Global Warming

[Trinity]

Over 2T tons of ice melted in arctic since '03
Tue Dec 16, 2008

More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.

More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by NASA's GRACE satellite, said NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke. The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, he said, and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/...m5GTawWcas0NUE

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

Yup, totally agree with ya on that.

I can't help but think of this as the judgement of God because of how the world seems to be rejecting him.

[Trinity]

"The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for ***essments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to re***ess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...-peace_en.html

POPE BENEDICT XVI

[Trinity]

Hello Leslie,

Originally Posted by Leslie

I can't help but think of this as the judgement of God because of how the world seems to be rejecting him.

The Global Warming is not caused by God but by the human activities.

"Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle." --Pope John Paul II

Trinity

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

John James Audubon, 1785 - 1851
"A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children."

Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me;...

Could I see the quote please, from the gospel. Thank you.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

John James Audubon, 1785 - 1851
"A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children."



Could I see the quote please, from the gospel. Thank you.

Trinity

Matthew 12.30:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. I was of course paraphrasing it from memory, but it is to demonstrate the relationship of real value over rhetoric which wants to p*** itself off as "moderate" or "centrist." The problem with post-modernism is it judges everything by ****ing arguments out of proportion by appealing to emotion and intent. What gets people in trouble is when they do not read past the language to the core... this is why we get a radical prochoicer as Obama in the white house. His rhetoric is clothed in some comp***ionate concern, deminishing the horror of his support of even refusing medical attention to children that survived induced botched up abortions. What was his statement, "that nobody is really pro-abortion?" Then you get some crook who scams 50 billion because he was judged by the way he presented himself as a philanthropist, a big donor to the Democrat party, and his demeanor fooled them all. Amazing.

At any rate, we were once children and as such your quote applied to our fathers at one time. True conservativism is neither borrowing from our children or given by our fathers before us. True conservativism is principle. We are taught by good parents that we are to spend what we already have, not what is expected or based on credit. Some are even taught we should live within our means. Congress does not do this. They base it on projections and not what is already in the coffers. Some States require by law to maintain a balanced budget, but it is based on expectations, and if those expectations are not met, you are going to get in trouble. So we have as a conservative principle fiscal responsibilities. Then there is the conservation of life, as such... abortion is absolutely evil. How can we borrow the world from children that are being aborted? Conservation of energy is conservative, yet it is not the end all be all. We must use energy to stay warm, travel, and operate our infrastructure. I should say the most ultra-conservative would have to be the Amish, and not Al Gore flying on private jets and his gluttonous lavish energy consuming homes.

In all things conservative, it is the principles in action that help create safety, security, and generates healthy lifestyles for the family unit. Liberalism seeks to approve of gay marriage, killing the unborn, tax the rich until there is equality (Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plummer is a great eye opener of a liberal), and spend money on en***lements for their voting constintuency. America did not become a great superpower for its socialism, capitalism is conservative. A strong military that is subject to civil authorities is conservative, else we learn in history that a strong military not subject to civil authorites tends to be subjected more to coup detats. Making profits by compe***ion is conservative, monopolies' profits tend to become greedy. If politicians would change their economic policies based on what is tangible from last years taxes, like what every responsible citizen must do, we would not have to worry about all the problems we are facing now. Now in regards to global warming and environmentalism, their ideals are become religious. Your scare mentality is no worse than Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." If discussion for progress is going to happen... then the best method I can think of fits the phrase best "slow is smooth, smooth is fast;" meaning the scare mentality of global warming must not take to extremes but operate slowly and calmly. When it is smooth, it will get to its objectives much faster, just as elementary students working in groups are told that the first group that gets the project done right gets an external reward just happens to take a lot longer to get that objective done right because they do not really take the time to slowly think the problems out.

Ok, I think I have vented enough so far.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Matthew 12.30:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. I was of course paraphrasing it from memory, but it is to demonstrate the relationship of real value over rhetoric which wants to p*** itself off as "moderate" or "centrist." The problem with post-modernism is it judges everything by ****ing arguments out of proportion by appealing to emotion and intent. What gets people in trouble is when they do not read past the language to the core... this is why we get a radical prochoicer as Obama in the white house. His rhetoric is clothed in some comp***ionate concern, deminishing the horror of his support of even refusing medical attention to children that survived induced botched up abortions. What was his statement, "that nobody is really pro-abortion?" Then you get some crook who scams 50 billion because he was judged by the way he presented himself as a philanthropist, a big donor to the Democrat party, and his demeanor fooled them all. Amazing.

