全球变暖：一个骗局多
以下是从那些相信，全球变暖是真实的，是我们社会面临的最关键的问题，一些报价。
“我们在需要保卫的步骤是迅速采取行动，以巩固世界各地的应急反应能力，以保护或搬迁脆弱的沿海社区和准备环境难民迁移流动增加 。” Hertsgaard马克
“据最严峻的预测，全球变暖的极端可能给我们未来的不稳定，混沌天气，海平面上升，旱灾，农作物歉收，饥荒，洪水和大规模灭绝的史诗和政治上的不稳定，总是在融化的积雪迎来伴随着日益减少的资源。 “阿蒂罗伯特·肯尼迪，www.stopglobalwarming.org
“气候变化可能引发的一系列环环相扣的灾难，包括特大旱灾，大规模的饥荒甚至核战争的国家像中国和印度河谷和其他稀缺的食物和水的来源，战斗。”
在一篇题为“ 全球变暖可能踩住粮食供应 ，“但计算机模型预测显示ABC新闻的著名气候学家史蒂夫·施奈德在斯坦福大学和加利福尼亚州水板等计算，现在发出警告，由于全球气候变暖的山积雪如此重要的所有的食物是最有可能不仅融化了过快的春天，但大幅减少-高达90％，根据某些型号的计算机- 以及在本世纪末之前，一生，今天的孩子 。 [重点煤矿。 作出修正的基础上讨论以下]
我们不应该感到惊讶，在气候及其变化的世俗解释。 然而，令人惊讶的是，基督徒正在欺骗和愚弄别人在这个问题上。 见今日基督教“的文章的概要，这表明，在许多福音社区推动这个骗局。
这并不是新的。 许多领先的基督徒被抓“小鸡”的氛围。 记得千年虫危机吗？ 在1999年，许多基督教领袖创造一种恐惧的气氛在我们的教会。 考虑加里北长老领先的领导人。 在他的文章“盲芒崖”，这出现在他的网站www.y2ksupplies.com，加里说以下内容：
“我们正朝着大于任何世界经历了自14世纪中叶的鼠疫灾难。” 1
考虑到在过去的几十年里的世界末日的预言。 他们每个人都已经被时间证明是错误的...
- 20世纪70年代：全球变冷。 那些主张全球变冷，在30年内，我们都从饥饿的痛苦，因为缺乏作物野生预测。 现在，三十多年后，我们有全球变暖。 此外，没有饥饿。 政府赞助的法案，以帮助遏制肥胖。
- 20世纪70年代能源危机下的总统吉米·卡特。 据预测，我们将化石燃料运行。 这飙升不必要的燃料危机。
- 20世纪70年代：人口爆炸：有人认为，世界人口的世界，在这样一个激进的步伐，将不会有足够的空间，食物和资源的增加。 中国采取的不人道措施，限制了他们的社会每一个家庭的孩子。 这一直蹂躏他们的国家在2008年，现在，他们正在重新考虑他们的做法。
- 1999年：公元二千年电脑故障会影响银行，交通信号，建立了粮食短缺，是一场大灾难。 不是一个事件被记录。
作为信徒，我们认为我们反应他们的末日预言，如全球气候变暖以及如何？
什么是我们认为世界末日的预言，尤其是全球变暖？
我们拒绝人们谁使非圣经的世界末日的预言。
有一个在罪恶人性的基本需要，能够预测未来。 它使用的是假先知，严肃处理。 今天，他们赢得了诺贝尔和平奖。
这背后需要的是“预言？”为什么人们要预测未来吗？ 它可以归结到一个字的骄傲。
在就业38:22-30，神挑战工作的自豪的精神，提出了一系列有关天气和气候的反问。 随着这一连串的问题，神亮点的工作无法控制的气候。 这里有一个问题的抽样：
- 你已经进入雪的仓库或看到冰雹的仓库，我公司保留乱世的战争和战斗的日子吗？ （VV 22,23）
- 闪电分散的地方，或在东风散落在地上的地方是什么？ （比24）
- 谁通道，一个下雨的洪流和雷暴路径，减少水的土地，没有人的生命，它没有一个沙漠，以满足一个荒凉的荒地，并使其与草芽？ （vv. 25日至27日）
- 雨有父亲吗？ 露水珠谁的父亲？ 从他们的子宫来的冰呢？ 谁给从天上生的霜冻水域时变得坚硬如石的深面，当被冻结？ （vv. 28日至30日）
神决定了谁是你的清除工作，它是相信人可以控制气候的嚣张气焰。 我们可以回头看看做什么气候 。 我们可以做短期的猜测，天气会做什么。 然而，作出预测，如全球变暖权威人士只是普通的嚣张气焰。 他们预测 ，气候变化将改变在未来30年为11.5华氏度。 这从来没有发生过，是比任何波动，在过去的2000年的11倍。 所有的卫星图片和气象学在我们的处置设备，气象员无法预测到未来会发生什么事了两个多星期的与任何真实的准确性。
为什么有些人声称，气温将上升，因为它之前从未有吗？ 为什么他们行事，如果他们有专门知识吗？ 扮演上帝，这是人类的天性。 只有上帝拥有我们的未来气候变化的知识。
我们拒绝人们忽略清除圣经的陈述，如全球变暖将不会有末日。
让我们对比全球变暖的学者说什么“圣经”中明确规定：
全球变暖的倡导者预测如下：
世界上的整体气温将增加高达11.5度，导致冰川融化，海平面上升和覆盖我国沿海大城市。
圣经说：
创世记8:22：“只要地球等外，播种期和收获，冷和热，夏季和冬季，白天和晚上将永远不会停止。”
全球变暖的支持者说：
“我们冒着人类生存的能力”气候变化专门委员会主席
圣经说：
创世记9:11：“我与你建立我的盟约：所有的生命再也不会被削减洪水水域;绝不会再有洪水毁灭地球。”
我们要仔细考虑之前，我们相信在全球变暖
一个简单的人相信什么，但认为他的步骤，审慎的人了。 （箴14:15）
这条谚语描述了一个“简单”的人。 “简单”。从希伯来字，这意味着“开明”，“容易说服”
这些人认为，“任何事情。”从字面上看，这是“每一个字。”他们没有察觉，但相信每一个字的人讲。
相反，我们要谨慎，理智的人。 如何适用于全球气候变暖问题？ 这里有一些实用的建议......
