I won’t pretend to speak for all of the contributors to this site, but I’ve noticed a lot of people asking why we talk about global warming. Let me tell you why I occasionally write about it.
Firstly let me say that there is no more important truth than the truth of Jesus. That He is God, that he lived on earth, died for our sins and was raised again on the third day. That He sits on the right hand side of the Father and rules from Heaven. No truth is more important, vital or worth sharing as that truth!
We are told that a lot of things are truth, and these have become commonly accepted as truth. There are a few scientific “truths” out there that I don’t believe. I’m no scientist myself, but I’m still entitled to my opinion, especially when it is based on the Word of God and those whose science I trust. Here are a few that I don’t buy into - that an unborn baby isn’t a human, that the earth is billions of years old, that we were not created nor designed but happened by chance. I tell you these in hopes of pointing out that many, many Christians don’t agree with what is commonly accepted as truth on these matters.
So why do we talk about global warming? Because I don’t believe it is the truth. I believe that global warming is agenda driven. If Al Gore really believed in global warming and wasn’t just looking for how it can benefit him, don’t you think he’d be living a more green life? Political leaders who push for global warming restrictions on our lives are viewed as being “great humanitarians, who want what’s best for people.” Yet they are almost 100% pro-abortion!
I write about global warming because I believe that the data doesn’t prove it to the point of being labeled as truth, the way that America has labeled it. I also believe that global warming is being used as a tool by the government to over tax and take away rights. Being a Christian is about freedom. Jesus came to this earth to set the captives free. As a regenerated human, I am free from the bondage of sin by the work on the cross of Jesus. America’s greatness is based upon our freedom. Our freedom to live un-oppressed and to believe what we hold as truth, is a gift that I want to protect.
Again I quote Czech President Vaclav Klaus “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants… Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”
I hope to accomplish a few different things with this website, point people towards the truth of Jesus, create discussion and debate on important topics, take a stand against abortion and stand up for truth. Myself and Daniel (my brother) have been talking for a longtime about “what can we do to make a difference in regards to abortion?” So we’ve been addressing abortion from a few different angels. I’ve tried to look at how a global warming-shaped view of environmentalism could lead to more abortion… my response from Christians was not positive. Daniel wrote on how “pop culture” promotes abortion, he used “The Office” as an example and was basically labeled “An idiot” by many Christians. We’ll keep trying! We hope to make a difference.
As long as man-made global warming is taught as absolute truth and used to promote an agenda, I’ll continue to write about it.
Much Love, josh
April 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
thanks for clarifying on these things Josh! it is an interesting thing that his site is attempting to become it seems… bridging the gape between the two subjects one does not talk about at the dinner table :o)
it is also interesting that you deduce culture and environmentalism as two factors in an argument for or against abortion. i agree with you on this. i am struggling a little with how to present these things. its such a balance to lovingly present something that you know will offend a person’s belief system.
I am realizing that a lot of people are not taught to think critically, or have a healthy discussion on things. So many times in our society, and on this site it seems, people are offended and their first response is to lash out rather than sit back, think about the issue, and respond in a thoughtful way.
I am looking forward to seeing what becomes of this site and the posts. I believe if we keep Christ at the center, and operate in a loving way, that great light may be shared through the web in some ways that we may not even realize yet.
In regards to the talk of politics and religion. I believe that for this site to engage these arenas is a good thing. I believe there are a lot of misconceptions as to what public policy is vs. what politics are; as to what true religion is vs. false religion; as to what Christ desires of us vs. the ways Christ followers, both sincere and fake, screw up in huge ways.
Thanks so much for your many contributions. God bless you brother
peace
s
April 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I would say that this discussion lacks a definition of what truth is, and that is not a trivial matter. I would like to weigh in on scientific truth. The truth of science lies in repeatability, if you perform an experiment and you get some result and it agrees with your hypothesis you might think to yourself that your hypothesis was correct, but you probably want to double check. As you continually check your result you become more confident in the result. If you and everyone you know does this experiment and gets the same result then you might start to call the phenomena a fact or maybe scientific truth. The main problem with scientific truth, fact, or proof is that it only takes one instance of the experiment failing to invalidate it.
