A._catholic posted a comment · Mar 23, 2019
Whether or not the world will end in 12 years, really isn't the point. That human existence on this planet is threatened by materialism, greed/love and service of mammon/wealth/profit is. It isn't only climate change- but also loss of biodiversity (species extinction), acidification of the oceans, pollution of ground water and the air. All that comes by reducing the creation/environment/geo-biosphere that sustains ALL life to something that is only valued to generate human material wealth in opposition to Mat 6:24 and 1 Tim 6:10. And it is mammon/wealth/profit that Pres. Trump has served his whole life, and he continues to serve now. We must act- now- to turn from love and trust in money to create a humane, environmentally sustainable and just *economy*.
yeshuais4me posted a comment · Mar 22, 2019
The way understand this event is the end of our world will not come until all prophecy that needs to be complete are complete, Matthew 5:18. One that sticks with me is Isaiah 17 which is the destruction of Dammesek (Damascus) where only animals will roam the streets which could mean chemical or nuke weapons cause the destruction.
Dad3boys posted a comment · Mar 21, 2019
Climate has been changing, science confirms this. What is not science, however, are the models projecting future climate change (my apologies if someone else noted this, I did not want to go through 68 pages of comments to find it). Thus, Al Gore could famously claim that the polar ice cap would be gone by 2014, and be completely wrong. But these 'claims' get swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
Deancooper posted a comment · Mar 16, 2019
Hi Gerald, Presuming they are indeed making fraudulent adjustments to the temperature record (and it does seem that they are), that only means that they are exaggerating the severity of the problem. But the problem still exists nonetheless. Everybody can agree that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels. Everybody can agree that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Everybody can agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. Thus, everybody can agree that humans are contributing to Earth’s warming. The question is how bad is this (will it lead to real catastrophe), and what can we do to prevent that catastrophe from happening. Even one of the UN reports on climate change estimated that the global warming on the whole will be good for the planet until around 2074. At that point they believe the negative effects will begin to outweigh the positive effects. But nobody ever talks about that how good the warming currently is! Nor do they mention that there are relatively cheap ways to solve the problem. One is having planes dump sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, which is what happens when a volcano cools the planet. Another is dumping soluble iron into the oceans, which causes the entire ecosystem to grow (plankton populations go up with more iron) and that results is the consumption of CO2. What is really interesting is that we would presently be in another ice age if it wasn't for mankind causing more CO2 to be in the atmosphere. The ice age cycle has been temporarily stopped because of three main factors. One, a meteor hit near Greenland right before we reached the peak of the last cycle, and caused a massive melted ice lake to flow off of Canada and into the North Atlantic, thus stopping the warming. This was important because unconstrained warming triggers a massive shift in the climate. The theory here is that sufficient warming of the North Pole results in a lot of precipitation (its normally a desert up there) which causes lots of snow and that changes the albedo of the surface enough to start cooling the planet (white snow reflects more sunlight). The second factor was that mankind invented agriculture and began deforesting massive areas of the planet to grow crops. Less trees resulted in more CO2. The third factor was that mankind domesticated animals like cows that give off methane which causes further warming. It's because of God's intervention with the meteor and mankind's technology that the last 9000 years have had a more stable climate than at any other time in Earth's history (that we know about). But over the last century, our CO2 output has gone way up, and this will eventually cause real problems. God doesn't want us to destroy the planet, but neither should we follow the Left that believes the only solution is completely stopping all CO2 output.
gerald a posted a comment · Mar 15, 2019
The planet is likely not warming at all. It probably did warm some in the 20th century. The temperature data on which the claim we keep hearing "we just had the warmest year on record" is based on fraudulent "adjustments" to the temperature record. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/science-vs-dogma-on-climate.php https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-2-24-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxi Furthermore, the claim that each successive year "Government-funded warmists at NOAA and other agencies have systematically altered historical surface temperature data by lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago, and raising temperatures that have been reported recently. The surface temperature record has been so badly corrupted that it is doubtful whether it can be used to prove anything at all. Yet government-funded warmists rely on it to the exclusion of the transparent satellite data". Two sets of satellite temperature data (RSS and UAH), which do not have these continual "adjustments", do not show each successive year is a new record high and show no statistically significant trend for some 18-26 years now.
Deancooper posted a comment · Mar 15, 2019
For me, I fully agree that the planet is warming, and I fully agree that man has contributed to this warming. I’m even willing to assume (or concede) that man’s contribution has been significant and that the warming will lead (eventually) to catastrophic results. What I don’t agree at all with is the proposed solutions. They are all Left-wing, high tax and wealth-redistributionist solutions. To me, those are a much greater (and more immediate) risk of producing catastrophe. What is needed are alternate solutions that don’t cost near as much. And amazingly they are already here. I’ve read how the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was very much interested in one of these. I first heard about that solution through a Ted Talk video. Watch this Ted Talk video on a cheap solution to climate change (https://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change/up-next), and ask yourself why are people proposing solutions that will cost many trillions of dollars instead?