Comments on: Global Warming: More Than a Hoax

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:31:57 +0000

CFC’s is supposedly breaking down Ozone, but how? CFC’s are saturated! I calculated the molecular mass of O2 which is 32 and CFC which is 137.5. How does CFC’s rise above O2 and break down the ozone?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:26:49 +0000

Basic sciene. The ozone does not protects us against UV rays. UV rays clashes with oxygen. This reaction disperses the light and ozone is produced. Basically, the reaction provides protection and ozone is the result of the reaction.

By: KenJ

KenJ — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:14:06 +0000

Isn't Robbie's point fairly obvious?

Programmers knew that a date overflow bug in software will cause glitches, when the rollover occurs from 99 to 00. In 1999 banks, ships, electrical grids and all manner of complicated systems relied on software. So a lot of bugs, all happening on the same day and same hour would be a disaster.

Yet everyone heeded the warning. Nobody wrote News of the World articles claiming Y2K was a conspiracy hoax. Instead all the world's programmers worked diligently, together and without blame. The problems were fixed and disaster was averted.

The same thing happened today in LA. The mayor, officials and news all predicted Carmageddon when the 405 freeway was shutdown. The purpose of the warning was to prevent freeway gridlock. Everyone heeded the news and stayed off the roads. Disaster was averted.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:51:30 +0000

In what way does Y2K counter the argument? Y2K was overblown as a doomsday scenario. Nothing happened.

By: RobbieP

RobbieP — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:43:45 +0000

Doesnt your inclusion of the whole Y2K scenario kind of counter your argument here?

By: BarryP

BarryP — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:58:08 +0000

Michael, why suggest that we are the ones responsible? Government bureaucracy, oil company mismanagement and the continued bureaucratic posturing continues to allow the oil to spill. I'm not going to feel a false guilt as if I am responsible. I am ALL for drilling for oil safely. Let's get back to drilling on land and in shallow waters where spills/leaks like this can be better managed when they occur.

While I never said it was "just" an opportunity for the Gospel, it certainly is an opportunity for the Gospel. There are plenty of things to understand from this: 1) We are to hope in God, not our own selves. 2) A "doomsday" perspective fails to understand that this is an opportunity to be holy. These are things ALSO addressed above.

You mention that the Bible provides a deeper insight… Would you mind sharing your thoughts since I have already done so?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:03:58 +0000

Your article states: "It was predicted that we would run out of fossil fuels. This spiked an unnecessary fuel crisis." Yes, technically you are correct, a crisis was unnecessary, in a strict legalistic sense. And today, 30 years later, we obtain 30% of our oil from wells deep in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet, simple changes like insulated windows during winter would cut total U.S. energy use by 10%. Neither Obama or BP is responsible, the finger-pointing really should point at ourselves. These photographs tell a much stronger story than I can ever say with words:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_i…

It is fair to ask what role can religion and the Bible play during these man-made disasters? Is this disaster just another opportunity to spread the Gospel, as your article suggests? Or does the Bible provide a deeper insight and guidance into our own actions and relationship with God's creation?

By: BarryP

BarryP — Sun, 30 May 2010 20:22:29 +0000

I agree… the oil spill is catastrophic! It is devastating the marshes of Louisiana. Too bad there is more finger-pointing going on on both sides (oil company and Obama administration).

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 May 2010 16:00:54 +0000

Today on CNN, BP's chief executive Tony Hayward discussing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, stated "This is clearly an environmental catastrophe, there is no two ways about it."

By: BarryP

BarryP — Sun, 23 May 2010 16:20:22 +0000

Why pay more for our oil by importing it? Why pay countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico who have shown disdain for America? I am not against clean, better and safer technology. Along with those technologies come the demand for infrastructure that we currently do not have. If our cars could be hydro-powered, that would be awesome! However, attempts to do so have been difficult because the infrastructure is simply not in place.

We can drill safely. Especially if we are allowed to do so inland.