So when talking about truth in science it sometimes gets confused with actual facts like Josh Cordell has lived in Bend, Oregon. Nothing will change the fact that Josh has lived in Bend, Oregon, but a scientific fact can be changed by finding contradictory results, so it differs significantly from a fact like “Josh has lived in Bend Oregon.”
I think this is where things start to get muddied. People trying to tie together scientific fact with other types of facts. Josh, I would say that your opening statements about god and jesus do not lie in the realm of truth or fact (I am loosely using these interchangeably.), but they are in the area of belief, which then gets renamed truth for better or worse. The problem is when things like scientific truth are welded to other types of things labeled facts or truths without recognizing the inherent flaws of doing so.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
What do climate change and abortion have in common? It seems like every article I’ve read on this site so far has thrown abortion into it even if it doesn’t fit.
Just because someone supports abortion doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be viewed as humanitarians. Think about it this way, IF global warming is true, general human population on this earth is threatened, millions more of people will be suffering and dying because of people who doubted the “evidence”.
This planet can only comfortably sustain a population of 1 million people with its resources, but our current population is almost 7 times that and at the current rate it will hit 10bil by 2050. If abortion were outlawed worldwide there would be an additional 50mil people on this earth each year. At the risk of sounding completely insensitive, it helps with worldwide population control; something that could possibly be more dangerous to human population than global warming.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Jeremiah, did I read you right? Did you just prove Josh’s point??? You said:
“Just because someone supports abortion doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be viewed as humanitarians. If abortion were outlawed worldwide there would be an additional 50mil people on this earth each year. At the risk of sounding completely insensitive, it helps with worldwide population control; something that could possibly be more dangerous to human population than global warming.”
So you are saying it’s OK to murder 50 million unborn children a year to protect people that are alive already??? The planet has enough food production to support the current population. The problems are mostly political and also distribution. Besides, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is causing plants and trees to grow more! http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=169
I would ask that you carefully think about your position. Maybe you don’t see abortion as murder, but God’s Word says it is. Murder is never OK.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
This article makes me suspect that Mr. Cordell denies the existence of gravity and suspects the earth to be in the middle of the universe. He says he doesn’t buy into the theory that an unborn baby isn’t human. An unborn baby has fewer cells that a fruit fly, and is not sentient. Saying that a fetus is a human is like saying that an acorn is a tree. An acorn is not a tree.
He seems to believe that “global warming is being used as a tool by the government to over tax and take away rights.” I don’t know how anyone could come to such a conclusion. Global warming is science. Carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than other atmospheric gases, so when we put massive quantities of it into the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer. It’s not a conspiracy theory, but Mr. Cordell has dedicated himself to ignoring the truth. It is laughable that he posts on a website called “Love for the Truth.”
Shane agrees that global warming is a conspiracy to “murder” fetuses, because he presumably believes that acorns are trees. Mr. Cordell, your ignorance seems contagious. Also, Mr. Shaw has joined the sarcastic “stop global cooling” group. I don’t see how he can deny empirical evidence.
It almost seems like the entire ideology of this website is based on an Orwellian denial of facts. They say “abortion is murder,” “fetuses are human,” and “global warming is a conspiracy.” They had might as well say that the sky is red. But no matter how much they may deny plain fact, their denial will not change that fact.
W
April 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
w. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT UNBORN BABIES ARE HUMAN THAN WHY DO YOU REFERE TO THEM AS “BABIES”.
NO MORAL RAMIFICATIONS OCCURE FROM SQUASHING AN ACORN, AND CUTTING DOWN A TREE IS NOT MURDER. FINALLY THE FLAW WITH YOUR ARGUMENT OF COURSE BEING THAT AN ACORN IS IN FACT A TREE IT CONTAINS THE EXACT SAME GENETIC CODE, SAME DNA AS AN OAK TREE SO SORRY SCIENCE DISPROVES YOUR ACORN THEORY.
w. WHEN DOES AN ACORN BECOME A TREE?
W. PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT IS A FETUS?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Fetuses and embryos are humans in their early stages of development, before they become truly human. Obviously, they aren’t sentient or capable of though. I referred to the fetuses using the same language in the article, calling them “unborn babies.” Obviously, “baby” isn’t really a correct term for something that isn’t sentient.