Thank you for the quote from the bible.

Benito Mussolini, the duce, has declared in his speeches across fascist Italy: "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us. The same words can have two different meanings, depending on who is speaking.

I also like this one: "...for whoever is not against us is for us."

I like this quote because it helps me to not see enemies everywhere.

This thread is first about Global Warming, and this issue is based on scientific facts and by worldwide scientific observations. Even Mr. Bush is now confessing that we are in a real environmental mess.

At any rate, we were once children and as such your quote applied to our fathers at one time. True conservativism is neither borrowing from our children or given by our fathers before us. True conservativism is principle. We are taught by good parents that we are to spend what we already have, not what is expected or based on credit. Some are even taught we should live within our means. Congress does not do this. They base it on projections and not what is already in the coffers. Some States require by law to maintain a balanced budget, but it is based on expectations, and if those expectations are not met, you are going to get in trouble. So we have as a conservative principle fiscal responsibilities. Then there is the conservation of life, as such... abortion is absolutely evil. How can we borrow the world from children that are being aborted? Conservation of energy is conservative, yet it is not the end all be all. We must use energy to stay warm, travel, and operate our infrastructure. I should say the most ultra-conservative would have to be the Amish, and not Al Gore flying on private jets and his gluttonous lavish energy consuming homes.

Well, it is difficult to blame the democrats for everything when the conservatives have governed the country for decades. Twenty-eight years during the last forty-five years. Or 62% of the mandates.

In all things conservative, it is the principles in action that help create safety, security, and generates healthy lifestyles for the family unit. Liberalism seeks to approve of gay marriage, killing the unborn, tax the rich until there is equality (Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plummer is a great eye opener of a liberal), and spend money on en***lements for their voting constintuency. America did not become a great superpower for its socialism, capitalism is conservative. A strong military that is subject to civil authorities is conservative, else we learn in history that a strong military not subject to civil authorites tends to be subjected more to coup detats. Making profits by compe***ion is conservative, monopolies' profits tend to become greedy. If politicians would change their economic policies based on what is tangible from last years taxes, like what every responsible citizen must do, we would not have to worry about all the problems we are facing now. Now in regards to global warming and environmentalism, their ideals are become religious. Your scare mentality is no worse than Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." If discussion for progress is going to happen... then the best method I can think of fits the phrase best "slow is smooth, smooth is fast;" meaning the scare mentality of global warming must not take to extremes but operate slowly and calmly. When it is smooth, it will get to its objectives much faster, just as elementary students working in groups are told that the first group that gets the project done right gets an external reward just happens to take a lot longer to get that objective done right because they do not really take the time to slowly think the problems out. Ok, I think I have vented enough so far.

Are you implying that there is no gays, abortions, or crooks among the conservatives?

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas for you and your beloved wife.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Thank you for the quote from the bible. I also like this one: "...for whoever is not against us is for us."

I like this quote because it helps me to not see enemies everywhere.

This thread is first about Global Warming, and this issue is based on scientific facts and by worldwide scientific observations. Even Mr. Bush is now confessing that we are in a real environmental mess.



Well, it is difficult to blame the democrats for everything when the conservatives have governed the country for decades. Twenty-eight years during the last forty-five years. Or 62% of the mandates.



Are you implying that there is no gays, abortions, or crooks among the conservatives?

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas for you and your beloved wife.

Trinity

The application of your quote is quite different in context. Luke 9 49-50 states:

49
Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company."
50
Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

The application here is quite different. The person who is "not against you" is indeed for you when they are in substance using the same authority of God to cast out demons. So we can gather that Protestants do share the same Lord when God is demonstratively performing miracles, even though they are not Catholics. It makes them as much our brother, even though seperated. The p***age I gave is quite different in context.