- 谨慎的人辨别全球变暖的人说什么。 你是否注意到，“全球变暖”一词现在被重新定义为“气候变化吗？”这是重要的。 谁是教学是有变暖的趋势，希望能够弥补自己的情况下，有降温的趋势是由使用的短语“气候变化”，这是什么propogandists。 他们巧妙地改变定义和术语。
- 审慎的人相信“圣经”之前，他们相信科学界。 以上段落表明，我们将始终有“冷和热。”我们将不得不天气周期。
- 审慎的人不感到兴奋，将是全球变暖的灾难索赔。 他们能够看到这个问题，政治与金钱的推动力。
- 审慎的人认识到，全球气候变暖的主张是重复同样的教条全球变冷和人口炸弹制作人在70年代。然而，全球变暖的倡导者是不是愿意犯同样的错误，他们在70年代提出的precedessors。 有人说，在10至30年内，全球变冷会带来灾难。 现在，至少有30年已经过去了，有没有灾难。 现在，全球变暖的社区项目的灾害，50至100年。 为什么呢？ 这是因为他们不会在这里解释为什么灾难没有发生吗？
- 谨慎的人会考虑良好的教育，从未来哈特兰德研究所和他们的曼哈顿宣言“ 。
我们如何作出反应，世界末日的预言，尤其是全球变暖吗？
危险的时代提供了一个机会来表达他们的信仰，对上帝的基督徒。
假设片刻，全球变暖是真实的（如建议的倡导者），我们的反应是什么？ 考虑约瑟（创50:19-21）在他的生活面临许多真正的危机。 他是一个不起眼的年轻人，谁在上帝的主权重点。 在真正的危机之中，他告诉他的兄弟......
你想害我，但上帝打算为好它来完成正在做，节省了许多人的生命。
神用兄弟的罪恶行动，以挽救自己的生命和其他许多人的生命。 约瑟夫回头一看，他的生活，实现上帝的计划既包含善与恶。
当灾难来临，我们可以确信，他们是没有上帝的惊喜。 神，在他的智慧和力量，有计划，并使用这些东西来完成他的目的。 因此，基督徒面临风暴时，他们可以有信心说：“所有的事情会一起工作好！”（罗马书8:28）
作为信徒，我们是不是遍布全球变暖问题的恐惧。 相反，我们应该作为一个场合使用，分享我们的信仰。 我们周围的人都需要安定。 他们需要希望。 他们需要被保存。 以传播福音的机会，全球变暖问题。
忧的是罪恶。
25“所以我告诉你们，不用担心你的生活，你会吃或喝;或你的身体，穿什么。 是不是比食物更重要的生命，身体比衣服更重要吗？...... 34，所以不担心明天，明天会担心自己。 每一天都有它自己够麻烦的。 （玛6:25，34）
一句“不要担心”来自一个希腊字，具有较强的意思是“不着急。”有很多事情是“急”。 我们有真正的威胁，恐怖主义，同侪压力，唯物论，冷漠等，从这段话中，我们可以得出至少两个结论......
