The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Stimulating article re: global warming

I’ll keep that in mind, as I try to formulate a theory - to explain this technology story. :crazy_face:

But truthfully. I don’t know where, this climate change stuff - will take us. Last night, from 8 to 8:10 PM CST, I had 2 TV sets on.

  • One was watching Dr. Who and the assent of the Cyber men. And these hybrids of humans and machines were wiping out humanity - in the far future.
  • And on The Walking Dead on AMC, the good humans were going through caves…Trying to avoid hordes of Zombies from Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

I just don’t know which future, climate change will produce for humanity. :crazy_face:

I know all of that. It reinforces my hypothesis. That they are using a lot of estimates for variables. As they improve, they get more accurate, or so they think. Once you tweak variables, you can no longer apply that data set to the previous, unless all of the raw data is the same, which it is not.

Imagine a formula with thousands of variables, some multiplicative… Start changing them and dialing then in. They are still just estimates in the end.

What produces greater heat, a 1 hour high of 50 degrees, which drops down 1 degree each hour after for 3 hours, or a 4 hour high of 49 degrees?

I honestly don’t think people respect the complexity of the climate. This is on the level of God-like complexity. It is an estimate.

A simple trend across the world is not what we are getting, though. I was reference ocean temperatures and studies - extremely imperfect studies - that generalize from their incomplete data into a fullblown theory of climate change. Without facts.
And to be clear Michael - of course there IS climate change - but using those words has become a neologism for ‘we need to take money from rich nations - guess who - to pay for our guilt in using fossil fuels’ when in fact, the climate is always changing and the culprit is Yellow Man Bad - in other words, the sun.
I agree with you totally that the environment does need our stewardship - the Earth is a glorious present to us from God and needs to be cherished. But when it becomes a political football I throw a red flag.
From historical weather patterns we have learned that the most serious threat is the Ice Age that follows a warming trend. There is nothing we can do to stop that from happening. But maybe in 20,000 years it will happen, and I will be very old by then. :slight_smile:

Here is a sample of the nonsense our Dem candidates are talking over here. I know Denmark has its own problems, I’ve taken the time to find out about them, but I must admit we have our crazies. For instance, the Green New Deal which is, first, not necessary, and second, well:

" A new study claims that progressives’ Green New Deal (GND) would impose around $75,000 in average annual costs for households in key battleground states – raising questions as to how climate politics will impact voter sentiment going into the 2020 elections.

The report, released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future on Wednesday, builds upon a previous study from the organization last summer. Using updated data, the group found that within the first year of implementation, the GND would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in 10 states – Colorado ($74,287), Florida ($76,109), Iowa ($76,683), Michigan ($74,470), New Hampshire ($74,723), New Mexico ($74,432), North Carolina ($74,609), Ohio ($75,807), Pennsylvania ($75,307), and Wisconsin ($75,252)."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/study-green-new-deal-trillions-households-swing-states

So Wikipedia has deleted the list of scientists who are climate change deniers.
Stalin would be happy:
" But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.

“The result was delete . This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.

In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton."

The ongoing revision of history to fit a particular narrative.