What you may call conservative, the grouping of certain individuals within us, does not necessarily mean they are conservative. A gay conservative is an oxymoron. A lot of conservatives who have in their daily lives the principle are also realists knowing that the necessary changes or metamorphesis of actual procedure into the favorable tried and true conservative principles are not going to happen in one day. If it took Rome about 766 years to reach its zenith of glory from 753 BCE to 14 CE, we cannot expect with opposition to maintain conservative policy making. Unfortunetly, because the nature of compromise is prevalent in our system... absolute conservative is not possible in a political system and the City of God will last and not the City of Man. Augustine's "City of God" tried to demonstrate the contrast between such. However, you as a Catholic should be in your principles and beliefs a conservative and promoting such conservativism to the best of your ability. The environmental responsibilities are important as Benedict has laid out, but do not expect the political system in its fight against global warming to be the savior of the world. The apocalypse has some very interesting aspects about the end of the world as well as other end time prophecies from the O.T.. The world will eventually end, we cannot stop that. Christ will eventually come also. We must as conservatives do what we can on all playing fields for the environment, but bridges need to be built to overcome the various obsticles. Some bridges as you propose for charity to unwed mothers are costly and only promote the bad behavior because it sends the message that a bailout for wrongful living can be had, treating only the symptom but not the cause. In the same way, over taxation and gross spending by the government in the name of the environment is a madhouse way of getting to the objectives. As is, most environmental charity groups administration costs are absolutely a travesty.
Friends of the Urban Forest's adminstration costs are 25.4 percent.
The National Parks Conservation ***ociation's adminstrative costs are 20.7 percent.
NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation's administration costs are 21.6 percent.

Compare to Food for the Poor, inc--faith based Services is a whomping 3.2 percent.

Now where is GreenPeace's administration costs? It does not even meet the 10 accountability standards to be listed in the CFC. Why is adminstration costs so large in these environmental charity groups?

Check out the above charities administration costs. Lists from A to Z is here:
http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

It seems to me that most religious based groups adminstration costs are around 12 percent.

Greenpeace Fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) en***y and promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, gr***roots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations. Contributions to Greenpeace Fund are tax-deductible.

Taken from their site, listed on the bottom when you try to donate.


It seems you got a whole networking of a bankrupt environmental religious organization. Its preaching in public education, helps lobbying, and supports those environmental organizations which probably take their donations and turn around and support Democrat campaigns. But besides saving whales, its seems like merely a front for the DNC.

In short Trinity, I am not sure which religion is going to win out with you... environmentalism or Catholicism. If you think government is the answer, then environmentalism is your religion of choice and not Catholicism. The world is going to end, and catastrophically at that too. We should do our best for our environment, but not at the expense where we bankrupt our livelyhood.

As Proverbs 30.8-9 states:
Put falsehood and lying far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; (provide me only with the food I need
Lest, being full, I deny you, saying, "Who is the LORD?" Or, being in want, I steal, and profane the name of my God.

Like I said, there needs to be a bridge where we can cross over responsibly and not charge all the buffalo's over the cliff. Your mentality over global warming is more important to you to force government as the answer rather than pointing to the impending doom that awaits this world when Christ comes again.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The application of your quote is quite different in context. Luke 9 49-50 states:

49
Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company."
50
Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

The application here is quite different. The person who is "not against you" is indeed for you when they are in substance using the same authority of God to cast out demons. So we can gather that Protestants do share the same Lord when God is demonstratively performing miracles, even though they are not Catholics. It makes them as much our brother, even though seperated. The p***age I gave is quite different in context.

I accept your contextual interpretation. However, there is an extensive comprehension of this principle. And I find a good example of this principle inside your relationship with your spouse. Somewhere you had traced a line to have a mutual respect and a happy marriage. Even because she is a buddhist, she is not against you, and you as a catholic, you are not against her. In fact, even if you are rooted in two distinct traditional religions you find a way to compromise.

In brief, someone from an other religion, from an other opinion, culture, is not necessary my enemy.

What you may call conservative, the grouping of certain individuals within us, does not necessarily mean they are conservative. A gay conservative is an oxymoron. A lot of conservatives who have in their daily lives the principle are also realists knowing that the necessary changes or metamorphesis of actual procedure into the favorable tried and true conservative principles are not going to happen in one day.

Seriously and with a pragmatic manner, the conservatives have a very large spectrum with very distinctive opinions, on any issue. This is the same thing with the liberals. An ****geneous block of conservatives is something that does not exist. The proportion of gays into the conservatives is the same as the liberals. A rabbit is a rabbit, and a gay is a gay. This is the same thing with all the other ratios about any issue. They are not better and not the worst.