- 焦虑是一种缺乏信任，在上帝照顾我们。 因为他有，并继续采取照顾我们的衣食住行，他将参加我们更需要照顾。
- 焦虑往往把重点放在事情是不是真的（34对比照。腓4:8）。 我们无法知道未来任何确定的程度。 只有上帝知道未来。 为信徒，他们只知道过去和现在，我们把重点放在在目前的敬虔生活。 这是否意味着我们不关心自己的未来？ 我们根本不急于在未来，我们错过了敬虔生活的机会，现在在这里成长。
结论
全球变暖是真的比一个骗局。 它正迅速成为一种有害的问题，为基督徒。 这是一个在科学或“圣经”的信仰之间的战斗。 许多世界末日的预言一样，也有潜在的动机。 我们已经确定了两个政治和金钱。
全球变暖问题，为我们提供了一个机会，锻炼我们的信心。 当你满足那些鼓吹世界末日的预言这些种，采取认真，审慎的思想。 作为一个场合使用它来 传播福音。
1，由于他的网站不再是存在的，我们有Archive.org 
见这里在下列情况下报价。
2见这见地的文章，其中比较保罗·埃利希和戈尔的发言。
2009年9月19日，10:14上午
可怕的东西！ 所以我们都应该继续像以前 - 强奸和抢劫美丽的创造，上帝已经给我们的关怀？ 我们应该站在一边，理直气壮地维护我们的“上帝赋予的”超荣幸的生活方式，而数百万人死于缺乏食物和干净的水，因为作物不会增加或房屋被冲上升的潮汐系统。 可能地狱燃烧温度为那些宣扬的福音自以为是和自私自利的变态！
2009年9月19日，1:26 PM
嘿伊万，不包括我在你的社论说：“我们。” 我不参与强奸和抢劫上帝的创造和大多数人这样做是很难找到。 如果有任何疑问，那些都是硬的全球变暖的宗教主张，你的说教评论回答了这个问题，明确。 为什么会有人想要另一对气候的分歧仅仅是因为一个人的刑罚是令人难以置信。 我将让您的评论立场。 不是因为它应该，但因为它揭示了如何“宗教”的全球气候变暖的人群正在成为。
2009年9月27日，2:28上午
无论全球变暖是否正在发生或没有，它不能提出异议，我们的水，空气和土壤污染在一个unprecidented率。 我们是为神的孩子，是什么已经把我们照顾好管家吗？ 我认为不会。 是的，我说我们。 很少问候爱护地球做我们所能。 包括我自己。
我不会就这样或那样的关于全球变暖的。
9月27日，2009 10:02 PM
这些东西为什么不能提出异议？ 你的评论简直充满了毫无根据的报表。 证据是，“我们”被污染的水，空气和土壤，以前所未有的速度在哪里？ 事实是，我个人始终，并继续成为一个环境好管家。 我不同意你的内疚。 我个人不知道一个人，这种污染作出贡献。 如果我看到矿污染的熟人或朋友，我会面对那个人。
2009年10月5日下午02:09
我们推到地面的化学品，到空气中，和入水。 一个不可否认的污染ASPEC是光污染。 如果我们摧毁夜空，我们还有什么可以破坏。 当然，你知道有人谁污染，任何人驾驶一辆汽车，并把大气中的二氧化碳。 我不能说我是无辜的污染，但至少我承认，我努力修复它。
这是无法否认，人们正在挨饿。 如果你能我的名字一个国家，所行的事有任何饥饿或homelss peole，我就都回来了
2009年10月5日下午02:22
即使环保署不会说，二氧化碳是一种污染物。 这是一个天然气。 我们的树木和植物，依靠二氧化碳。 我开车只有50英里的一周我的车，以满足排放标准，是霸道。
你有证据证明，这有助于所谓的全球变暖？ 我“怪”的太阳。
2009年10月5日下午02:42
不bllaming污染，全球变暖，我只是指出，污染确实存在。 碳emmisions是臭氧层空洞乏味。 来自基本上任何使用汽油的排放。 树木和植物，不依赖于二氧化碳，他们改变它的氧气，但我们砍伐树木，建立商场，社区，城市。 碳排放量是远远比什么植物可以采取英寸
如果你想全球变暖归咎于太阳，勇往直前。 太阳加热星球。 但是你知道为什么金星是太阳系中最热的行星？ 它拥有地球上的热量陷阱，被称为温室气体的气体在大气中的气体。 金星可能开始冷得多，它可能变得炎热，每天。 这是理论peopple导致全球变暖。 你不能否认，无论是北撑竿跳和Antartcica的正变得越来越小。 冰，融化。 片掰，因为它太单薄。 其熔点
2009年10月16日下午02:46
这只不过是另一种情况下，无论他们beleive有人樱桃采摘经文的例子。
2009年10月25日，4:56上午
你在开玩笑......你是在开玩笑。 科学吓唬谁写这篇文章的人吗？ 科学界是没有得到我们，不只是为自己赚钱。 他们正试图停止对我们的自私三月到地面驾驶我们的世界。
但最终，这似乎是一个人，如那些写这篇文章的人认为科学的角度和对上帝面向的角度是不兼容的问题。 在环境研究和神学院的多个课程后，我已经学会了，并认为自己的事实，我在我们的上帝创造的破坏感到不安。 科学不是宗教的对立，它是一门学科，揭示神的奥秘，随着经文。
和尽可能这里圣经所指的是，我不认为上帝打算发送另一个世界末日。 但上帝给了我们，在我们的自由意志，有能力做到这一点，这可能违背神的旨意。 秋季的一个结果是自私的，原来我们对自己的性质，而不是对神。 在我们的自私，我们用我们这个世界的资源，虽然我们是唯一使用它们的人。 和我们的星球是更糟的磨损。
我深深的爱与神和神的教诲，在我们的世界和我们的生活中的运作。 和作为的人爱上帝做了，我认为我们需要认识到科学不可否认的事实为我们创造的破坏。
2009年10月26日下午06:44
其实沃伦，如果你要辩论，然后给我什么我都给抵消的事实。
本文是一个重写。 它最初是为2000年的愚蠢。 该无疾而终。
所以，我只是用相同的神学方法和相媲美的现代气候报价取代2000年数位的报价。
正在发生的事情是，这不是一个科学问题，它仅仅是政治性的。
20世纪70年代：全球变冷（闹剧）
20世纪70年代预测，我们将化石燃料运行。 （闹剧）
20世纪70年代，人口炸弹（闹剧）
1999年：2000年电脑故障（假末日预言）
所以，直到你带来了科学的数据，然后不倒打一耙我认为科学让我害怕。
November 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Then tell me how I am supposedly "cherry picking" Genesis 8:22 and Genesis 9:11 and how they do not apply.
