physical Jesus coming to earth and physically transforming reality can cause people to not give as much concern to the evironmental state of the planet? (especially in regards to long term issues?)


Sure, I can see how that might be a logical conclusion, but I don't see any evidence for it. I've never witnessed any of my Evangelical family stating that the environment was a non-issue since Jesus was going to return any day now, and if they did, they'd be contradicting Christian doctrine, which teaches that we are meant to be stewards of God's creation, whether he's returning or not.

The Saint


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Saint wrote: Second, I

The_Saint wrote:


Second, I don't know how you have arrived at the conclusion that I have a "similar distrust in science" on this, or any other issue. Do you deduce this simply because I am skeptical of the claims of human-induced global warming, or do you simply assume that because I am a Christian, I must by default distrust science? Either way, your conclusion is erroneous. I do not accept the party line in regards to anthropogenic global warming, because the entire argument is predicated on faulty premises. The Earth may indeed be getting warmer, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that human activity has, or even can influence the global climate.

Outside of this singular issue, it may interest you to know that I accept Evolution as scientific fact, and regard the various scientific disciplines in extremely high regard. My religious beliefs do not come into conflict with scientific fact, because truth cannot contradict truth.

Let me get this straight...  You believe that a man who died 2000 years ago will physically comeback to earth and create or transform this planet into a 'new heaven and new earth?"  That comes into direct conflict with scientific fact on so many different levels.  Your distrust of scientists on this issue is simply another piece of evidence.  Virgin birth?  Do you believe it happened?  If so, tell me again how scientific truth doesn't conflict with your religous 'truth?'

And again, I never said that I've heard many evangelicals stating openly "I don't care about the environment because Jesus is coming back."

But getting people who think the end of the world (or transformation) will be happening within a matter of years or decades, to sit down and discuss issues that will affect the planet in hundreds of years... And then furthemore, convincing those people to make life changes...  is difficult to say the least.

If I REALLY BELIEVE that my car will be smashed tomorrow, I'm not going to pay to have tune up and a car wash.


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
MOD Edit: Post

MOD Edit: Post Removed

Spamming and Calling out other members is not allowed.


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hi Andyy, Andyy wrote: Let

Hi Andyy,

Andyy wrote:
Let me get this straight... You believe that a man who died 2000 years ago will physically comeback to earth and create or transform this planet into a 'new heaven and new earth?" That comes into direct conflict with scientific fact on so many different levels. Your distrust of scientists on this issue is simply another piece of evidence. Virgin birth? Do you believe it happened? If so, tell me again how scientific truth doesn't conflict with your religous 'truth?'


Your Red Herrings aside, whether or not science has proven virgin birth and physical resurrection improbable within the natural law does not in any way conflict with what I hold in faith: that God is not constrained by his own creation, and can, at times of his choosing, suspend the natural law to conform to his divine plan. Now, if you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist, then I'll be happy to revise my position.

Quote:
And again, I never said that I've heard many evangelicals stating openly "I don't care about the environment because Jesus is coming back."


Then why do you assume that this is the Evangelical mindset?

Quote:
But getting people who think the end of the world (or transformation) will be happening within a matter of years or decades, to sit down and discuss issues that will affect the planet in hundreds of years... And then furthemore, convincing those people to make life changes... is difficult to say the least.

If I REALLY BELIEVE that my car will be smashed tomorrow, I'm not going to pay to have tune up and a car wash.


You're making an awful lot of assumptions based on nothing more than your own former Evangelical thought processes. So far in this thread, you have not demonstrated with any actual facts that Evangelicals believe anything of the sort.

The Saint


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Saint wrote: Your Red

The_Saint wrote:


Your Red Herrings aside, whether or not science has proven virgin birth and physical resurrection improbable within the natural law does not in any way conflict with what I hold in faith: that God is not constrained by his own creation, and can, at times of his choosing, suspend the natural law to conform to his divine plan. Now, if you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist, then I'll be happy to revise my position.

Not a red herring, just responding to you. You were making the claim that you hold science in high regard. You said your 'truth' doesn't contradict scientific truth? Call virgin birth and resurrection 'improbable' all day long, in the scientific world, its about as close to impossibility as something can be. In you 'world view' God can do what he wants, I understand that.

The point of the thread was to discuss how an irrational point of view can affect one's view of reality in the real world. (views on long term environmental threats) And while you are defending reasonably well your own view of why you don't think global warming is a threat, you are still showing how the religous mind can cause an otherwise reasonable person to hold absurd beliefs.

The_Saint wrote:
You're making an awful lot of assumptions based on nothing more than your own former Evangelical thought processes.

