this amuses me...

[wookinpanub]

So I was having a debate with a somewhat friend... more of an acquaintance, really. The debate in question had to do with global warming. Scientifically, it has been proven to exist (if you would like to say otherwise, that is a debate for another thread). However, this person I was talking to stated that global warming is simply impossible for one reason:

 

Genesis says:

And I will establish my covenant with you; niether shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; niether shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 9:11

 

Based on this, my friend refuses to believe that global warming and, if bad enough, eventual melting of the ice caps is even a possibility. He goes to Grove City College, where the majority of the student body, and professors feel the same way.

 

I don't even know what to say! I'm just like shocked by this (and, quite frankly, very amused).

[Love Hurts]

Are you familiar with HAARP?

It appears HAARP may be responsible for Global Warming.

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=haarp

 

HAARP is in control of the weather; it can melt Glaciers in Alaska.

Create typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, high winds and rain...and more.

It can also stop the rain.

It puts holes in the Ozone; greater holes than aerosol cans and automobiles could ever do.

 

It works with an electromagnetic field and has a physical effect on wildlife and humans.

 

It is been labeled the new weapon of terror. What do you think the government is doing to the weather?

 

I wonder how many mistakes have been made with natural disaster weapon?

 

We are to look for signs as to the coming of the Lord:

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; (Luke 21:25)

 

The Lord did not tell us to look for Global Warming but to look at the effects of it.

 

God Bless*

[wookinpanub]

Er, your quote refers to the second coming of god, not global warming.

[norajane]

People have been using selective quotes out of the Bible to justify/rationalize/explain/believe all kinds of things that don't make rational sense.

 

God did the whole flood thing because man was wicked, and violent, and disobeyed God's commands. And he promised Noah that if he built the ark and took the animals and they all were fruitfull and multiplied, he wouldn't destroy the world with a flood.

 

Howevah...

 

God might not destroy the earth specifically with a flood, but the Bible says that he will COMPLETELY destroy it with heat...

 

Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

That kinda sounds like global warming to me, and any resultant flood would be merely one of the by-products, though perhaps not the SOLE or primary cause of its destruction.

 

See? Anyone can read whatever they want to in the Bible.

 

(By the way, the covenant about the flood refers to rain, not melting of polar ice caps (which I'm sure no one had ever contemplated or heard of polar ice caps back when the Old Testament was written). God's token of his covenant is the rainbow:

 

Genesis 9:13 and 16: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.)

[Love Hurts]

Er, your quote refers to the second coming of god, not global warming.

 

If you want science without scripture…. Why are you under the topic of religion my friend?

 

God Bless*

[wookinpanub]

People have been using selective quotes out of the Bible to justify/rationalize/explain/believe all kinds of things that don't make rational sense.

 

God did the whole flood thing because man was wicked, and violent, and disobeyed God's commands. And he promised Noah that if he built the ark and took the animals and they all were fruitfull and multiplied, he wouldn't destroy the world with a flood.

 

Howevah...

 

God might not destroy the earth specifically with a flood, but the Bible says that he will COMPLETELY destroy it with heat...

 

Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

That kinda sounds like global warming to me, and any resultant flood would be merely one of the by-products, though perhaps not the SOLE or primary cause of its destruction.

 

See? Anyone can read whatever they want to in the Bible.

 

(By the way, the covenant about the flood refers to rain, not melting of polar ice caps (which I'm sure no one had ever contemplated or heard of polar ice caps back when the Old Testament was written). God's token of his covenant is the rainbow:

 

Genesis 9:13 and 16: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.)

 

I didn't think of it like, with the polar ice caps as opposed to rain. You're right though, people read into the bible in so many different ways and interpet so many different things from it. It's the same in any religion that holds a sacred text.

 

Love Hurts: I didn't say don't use scripture, but the scripture you used is irrelevant to the subject at hand. By all means, use scripture if it applies. However I am not familiar with HAARP. I'll look it up so I am familiar with it.

[Love Hurts]

I didn't think of it like, with the polar ice caps as opposed to rain. You're right though, people read into the bible in so many different ways and interpet so many different things from it. It's the same in any religion that holds a sacred text.

 

Love Hurts: I didn't say don't use scripture, but the scripture you used is irrelevant to the subject at hand. By all means, use scripture if it applies. However I am not familiar with HAARP. I'll look it up so I am familiar with it.

 

Can you show me my error?

This insight on HAARP;

http://www.ask.com/web?q=HAARP&qsrc=1&o=333&l=dir

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=haarp

 

God Bless*

[amerikajin]

Based on this, my friend refuses to believe that global warming and, if bad enough, eventual melting of the ice caps is even a possibility.

 

Your friend is insane.

[Citizen Erased]

Your friend is insane.

 

Nicely put. How can a rational thinking human being actually believe that?

[magichands]

Just remember that not all melting of the ice caps equates to flooding. Most of the ice is displacing its weight in liquid. And shut down the Gulf Stream, and we get an ice age. I think the "flooding" consequence is drastically simplistic at best.

[dropdeadlegs]

Nicely put. How can a rational thinking human being actually believe that?

I'm rational and I believe it. I use the spell check feature ( and I need to.)

[magichands]

The debate in question had to do with global warming. Scientifically, it has been proven to exist

And be careful with the word proven. Theories are supported, sometimes widely accepted, but rarely proven (if proven they become something else entirely).

 

Also, one has to define "global warming." If you mean "climate change," then there are some theories about that, sure. But you still need to define precisely what you are talking about.

 

Taking such a hardline view may be crazy in some people's eyes, but it's madness to be pushing global disaster as imminent, or even inevitable.

