seems to now see a little more reality in Global Warming. Can we add him to the believer side of the Dweb poll?
Pat Robertson...
- Thread starter utahdog2003
- Start date
You bes' not f&%# with the ol' Rev'd Pat, now. He knows where you live. I mean anynone who says he can leg press 2,000 pounds at age 78 gotta be one mean mofo....
That's it? 4 Posts? One of the biggest nutbags in conservative politics embraces the 'fabled' Global Warming as truth and Dweb barfs up 4 meaningless posts? A stray cat farts in the wind and people around here start foaming at the mouth to go at each other and this gets nothing? Could it be that ol' Pat is actually as meaningless as a cat farting in the wind after all?
Man, you guys are getting soft!:smilelol:
Man, you guys are getting soft!:smilelol:
More likely becasue he's uber right. So most people secretly like his positions. Just don't want to admit they agree with him on most things because he is is such a whack job (or, IMO, an extremely evil man). For most outspoken people here. Sorta like the opposite of Reagan. Everyone loved him but when people were surveyed about specific positions of his, but not told who it was, most people thought he was nuts.
But it's not just him. There is a growing movement amoung evangelicals towards recoginising the issues of global warming.
But it's not just him. There is a growing movement amoung evangelicals towards recoginising the issues of global warming.
Last edited:
It is a growing sentament with everyone, not just right-wing nutjobs (and, believe me, there is no one that I'd rather disagree with that Patty R.). That is mostly because there is a whole lotta reasons to believe something is going on. I've studied it for over a decade and have found a few things to be true about Global warming
1. most people don't really understand what it is or how it works (on both sides of the issue)
2. those that oppose it are usually uninformed about the actual science behind it or have something to gain by refuting it.
3. The vast majority of the World's top scientists think there is something to it and the number get larger everyday.
4. see number one.
I don't know of many credible scientists that are worth their salt that flatout say it isn't likely unless they are drawing a pay check from a company that has a vested interest. Additionally, I have yet to meet one person who understands the Thermohaline cycle and how ocean salinity effects it who isn't worried about Global Warming. Either way, doing something about it now is cheap insurance. What would you say if someone came up to you with revolver, half of the chambers loaded and the other half empty. They put the gun up to your kid's head (they are the one's that would be really screwed from Global Warming anyway) and told you that they will give you $1000 to let them pull the trigger (representing the money that is to be made or saved from not doing anything about Global Warming) or you can pay them $500 (obviously representing the cost of taking action) to not pull the trigger. The standard "wait and see" crowd would have to go for the $1000 and the trigger pull (taking the chance that Global Warming, i.e. a bullet, will not strike). Meanwhile the Chicken Little's would have to shell out 500 big one's and know for sure that the trigger won't be pulled. You may be alright without taking steps to combat Global Warming, but wouldn't you rather take out some insurance and be more sure?
PS. Yes I am aware of the ice age theories. There is far less evidence for that theory than Global Warming and it is primarily introduced by those grasping at straws to negate the Global Warming Theory. Besides we can't really do too much about that anyway. At the very least we are speeding that theory along. And yes, I drive a Land Rover and am not planing on selling it. Just thought I'd chime in with an unpopular opinion.
1. most people don't really understand what it is or how it works (on both sides of the issue)
2. those that oppose it are usually uninformed about the actual science behind it or have something to gain by refuting it.
3. The vast majority of the World's top scientists think there is something to it and the number get larger everyday.
4. see number one.
I don't know of many credible scientists that are worth their salt that flatout say it isn't likely unless they are drawing a pay check from a company that has a vested interest. Additionally, I have yet to meet one person who understands the Thermohaline cycle and how ocean salinity effects it who isn't worried about Global Warming. Either way, doing something about it now is cheap insurance. What would you say if someone came up to you with revolver, half of the chambers loaded and the other half empty. They put the gun up to your kid's head (they are the one's that would be really screwed from Global Warming anyway) and told you that they will give you $1000 to let them pull the trigger (representing the money that is to be made or saved from not doing anything about Global Warming) or you can pay them $500 (obviously representing the cost of taking action) to not pull the trigger. The standard "wait and see" crowd would have to go for the $1000 and the trigger pull (taking the chance that Global Warming, i.e. a bullet, will not strike). Meanwhile the Chicken Little's would have to shell out 500 big one's and know for sure that the trigger won't be pulled. You may be alright without taking steps to combat Global Warming, but wouldn't you rather take out some insurance and be more sure?