2009年12月25日，3:39上午
您好加里
我去过冰岛。 我徒步在一个冰川，有一条小径，建于1930年，在冰川的基础上开始的。 但现在这条古道是超过一英里，离冰川的基地。 一整个英里...
最近，两个德国的商船通过先前不可逾越的东北通道走过。 今年首次开辟的通道。
收集温度数据背后的科学显然是困难的。 有没有温度计，500年前。 但是，这并不意味着我们不能推断出变暖的趋势。 因此，人们正在做的最好的，他们可以用树木年轮，冰芯等，但气温回暖明显的证据存在，如我所看到的冰川。
加上从今天的照片，在世界上任何一个城市或镇，与100年前相比，只是看。 每一个城市和镇是十个，二十一百倍大现在。 我飞的飞机，在西北的森林，看到英里和公里的皆伐。
我们把一个巨大的臭氧层洞，仅仅使用气雾罐。 是不是证明了这一点，人类可以影响大气。 我们知道，臭氧洞的存在。 我们可以衡量它。 在澳大利亚的人得到坏晒伤率较高的癌症。
你说我们的人类活动都没有任何效果？
2009年12月26日，2:00上午
这背后的“全球变暖/气候变化的”索赔的原始科学数据已“丢失”和破坏。 CRU的状态：“我们，因此，不保存原始数据，但只有增值（即质量控制和同质化）的数据。” http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/可用性/
结合最近披露的原始数据是不独立的科学验证的明显的政治环境，肯定会导致这个“全球变暖/气候变化的”最佳犯罪嫌疑人的想法。
2009年12月26日下午07:25
全球正在变暖。 但它仍然还没有恢复到温度人类在中世纪享有。 葡萄种植在英国（今天仍然无法）。 维京人的蓬勃发展对格陵兰岛的定居点。 一些最近被重新发现冰河退去后，露出的废墟。 是全球暖在20世纪后半，在过去10年我们有降温趋势。 对于那些把他们的信仰中的二氧化碳温室气体的神话，认为水是最强的温室气体在大气中发现了1000至10000倍浓度水平。 感谢上帝没有地球，全球变暖将无法居住。
2009年12月29日，12:45上午
在1400年的世界是平坦的。 这是不是一个“共识”的科学家说：“知道”。 这是每一个科学家。 这对他们是如此明显，如果你不同意，很明显，你的真实动机不得不在别处，如神的攻击。 为什么，没有人能真正质疑这么明显的东西，除非他们有另一个议程。 现在我知道，这是六百年前，科学家通过是“可笑的”。 嗯，不是真的。 他们通过科学的本质，解决问题的能力外。 我们今天做同样的。 如果你认为全球变暖是我们的能力之外，不图，记住它得到了改变，以“全球气候变化”有一段时间了，在我们自己的寿命。 我们真的应该学习的东西。 如果我们认为我们是真的，许多“聪明”在过去的600年中，暂停想一想。 全球保温是一个把十亿美元，数十亿年的演化方程，得到上帝的手艺也摆脱。 但没有想到这样的大时间跨度。 哦，不，我们成了.....在过去的几百年的“天才”。 其实我们只是恢复建设的通天塔。 我们是如此傲慢和不愿承认我们知道如何小。 上帝告诫我们明确有关，和随行的谦逊的缺乏。 ，这是真正的危险。 回收，直到你的心的内容，建立电动汽车和风车，赫克甚至通过一项法律，让我买了助力车，为所欲为，但不要骗自己骗别人，你是多么聪明。 ，你的精神受到损害。
2009年12月29日，7:29上午
很好奇，你捍卫伽利略和哥白尼。 伽利略用他的新望远镜支持哥白尼的理论，地球围绕太阳旋转。 伽利略试图通过侦查和软禁报表教会说是“虚假和完全反对圣经”。 和这样的历史重演。 作为对上帝的亵渎科学IReligious男人的世界各地的谴责。
地球有一个非常稳定的气候系统。 长大了，我记得我学习的盖亚假说，这推测，地球几乎是像一个有机体，它能够使用反馈回路，以保持恒定，平均气温。 不知道科学家们的理论，认真，但大家肯定认为地球大气层的平均温度的平均值，是惊人地稳定，可以追溯到几千年。
只有在20世纪80年代的气候科学家开始怀疑地球升温。 这是非常具有讽刺意味的是，气候科学家现在正在攻击伽利略某种程度上反对圣经经文，以同样的方式。 然而，科学家们预测，气候变化将导致以启示，或一个全球性的洪水。 圣经是这样说的灾难预言者。 科学家相信上帝，他们知道只有上帝造成了这些东西，他承诺不重复。 绝大多数科学家是无私的人，研究上帝创造纯粹的美丽和喜悦。 如果你想成为富人和富裕，生命投入资金进行科学是一个糟糕的选择。 很少有科学家从他们的努力，利润，他们给自己的知识距离自由。
悲剧是一个温暖的气候将让生活更加困难对于我们大多数人。 它会影响我们的孩子最。 我们的孩子将永远不会体验上帝创造大自然的方式，我们所做的。 我想有几个地方像格陵兰，这将有利于。 也许我比大多数的影响更为敏感。 我住在美国西部，气温回暖，已经造成的问题。 森林火灾是罕见的，现在，他们每年都会发生，而在更早的时候。 树皮甲虫，这通常是由低温死亡，摧残我的家园附近的森林。 我们有一个持续的干旱。 用于海洋和海岸附近的河流与鲑鱼的合作，但现在大部分都死了，捕鱼被禁止。 我的孩子的孩子永远不会吃野生鲑鱼。
我是一个终身的基督徒，但胆汁和毒液从我同胞的崇拜者是可悲的。 上帝问求职，招聘38:18-21“有你理解的广袤大地？告诉我，如果你知道这一切......但是，你应该知道这个”作业假设神是他的苦难负责，直到他学会了是撒旦。 然后上帝问职位，如果知道，他应该地球。 工作是混淆撒旦对上帝的傲慢，我们可以学到今天相同的教训。