I understand that cutting down a tree or acorn isn’t murder, but my point is that just as an acorn is not a tree, an embryo or fetus is not a human. I understand that an acorn an oak tree have the same DNA, but that does not mean they are the same thing.
Let me give you a better example. A caterpillar and a butterfly are not the same thing. They have the same genetic information, and a caterpillar has a chance of eventually becoming a butterfly. That said, a caterpillar is not a butterfly. Science doesn’t disprove my theory. No scientist in the world would say that an acorn is a tree, or that a caterpillar is a butterfly.
I’m not a botanist, but I would conjecture that an acorn becomes a tree when the germ of the plant breaks out of the cell.
My message is this. A fetus or embryo is not a human, and no matter how much we say that it is, no matter how much we invoke God in an attempt to deny the truth before it, that truth remains. Look at the contradictions we purport, should we accept that fetuses and embryos are human. More than half of all embryos don’t make it to birth, because of what’s called spontaneous abortion. This is when the embryo dissolves inside the mother. If we think that fetuses are human, then we’re saying that God kills more than half of all humans before they become sentient. And when an embryo splits to form identical twins, are those twins only half human? Of course not. Sometimes, to embryos in very early stages of development combine into one. In fact, almost anyone could be the result of such a process. Does that means that there are “double humans” walking among us? No, because fetuses and embryos aren’t human.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
w. AND I QUOTE “Fetuses and embryos are humans in their early stages of development, before they become truly human.” LATER YOU SAY “A fetus or embryo is not a human, and no matter how much we say that it is, no matter how much we invoke God in an attempt to deny the truth before it, that truth remains” THE ACTUAL TRUTH REMAINS THAT YOU CAN’T EVEN DESCRIBE WHAT’S BEING KILLED AND ABORTED WITHOUT USING WORDS THAT BETRAY YOU. ACCORDING TO YOU ABORTION IS MURDER OF HUMANS IN THEIR EARLIER STAGES. AS FAR AS MISSCARIAGE MAKING ABORTION OKAY BECAUSE GOD DOES IT, AS YOU PUT IT. WELL FRIEND THAT IS AKIN TO ME SAYING KILLING ADULT HUMANS IS OKAY BECAUSE PEOPLE DIE EVERYDAY, AND GOD KILLED THEM. I BELIEVE ARDENTLY IN GOD AND HIS SON JESUS THE CHRIST BUT I NEED NOT INVOKE HIM HERE, BECAUSE YOU HAVENT A FOOT TO STAND ON. WHEN AN EMBYO SPLITS TWO EARLY STAGE HUMANS ARE THE RESULT, YOU ASKED “And when an embryo splits to form identical twins, are those twins only half human?” NO THEY ARE FULL HUMANS JUST LIKE THOSE BABIES AT THE EARLIEST STAGES THAT YOU KEEP TRYING, UNWITTINGLY I MIGHT ADD, DENY HUMANTY. “Sometimes, to embryos in very early stages of development combine into one. In fact, almost anyone could be the result of such a process. Does that means that there are “double humans” walking among us?” AGAIN YOU MAKE THE CONNECTION FOR ME A FETUSE IS A HUMAN, THE CORRELATION WAS EASY FOR YOU TO ASSERT, AND YET THE TRUTH ELUDES YOU, THOU IT RUNS RAMPENT THROUGH EVERY REPLY YOU MAKE. SENTIENT? WERE YOU AT 1 DAY OLD? ONE WEEK OLD? 1 YR OLD? 3 YRS OLD? DESCRIBE FOR ME PLEASE THE FIRST 3 YRS OF YOUR LIFE AS YOU RECALL THEM SIR OR MAME?
LASTLY DO YOU HAVE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST EMPERICAL EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE NOT SENTIENT? THEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR OWN WORDS PEOPLE WITH THOUGHT ARE MORE WORTHY OF LIFE THAN THOSE4 WITHOUT AND IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THOSE WITH THE GREATEST THOUGHTS HAVE THE GREATER RIGHT TO LIVE… WHATS YOUR SCALE FROM SMART TO DUMB AND RIGHT TO LIFE, ARE RETARDED PEOPLE LESSER BEINGS THAN YOU SIR OR MAME ?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Thanks Tom. I have to say that you make a very good point.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I’m not using words that betray me, I’m using words that are accurate. A fetus/embryo is “human” in the same way that my hair cells are human. 46 chromosomes, and so forth. But it isn’t Human, it isn’t sentient, it doesn’t feel emotion, it’s not truly alive.