PS. Yes I am aware of the ice age theories. There is far less evidence for that theory than Global Warming and it is primarily introduced by those grasping at straws to negate the Global Warming Theory. Besides we can't really do too much about that anyway. At the very least we are speeding that theory along. And yes, I drive a Land Rover and am not planing on selling it. Just thought I'd chime in with an unpopular opinion.
Well, when the masses begin catching on and outlaw internal-combustion engines, any discoweb Member with 209 posts or greater will be given a Government-issued light truck certificate.
There are a couple of christian science channels here with hosts like him. They are pretty entertaining, Did you know Corythosaurus (the dinosaur with a hollow crest on its head) used the crest for cracking open coconuts.
People need to think in geologic time, we are still in an ice age and the earth has been warming up for the last 200,000 years. So the question is; How much are we influencing global warming?
According to the congressional research service the avg global air surface has risen by .9 F over the last 100 years.
1. NO ONE knows exactly how global warming works.
2. Many have something to gain by supporting/refuting global warming.
3. It only takes one person to disprove all of the worlds top scientists.
Solar radiation is the driving force of the climate (both short term and long term), evidence is ample. So how do astronomical cyclic events interact with the earth and drive terrestrial cyclic events? and how do periodic events interact with cyclic events to shape the climate?
You don't hear much about the Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, or Milankovitch Cycles when talking about global warming. How do these cycles relate to the carbon cycle, the thermohaline cycle, etc.? and don't forget biologic cycles. No one completely understands how all of these cycles and events interact.
I don't buy into global warming, but I won't say I'm not wrong.
Right or wrong the earth will take care of itself, it has the time.
The media likes to complain about american fuel consumption while forgetting we feed nearly 1/2 of the world.
People need to think in geologic time, we are still in an ice age and the earth has been warming up for the last 200,000 years. So the question is; How much are we influencing global warming?
According to the congressional research service the avg global air surface has risen by .9 F over the last 100 years.
1. NO ONE knows exactly how global warming works.
2. Many have something to gain by supporting/refuting global warming.
3. It only takes one person to disprove all of the worlds top scientists.
Solar radiation is the driving force of the climate (both short term and long term), evidence is ample. So how do astronomical cyclic events interact with the earth and drive terrestrial cyclic events? and how do periodic events interact with cyclic events to shape the climate?
You don't hear much about the Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, or Milankovitch Cycles when talking about global warming. How do these cycles relate to the carbon cycle, the thermohaline cycle, etc.? and don't forget biologic cycles. No one completely understands how all of these cycles and events interact.
I don't buy into global warming, but I won't say I'm not wrong.
Right or wrong the earth will take care of itself, it has the time.
The media likes to complain about american fuel consumption while forgetting we feed nearly 1/2 of the world.
Keep in mind that I am not someone who is happy about Global Warming. I'm not thinking that it will teach the bad naughty Western Civilizations to love and cuddle their Mother Earth. I don't have anything to gain by Global Warming happening. I just have a fair amount of education (degree in Environmental Science and active study since 1992) in the area and know more about it than most (not all).