If it took Rome about 766 years to reach its zenith of glory from 753 BCE to 14 CE, we cannot expect with opposition to maintain conservative policy making. Unfortunetly, because the nature of compromise is prevalent in our system... absolute conservative is not possible in a political system and the City of God will last and not the City of Man. Augustine's "City of God" tried to demonstrate the contrast between such.

City of God, city of man (the two camps distinctive and opposed). I had read this exposition when I was in college. Dostoevsky also wrote about this issue (Church vs. Government, and vice and versa) in the Brothers Karamazov.

However, you as a Catholic should be in your principles and beliefs a conservative and promoting such conservativism to the best of your ability.

I agree with the ***essment of the Pope about the environmental issue, with his predecessor also. The Church acknowledged the urgency.

The environmental responsibilities are important as Benedict has laid out, but do not expect the political system in its fight against global warming to be the savior of the world.

Same thing about the abortion. Remember? Any issue cannot be win without the number. I expect that my fellow citizens can do something.

An issue cannot be won without a very large consensus favoring this issue. The war is with the mentality first. By changing the mentality the ballots will express the new mentality. The problem is that there is to much quarrelers and so less workers into the field. In brief, with all the religious scandals, disputes, and foolishness among the believers, everywhere, the credibility of religious people is not very high.

The apocalypse has some very interesting aspects about the end of the world as well as other end time prophecies from the O.T.. The world will eventually end, we cannot stop that. Christ will eventually come also. We must as conservatives do what we can on all playing fields for the environment, but bridges need to be built to overcome the various obsticles. Some bridges as you propose for charity to unwed mothers are costly and only promote the bad behavior because it sends the message that a bailout for wrongful living can be had, treating only the symptom but not the cause. In the same way, over taxation and gross spending by the government in the name of the environment is a madhouse way of getting to the objectives. As is, most environmental charity groups administration costs are absolutely a travesty.
Friends of the Urban Forest's adminstration costs are 25.4 percent.
The National Parks Conservation ***ociation's adminstrative costs are 20.7 percent.
NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation's administration costs are 21.6 percent.

Compare to Food for the Poor, inc--faith based Services is a whomping 3.2 percent.

Now where is GreenPeace's administration costs? It does not even meet the 10 accountability standards to be listed in the CFC. Why is adminstration costs so large in these environmental charity groups?

Check out the above charities administration costs. Lists from A to Z is here:
http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

It seems to me that most religious based groups adminstration costs are around 12 percent.

Greenpeace Fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) en***y and promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, gr***roots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations. Contributions to Greenpeace Fund are tax-deductible.

Taken from their site, listed on the bottom when you try to donate.

It seems you got a whole networking of a bankrupt environmental religious organization. Its preaching in public education, helps lobbying, and supports those environmental organizations which probably take their donations and turn around and support Democrat campaigns. But besides saving whales, its seems like merely a front for the DNC.

1) Why are we doing a preventive war if the Lord will come anyway (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
2) I am not a member from any of those private organizations. However, I followed the works of a scientific team in the South Pole (live).
3) There is a worldwide consensus on this issue, a consensus from the world scientific community, composed from scientists from all countries.
4) The problem is that we are living in a world with a short vision and with the laziest mentality. We only react when we are in a deep trouble.
5) I think americans should take the reports of the NASA very seriously. This is not Greenpeace.

In short Trinity, I am not sure which religion is going to win out with you... environmentalism or Catholicism. If you think government is the answer, then environmentalism is your religion of choice and not Catholicism. The world is going to end, and catastrophically at that too. We should do our best for our environment, but not at the expense where we bankrupt our livelyhood.

When people will be sick into a large scale, the wars for the natural resources and the catastrophic weather on each continent, this will take care of our economy.

Anyway, if the Pope is worried by this threat, I am also worried. Unless our last two popes were idiots.

Concerning my ap***ude to address all the complexity of many problems and without losing my attention on the essential, and because I do not polarize my mind, I am still a free thinker, even like a catholic. I am not a guy who need a chaperon.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I agree with the ***essment of the Pope about the environmental issue, with his predecessor also. The Church acknowledged the urgency.

Same thing about the abortion. Remember? Any issue cannot be win without the number. I expect that my fellow citizens can do something.

An issue cannot be won without a very large consensus favoring this issue. The war is with the mentality first. By changing the mentality the ballots will express the new mentality. The problem is that there is to much quarrelers and so less workers into the field. In brief, with all the religious scandals, disputes, and foolishness among the believers, everywhere, the credibility of religious people is not very high.



