Stones Cry Out

Doug:
I don't understand the significance you place on the fact that there have been other times when the earth was hotter when the question is whether or not the activities of man are now the cause of the earth becoming hotter.

Simply that ever increase in average temperature is deemed proof that man is warming the planet when, relatively recently the same thing happened. Is anyone suggesting that man was responsible for it last time? No. Did the earth cool later on? Yes. Why, then, is there such urgency in the voices of Al Gore, et. al., that man is at fault and that we must do something now? If it was a natural phenomenon then, and the cycle continued normally, why is it so drastically different this time? And imagine if Greenland were warm enough to farm, you know Gore would be predicting the end of life as we know it Real Soon Now.

Heck, Mars is warming! Is that due to SUVs?

Hey Doug,
It's really refreshing to hear something other than Al Gore type explainations our current heat wave. I would submit that rather than sun spots, all the hot air is coming from over inflated intellectual humans.
Thanks.
I put your site in my favorites.
Barry Hanson

Doug:

So are you saying that because there are cycles of weather the activities of man cannot influence the weather?
Mike

What I'm saying is...what I said.

"...if today's records are due to man-made reasons, how to explain records from 100 years ago? If you can explain those records, could not those explanations apply to today as well? If you can't explain those records, can you really explain today's?"

There really shouldn't be a question about what I said. Before we implement far-reaching policy changes or massive wealth redistribution programs on a global scale, perhaps we should ask some simple questions. Like the ones I asked. In the original post.

Doug,

I'm with you 100%. However, aren't you afraid you are going to upset the other stones that have jumped on the global warming bandwagon here?

My sister lives in Citrus County, Florida. They used to grow citrus there, but not anymore, because it is TOO COLD.

Heh, we respect the differing opinions here at SCO, even (especially) among the contributors. This isn't an echo chamber.

Doug:
Yes Doug I understand that you said what you said. Usually statements such as your first and second are read in context and lead to other statements by implication. It was to the other statement that I was addressing my question. This is a simple yes or no question. Do you think that the activities of man have an effect on the weather?
And Doug, I'm talking about a larger scale than room temperature and domed stadiums. This is a time for gathering stones.
Mike

My opinion is that if man does have an effect on the global climate, it is lost in the noise of the normal cycles of our planet and our sun. I think there's way too much uncertainty in the "if" and "how much" that I think that the time and money and resources spent to combat something we likely have little to no control over would be better used in combating other major pressing issues.

These would be issues like bringing the prosperity we have to other countries and combating the poverty there. This prosperity comes in part from the burning of hydrocarbons to produce electricity to work irrigation projects or heat/cool homes or provide sanitation that doesn't currently exist. See the Cornwall Declaration for another Judeo-Christian view of how to deal with these priorities. ("Another" as in vis a vis the Evangelical Climate Initiative.)

Bottom line is that while man may have an influence in global climate, it's not nearly the issue many consider it to be, especially given how large those changes have been at times when man was far, far less a factor than now. There are real issues to deal with that are (or should be) more pressing, and in which we can have a great deal of influence.

Right you are, Doug. Our impact is smaller than some are saying. Also, I believe that our impact is not well understood. The current models are incomplete at best - liekly worthless. For instance, a cloud of pollution or smoke is certainly a bad thing. However, in terms of temperature, it may add 'cloud cover' which reflects a few of the sun's rays, thus providing cooling.

Similarly, more CO2 causes plants to flourish, which in turn removes more CO2 from the air.

Doug, it simply boils down to the fact that there are some people that have the incredible hubris to believe that man can actually destroy this planet.

Can we destroy on the local level? Of course we can! Look at toxic waste dumps and industrial accidents. Can we do it planet wide? Are you kidding?

When a volcano erupts, in the short amount of time it spews chlorine gasses and ash, it dumps MILLIONS of times the amount of those dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere than man EVER has in our entire recorded history. When has a single volcano, in our recorded scientific history, destroyed the planet? NEVER! The palnet cleans itself on the global scale.

Finally, and most disturbingly, there are true believers of what I said above, but I think that the motive of the Al Gore types is nothing but a desire for a pure power grab to control people's lives.