I’m not arguing that just because there are miscarriages, abortion is okay. I’m arguing that, given the nature of miscarriages, looking at fetuses and embryos as truly sentient life results in a contradiction.
When I talk about twins, again, I’m just arguing that it’s supremely illogical to suggest that fetuses are a part of humanity. You agree that when an embryo splits, two fully humans will eventually be born. How then can you say that the initial embryo was one life? And when I ask you if you seriously believe in “double humans,” as they follow naturally from your incorrect beliefs about fetuses, you simply ignore my question. In order to continue living in your warped reality, you have to simply ignore the very contradictions you purport.
When I talk about sentience, I’m talking about a fruit fly being worth less than your life or mine. That’s because a fruit fly doesn’t have the same human experience that we do. I’m not saying we ought to value any sentient life more than another.
The bottom line is, in order to continue to deny the truth, you have to ignore the massive contradictions inside the assertion that fetuses are human (in the sense that you and I are human, not in the sense that they have 46 chromosomes, etc.). In order to claim that an embryo is what it isn’t, you claim that something with fewer cells than a fruit fly is sentient, and that well over half of what are ostensibly truly human lives (in the sense that you and I are human) in embryonic form die before they are born, and that these same lives can split in half or double.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
If you read the beginning of the Bible starting with Genesis, it mirrors how evolution actually takes place. Please read; I DARE you to prove me wrong!!! If you have such a thing against evolution or global warming, just read the “Bible” because it has instances of both topics.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Message from God! Says: If you read the beginning of the Bible starting with Genesis, it mirrors how evolution actually takes place. Please read; I DARE you to prove me wrong!!!
God says in Genesis 1: 24 & 25: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
“Each according to it’s own kind” Dogs beget dogs. Cats, cats. Cows, cows. There is no evolution to different species. God created animals who multiply according to their own kind. Pretty simple really.
As for so-called Global Warming, I dare you to read this!: http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=161
April 19th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Mr. Shaw, denying global warming is like denying the holocaust. Not only is it incredibly ignorant, it is a betrayal of all future generations of this world. That is hardly Christian.
I looked at your childish website. It’s filled with factual inaccuracies. To give you an example, you said that the sun was cooling, which is actually true. But what you derive from that fact, that the planet will get cooler, is false. The planet is still getting warmer because it retains more heat, even though the sun is cooler and send less heat. The sun operates in cycles, so if we’re keeping a tremendous amount of heat as it is, when the sun exudes more warmth, we’ll be absorbing even more of it.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Hey W:
Some strong words there about holocaust denying. I am hardly betraying future generations, rather trying to protect them from more debt and a weaker country that will result in fighting a problem that is not real!
Don’t just take my word for it. Here are HUNDREDS of scientists that say global warming is not only not a big problem, but many say the warming has stopped and we are in for colder years ahead. http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=188
It’s the Sun, W., the Sun!
Glad you like the site! Thanx!
April 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Just to clarify again Mike…it’s a problem You don’t BELIEVE is real. You are not stating that God has made it clear that the theory of global warming is not true…you are stating that it is your belief that it is not true. I think that makes a big difference when talking to someone about it. For there is no concrete proof that your theory has been proven correct, just as there is no concrete proof that the other side is correct.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The fact is, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution. There remains little doubt that this enormous increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is man-made. Many scientist believe this increase in carbon dioxide has a potential to result in global warming. The truth is, climate modeling is extremely difficult and it’s yet to be determined what the effect of this influx of carbon dioxide will be. The best case is nothing happens, the worst case is we through the planet into another ice age. I find it quite disturbing that we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than nature can take it out, and unsettling that we do not really know what damage (perhaps irreversibly) we might be doing to our planet. I find many of the attitudes expressed on this site regarding this subject absolutely irresponsible and ask “what if you are wrong?”
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
The truth is CO2 has NOT been rising exponentially! It has been rising, but many scientists have discovered that CO2 rise actually FOLLOWS a rise in temperatures. The warming if the 80’s and 90’s (that has now stopped) is a natural function of coming out of the little ice age of the 1600s. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it was in the 90’s and there weren’t a lot of SUVs driving around at the time. If you want to read peer review science articles from scientists on such things, check this out: http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
If we enact Cap and Trade we will hurt our economy (like we need that right now), weaken our country, and drive energy prices up. That is much more harmful than any possible affect that so-called global warming might be having maybe. You can fight the Sun.
Still snowing in Michigan. Poor people wish Winter would end already!
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Happy Earth Day! http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=194
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
And so I must assume that you are claiming that global warming HAS been disproven and you must fight against the evil regime of moderate the use of our worlds resources. Burn all of the forests, suck all of the oil from the ground and consume as much as possible. That is the model that Christ gave us. Live extravagant lives with as much as possible. Justify everything that you do by coming up with your own interpretations of context in the Bible. Assume as much as you can about “what God would want you to do” as long as it doesn’t make you have to give up any conveniences.
Truth is, we as a nation spend our money poorly. We could feed the world with the corn that we grow just in America. We could provide energy for the world if we would turn off our cars two days a week.
One great way that the average American can pay for the cap and trade is to carpool. Since I got rid of my Chevy Suburban (for conviction sake) and bought a sedan, started car pooling, and just driving less I have saved about $2600 per year. My wife did the same thing and we save about $5000 per year between the two of us. If economy is what you are worried about then you shouldn’t encourage people to by an SUV and make jackrabbit starts everywhere. That would cost the average household much more then the cap and trade that you are worried about. Geo Metro’s for everyone would really help our economy right?
It was 85 in Bend Oregon yesterday….Usually in the 50’s. should I invest in air conditioning manufacturers?
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
you me and bennett:
I believe that global warming is NOT a problem. You did get that part right. As a result I think it’s DANGEROUS to pass legislation to regulate CO2. That legislation will dramatically increase energy costs which will result in a big drag on our already struggling economy. I CARE about people being able to work, and support their families! Fighting a problem that isn’t is not wisdom.
As for your car pooling and such… that’s awesome that you are able to save your family $$! I salute you. However, I do not look forward to a day where the rest of us might be compelled to do the same because, “it’s the right thing to do for the planet.” I hope that day never comes.
The excess consumption that I talk about is hyperbole for humor sake. I know, I know, humor is a subjective thing.
I do believe that not drilling domestically is weakening the country. We send 700 billion dollars overseas a year to buy oil when we have so much right here in the U.S. that we don’t develop. States like California are laying off teachers when they could be in the black by drilling for oil and gas (or if not in the black, less in debt). Please don’t neglect the resources we have right here, right now. Jobs and national security are at stake.
I imagine my words won’t convince you, but hopefully someone will read this and think about some things maybe they didn’t consider before. Thank you for your time.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I agree with you that we should drill in our own backyard, but don’t you see the benefit of “doing the right thing for our planet”. Do you have no care for our planet? Given it is not my God, but it is the ultimate display of a creator. Is everything about money? Can you not see the benefit of consuming less? If Oregon passes legislation to charge 5 cents per grocery bag, and the average person must then pay about $1 per week more for their grocerys is that not a good thing to encourage them to re-use or to bring their own bag? Why is it that you feel like we should not have to pay more for consuming more?
You hope the day never comes when you have to lower yourself to carpooling..??….really??? That is such an easy thing to do, and the savings for people would be increadible. If it is the economy that you are worried about, giving people a minimum of $100 extra per month would greatly outshine any stimulus that we have already been given.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I have never seen such ignorance as mike shaw is portraying with is responses. Do you not care about preserving the natural beauty of this planet for future generations? What you’re saying is a big F*** YOU to all future gens when you say that we don’t need to stop being so careless with energy. “I do not look forward to a day where the rest of us might be compelled to do the same because, “it’s the right thing to do for the planet.” I hope that day never comes.” You do realize that at the rate we’re going now, we’re doing major harm to our planet not even considering global warming right?