It is true that no one is 100% sure as to exactly how Global Warming would work. There are too many variables to be able to account for them all. Remember, Doctors almost never really know exactly what is wrong with you. 9 times out of 10 they are taking an educated guess. Even so, it takes a fairly dim person to ignore a doctors diagnosis simply because they are 100% positive. We do have pretty good odds given to us by the people who know this stuff (almost all of them smarter than almost all of us AND have spent a lot more time checking the problem out). What we do have is a pretty good understanding of what things account for the cycles that maintain the environment that we live it. Scientists (the same ones that have nothing to gain from Global Warming and really know the topic well) have been able to do studies on the atmospheric conditions of the past and also back-track to get pretty close to figuring out what we put in the atmosphere and where it goes. Their figures pretty much account for what is going on, especially for the rise in Global CO2, Methane, et al. and the rate at which people have been dumping it into the air. If it was an impending Ice Age there would be a large discrepancy in the calculations, of which there isn't. What are the chances that an Ice Age just so happens to be coming at just the right time and rate to co-inside with these people's calculations AND that the CO2 greenhouse gases we have been pumping out are magically disappearing? Fairly slim. Lots of people have the Rush Limbaugh approach. They learn a little bit from other people who don't want it to happen and pick and choose what facts paint the picture they way they want it to be. I understand wanting things to work that way, but they just don't. They tend to say "well look, the average temp. has only risen an average of one degree over the last X-number of years (different people quote the stat differently). For one thing that is a global average. If you have winters that are 9 degrees cooler and summers that are 10 degrees hotter, then you have a one degree increase, and that doesn't even cover the regionally warming and cooling. If the grain belt of the United States raises only a few degrees (projected) and Europe cools a few degrees (also projected) then it isn't just nicer in South Dakota in January. You have the agricultural center of the world no longer with the proper climate to support the farming necessary. So what? It shifts north into Canada and we farm there, right? No. Top soil North of the grain belt is not able to support the intensive agriculture that would be needed. over half of the World's cereals would no longer be able to be grown. They also ignore the fact that the usage of the things that are responsible for Global Warming is increasing exponentially. Thus, things will get much worse much more quickly than in the past. They also ignore the positive and negative feedback loops that will exacerbates the problem (disruptions in the Thermalhaline Cycle due to the reduction in salinity of the Atlantic Ocean will slow or halt the nutrient dispersal system that allows the coccoliths to flourish. Coccoliths are one of the primary ways that CO2 is stripped from the atmosphere.) Thus increasing the rate at which CO2 builds up in the atmosphere. And that is just one of many loops that will make things worse once the critical threshold is reached. It is just like moving your hand towards a lit candle. Everything is fine for a long time, but once you cross a certain boundary you have a problem. The big problem with waiting until allthe evidence is in is that it will be to late. It is sort of like not being sure that jumping off a bridge will kill you until you hit the ground. You might survive, but why not re-think jumping in the first palce and take the stairs? Just a little rationality and some extra time for technological advances will go a long way.
I'm not sure why I am writing this. Those that refuse to learn about the problem and just want to ignore it aren't going to read it anyway.
It is true that no one is 100% sure as to exactly how Global Warming would work. There are too many variables to be able to account for them all. Remember, Doctors almost never really know exactly what is wrong with you. 9 times out of 10 they are taking an educated guess. Even so, it takes a fairly dim person to ignore a doctors diagnosis simply because they are 100% positive. We do have pretty good odds given to us by the people who know this stuff (almost all of them smarter than almost all of us AND have spent a lot more time checking the problem out). What we do have is a pretty good understanding of what things account for the cycles that maintain the environment that we live it. Scientists (the same ones that have nothing to gain from Global Warming and really know the topic well) have been able to do studies on the atmospheric conditions of the past and also back-track to get pretty close to figuring out what we put in the atmosphere and where it goes. Their figures pretty much account for what is going on, especially for the rise in Global CO2, Methane, et al. and the rate at which people have been dumping it into the air. If it was an impending Ice Age there would be a large discrepancy in the calculations, of which there isn't. What are the chances that an Ice Age just so happens to be coming at just the right time and rate to co-inside with these people's calculations AND that the CO2 greenhouse gases we have been pumping out are magically disappearing? Fairly slim. Lots of people have the Rush Limbaugh approach. They learn a little bit from other people who don't want it to happen and pick and choose what facts paint the picture they way they want it to be. I understand wanting things to work that way, but they just don't. They tend to say "well look, the average temp. has only risen an average of one degree over the last X-number of years (different people quote the stat differently). For one thing that is a global average. If you have winters that are 9 degrees cooler and summers that are 10 degrees hotter, then you have a one degree increase, and that doesn't even cover the regionally warming and cooling. If the grain belt of the United States raises only a few degrees (projected) and Europe cools a few degrees (also projected) then it isn't just nicer in South Dakota in January. You have the agricultural center of the world no longer with the proper climate to support the farming necessary. So what? It shifts north into Canada and we farm there, right? No. Top soil North of the grain belt is not able to support the intensive agriculture that would be needed. over half of the World's cereals would no longer be able to be grown. They also ignore the fact that the usage of the things that are responsible for Global Warming is increasing exponentially. Thus, things will get much worse much more quickly than in the past. They also ignore the positive and negative feedback loops that will exacerbates the problem (disruptions in the Thermalhaline Cycle due to the reduction in salinity of the Atlantic Ocean will slow or halt the nutrient dispersal system that allows the coccoliths to flourish. Coccoliths are one of the primary ways that CO2 is stripped from the atmosphere.) Thus increasing the rate at which CO2 builds up in the atmosphere. And that is just one of many loops that will make things worse once the critical threshold is reached. It is just like moving your hand towards a lit candle. Everything is fine for a long time, but once you cross a certain boundary you have a problem. The big problem with waiting until allthe evidence is in is that it will be to late. It is sort of like not being sure that jumping off a bridge will kill you until you hit the ground. You might survive, but why not re-think jumping in the first palce and take the stairs? Just a little rationality and some extra time for technological advances will go a long way.