1) Why are we doing a preventive war if the Lord will come anyway (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
2) I am not a member from any of those private organizations. However, I followed the works of a scientific team in the South Pole (live).
3) There is a worldwide consensus on this issue, a consensus from the world scientific community, composed from scientists from all countries.
4) The problem is that we are living in a world with a short vision and with the laziest mentality. We only react when we are in a deep trouble.
5) I think americans should take the reports of the NASA very seriously. This is not Greenpeace.



When people will be sick into a large scale, the wars for the natural resources and the catastrophic weather on each continent, this will take care of our economy.

Anyway, if the Pope is worried by this threat, I am also worried.

Concerning my ap***ude to address all the complexity of many problems and without losing my attention on the essential, and because I do not polarize my mind, I am still a free thinker, even like a catholic.

Trinity

What is great about Benedict's quote you gave earlier is that it is cautious. The urgency from which you are approaching the problem is the impediment. That is why I think "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" holds true. Nobody here is saying we should not use alternative energy, nobody is here saying we should not conserve, nobody is here saying we should not recycle, or any other particular method that makes our environment better. I personally think the best approach would be an adaptation of Dave Ramsey's "debt snowball" applied to the goals of the environmental concern. The problem is that the environmentalists are pouring money into education to try to make people sick of the problem. That is a waste of money and resources. Everyone understands the benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment. It is a waste therefore to funnel money into education where it seems clear most people are already in agreement. If we make a environmental snowball, we are more likely to curb the effects or concern of global warming (even if the science is true or not).

There is one thing to be concerned for the environment and do what one can, there is another to forcefully manipulate people to the point of harming their livelyhood. People that work in plants for 12 hours a day, trying to feed their family, and also not being a leech on the government en***lements don't really care about what they can do for the environment because they haven't the time. If a city government doesn't mandate a recycling program, for whatever the reason... its no fault of that worker. If that worker is driving a junker because it gets him to work on time and it is the cheapest form of transportation due to a blue book value of living within his means... then don't be mad at him and the rest of the everyday folk. There must be realistic expectation from the ground up and not from the top down. Now what about the plants, whose about to go bankrupt? They all produce pollution, are you going to penalize them more and create more unemployment faster? If the alternatives are cheaper as you say, then obviously there is a buck to be made. I just don't see you harping more on the concern of global warming is going to change the market place unless you encourage, stimulate, free up restrictions to make the alternatives cost effective and profitable. As is, it is too costly to get enough solar panels on your roof installed. The cost of buying a new hybrid car to the cheapest new car on the lot is most costly for the average working cl***. The incentive to get them to buy a new car is not there, not now. You expect too much too fast. "Slow is smooth; smooth is fast."

Just remember, for those without God, environmentalism is their savation. We should not put our trust in their religious behavioral concern. Step back, breathe a little bit, rethink if you have too... but God is soveriegn and the world will end and our concern for the environment should be put into its proper perspective. Mainly, short term goals will turn into the longer term objective we seek. Just don't jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism because they believe the world is going to end... believe me... God said it--it will!

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

What is great about Benedict's quote you gave earlier is that it is cautious. The urgency from which you are approaching the problem is the impediment. That is why I think "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" holds true. Nobody here is saying we should not use alternative energy, nobody is here saying we should not conserve, nobody is here saying we should not recycle, or any other particular method that makes our environment better. I personally think the best approach would be an adaptation of Dave Ramsey's "debt snowball" applied to the goals of the environmental concern. The problem is that the environmentalists are pouring money into education to try to make people sick of the problem. That is a waste of money and resources. Everyone understands the benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment. It is a waste therefore to funnel money into education where it seems clear most people are already in agreement. If we make a environmental snowball, we are more likely to curb the effects or concern of global warming (even if the science is true or not).