You need to reevaluate your morals and stop being such a selfish person. No wonder us Americans are hated by the rest of the world for our carelessness
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
In regards to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels I challenge you to take a look at the following three links which are plots carbon dioxide levels over different time intervals.
1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
2. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif
3. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
The first link shows data collected over the last 50 years, notice that the slope of the curve is lower in 1960 than it is now.
The second plot shows carbon levels dating back to the 1700’s. As I noted in my earlier comment, these levels have risen exponentially since the industrial revolution (late 1700’s early 1800’s). You stated “CO2 has NOT been rising exponentially!”, hopefully the second link here will cause you to reexamine that belief.
The third plot shows carbon levels over the last 1000 years. What do you think is responsible for the sharp increase over the last 300 years?
Additionally, I’m afraid the point I was trying to make did not hit home. Climate modeling is an extremely high dimensional problem of which carbon dioxide levels represent one dimension. Thus it is very hard to predict the consequences of overwhelming the atmospheric carbon cycle as we are. In nature, from chemical reactions inside living cells to atmospheric chemical processes we find an equilibrium is maintained through a complex system of checks and balances. My worry is that it would appear we are contributing gaseous carbon into the atmosphere at rates so high that nature can no longer keep up and that is (or very well should be) SCARY.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Atom
The rise in Carbon Dioxide is not refutable, but scientists as of yet have no concrete evidence that suggests cause and effect, when it comes to high temperatures and co2 levels. At the present there are differing views as to whether temperature causes co2 to rise or if co2 causes temperature to rise, or if the 2 work in a strict cause and effect relationship.
thankyou for your post and links.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
you me and bennett
Jeremiah
You guys are really not understanding my comment, “I do not look forward to a day where the rest of us might be compelled to do the same because, “it’s the right thing to do for the planet.” I hope that day never comes.”
The key word there is “compelled.” I fear that Government is moving towards requiring people to take steps to solve a problem that isn’t. I’m happy that you guys want to preserve Earth’s beauty. I do too. I LOVE trees! I love clean water and air. However, I strongly disagree that CO2 is pollution. Trees love it! I don’t think a mandatory car pool law is the way to go and I would strongly oppose it.
My other point will be directed at Atom. Both of your charts (from NASA) show a big increase in CO2 over the time shown. Keep in mind that CO2 is .03% (that’s three one-hundredths of a percent!) of the atmosphere. Your fear of “consequences of overwhelming the atmospheric carbon cycle” is really unfounded. If I had the time I’d hunt down the links that show CO2 levels have been even higher in the past, way before I was driving an SUV as fast as I could from zero to the speed limit
Also, your 2nd graph shows an increase from roughly 270 ppmv (parts per million volume) to about 330. That’s an increase of just 60 ppmv. By definition, that is not even close to exponential! If you remember from your science classes, exponents deal in factors of ten. The Richter Scale is a good example of a logarithmic scale that increases exponentially. A 5.0 earthquake is ten times stronger than a 4.0 and a 6.0 is 100 times stronger than a 4.0, etc.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Mike,
I understand that CO2 makes up a very small fraction of the atmospheric gasses, this is why it’s expressed in parts per million (ppm). The important quantity to consider is NOT the absolute value but its deviation from its previous values. For thousands of before say 1700AD the concentration is more or less steady, this is because it is being produced and consumed at the same rate. Over the last 300 years it is rising dramatically, evidently because it is being produced at a rate that is larger than it is being consumed. This is what I mean when I say we are overwhelming the atmospheric carbon cycle. Imagine pouring water into a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, if I pour the water slowly enough the hole in the bottom will drain water at the same rate I am pouring it in, over time the level of the water in the bucket will not change. If I pour water into the bucket faster than the hole can drain the level of the bucket will rise over time and eventually overflow. In my analogy nature (i.e., plants, dead sea life at the sea floor) are the hole in the bucket, humans represent the primary bucket fillers, and water is atmospheric CO2.
Secondly, of course I remember my science classes, do you remember yours? The second link (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif) IS exponential. The way to know for sure is to plot the data on a logarithmic scale and verify that it becomes linear (a straight line). The signature of an exponential function is that the slope of the curve increases with time i.e., the curve begins more or less flat and gets steeper the further you go ahead in time. There is a chance that the data I linked is showing power law growth but I would bet a nickle it is exponential. For more on exponential growth see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
or the first part of,
http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Hey Atom,
Now we are having some fun!
I’m gonna stick with my answer on exponential growth. I’ll give you props for expanding my definition somewhat, but even if you go back to your wikipedia article you’ll see the examples they give are much closer to increases of factors of ten than say a 50% increase over 300 years. Still, I’ll give you some kudos there and I see what you are saying.
Regardless, I found this little gem of an article that cites many peer reviewed scientific papers as sources. The article points out that even though man made (a small percentage of CO2’s small percentage of the atmosphere) CO2 has increased 40%, CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven’t increased! Here’s the link if you’d like to look: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N1/COM.php
Additionally, here’s a summary of a paper that refutes your claim that CO2 levels may be reaching unsustainable levels. This scientific article concluded that;
“Over the bulk of the record, earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuates between values that are two to four times greater than that of today at a dominant period on the order of 100 million years. For the last 175 million years, however, there has been a rather steady long-term decline in the air’s CO2 content.”
Here is the link to the full summary: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N19/C2.php
While I think I have proven tonight that I myself am not an actual scientist
I think we have all seen that the debate is not settled. Here, or in the scientific community. IMHO (OK, not so humble opinion) I think that it’s not wise to hit our economy with a big energy tax (Cap and Trade would be a HUGE energy tax) while the planet is already cooling off on it’s own!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
Have a great evening y’all!
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Mike,
A few things.
First, I think I can change your mind about the exponential growth. As I hope you agree, an exponential function looks linear on a logarithmic scale (a la the Richter scale). Since the people hosting the data here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif) are nice enough to provide their data I’ve plotted the carbon levels on a logarithmic scale.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Atom.Willard/Documents#5327939071507059362
As you can see, beginning in the year 1750 with a CO2 concentration of about 280ppm we entered a period of exponential growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (the points lie on a line). The line you see in that plot is a simple exponential function.
I’ve also put the exponential fit on the non-logarithmic scale here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Atom.Willard/Documents#5327939127240481794
Here you can see that the growth in carbon dioxide levels follow pretty well the function 282+exp(0.017*(x-1750)), where the 282 tells you the approximate initial CO2 concentration at the onset of the exponential growth and 1750 is the approximate year the onset started (think industrial revolution).
A third plot shows this curve extrapolated out to the year 2100:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Atom.Willard/Documents#5327939132069707122
This dramatic increase over the next 100 years is what has scientist worried.
For added effect I produced one more plot, this includes the most recent measurements in green points:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Atom.Willard/Documents#5327939131446201906
What I hope you see in this plot is that our current trajectory is rising even faster than the exponential function!!!!
I hope next time you think about telling someone that carbon levels are not rising exponentially you stop think about what I’ve shown above.
Secondly you mentioned in your last post you stated “The article points out that even though man made (a small percentage of CO2’s small percentage of the atmosphere) CO2 has increased 40%, CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven’t increased!” I don’t know how you can say that? Look at the data, carbon levels HAVE ABSOLUTELY INCREASED. I don’t know where the authors of the article you linked get off stating that “the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly.” I had a look at the Science article they cite and was shocked to find out they cite the same collection of data I’ve been linking since yesterday in particular they cite this table (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). Just bad science I guess, don’t believe everything you read.
I don’t expect that I’ll change your mind Mike, but like you, I hope the readers of this blog will learn something from reading and participating in our little debate.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
One more thing I forgot to include in the previous post. When you look at the extrapolated CO2 levels (http://picasaweb.google.com/Atom.Willard/Documents#5327939131446201906) imagine instead that it were a plot of the concentration of e coli in your drinking water, in that case I’m sure you would want to do something to stop the growth. Imagine instead of e coli it were a bacteria whose effect on the human body were unknown but generally thought within the scientific community to be harmful. I’d like to think that even though the jury was out and perhaps there was a small percentage of the scientific community that thought it was nothing to worry about you would still be wary of allowing the bacteria to grow exponentially in your drinking water.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Hey Atom,
I like you too and I am enjoying the conversation! Like I said previously, you did expand my understanding of “exponentially,” which is cool. I like learning new stuff!