科学家，如果你问他们，会告诉你，才能从根本上从未预测天气。 混沌理论告诉我们，地球的辽阔大气的行为是不可预知的蝴蝶在中国扇动，可能会导致飓风在大西洋海湾。 没有圣经气候科学家和神之间的矛盾。 But, like a big pot of simmering soup, if you turn up the gas, the soup will boil a bit more vigorously. Burning fossil fuels has empowered men to send ton after ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. God asks of us, and we can measure our lands. We can measure the ocean's and the forests and we can measure their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. And we can also measure that large portions of our rain forests are now gone, stripped for furniture and houses, and we can measure that oceans can only absorb a little carbon dioxide each year. Someday God will judge and ask you if you measured the the earth around you.
凡不油来自？ 黑油来自地球上最深的肠子。 在工作撒旦在这里？ 我真的不知道。 但是，我知道上帝给了我们之间做出选择善恶的能力。 我知道，即使我小的选择，每天都是善与恶之间的选择。 我知道我弟弟的苦难意识也是一种选择。 我知道科学家是不是我的敌人，他们是我的朋友。
我选择捍卫，关心和培育上帝的创造，我的精神是强大的。
2009年12月29日下午01:21
我会同意你的两点：
我也选择辩护，关心和培育上帝的创造。
在两周内，科学家们无法预测天气。 他们为什么要信任，预测未来气候的车型之一，十，百多年？ 特别是因为它们都方便“丢失”的原始数据。
2009年12月30日，5:00上午
谁告诉你的科学家宣称，预测未来？ 科学家们从未声称。
我定义在绝对意义上的预测，如果有人假设他们可以计算出一套粒子的位置和速度，在未来某个时间，根据他们目前的位置。
过去三百年来，这是众所周知的，经典的三体问题不能得到解决（当然，上帝除外）。 这被称为数学家。 因此，未来的无法预测甚至利用牛顿力学。 当您添加的量子效应，未来将变得更加难以预测。
另外，我怀疑，甚至有可能为“原始”数据丢失。 气象数据来自数以千计的世界各地的气象气象站。 任何高中理科学生可以收集和整理这些数据。
例如这里是从亚利桑那州气象台的原始数据。 你可以下载它自己： http://ag.arizona.edu/AZMET/az-data.htm
1月9日，2010在2:07上午
甚至这些科学家是谁给了我们在未来世界的毁灭这些气候模型的计算是假设。 这将是愉快的想象，科学家们有没有能力给他们的解决方案，不带偏见。 那些人说的2 +2 = 4肯定是受制于理性的假设。 然而，这些人说：“气候变化可能引发的一系列环环相扣的灾难，包括特大的干旱，”肯定的基础上，是由他们的假设偏向数据预测。
你可能会怀疑，“原始”数据丢失。 不过，我自己的话采取的CRU时，他们说，“我们，因此，不保存原始数据，但只增加值（即质量控制和均质）数据。”
2010年1月9日下午06:29
如果一份报纸告诉你2 +2 = 200，你会相信吗？ 媒体说，气候变化辩论来看，是一个类似的谬论。 这张贴的文章，使类似的逻辑上的不一致和谬误报表。 为什么会有人提出在星期日学校半真半假？ 报价您提供“发动了一系列环环相扣的灾难”是由一名记者，而不是科学家。 您所提交的关于“丢失”的数据，其他的报价也被用来记者鼓报纸的销量。 判断一个科学的辩论，这是愚蠢的，根据记者写什么。 争论销售后的所有文件。
没有任何一个真正的科学家作出任何稀奇古怪的预测世界末日。 因此，作为一个基督徒，我没有看到任何气候科学和“圣经”之间的冲突。 我的家园，已培育了我的家庭的几代人，是由气温升高的威胁。 我只是想保护我的家园，我的生活方式，我的孩子们。 谁也不能强迫任何人做出正确的选择。 善与恶之间的选择是在神的计划的光彩。
工业革命之前，大气中的二氧化碳和其他气体的稳定水平。 是唯一真正的辩论，否则，科学或人类是否造成这些在我们的大气层中的二氧化碳浓度增加一倍，将导致气温回暖与否。 如，在麻省理工学院的气象学教授理查德·林德曾怀疑，怀疑添加的二氧化碳会产生什么影响。 其他大多数气候科学家不同意。
林德曾是一个全球性的气候变暖持怀疑态度，但我尊重的人。 不同于怀疑论者唱反调，谁尝试旋转和情绪和谬误的空谈，失去了和世界末日像骗局赢得辩论，绝大多数，林德曾写道智能响应。
他的论文是在这里： http://www.mit.edu/〜YSC / index.files的/林德曾和C ...