There is one thing to be concerned for the environment and do what one can, there is another to forcefully manipulate people to the point of harming their livelyhood. People that work in plants for 12 hours a day, trying to feed their family, and also not being a leech on the government en***lements don't really care about what they can do for the environment because they haven't the time. If a city government doesn't mandate a recycling program, for whatever the reason... its no fault of that worker. If that worker is driving a junker because it gets him to work on time and it is the cheapest form of transportation due to a blue book value of living within his means... then don't be mad at him and the rest of the everyday folk. There must be realistic expectation from the ground up and not from the top down. Now what about the plants, whose about to go bankrupt? They all produce pollution, are you going to penalize them more and create more unemployment faster? If the alternatives are cheaper as you say, then obviously there is a buck to be made. I just don't see you harping more on the concern of global warming is going to change the market place unless you encourage, stimulate, free up restrictions to make the alternatives cost effective and profitable. As is, it is too costly to get enough solar panels on your roof installed. The cost of buying a new hybrid car to the cheapest new car on the lot is most costly for the average working cl***. The incentive to get them to buy a new car is not there, not now. You expect too much too fast. "Slow is smooth; smooth is fast."

Just remember, for those without God, environmentalism is their savation. We should not put our trust in their religious behavioral concern. Step back, breathe a little bit, rethink if you have too... but God is soveriegn and the world will end and our concern for the environment should be put into its proper perspective. Mainly, short term goals will turn into the longer term objective we seek. Just don't jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism because they believe the world is going to end... believe me... God said it--it will!

I think you are right on one point. We do not need the Global Warming to see the american corporations falling into bankruptcy. This is already done, and this is not the fault of the environmentalists. I just hope you will like to ride in a japanese or a korean car.

What a nightmare!

Bush considering "orderly" auto bankruptcy

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration is looking at "orderly" bankruptcy as a possible way to deal with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry, the White House said Thursday as carmakers readied more plant closings and a half million Americans filed new ***less claims.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/...PlYUINO0is0NUE

Anyway, we still have a window of ten years for moving in the right direction. With you or without you.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I think you are right on one point. We do not need the Global Warming to see the american corporations falling into bankruptcy. This is already done, and this is not the fault of the environmentalists. I just hope you will like to ride in a japanese or a korean car.

What a nightmare!



Anyway, we still have a window of ten years for moving in the right direction. With you or without you.

Trinity

With an increase of restrictions on environmental policies, it will cut into the profit margins and on customer's pocket books. So current car emissions standards in California is a lot stricter than the national standard, and California doing really hot now, are they not? I bet Arnold has balanced and even saved the great state of California billions of dollars! NOT. He is driving it to the ground with his leftist "moderate" mentality. If a business is going to make more environmental friendly products and create even more environmental friendly work places, it is going to have to purchase new equipment and parts from its venders. If you already have paid off an older technology that works well, then be forced to add more debt by newer restrictions... it is going to cost money. It would be like an old air conditioner that has another decade of running efficiently with proper maintenance and then a government en***y steps in and says the newer standards for air conditioners are better and so make it mandatory for you to purchase or get slapped with a lawsuit should someone with asthma callapse. The government's litigation and en***lements outprices the pork barrel spending, newer restrictions are just going to increase the burden more. Again, if you want a snowball effect, you start with the small goals that can be achieved first rather than throwing all the money away on propoganda efforts. Government is not the answer, letting them encourage by relief, not taxation and spending, would help make the market look at alternatives with profitable results.

I drive a Nissan, very reliable, and made in the South in Smyrna, TN. You know what the big three seeking for bailout have in common? They are unionized!

[Columcille]

When two competing conservative principles are in conflict, the one that is against justice is suppressed in favor of the most just. Hence, a conservative principle of self-actualization may compete with another conservative principle as fairness in the given individual. Hence, when business's are corrupt... unions help to reign in fairness, but when unions are run amuk or run the bat for incompetant employees rather than allowing the company to replace them... it hurts those individuals who are competant and pull their weight of the workload. In such situations the unions are unnecessary and wasteful. As is, it is harder to disband a union once they are intrenched. The face of unions needs a facelift where we can reign them in also. The double standard of liberals is that companies are evil greedy enterprises, but when ***s are about to be lost and unions are threatened by the hand that feeds them is about to go bankrupt... that is a different thing. I guess conservativism attempts to balance the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progress. I sort of like the ten conservative principles: http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

I mention this because it seems there is a new literary criticism forming in our era... Marxism is obvious, Feminism is obvious, but now comes the Environmental critic. All things now are subject to the new liberalism. All Hail Al Gore, the mighty revealer of an inconvenient truth! All Hail Michael Moore, the mighty slob and Bush hatemonger! This is the face of your new religion. The spokespeople of the elite Hollywood and Washington DCers! Down with gun ownership, up with big government, abortion on demand, comp***ionate euthenasia, and the modern day men in tight tights Robyn Hood!

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

With an increase of restrictions on environmental policies, it will cut into the profit margins and on customer's pocket books. So current car emissions standards in California is a lot stricter than the national standard, and California doing really hot now, are they not?

1) An economy without a clean planet is a total catastrophe. Pollution, and the environmental diseases , will cost trillions of dollars to the tax payers.
2) They are calling it global warming and not, local warming. What is happening in north pole and south pole has a direct impact in California.

I bet Arnold has balanced and even saved the great state of California billions of dollars! NOT. He is driving it to the ground with his leftist "moderate" mentality.

1) The California was already in the verge of bankruptcy before the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This was the main reason why his predecessor was recalled. Governor Gray Davis was not able to finish his term because the economy of California was in a so bad shape.
2) The real problem with the United States, is that the country is not compe***ive anymore. The country is slowly becoming a back wagon on the nations train. We the world, we have witnessed this decline during the last eight years. It is the time for waking up and to change your policies.

If a business is going to make more environmental friendly products and create even more environmental friendly work places, it is going to have to purchase new equipment and parts from its venders. If you already have paid off an older technology that works well, then be forced to add more debt by newer restrictions... it is going to cost money.

1) It already work in Europe and European countries are the world leaders for the implementation of the new technologies. That generates capital, and new ***s on the market. Many also reached their goals concerning their fight against the global warming.
2) The world will stop to buy the american products, if you stay behind. We already see this with your american cars and many other american products.

I drive a Nissan, very reliable, and made in the South in Smyrna, TN. You know what the big three seeking for bailout have in common? They are unionized!

An imported technology (Japan & Europe).

Thank you for proving my point. Japanese have this ap***ude to adapt their production to the change. They can innovate quickly and this is the major problem of your car industries. This is why they are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I mention this because it seems there is a new literary criticism forming in our era... Marxism is obvious, Feminism is obvious, but now comes the Environmental critic. All things now are subject to the new liberalism. All Hail Al Gore, the mighty revealer of an inconvenient truth! All Hail Michael Moore, the mighty slob and Bush hatemonger! This is the face of your new religion. The spokespeople of the elite Hollywood and Washington DCers! Down with gun ownership, up with big government, abortion on demand, comp***ionate euthenasia, and the modern day men in tight tights Robyn Hood!

1) I do not play into this game of blaming . I can post a lot about the foolishness of the conservatives but that would be unproductive and against all my Zen principles.

2) However, and concerning the Michael Moore documentary SICKO. What he had said about Canada, is totally true. This year I received around $12, 000 in medical services and that costed me nothing. Our country is one of the seven richest in the world. Your capitalist ideology of the right wing, can not meet the reality. We are social democrat, and we prosper. Same thing with the European countries. I have everything that what you have, and unfortunately, much more.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Obama names 4 top members of science team
By HOPE YEN, ***ociated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama's selection Sa****ay of a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist for science posts is a sign he plans a more aggressive response to global warming than did the Bush administration.

John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government action. Holdren will become Obama's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government's research on global warming.

Holdren also will direct the president's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Joining him as co-chairs will be Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Ins***utes of Health, and M***achusetts Ins***ute of Technology professor Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.

"It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology," Obama said in announcing the selections in his weekly radio address.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/...8egbB_92Gs0NUE

Good move!!!

It seems that it will not be without you my dear friend Columcille. I am happy to see that your country is waking up.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hello Leslie,



The Global Warming is not caused by God but by the human activities.

"Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle." --Pope John Paul II

Trinity

It could not be happening unless God has allowed it to happen. He obviously is allowing it to happen for a reason.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Leslie

It could not be happening unless God has allowed it to happen. He obviously is allowing it to happen for a reason.

Perhaps. However, can we say the same thing for the 911? If this had happened accordingly to the will of God , why are we running after Osama Bin Ladin?

Trinity

[sayso]

Originally Posted by Trinity

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

Satellites first started taking measurements of sea ice in 1979-1980. After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Will we see news photos of Polar Bears frozen to the ice?

Where is the media now that the Arctic ice concentration is at the same concentration as when measurements began 28 years ago? How many years of normal ice conditions will it take before they admit the Polar Bear isn't threatened? The coverage of both Arctic and Antarctic ice has been very one sided.

