Board index The Environment

Environmentalism, a biblical view of caring for the planet, responsible stewardship, global warming, political action and public policy

Re: The Paris Climate Agreement

Postby Jan Palmer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:11 pm

Jim Walton, you are a sneaky one with the feigned wondering and false modesty. ... One does not need a degree in climatology to be informed, read conflicting opinions , come to a rationale and figure out this has little to do with the climate. I have two observations, maybe three, or more ;) .... I'll stick to questions.... Is Al Gore a scientist? Who benefits financially from this narrative? Does this sound more like science, or science fiction? How well do we predict weather events in real time? Why aren't we under water by now which was predicted ten years ago by prophet Al? What happened to the coming ice age predicted almost 40 years ago.? How much should alarm and fear over this and THEORY control my life? As a wise man once said.... It is much easier (and arrogant) to think we are saving the planet than to help our local community because the former only entails arguing, and the latter personal responsibility. It rather reminds me of old fables like Chicken Little and the blind man and the elephant.
Jan Palmer
 

Re: The Paris Climate Agreement

Postby jimwalton » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Jan, it wasn't feigned wondering or false modesty, but a desire to learn.

1. Is Al Gore a scientist? No, he's a politician who presents himself as one who has studied the science.

2. Who benefits financially from this narrative? I honestly don't know. Someone always benefits financially, but I don't know the answer to this question.

3. Does this sound more like science or science fiction? I don't know. That's why I asked others to chime in.

4. How well do we predict weather events in real time? Hmm, about 70-80%, I would guess.

5. Why aren't we under water by now (predicted by Al)? Because he was wrong.

6. What happened to the predicted ice age? Ice ages come and go slowly, unless there is a catastrophic event.

7. How much should alarm and fear over this and theory control my life? It shouldn't, but legitimate information should move us to action in one direction or another.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5194
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: The Paris Climate Agreement

Postby Tee Lee » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:15 pm

A few thoughts on the points Jan raises:

1) Al Gore is not a scientist, nor does he claim to be. He has chosen to use his position to highlight the challenges posed by climate change. He is not the only person advocating for action on this issue - plenty of scientists are also doing so.

2) Financial benefit runs both ways. Renewable energy companies will benefit from decarbonization of the world economy. On the other hand, fossil fuel companies will benefit from the status quo.

3) Weather and climate are not the same thing (although they are related.) Weather is a short-term phenomenon. Climate is a long-term issue. The models used for climate are rigorously tested and constantly refined. Yes, there is some variation between models created by different groups, but they are close enough that they all lead to similar conclusions as to what needs to be done.

4) None of the models I have seen predicts that large parts of the world would be under water by now. It will take a long time for that to happen. The problem is that in order to prevent it, we need to start making changes right away.

5) Climate change is not a "theory" in the colloquial sense of the term. It is established science based on years of peer-reviewed research. In science, there is a high bar for something to be considered a theory - it needs substantial amounts of data to support it and needs to be rigorously reviewed by others and confirmed through repeated re-testing by independent parties.
Tee Lee
 

Re: The Paris Climate Agreement

Postby Jan Palmer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:19 pm

Hi, Tee! Points noted, but climate has historically referred to what are norms for geographical locations from what I have encountered over the years....such as the climate, temperature and weather pattern norms for any given area is considered its climate...you expect the south to have particular temperatures and related ecological patterns and associated flora and fauna that thrive under those conditions, just as an example. What is at the core of this overarching discussion is whether or not MAN can and should do anything to alter the climate of the entire planet, or if natural phenomena outside the realm of our influence are more likely to have an influence. I opt for the natural causes having more influence, and man being charged as stewards to act responsibly when managing our natural resources. I am well aware that on a local level we can do create environmental messes that affect people's lives, and historical examples include the industrial waste that was common of cities like Chicago (been on an architectural tour there that chronicled how polluted the river was back in the day) and the smog that is even currently a problem in larger cities such as LA and Beijing. It may just be me, as a regular person, who flies and looks down on this big planet and thinks how insignificant those examples are in the bigger picture. Conversely, big, natural events are much more problematic....volcanoes erupted can indeed affect whole hemispheres, and sun activity can as well. The other thing that comes into play in my way of thinking is that very few people, in the scope of the world population as a whole, are either contributing to what is perceived as the problem, are losing sleep over it, or care about it more than they do just living day to day and making ends meet. What happens, for most of us, will happen.....on a personal level I can only do so much, and for billions of people on this planet, they have much more important things on their minds than what may (and I will absolutely continue to stick with "may", not "will") happen years into the future. And may I add, some things will always be theories, and MANMADE climate change is one such theory due to its very recent appearance on the scene and its prophetic claims.
Jan Palmer
 

Re: The Paris Climate Agreement

Postby Glenn Guy » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:06 am

What I find interesting is that the earth's warming is always isolated from the overall warming of the solar system, and the gravitational tensions between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies. There is a blue shift in white light from Andromeda, indicating that the galaxies are attracting each other nearer. This has a warming effect throughout the whole Local Group (the full and real name of a collection of galaxies and dwarf galaxies that orbit each other). I am no expert, but I have trouble believing I can prevent the inevitable collision by boycotting Styrofoam products.

Isaiah 24 is a picture of the earth's demise. The earth is in pieces, the sun is ashamed for having allowed it. And the moon is confused. The solar system will implode because earth no longer supplies its contribution to the gravitational balance. Since Andromeda is not mentioned in Isaiah, and since the collision is m(b)illions of years away, I suspect that Isaiah 24 is fulfilled prior to the collision.


Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:06 am.
Glenn Guy
 

Previous

Return to The Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron