Posts by Brother Apostate

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Brother Apostate

Your words exactly: If humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%?
Nothing taken out of context here. You very clearly were speaking about amounts of "manmade GHGs" vs "all greenhous gas (GHG)" or you were speaking very unclearly.

No, these were my words, in context, exactly:

If humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%? Then ask yourself whether in the big picture GHGs even come close to periodic solar fluctuations or other natural sources in causing Global Warming. -BA

First, assign any number you believe to human GHG production, how does that compare to natural GHG production? The human contribution is small compared to GHGs released by natural sources. Now, as I said, compare GHGs (from all sources human and natural) and compare that percentage to other causes of Global Warming, and GHGs are again small compared to, for example, solar activity's effect on Global Warming. Sorry, 6of9, it looks as if your reading comprehension is not quite what you believe it to be.

The earth is in fact always warmed by a blanket of ghg's (one of which is water). Adding to the thickness of that blanket by adding ghg's to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

At best, the reference to a blanket is a bad metaphor. Blankets act primarily to suppress convection; the atmosphere acts to enable convection. To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don't know how either one of them operates. It is precisely the amount of GHGs produced by mankind (that you refer to as thickness) that is currently under debate (see previous comment).

BA- Hates hasty conclusions and false aspersions.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Brother Apostate

"what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%?

Are you really claiming...blah, blah, blah, blah...I get very suspicious when people try to tell me that measurable things can't be measured. Why would you do that, except for the purpose of misleading?

First and foremost, your reading comprehension needs work. Taking a statement out of context amounts to little more than the straw man you present above. The point I clearly made is not how much the various claims are for what %X humans contribute in terms of GHGs, but instead what %A-Z humans contibute to Global Warming in total. (However, the% of human as opposed to natural sources of GHGs is a minor issue, as well)

What is so "technologically complex" about them? Hell, some people build their own hybrid cars in their garage. And while they may not be cheaper in pure money terms at this point in time, manufacturers are already able to produce them competitively, so they will undoubtably become cheaper, battery technology will only get better, lighter, cheaper, and even more long-life, and manufacturers already produce hybrids with long full-powertrain warranties.

You are buying into the marketing hype. Look, what you miss is that batteries store energy produced by GHG producing energy sources, in a very inefficient manner. The conversion from one form of energy, to storage in a battery, to another form of energy for use in an automobile will always be less efficient than converting one form of energy, to another form of energy for use in an automobile. Replace "automobile" with anything else, still a true statement. And batteries themselves create a huge potential for pollution after their useful life, which is relatively short and increasingly less efficient over their useful life. Incidentally, care to guess what a replacement battery for a Prius costs?

For someone who "lives a very green lifestyle", you sure are interested in adding naysaying to discussions of ways humans can do better.

I define "better", as a 30,000 foot view that takes into account the pros and cons, not just the marketing hype.

"Find out first if mankind can do anything about it."-BA
Clearly the answer is yes. -6of9

Not only if, of course, but what. Will what mankind does, vs not do, about it make the environment better or worse? Again, step back and look at the big picture.

But someone whose head is far up their ass about the need for change, isn't going to be able to see the "cons" any more clearly than he or she sees the benefits to be realized from change. And someone whose cash flow is derived from industry that will profit from business-as-usual for as-long-as-possible, has a vested interest in not accurately weighing cost vs benefits of change.

And someone whose head is far up their ass about adopting any change without evaluating the pros and cons will likely create an even more intolerable situation. And someone whose cash flow is derived from industry that will profit from a hastily leapt to conclusion, has a vested interest in not accurately weighing cost vs benefits of change as well.

In other words, they'll lie or misinform, pass those lies on in a fashion that will get the most people believing them to be credible, and then who knows..... you might even see that disinformation show up on an internet discussion board someday. Hell, you might even be the one repeating it.

Right back at 'cha, 6of9!!!

BA- Responding to another disciple of Marketing-induced hysteria

PS- Chill out, take a deep breath, and think.

27

I did not know this

by TooBad TooSad in

jw
friends

the book study conducter said tuesday night, during coverage of the revelation book,.

that the real purpose of the holocaust was not to rid europe of the jews but rather satan .

was moving hitler to kill all of the j.w.'s..

Brother Apostate

Their exagerated sense of self-importance coupled with their inability to learn from history is what makes a dub a dub.

Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Brother Apostate

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Brother Apostate

Mary, you stated:

I'm no scientist, but I find it difficult to belief that anyone can sit here and state that they don't believe all the pollution that man has created in the last hundred years or so, isn't having a detrimental effect on this planet. If we eat nothing but garbage decade after decade, it's going to have a horrendous effect on our physical health. If we're creating garbage decade after decade on earth, it's going to have a horrendous effect on the physical and geological nature of the planet, end of story.

Would anyone deny that eating nothing but fast food, chocolate bars, cakes, pies, icecream, french fries, isn't going to impact our health? Then why don't we apply the same logic to global warming?

I don't believe anyone on this thread is stating that they don't think pollution has a detrimental effect on the Earth.

The discussion is regarding how much mankind contributes to Global Warming

If

humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%? Then ask yourself whether in the big picture GHGs even come close to periodic solar fluctuations or other natural sources in causing Global Warming. (I'm not talking scientific predictions here, rather, real world case studies ex-post facto).

Should we adopt all kinds of economic and technological upheaval, only to find it had little to no effect on Global Warming? What is at stake is more Government interference based on a political agenda.

Trade Big Oil for Big Natural Gas, Big Nuclear Energy or Big Hydroelectric Power and you have all kinds of new environmental damage. Think about it.

Trade Big Oil for Wind Power or Solar Power and you have expensive to install and maintain solutions with a short shelf life, not to mention, Solar Power only captures energy during daylight, Wind Power only captures energy when it's windy. Both then store energy in batteries- which are not environmentally friendly either.

Hybrid vehicles are technologically complex, so they are expensive and high maintenance in the long run, what consumers think they are saving in gasoline will be be more than displaced with maintenance, repairs, and battery replacements.

Ethanol sounds good until you realize the amount of fertilizer and ensuing leaching into waterways would create another sort of environmental problem, with potential for disaster. Today's agriculture practices are not environmentally friendly, in numerous other ways as well.

Landfills are a terrible way of dealing with refuse. Recycling should be mandated, not voluntary. Everone should compost. Any rubbish left after recycling and composting is minimal, and could be incinerated.

To some, it is a republican/democrat thing, or left/right thing, to me it is a common sense thing. Find out first if mankind can do anything about it. Then, before leaping to the next big technology, look at the cons of that move before doing so, if it makes sense doing so at all.

BA-Lives a very green lifestyle.

262

Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

Brother Apostate

Reduce Global Warming- Eat Beef:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Reduce Global Warming- Energy from Cow Patties:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0605/ijge/gunning.htm

Despite what some may pronounce, the Scientific Community has in no way closed the books on the question of the extent of mankind's contribution to Global Warming. To suggest otherwise is pure poppycock.

Building predictive climate models is difficult work, there are many factors to include, and testing them requires at least a decade to determine if the models were correct in their prediction(s). The position of the AASC:

http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf

Transcript for the debate between Lindzen, Stott and Crichton versus Somerville, Schmidt and Ekurzwei on the motion “Global Warming is Not Crisis” is online here . (Incidentally, I much prefer to do my own research rather than have some self-proclaimed know-it-all who buys into Global Warming Hysteria on JWD tell me what is good and bad science.)

From a popular meteorological website:

"Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.

Nor has the peer review process been squeaky clean.

An April, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, included this paragraph expressing his own frustration at the peer review process: "And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen."

Source:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

BA- Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method, not jumping on the bandwagon of some silly biased group with an agenda that fits our preconceived notions. There is still no proof that humans can significantly alter Global Warming.

PS- The bottom line is- more and better data are needed for a definitive answer, as stated previously.

40

Did anyone get the old "counterfeit money" illustration?

by themonster123 in

jw
friends

a couple of my old witness girlfriends came over last night (note-i only recently left the org.

like 2 months ago, so people are still trying to get me to come back and "reason" with me)...and they used that stupid "counterfeit money" illustration.

i swear, every time i tell people i don't think it's the truth, they put that old illustration on me!

Brother Apostate

Fred/Q:

You are truly the ~~most pathetic~~ saddest poster here.

Do you ever pray to God for His Holy Spirit, or do you just regurgitate the vomit of the narcisssists in Bethel that call themselves the "FDS"?

Read the Bible for once in your life- after praying to God for His Holy Spirit, with an open mind, and no WTBTS publications around for "reference".

You will truly praise God if you do so.

Your Brother,

BA

8

Acts or Gospels? Who is Right?

by sammielee24 in

jw
friends

in the bible paul takes issue with peter regarding his hypocrisy - his objection eating with gentiles.

surely peter would have remembered jesus doing this.

jesus last words were to basically go preach to the world - which would be gentiles.

Brother Apostate

Both. Read between the lines. In context. Reading comprehension.

10

AN INTERESTING LETTER

by Terry in

supplement to .

zion's watch tower,.

"herald of christ's presence.

Brother Apostate

Regardless of the personal attacks on CTR, I still think he was sincere in his beliefs, and I'd love to meet him some day in the future. We all fall short of the glory of God. CTR must be evaluated based on the time he lived in, imo.

BA

14

This just ain't right!

by RR in

celion dion singing ac/dc's "you shook me all night long" ... is nothing sacred????.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=font47z0kzg.

.

Brother Apostate

Like taking agold ring and running it through a chipper/shredder!!