林德曾赢得我的尊重，但我不同意他的结论。
January 9th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Actually, I was quoting scientists and found the quote on a scientific website:
http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.climate_chan… A report released in 2004 by the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessments said that by 2020, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war as countries like China and India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water.
The second quote was directly from CRU. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
So, whether journalists, Al Gore or I quote from these sources, they are claims by scientists.
Thanks for the mit.edu link. I will read it.
About your comment about "presenting half-truths in Sunday school." It is absurd to suggest that this lesson is presenting half-truths when I have clearly interacted with both sides. I have given accurate quotes from scientists. I have also given a biblical framework. Since I have given biblical support for my conclusions, I am wondering why you avoid discussing that aspect.
，2010年1月10日上午在1:44
The TecEco web site is owned by a concrete company… This site is not a credible source of information. Tececo is not managed by scientists, or even associated with scientists; it is a bunch of cement engineers. The site doesn't even contain links to papers published by legitimate scientists.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:18 am
Well, Michael, you said that these quotes were simply from journalists. I gave you a site with engineers who are involved in global climate change fear mongering. You simply discount the engineers. That site quoted from the Pentagon's report. I cannot locate that report.
I see that you have not considered the CRU quote.
Either way, these things are being said. So, the point of my article is just that. We are not worry about the fear mongering being spread. 为什么呢？ Because the Bible clearly states that these things cannot be known by man. Also, the Bible says that climate change is not the means by which the world will ultimately be destroyed.
What do you think about the Bible?
January 15th, 2010 at 9:05 am
I believe in the Bible and read it each and every day. It is a great source of hope and grace to me. But I cannot agree that men cannot cause harm to earth or become responsible for catastrophes.
Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Men have always had dominion over all the earth. Good blessings have ensued. Humans have dammed rivers and farmed vast valleys, thus feeding billions. At the same time humans have caused immense destruction. The majority of fish populations have declined by 70 to 95% depending on the species, compared to a hundred years ago. Both these choices for good and evil, are cooperative and individual choices. Our choices confirm man's dominion over the earth. Man is no longer in a position to fish the world's seas without any effect.
Humans can prevent plagues with vaccines or cause plagues, with bio-weapons that could wipe out immense numbers of people. If humans can cause plagues, humans can alter the climate.
A mere hundred nuclear bombs detonated above cities will trigger fires and soot storms, causing destructive chemical reactions in the stratosphere, leading to severe climate changes. As recently as 2002 both Pakistan and India threatened to use nuclear weapons on each other and came very close to the edge. India frankly said, ""take a bomb or two or more but when we respond there will be no Pakistan." Let us not be fearful, but at the same time a healthy respect for the consequences is a good idea too. I'm still fairly hopeful we won't have a nuclear war.
As another example, Mexico City exists in a basin at high altitudes, thus trapping atmospheric gases. The cities biggest problems are pollution, a dwindling water supply and poor air quality. Yet another direct example of man's cumulative effect on the atmosphere.
It is wishful thinking to imagine that something wonderful in the earth will erase the effects of pollution, or over-fishing or nuclear war.
Currently in the US each person collectively sends 20 tons of C02 per year into the atmosphere. It is your choice to believe this is a hoax, but in that case someone ought to explain where the C02 goes and why it has no effect. Where are the counter-theories of C02's wonderful qualities? If you argue C02 is beneficial, then where is the sprouting rain forests and the expanding sea species? How is all this added C02 benefiting the earth?
Newton's third law states, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What is the reaction to putting 27 billion tons of C02 into atmosphere each year? God gave man dominion over earth. If you fish, it is your responsibility and choice to explain your impact on the fishery. It is the fisherman's responsibility to fish wisely. The Bible tells us each and everyone must justify our actions and choices and choose wisely.
Biblically the burden of proof is truly on you, and each of us, to explain why your atmospheric C02 actions have no consequences.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I don't disagree that man can negatively affect his environment. Through out this article, I have challenged those who promote a doomsday theory and the idea that man has the ability to change the climate. CO2 emissions is simply overplayed and the raw data has been lost. God promises that He controls our climate. We can see clearly how God uses the sun to cause cyclical changes. So, please explain how you understand the following:
Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
Job 38:22-13: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"
January 15th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
My understanding is that with an increased greenhouse effect, the seasons become more pronounced. The summer becomes wetter, and the winter becomes a little drier in the tropics. Thus, the seasonal range of rain, differences between wet and dry seasons, is increased.
