The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, Joan of Arc's execution, the Catholic/Protestant war in Northern Ireland, the lynchings of blacks, the murders and rapes and beatings of gay and transgendered people, the Ku Klux Klan, the genocide of the indigenous Americans... and the list could go on and on were all done by self-identified Christians. Read the Population thread, Dr. Who and I are discussing the Biblical genesis of many cruel and insanely violent acts that can be traced back to things that God is supposed to have ordered or given permission for--something I have serious doubts about. Are you married? Would you have paid 200 human foreskins for your wife? King David did in the Bible, he killed 200 Philistines and cut off their foreskins to give to Saul for his daughter's hand in marriage. Doesn't sound particularly godly to me, does it to you?
Many people did many wrong things, that were not supportable by the Bible. Let's talk about the Bible, since they were not following the Bible.
As for David, it was a time of war, and the nation of Israel was fighting the nation of the Philistines. God righteously ordered the destruction of the Philistines which were brutally oppressing his people. The God of the Bible, is a God of judgment, not just mercy.
Does that make them right?
No, but it does mean that regardless of if we are right or wrong, they will continue to ignore regulation that are harmful, causing our economy to be at a disadvantage. We already complain about jobs moving out of the country now. What happens when problematic CO2 regulations cause millions of jobs to leave?
Of course, the man made global warming is a myth anyway, so they would never agree to it.
The sewage pollution that closes so many beaches around the world and pollutes so many water ways is not caused by humans?
Pick a topic. Are we talking about CO2 the natural gas emitted by nearly all animal life on the planet, or sewage? If you wish to talk about sewage, that's fine, but it is not a support for "man made global warming".
From your perspective, do humans have any substantive impact on the Earth?
If you mean from the perspective of limited carbon emissions, no, absolutely not.
If you mean from the perspective of having a global nuclear war, sure, without question.
Only 2.5% of the yearly emitted CO2 is due to human activity. That's all humans all over the world, in 3rd world countries to modern industrial nations, all the cars, all the planes, and all the humans themselves breathing.
Further CO2 is only 5% of the total "green house effect". More than 90% of the green house effect is due to water.
In short, we, at most, are responsible for such a tiny sliver of a fraction of the greenhouse effect, as to be completely irrelevant to the global temperature. If it could be even measured, it would be less than Three One Hundredths of a degree Celsius. or 0.03ºC Do you think that much of a change could melt so much as a snow flake? Not a chance.
Instead, cloud cover, ocean currents, humidity, sun spots, and a host of currently unknown factors, have a much greater influence, than man made CO2 could ever have. In short, the whole thing is a scam.
I didn't blame techonolgy per se, it's the things that technology allows us to do. We had bad smog problems before we cleaned up auto exhaust, how do you think the world's air quality will be affected when India and China have the same auto density numbers that we have?
Human density itself is the contributor. Granted, automobiles were much more dirty at the start. But ever since the catalytic converter, we really don't need anymore controls. India and China will be fine since we already developed the catalytic converter. It will take awhile for their economy to grow so the public can afford cars with those, but once they reach that point, the rest will be easy.
Unlike you, I'm not willing to dismiss our impact until I have far more proof one way or the other, I have a pretty much open mind on this. I've been wrong too many times in my life to be willing to shout "Hoax!" without the proof in hand.
Understandable. Try:
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
Couple of quick points. According to ice core samples, we started taking temperature measurements at the coldest point in the last 1000 years. So even though it's true that it's been getting warming, it was getting warmer from the coldest point in 1000 years. Second, the temperature readings used by government reports, were from land based weather stations that are influenced by city effect heat. Weather balloons and satellite data both show no significant heat build up in the lower atmosphere, like the government reports suggest.
This video does sort of drag a tad. It's very documentary style. But otherwise, it's pretty accurate.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
This is a much better film, more lively and less dragging. Sadly, Veoh is a rather bothersome site with dozens of add, and you have to download their viewer. But if you don't, most of the other sites have the film broken up into parts, which means you have to go hunting for part 4 part 5 part 6 and so on.
This film makes dozens of good points. One is that most of the "2500 scientists" that supposedly support the government report, were not actually scientists, and many of the rest do not support the report, but their names were placed on it regardless.
Also, they pointed out that many scientists were attacked and intimidated into supporting it, at the risk of losing grant funding or other political motivated pressures.
There are a few other movies, and endless articles. For something really deep, try
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
But be warned, I love science, yet half of what he says I don't get.
σTe44πre2 = acsσTs4(rs/res)2 that's the thermal equilibrium for an Earth without an atmosphere. If you can read that section, and understand it, you got me beat easy. However, the body of it is decently understandable. Just skip the equations.
It isn't just American forests, in fact the rain forests are the ones being destroyed the fastest. Do you think that the disappearance of the benthic and pelagic fisheries is not due to over-fishing by people? Salmon stocks? The Passenger Pigeons? The whales? The Great Auks? Are all of these things just "lint on the blanket"? Or do humans have a profound impact that we are just now beginning to understand?
I would point out the far more species of animal life have died out naturally than anything humans have done. However, I do understand, and accept a very reasonable level of protection for some animals.
That said, I still wager that he was referring to supposed man made CO2 and the theoretical global warming that will wipe out all life on Earth, or whatever dooms day claim. In which case, he's right, we are nothing more than lint on a blanket.
