Religion Will Not Save Us

While we argue about medical care, billion dollar walls and Russian spies, a bigger enemy is slowly marching toward us.

A source of global warming data is National Geographic  summarized here. The link also discusses the one constant case made against global warming, emails among a small group of scientists who discussed presenting the data in a dishonest way. Those emails have not changed the statistics about our earth’s warming.

While temperatures on the globe have changed over millions of years, the evidence is they have never changed this fast. One one variable that has changed since those ancient times is human impact on the climate.

While an international agreement hoped to limit the world-wide rise in temperature to two degrees, there is plenty of evidence the minimum will be four degrees and a maximum around eight degrees. A rule of thumb is the for each rise of one degree, world wide crop yields drop by 10%. Five degrees, then, would lower yields by 50%. With the world population predicted to rise by around 20% by the year 2050, it is easy to see why alarm bells go off.

The earth has seen extreme heat before. At the time dinosaurs went extinct some 97% of all life on the planet ended. The rise in temperature was believed to have been only about five percent.

In Genesis 1:26-27 it says God gave man the earth to dominate and subdue. It’s looking like the unknown authors of the Bible got it backwards

The earth is going to subdue man.


19 Responses

  1. LP

    The nattering nabobs of Global Warming know that 50 years from now when the climate has changed, They won’t be around to have to admit their wrong,….let the next remaining generations fix it, or live and die with it.

    1. Schurkey 12:14 WHO owns “National Geographic”? What has their historical political leaning been?

      I don’t know. Do you have objectively collected information contrary to theirs?

      1. Juan Ruiz

        I don’t believe anyone “owns” the National Geographic. It’s a non-profit, founded in 1888, which has funded research by Jacques Cousteau, Jane Goodall, and others for over a century.

        My main criticism is that their two channels are beginning to emulate the Discovery and A+E networks, and branch into “reality television,” pseudo-science, and fringe history. Guess that’s where the money is now, and the viewers.

        1. Juan Ruiz

          Let me amend that. Turns out 73% of its media arms are owned by 21st Century Fox, i.e., the Murdoch family. That would explain it change programming strategy.

  2. Juan Ruiz

    The problem remains: How do you reduce or eliminate fossil fuels when they continue to be essential to their replacement? The gearing of every wind machine needs a thousand gallons of petroleum-based lubricant, which must be changed on a yearly basis. It takes more fossil fuels to produce ethanol than what ethanol saves. The production of solar panels also requires petroleum. And, there has yet to be invented a lithium ion battery which produces any real distance in travel, which is a major problem for the vast spaces of the midwest. Never mind the dearth of charging stations.

    And I won’t even go into the hypocrisy of those who champion renewable energy while burning up fossil fuels jetting all over the world, making movies, and generally implying “This is for thee, but not me.”

    1. Juan 6:46 The problem remains: How do you reduce or eliminate fossil fuels when they continue to be essential to their replacement?

      Probably there is not one answer to that good question. Something is happening, however. The U. S. population continues to rise. Total energy consumption has flattened–so I’ve read (lots of data out there, I hesitation to be too certain). If that is the case, per capita consumption is going down. Where I live apartments are being built everywhere. Average house size has dropped a bit.

      1. There are events unfolding quite rapidly which may tell us in the next 10 or 20 years if it will be manageable, bad or wipe out a big chunk of human beings. When the glaciers melt they will leave behind tons of exposed carbon.

        1. In mid June, Phoenix, some airlines had to cancel flights because the temp was too high, 116 F. Some planes with more wing surface to weight could take off up to 120 F. If there are longer high heat periods there different airplanes might be needed, or, they could only fly with partial loads.

          1. The worst scenario of climate change got me to thinking about a fellow who used to post here promoting conceal and carry laws. He said if all citizens had guns they would outnumber government so much the government would have to capitulate. It would be citizens united against their government.

            The excesses and clan-like behavior of the Trump family signals what a full blown climate crisis of epic proportions would look like–nothing like what he envisioned. The Trumps, Gates, Buffets and Koch brothers of the world would bury their political differences and form their own tiny country. They would build a walled in compound and hire a big army. The army would go around taking food from the little guys who thought their puny guns would protect them.

          2. entech

            The American love affair with personal weapons, the bigger the better, is an amusing relic of days gone by. Pre-revolution following the ideas of Locke that it was not only the right of the population to oppose a bad government but also its duty. The colonists did indeed overthrow the government from overseas which extracted taxes but gave no rights of representation in return. I wonder how effective even heavy duty automatic weapons would be against tanks and jet planes (look to Syria – jet planes with poison gas).

  3. Will

    I choose not to follow advice of an atheist who doesn’t understand this universe. This freethinker wasted 16 years of Fargo’s time….. it is nothing but cookie cutter under him.

    1. Will 10:47 I choose not to follow an atheist who wasted 16 years of Fargo and does not understand the universe.

      Welcome to forum. It would be helpful if you would explain your argument. Is “this universe” a religious one or a secular one?

    2. entech

      You do not need to be an atheist to fail to understand “this universe”. Most astronomers. astrophysicists and scientists in general will tell you that they do not fully understand the universe. The Jesuit Astrophysicist Fr. George Coyne happily explains his understanding of the universe and also how much is unknown, his universe does not need God but he himself says that does not in any way diminish his faith. Another is Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, SJ (born September 19, 1952 in Detroit, Michigan), is an American research astronomer and Director of the Vatican Observatory.
      It is interesting that the likes of the young earth creationists know with absolute certainty what so many with actually relevant qualifications are still seeking the truth and depth of the subject.

      Perhaps I am falling into the same trap as the likes of Will and so many posters from a religious background, most seem to say any atheist cannot be trusted to know anything unless they first believe in God (checkout out Eric Hovind I at least continue the search and find that non-atheists actually know a lot of things with which I agree as well as holding a belief system with which I do not agree.

    3. Grandma

      Will: I do not follow the former 16 year Mayor of Fargo — it is nothing but cookie cutter under him….

      ? What is that supposed to mean?

  4. Jinx II

    Will, that is your opinion, however it is not supported by facts based on research by most scientists around the globe.

Comments are closed.