You need to get out and read more. There are just as many if not more scientists that believe that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some with an agenda.

The Global Warming Hoax


The Global Warming Pe***ion Project

Of course if it is true I guess that means God really messed up by creating Adam and Eve. He should have just quit after the fifth day.

I do have an idea how we can stop global warming and save the world though. We can all commit suicide! Then the planet will be saved from all of us bad humans.

[Trinity]

Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming
By Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer
April 8th, 2009

WASHINGTON – Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming — a radical idea once dismissed out of hand — is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.

That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The ***ociated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.

The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/...cience_adviser

Satellite data shows Arctic on thinner ice
By Steve Gorman Steve Gorman – Wed Apr 8, 2009

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Arctic sea ice, a key component of Earth's natural thermostat, has thinned sharply in recent years with the northern polar ice cap shrinking steadily in surface area, government scientists said on Monday.

Thinner seasonal sea ice, which melts in summer and freezes again every year, now accounts for about 70 percent of the Arctic total, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and '90s, the researchers said, citing new satellite data.

At the same time thicker ice, which lasts two summers or more without melting, now comprises less than 10 percent of the northern polar ice cap in winter, down from 30 to 40 percent. Just two years ago, the thicker so-called perennial sea ice made up 20 percent or more of the winter cap.

Scientists have voiced concerns for years about an alarming decline in the size of the Arctic ice cap, which functions as a giant air conditioner for the planet's climate system as it reflects sunlight into space.

As a greater portion of the ice melts, it is replaced by darker sea water that absorbs much more sunlight, thus adding to the warming of the planet attributed to rising levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090408/sc_nm/us_arctic_1

If we persist in our procrastination, after the next thirty years, there will be no North Pole. The consequences on your children and grandchildren will be terrible.

Trinity

[Columcille]

There will be no North Pole in thirty years? Ok, don't blame America. Blame the Communist Chinese. Get your UN resolutions to impact the real polluters. As is, Trinity, your bankrupting us with your moral support of Obama. I remember hearing about the pollution in China by newscasters covering the Olympics, you could actually see how bad the pollution was. I have lived in some big cities before, but the pollutions was not even close to what appears in some of the developing nations. I as an American, can only do my part where I live... but your incompetent UN, with its irresolute resolutions, its inability to stop the Iranians in their development of nuclear enrichment and the North Koreans testing its own underground nuclear test and missle launches is going to lend more pollution to our environment. If a dirty bomb hits the states because of an upcoming terrorist attack, I will blame in on the current president's weak policies and the UN's lack of resolve and commitment.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

There will be no North Pole in thirty years? Ok, don't blame America. Blame the Communist Chinese. Get your UN resolutions to impact the real polluters. As is, Trinity, your bankrupting us with your moral support of Obama. I remember hearing about the pollution in China by newscasters covering the Olympics, you could actually see how bad the pollution was. I have lived in some big cities before, but the pollutions was not even close to what appears in some of the developing nations. I as an American, can only do my part where I live... but your incompetent UN, with its irresolute resolutions, its inability to stop the Iranians in their development of nuclear enrichment and the North Koreans testing its own underground nuclear test and missle launches is going to lend more pollution to our environment. If a dirty bomb hits the states because of an upcoming terrorist attack, I will blame in on the current president's weak policies and the UN's lack of resolve and commitment.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

We are all responsible. This is not a question of patriotism. This is a threat for the survival of the human specie. The Western world is polluting much more than the Eastern World at this time.

By the way, there is also some thick smog on many american cities. Los Angeles is a good example.

Trinity

[asdf]

Originally Posted by sayso

There are just as many if not more scientists that believe that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some with an agenda.

That's absolutely false.

With the release of the revised statement by the American ***ociation of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[Columcille]

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentID=254017

Seems the five biggest cities are mostly in the East, not the West. In fact, it lists the micrograms for LA as being 36 and New York as 22 and this was in 2002. I guess you could say Cairo is West, but it certainly is not in North America. Trinity, better have some real facts about the real polluters. Your generalization is false because it lacks chronological order. Look at your own website you gave; the list given is back in 2004. The references given below in footnote 2 shows China is a greater pollutant than America. Now, what is the UN going to do about it? Tax America with emission cap and trade and reward the Chinese by non-interference. What a great policy to end human pollution, you don't want to tick off the military power that has no concern about its own human rights violations.