I'm not sure why I am writing this. Those that refuse to learn about the problem and just want to ignore it aren't going to read it anyway.
I do agree with one point. The Earth will certainly be fine, in time. We, on the other hand, won't.
Sorry I can't rant anymore about the religious nutbags anymore I live 7 miles down the 405 from the TBN HQ.Everyday I have to look at the big white gouty ass place and shake my head
Correction on my long 12:17 post. The theory is that we are exiting an ice age, not entering. That is what I get for trying to watch 15 dogs AND post.
Not really sure what I think about global warming. I know it exists but I think the jury is still out on the extent of the damage and how it will effect us. But what I do know, like Tom said, Pat is an evil man. And yes, I believe in Christ as my Saviour.
Wasn't saying you in particular had something to gain from global warming.
I was just making the point that science is manipulated by politics; economical, political, university, whatever.
I also have nothing to gain/lose from my global warming beliefs, but I sure as hell don't have a Rush Limbaugh point of view, I'm neither right nor left (at the risk of being labeled crazy I think the CFA and TLC are running the country and most are blind to it).
I am a geologist and I only know couple other geologists who flat out think global warming is caused by man. The geologists I know including myself question it as geological evidence is not concrete.
We could go rounds forever.
But as a scientist I have to consider your valid arguments and now I have more research to do on the thermohaline cycle. How is it affected by Atlantic multidecadal Oscillation.
I don't deny the earth is warming (as I stated we are coming still coming out of the last ice age) I just question how much human influence affects it because these processes have been happening throughout earth's existance.
I wasn't going to post back either but I just thought I should because there are people who oppose or question global warming who do not just take the rush limbaugh approach, as I mentioned there is no concrete geological evidence.
Saying that, most people on both sides of the issue get their info on the subject from the news media many of which are just as bad as rush, well maybe not so bad. ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek all owned by the council on foreign affairs...
I was just making the point that science is manipulated by politics; economical, political, university, whatever.
I also have nothing to gain/lose from my global warming beliefs, but I sure as hell don't have a Rush Limbaugh point of view, I'm neither right nor left (at the risk of being labeled crazy I think the CFA and TLC are running the country and most are blind to it).
I am a geologist and I only know couple other geologists who flat out think global warming is caused by man. The geologists I know including myself question it as geological evidence is not concrete.
We could go rounds forever.
But as a scientist I have to consider your valid arguments and now I have more research to do on the thermohaline cycle. How is it affected by Atlantic multidecadal Oscillation.
I don't deny the earth is warming (as I stated we are coming still coming out of the last ice age) I just question how much human influence affects it because these processes have been happening throughout earth's existance.
I wasn't going to post back either but I just thought I should because there are people who oppose or question global warming who do not just take the rush limbaugh approach, as I mentioned there is no concrete geological evidence.
Saying that, most people on both sides of the issue get their info on the subject from the news media many of which are just as bad as rush, well maybe not so bad. ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek all owned by the council on foreign affairs...