Many in the extreme end of the environmental movement have held high elected and appointed political office. Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Power and control is a drug unlike any else and it is addictive. When they have seen a stroke of a pen "make life better," for people in this country, why not go a little further and make it a crime to eat red meat because it will kill you and besides raising cattle creates global warming.

Power corrupts people from both ends of the political spectrum.

Doug:
Well I guess you answered my question and it sounded kinda, maybe like a sort of a yes. I agree that there seem to be more pressing problems that we can address such as hunger. Now were you saying that burning hydro-carbons would help us get rid of poverty and hunger? Jeez, I don't know about that. Right now I'm trying to figure out if anybody I know is a descendant of Jesus Christ. Keep gathering stones.

yeh so about 'global dimming', the way in which pollution deflects sunlight. the reason why the earth would heat up after the removal of pollution, is because its reflective quality is compensating for the damage to the ozone, which continues to be destroyed by specific chemicals in the pollution, and of course cfcs (the western world gave them up, but doesnt mean that any other country has).
this isnt something you can have an opinion on, or debate about. 'global overshoot' means humans are comsuming or damaging at a greater rate than the earth can heal. it isnt the opinion of a scientist. our very existence can be expressed with a very simple energy equation that has a balence defined by the very environment that spawned us (its simplicity reflects how insignificant we are, at least compared to the grand processes that we irresponsibley weild). even if we failed to balence this equation on a small, tribal level, we would eventually deplete the surrounding forest of prey. but we live in a globalised world, in which each member consumes far, far more then they give back. this rate makes the end inevitable, as every year that the earth grows weaker, it is less able to compensate for the coming year. you cant compare a 'rate' to isolated events such as volcanoes, for obvious reasons.
you'll have to do the research yourself, because i dont have the time to transcribe it, but heres a taster; in relation to the aforementioned cfcs - a single kilogram can destroy 700000 kilograms of ozone... they remain in the atmosphere for up to a century, and even now that many countries have banned them, 27 million kilograms are pumped into the atmosphere. the ozone layer is 2 millimeters thick. there are holes in it, melting ice caps, depriving polar bears of months of feeding time (it effects seal movements, polar bears come out of hibination, have some cubs, no food), stretching their population to the limits. i think if you cared about consequences such as these, already occuring, you wouldnt feel so comfortable about the possible future consequences. and thats what having an opinion on global warming is about... the grand, century spanning processes, which you should not compare to short term processes like human hunger.

* If you only look at man-made sources, it would seem that there is a direct correlation with the size of the ozone hole. You may want to lay the blame solely on CFCs, but the Sun has an effect on it as well. The same radiation from the Sun also causes the planet to warm, which also affects ozone. Since 2001, the Sun's been winding down from a peak of solar storms which cause this. Oddly (or not), the ozone hole's peak size has been getting smaller. My point is that climate change doomsayers generally ignore natural causes. Doesn't fit the narrative.

* And dismissing volcanic activity out of hand is part of that. What's interesting is that volcanoes have generally caused global cooling. Further, a study in 2005 showed that the cooling effects of particulates are twice as much as were previously thought, and that reductions in air pollution could then account for warmer temperatures. This is not to advocate for more pollution, only that the models and predictions really have a long way to go before we start implementing a global wealth redistribution scheme.

* And the polar bears? How did they endure conditions that permitted wheat farming in Greenland? Amazing. And even now, the threat to them by Greenpeace, et. al. is overblown.

"No evidence was presented by the proponents and no evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions," [Dr. Mitch Taylor, wildlife manager] said. "Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles."

He said no one is suggesting that climate change isn't affecting some polar bear populations, but noted there are 20 polar bear populations in the world and each one should be considered independently.

Again, they're ignoring natural cycles that these animals have survived for far longer than the 1970s. But doomsayers can't use that information.

Taylor noted the estimated number of bears on the Boothia Peninsula, 1,300 kilometres west of Iqaluit, has actually increased to 1,500 animals from 900. He said environmental groups don't seem to want to take information like that into consideration when pressing their case.

"Life may be good, but good news about polar bear populations does not seem to be welcomed by the Centre for Biological Diversity," he said.

You sound more worried about the polar bear surviving this latest cycle of warming than you do about the much longer term problem of human suffering.