Given the earth's axial tilt, one hemisphere is always pointed towards the sun, during six months of earth's orbit. Thus seasons of cold and warm will always persist. With a drier winter hemisphere, there will still be snow and ice, because less sunlight reaches it.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:24 am
Be that as it may… then why are you against my article? I think we agree on the fundamentals that we are to be good stewards of creation. 我。 You admit that the statements of catastrophe are wrong. You also admit that scientists cannot ultimately predict the climate. So, why do you challenge my points? What is the main point of contention you have?
January 20th, 2010 at 4:36 am
Your article states, "Prudent people believe the Bible before they believe the scientific community". And you don't stop there. Your articles states, "Global Warming is truly more than a hoax…". You state, ""pop" science (ie, global warming) are incompatible with religion because they are incompatible with truth".
Why are you suggesting that people must choose between believing the Bible or science?
That is my bone of contention.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:56 am
I don't suggest that people must choose between believing the Bible or science. They are to believe the Bible first, then science. The Bible and true science are absolutely compatible.
The Global Warming issue is currently being exposed as the fraud it is… Even the last Copenhagen conference was ineffective and spoiled by the recent controversies.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:49 am
The Bible describes the spiritual truth. Science describes the physical truth. Science is a mirror of God's creation, yet it cannot shed light on our souls. One is not more true than the other and trying to intermingle them is a dangerous exercise.
Nonetheless, you insist we must look to the Bible for scientific truth, before we look to scientists. Lets proceed then!
1 Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
So, the Bible is describing a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. Mathematical science now tells us that for a circle C = 2 * Pi * Radius. Calculated according to the Bible Pi is equal to 3. 这是不正确的。 Pi is approximately 3.141593…
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
Through Galileo's science we now know the earth is a sphere, not a circle. We send men into space now, and likewise the heavens are not a canopy either.
Daniel 4:10-11 "These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."
This important Biblical vision describes the Earth as a circle, and if something grew high enough it will be visible to every part of earth. Flying transatlantic in a jet plane, from New York to Australia, now informs us the Earth is a sphere and therefore even a very tall tree would not be visible to the people on the opposite side of our planet.
The bible is filled with scientifically false statements.
Should we believe the Bible first in each of these cases?
February 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Absolutely…
You are simply showing your own prejudice against the Bible.
1Kings 7:23: Since the decimal system was developed only a few hundred years ago, it is absurd to suggest that the writer of 1 Kings should have expressed his measurements using the decimal system. Here we have round figures, not precise expressions of measurements.
Isaiah 40:22: Is a description of the horizon which is obviously circular based on the fact that it is a sphere. I find no attempt, in this passage, to prove the earth is a sphere vis-a-vis flat disc.
Daniel 4:10-11: Is a description of a vision using obvious hyperbole. Even today, people use the phrase "ends of the earth" all of the time today. When a person uses this idiom, do you question them about their beliefs of a spherical earth? 我希望不会。
When the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth" and says that He did so in 7 days, I believe it. 你呢？
February 15th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Global Warming… Climate Change… now, Climategate… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C…
March 6th, 2010 at 7:42 am
link wouldn't work for me, but this looks like it:
email-row-admits-data-organised.html
March 13th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper, that publishes articles about UFOs, Alien abductions, etc. Why do you believe or even read that trash? Not a credible source of information… No wonder you guys are so misinformed.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Are you denying that the emails exist? Are you also denying that the climate issue is motivated by politics?
March 14th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Yes, I failed to consider the politics.
First we have tabloid newspapers, such as the Daily Mail and the Enquirer, who profit on their "hoax" and "conspiracy" theories to sell more newspapers to their paranoid, uneducated readers. Readers who failed out of basic science and chemistry, if they even graduated.
Next, if climate science encourages governments to take action, oil usage will decline significantly. Worse, people might switch to nuclear power or other clean energies, which will really kill the oil and coal industry. So, we have oil and coal companies, who stand to lose billions when people stop consuming oil, funding opposition groups, lobbyist and pseudo-studies. The role of companies such as ExxonMobile in such funding, is documented in their own records and annual reports: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01…
The result is "climategate" and other invented tabloid stories.
What is the real political motivation and who wins in all this? The devil must be very happy right now. A hot desert earth is a pleasant place for Satan.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
When will earth become hell? Do you have a doomsday date?
March 16th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Hopefully never Barry. I pray that good men and women, will take good actions and make right and good choices, thus doomsday will never come.
God bless
March 16th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
If we do not employ the practices recommended by the Climate pundits, when will doomsday come?
March 17th, 2010 at 5:26 am
What is "doomsday"? Your question is ambiguous. You don't define "doomsday", so I'll assume you mean the day God judges all humans. Of course, science cannot predict a day of God's judgment, nor any activity of God.
So, kindly allow me to re-phrase your question. What is the predicted probability the earth's surface atmosphere temperature will rise between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the year 2100? The probability is 90%.
Do you deny humans have any role in global outcomes? It sounds like you don't believe in the effects of pollution or war or global trade? What is the most important change proposed by climate scientist? The advice is to convert coal and oil power plants to cleaner energies, such as nuclear, solar and bio-fuels. Why is that simple change so threatening to climate science deniers?