[Moai]

Just goes to show how damaging a literal Bible can be. "I need not worry about what may be happening to the Earth, God said it would be fine." Whatever.

 

The Earth is only 6,000 years old, and it will all be over any second when Jesus comes back, so I have no idea what the problem is.

[serial muse]

Just remember that not all melting of the ice caps equates to flooding. Most of the ice is displacing its weight in liquid. And shut down the Gulf Stream, and we get an ice age. I think the "flooding" consequence is drastically simplistic at best.

 

Whoa, this isn't true, MH. Most of the ice we're worried about is currently on land, not floating in the sea like an ice cube. When we talk about the "ice caps," we're referring to the ice currently on top of Greenland and Antarctica, not the icebergs melting in the sea.

 

As for the Gulf Stream shutting down - that is one of the things that scientists are still hotly debating (no pun intended). We just don't know what will happen to worldwide current circulation if a great rush of fresh water (from melting icebergs) enters the Arctic. But more importantly, we don't know what will happen as a result of such a shutdown. The Gulf Stream does warm northern Europe (some theorize that a slowing down of the current may have partially triggered the Little Ice Age in the middle ages) but other evidence suggests that the cooling will be highly localized, and that warming will occur in other areas.

 

The fact is, that worldwide circulation is responsible for transferring a lot of heat and moisture around the globe - and that, in turn, means that it could potentially affect the distribution and intensity of storms (which are HIGHLY dependent on heat and moisture) as well as general patterns of rainfall around the world, nutrients in the ocean - and, ultimately, floods, droughts, wildfires, etc. etc.

 

What I'm getting at is that it's a horrifically complicated calculation, but the effects of such major changes should hardly be discounted. One thing that a consensus (yes, a consensus) of scientists has said is the ocean is unequivocally warming, and both sea ice and ice caps are melting. That is based on hard data, not theory.

 

Theory encompasses what will happen as a result of all that. For that, people are resorting to models, and looking to the past as a possible template for the future. But to absolutely reject the possibility of global sea level rise within a few hundred years, for example, is to indulge in a whole lot of wishful thinking, I'm afraid. It has certainly happened before on this planet.

[Erik]

Scientifically, it has been proven to exist.

 

I'll not dispute that it exists, but you are wrong on this one. A scientific proof is something very specific. The fact that 95% (or whatever) of all the relevant scientists agree on the matter, does not make a scientific proof.

[serial muse]

I'll not dispute that it exists, but you are wrong on this one. A scientific proof is something very specific. The fact that 95% (or whatever) of all the relevant scientists agree on the matter, does not make a scientific proof.

 

True; but arguing about "proof" is a red herring. If 100% of the "relevant" scientists agree on the matter , then I think we can safely call that a consensus, which should - and does - carry a lot of weight. And yes, it is truly a consensus - the famously vocal dissenters that James Inhofe and others like to dredge up are actually from unrelated fields, such as mathematics, or of course there's Dr. Michael Crichton, who is a medical doctor.

 

back to topic - An interesting thing that's been happening lately is a split in the evangelical movement on the global warming issue. Many evangelicals are urging their leaders to make it part of the agenda now, on the grounds that defiling "God's green Earth" is basically a sin - but of course that would move the Christian Right farther from the Republican party core. Should be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

Also, I saw that HAARP thing and it's looneytunes. IMO.

[Erik]

I used the term 'relevant' because there is no such thing as a 'climate scientist.' And if the consensus was always right, we'd still be plowing with oxen. Again, I'll not argue manmade global warming exists, but it is not an open and shut case.

[amerikajin]

True; but arguing about "proof" is a red herring. If 100% of the "relevant" scientists agree on the matter , then I think we can safely call that a consensus, which should - and does - carry a lot of weight. And yes, it is truly a consensus - the famously vocal dissenters that James Inhofe and others like to dredge up are actually from unrelated fields, such as mathematics, or of course there's Dr. Michael Crichton, who is a medical doctor.

 

back to topic - An interesting thing that's been happening lately is a split in the evangelical movement on the global warming issue. Many evangelicals are urging their leaders to make it part of the agenda now, on the grounds that defiling "God's green Earth" is basically a sin - but of course that would move the Christian Right farther from the Republican party core. Should be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

Also, I saw that HAARP thing and it's looneytunes. IMO.

 

 

One of my biggest reasons why I can't stand the Christian right is because of their complete inability to see that they are being used as tools by the emerging source of dominant power: the multinational corporate alliance.

[lonelybird]

One of my biggest reasons why I can't stand the Christian right is because of their complete inability to see that they are being used as tools by the emerging source of dominant power: the multinational corporate alliance.

Yes, we know:D , it is one of my prayer "God please make me a good tool of yours", nothing better than this

[serial muse]

there is no such thing as a 'climate scientist.'

 

Say what?!? Of course there is. What on Earth are you talking about?

 

And if the consensus was always right, we'd still be plowing with oxen.

 

:lmao:

Not sure where this came from, but okey-doke.

[Topper]

Erik, Climatology is a science. At this point it is not what I would call an exact sciance do to so many variables. Climatologist most work with other disciplines to further our understanding of what is going on with the climate. Geologist, Vulcanologist, Meteorologist and others are all contributing to this emerging science. Most scientist agree That something is going on with global warming. What the debate seems to focus on is how much of this is man made. Most are looking at the data and are of the opinion that yes green house gases are effecting the planets climate. Even if it is proven that the gases are not all that important in relation to the over all climate change there are still a great many benefits to reducing these gases.