Doug
These last couple of comments including yours are what I was looking for when I asked if you thought the activities of man affects the weather. I gather that you don't think the evidence is strong enough. I'm ok with that but then you go and say something that I just don't get. Just what is it about the distribution of wealth that has anything to do with the weather?

Yes, I don't think the evidence is strong enough, since temps like what we have, and even worse, occurred in the absence of CFCs and SUVs, and yet the planet was just fine. Whatever explanation of 1911 England is given could equally apply to today.

But instead of considering natural phenomonon, doomsayers insist that man is to blame and can even reverse it. This is where we come to the redistribution of wealth. My second reply to you in this thread included a link on Redstate about an idea being put forth about dealing with global warming; carbon credits.

Here's the premise: Britain and other countries are thinking about mandating emissions-trading programs for business. But, says Miliband, individuals -- not business -- account for almost half of all of Britain's emissions through their use of planes, trains, automobiles, electricity, various heating fuels -- and, presumably, belching and exhaling. "Imagine a country," says Miliband, "Where carbon becomes a new currency."

Do we have to...?

Under Miliband's brave new bizarro-enviro world, every citizen would be given (by the government, of course) an allotment of carbon points that they could spend whenever they used fuels like gas or electricity. If you ran a little short, guess you could always buy points from some clever bloke who saved fuel by taking all his turns on the inside lane. An enterprising Briton who hunkered down for a few years and didn't burn much fuel (or exhale very much) could horde her points, sell 'em on eBay and become the British Bill Gates or go on a carbon bender.

This global wealth redistribution scheme is predicated on blaming man for global warming. Without that, you don't have a program.

And there you have the connection. It's no coincidence that the ideology most heavily pushing global warming caused by man is also the one that most heavily pushes wealth redistribution.

Thank you Doug, you have made my point!

This is much less about the state of the environment and global warming but about control. Those who make the rules have the power to control those who don't!

The sun is currently in a very active state and warming up things all over our solar system. But elected and appointed officials cannot control the thermostat on the sun, but they can control the folks here on the ground.

I'm not trying to look like a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut, but when some people attain high levels of office they think they are there to "fix" things. And when you "fix" one thing, you want to "fix" another. Pretty soon, they think to "fix" things it would be faster and easier just to force the people do things whether they want to or not. It goes through history, power and control is the ultimate drug!

Interesting discussion here. I have to comment on one thing. hello says "our very existence can be expressed with a very simple energy equation that has a balence defined by the very environment that spawned us." This may be the heart of the issue. If you believe God created and is in control of the world, then you tend to believe that it isn't so fragile. God won't let us perish because we made one or two mistakes. If you believe that we are all here because of a freak accident in a pool of slime, then you would tend to believe another freak accident (or a few mistakes) could wipe us all out. It all comes down to worldview. The equation is NOT simple either. Nor is it well understood at all. Without understanding the equation, we are very likely to have 'unintended consequences' as we implement sweeping environmental policy.

hello also says "each member (of the earth) consumes far, far more then they give back. this rate makes the end inevitable, as every year that the earth grows weaker" Here we get into thermodynamics, closed systems vs. open, and the 2nd law. The earth is not a closed system, we have the sun. Photosynthesis in plants is the miracle that makes it work. Many do give more much more than they comsume. If what you were saying was true, then the earth would never have produced what you see today. It would have wound-down 'millions' of years ago. The universe is a closed system, but it's 'thermal death' is still a long way off. Perhaps someday we can convince all the people on Venus to pay 'thermal credits' to earth.

Well, I'm not sure I'd say that it's an article of faith that "God won't let us perish because we made one or two mistakes". Indeed Revalation suggests that just before man destroys himself, God intervenes. Good stewardship is essential; a responsibility of the believer. The Cornwall Declaration affirms that.

One of my issues, highlighted by the main post, is the fact that some are too willing to blame man primarily for weather conditions that have happened many times before. When they say "It's the hottest it's been in 400 years", ya' gotta ask "Well what did man do to make it so hot in the 1600s?" The answer, of course, is that it was a natural cycle, and it appears some are trying to profit, or at least implement their globalist policies, on the wave of the same such cycle.