If you ponder this, you'll realize the effort would create jobs as well.
What is the cost of this? Economists estimate the cost of mitigating climate change at 1 to 3% of world GDP. In other words, you need pay 3% of your gross income or work 3% harder to overcome your personal effect on pollution. Why is this such a hardship for you? In fact it might not be a hardship at all. We have 9% world-wide unemployment. More than 9% of our world population is doing nothing. With a 3% world-wide effort, we could reduce our unemployment to 6%. Communities used to join together and build barns together. Are those days over?
God bless
March 17th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
The government taxes us too much already. I do not want them taking even the smallest percentage of my money for something that has become a laughingstock.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Barry, you are a teller of tall tales. You completely fabricated this quote, "a warning is given that 250 varieties of crops will be dwindled and three-fourths of the water in the Western United States will be melted away soon". I went and read the ABC news article myself very carefully. I used grep to look at every occurrence of the word "soon", "melted" and "250". Not a single sentence in the ABC News article even closely resembles your "quote".
Shame on you. Your article is a "hoax".
As for your other quotes, you don't give sources so I'm not sure if they are fabricated as well. I can't find them. But it is telling that you didn't quote a single climate scientist, or even scientist. I'm still critical of your reliance on tabloid news.
How would you feel if someone attacked the Bible without even reading it?
You are attacking climate science. Can't you take the time to read or quote a climate scientist directly? (And FYI, Al Gore is not a scientist. So don't quote him)
March 18th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
您对了。 If I am going to call it a quote then I should use the following quote instead of using my own words:
"But computer model projections shown to ABC News by eminent climatologist Steve Schneider at Stanford University, and other calculations from California state water boards, now warn that because of global warming the mountain snowpack so essential to all the food is most likely to be not only melting out too fast in the spring, but diminishing drastically — by as much as 90 percent, according to some computer models — before the end of the century, well within the lifetime of today's kids.
Michael, your point about my use of the word "quote" is taken well and a refinement of the above article is under way. You can debate the semantics of this article, yet, you are committing the fallacy called a "distinction without a difference." It is obviously clear that the climate pundits want us to believe there is a doomsday and it is coming soon.
Again, I ask… since you believe there will be a doomsday, when will it happen? Why is this such a difficult question?
May 5th, 2010 at 7:20 am
Barry, I appreciate your article's ABC News "correction". It is a small, but honorable step in the right direction.
Your article concludes that "worry is sin". You say, "We cannot know the future with any degree of certainty. Only God knows the future." I'm wondering if you still feel the same after the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The executives of BP and Transocean took numerous precautions, but claimed the accident was inconceivable, even though their deep sea drilling technology is compared to space exploration.
Of course nobody can predict accidents. An accident is unknowable. But shouldn't we worry just a little bit and take better precautions? Is it really such a terrible sin that climate scientists worry about the future? Does God really want us to zoom along, and just not worry about how our actions might affect things?
May 5th, 2010 at 7:20 am
Barry, I appreciate your article's ABC News "correction". It is a small, but honorable step in the right direction.
Your article concludes that "worry is sin". You say, "We cannot know the future with any degree of certainty. Only God knows the future." I'm wondering if you still feel the same after the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The executives of BP and Transocean took numerous precautions, but claimed the accident was inconceivable, even though their deep sea drilling technology is compared to space exploration.
Of course nobody can predict accidents. An accident is unknowable. But shouldn't we worry just a little bit and take better precautions? Is it really such a terrible sin that climate scientists worry about the future? Does God really want us to zoom along, and just not worry about how our actions might affect things?
May 7th, 2010 at 1:52 am
I understand what you are saying about worry and taking precautions. That is an entirely different ethical level than what has been discussed in the article. The level of worry demonstrated by the quotes is one that causes our focus to man instead of a confidence in God's sovereignty. The Bible speaks of worry in Matthew in terms of one's life expiring by starvation and exposure. That is on the same level of doomsday theories.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while a tragedy, is not at the same level and is not a doomsday situation. Therefore, I view this as a nonsequitor to the argument. It is not the first time a rig toppled and gushed for months. The environment is hardy and will bounce back as it already did in 1980. That oil spill gushed for nearly a year.
May 7th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Barry authoritatively claims that after a major oil spill, the Gulf will just "bounce back". When was the last time you went scuba diving?
I hope a biologists can provide some realistic comments here.
May 9th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
http://alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Is a good article on the varied effects of oil spills. This article shows that oil spills certainly do not compare to the presumed doomsday scenarios suggested by the global warming pundits.
May 23rd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Why do we have to drill for oil today, right now, immediately? The oil will still be there twenty years from now, when the technology is cleaner, better and safer. Why are we in such a hurry?
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
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.
May 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
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."
May 30th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
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).
June 5th, 2010 at 5:03 am
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 US 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?
June 5th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
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?
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Doesnt your inclusion of the whole Y2K scenario kind of counter your argument here?
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
In what way does Y2K counter the argument? Y2K was overblown as a doomsday scenario. Nothing happened.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
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.
August 12th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
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.
August 12th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
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?