Yes, I like the C02Science.org site. They pour over the scientific literature and make sense of it. Sometimes it is surprising to see how they are able to use the same data and come to different conclusions. I think in a very well reasoned way. You and I see it a bit differently though (not a big surprise!). I see it as them digging deeper and finding the right answers. We can agree to disagree, but like I said, I enjoy the conversation. I just wish we were having it over on my site so I could grow an audience over there
I will admit that maybe my sarcasm on StopGlobalCoolingNow.com may turn some people off…
One last thing about the e coli analogy. I would present it this way. What if there was a growing bacteria in your drinking water that people said was bad, but was naturally occurring. It was a small percentage of the water, but it was clearly growing. Still, it was only a very small percentage of the water. After careful examination you found that not only was the bacteria not harmful, but the concentrations had been much higher in the past with no ill affects. In addition, there were benefits already being realized by this friendly bacteria!
To bring it home, here is an article that shows that plants, and tress and crops are benefiting from the extra CO2!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5109251/Trees-are-growing-faster-and-could-buy-time-to-halt-global-warming.html
Of course their spin is that it is “buying us time” to stop global warming
I say it’s all natural. The temperature changes (up and down) are driven by the Sun which then affect the CO2 levels. More CO2, more green!
See, I’m not a heartless Earth hater after all
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
It’s this simple. CO2 absorbs heat. We are adding CO2. That very article quotes an expert who says: “The problem is that humans are releasing so much that plants can remove only a fraction of it.” Obviously, CO2 isn’t going to go away magically.
You think that it all relates to the sun, but I have to ask you, what about all the CO2 we add? That interferes with the natural processes, and makes the situation worse, because a greater amount of heat is trapped than normal. Science does not support your theory.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
we add somewhere in the range of 3.6% to 4% of the co2 that is in the atmosphere. W, it’s not that simple or else there would be a consensus amongst the scientific intelligentsia.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Noah,
There may not be 100% consensus amongst the scientific community, but those that believe climate change is man-made and a legitimate concern represent the vast majority. For example, in 2003 a study was done in which they analyzed 928 abstracts, all published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 that listed “climate change” in their keywords.
“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Basically not one of the peer reviewed manuscripts took the positions that seem to be popular with some of the authors of this blog.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
April 26th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
just because something is used to push an agenda does not make it “untrue.”
don’t christian politicians use their beliefs to push agendas?
does that render the bible a lie then too?
politicians will do anything to exploit a good thing and use it for their own cause. the simple solution to this is to not support the politicians or their agendas.
that doesn’t make the scientific community wrong.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
We know science, it gives a cold and hard facts. the earth and our environment HAS changed since the coal industry started in england. It is ignorant to deny facts.
the bible is a book, a good book, indeed with a lot of truths in it. but read it careful and critical. many things change and have changed.
(Or do you kill your daughter when she commited “adultery”)
God gave us free will, and more important a brain to be responsible with this earth he gave to us!!
May 13th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
As to whether or not CO2 caused those changes is the question. Not what science is or is not, nor what the bible says or says not.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657 and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html and from the AP - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C42VTO2
November 29th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
It is funny reading some of these comments post-climategate.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I don’t mean to be offensive, but let’s not pretend that “climategate” somehow rebuts what I had to say. That’s just practical science.
The so-called “climategate” was an extreme embarrassment for the faculty of the University of East Anglia who misappropriated funds. It’s a shame, but things like this occasionally, albeit rarely, happen in a research community filled with grant-hungry professors.
Still, it doesn’t besmirch to the least degree the scientific fact that is global warming, nor does it reduce the consensus surrounding the existence of this phenomena.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
is it possible that “global warming” or as its now called “climate change” is a way to accuse every individual of violating the rights of every other individual, thereby justifying taxation and and regulation in the name of human rights? and based on the global scale of this apparent epidemic, these taxes and regulation would be enforceable world wide? could this be why the United Nations is involved? could the United Nations use such leverage to declare world governance?