Reread my background in the previous post. Dozens of books, hundreds of people in church, university, and personal life. And of course myself.


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hi Andyy, Andyy wrote: Not a

Hi Andyy,

Andyy wrote:
Not a red herring, just responding to you. You were making the claim that you hold science in high regard. You said your 'truth' doesn't contradict scientific truth? Call virgin birth and resurrection 'improbable' all day long, in the scientific world, its about as close to impossibility as something can be. In you 'world view' God can do what he wants, I understand that.


In the scientific world, one cannot state that something is "impossible"--to do so implies a level of certainty science simply does not possess. That is why science deals in probabilities, not certainties. That said, if science dictates that virgin birth and physical resurrection to be improbable in the extremest sense of the word, I have no problem with that at all. After all, that's kind of the point--if science could prove that these miraculous events were only the result of some as yet unknown but natural phenomenon, I'd have no reason to believe that they were manifestations of God.

Quote:
The point of the thread was to discuss how an irrational point of view can affect one's view of reality in the real world. (views on long term environmental threats) And while you are defending reasonably well your own view of why you don't think global warming is a threat, you are still showing how the religous mind can cause an otherwise reasonable person to hold absurd beliefs.


So you believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive? You don't believe that a person of faith can be objective and rational when it comes to scientific fact?

The Saint


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
On this subject, I'm fairly

On this subject, I'm fairly certain that global warming is happening -- carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the polar ice is melting, etc.

The Earth's atmosphere is well-mixed up to about 100 km; above that point, it gets sorted out by composition by gravity, because it is too thin for the air molecules to interact with each other very much. Below that altitude, air currents are powerful enough to overcome sorting by gravity.

As to climatologists once getting very worried about an impending ice age, it must be said that that is what one would expect from the geological record for the last few million years. We are now in an interglacial, and interglacials usually last only about 10,000 years. So our time may soon be up and the glaciers may start creeping southward again. Exactly what controls these cycles is not completely understood, though there is a strong connection with the Earth's spin and orbit precession cycles -- Milankovitch cycles. Which are rather difficult to control.

That being said, global warming will not be the end of the world -- only grossly disruptive, with lots of low-lying land getting flooded and various other climate alterations happening. The Earth has gone through long periods of being much warmer than at present, like much of the Mesozoic and the first half of the Cenozoic, so we have some idea of what to look forward to.

And yes, many evangelicals and fundies believe that concern with the environment is a waste of time because Jesus Christ will be making his Second Coming and cleaning up our planet. Consider Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who expressed such a belief while in office.


The_Saint
Theist
The_Saint's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hi, Ipetrich, lpetrich

Hi, Ipetrich,

lpetrich wrote:
On this subject, I'm fairly certain that global warming is happening -- carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the polar ice is melting, etc.


Clearly the climate record shows that the earth goes through cycles of warming/cooling, and I'm not disputing that the climate may be warming (although climate records show no appreciable warming for the last 20 years)--I dispute the claim that human activity is the cause of any detectable warming as unfounded.  Yes, Carbon Dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", (though only a trace gas) but contrary to popular media and junk science opinion,  it is not "pollution"--CO2 is the life-blood of the planet.  Every living thing on earth is comprised of CO2, and it is necessary for the existence of trees and plants, which provide us with the oxygen we breathe. The paranoid and ignorant attempts by to rid the world of it may actually do more harm than good. 

Quote:
That being said, global warming will not be the end of the world -- only grossly disruptive, with lots of low-lying land getting flooded and various other climate alterations happening. The Earth has gone through long periods of being much warmer than at present, like much of the Mesozoic and the first half of the Cenozoic, so we have some idea of what to look forward to.


Indeed, there is ample historical evidence to suggest that warming global temperatures are actually beneficial to human civilization, and not a detriment. The Medieval Warm Period--that piece of history that global warming alarmists wish would go away--experienced temperatures warmer than today, meanwhile European civilization flourished.  The claim that increased global temperatures will spell the doom of human civilization are simply unfounded.

Quote:
And yes, many evangelicals and fundies believe that concern with the environment is a waste of time because Jesus Christ will be making his Second Coming and cleaning up our planet. Consider Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who expressed such a belief while in office.


Well, as I've stated before, I am not Evangelical, nor do I know a lot of Evangelical types, so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter.  I simply have never heard this sentiment expressed by any of the religious people I know.

The Saint


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10501
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Global warming has been

Global warming has been shown as fact in far too many other threads for me to deal with this one as well. Human impact is also fact, shown in other threads. My position will remain unchanged unless those threads are successfully challenged. This isn't a warming debate thread.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.