Does climate change have to destroy the earth in order for it to be a threat to the US?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chattterus
  • Start date Start date
C

chattterus

Guest
Recently one of our congressmen from Illinois stated a belief that climate change isn't a threat because the bible said flooding won't destroy the earth.

That leads me to thinking, Does climate change have to destroy the earth in order to be a threat? What if it just destroyed our coastal cities with flooding? Is it still not a threat?
 
ive no doubt your congressman has his bible in an airtight container
already.i don't know in what context he said it, but he must have been
reaching out to the believers for something.
i can assure you that that congressman's ignorance and narrow mindness is more of a threat to this earths existence than the rising of the oceans.
that said,maybe he has read his book enough times to have got some tips from the last guy that was supposed to have tried to hold back the waves...
 
If God wants to change the weather, he will. There is nothing mankind can do about the weather. It is the height of human arrogance to think we have even the slightest say-so what the climate will be.

If the weather all over the globe rose in temperature 50 degrees, it would only mean God decided to turn up the heat of the sun. Mankind has zero ability to change climate. We can't make it hotter, we can't make it colder. If 1000 ice shelves the size of Texas broke off and floated to Hawaii, Mankind would not be to blame, nor could we change it.
 
Anyone pointing to the bible to make/justify public policy should be fitted for a room w/ white padded walls.

That being said, climate change is true -- the climate does change, always. It can't be refuted.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is quite another story. There is no consensus humans have anything to do w/ 'global warming'.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Al Gore and his band of scientists won't openly debate the issue b/c they know they have not concrete evidence. It's all based on assumption and recent weather patterns (cooling) have put a big damper in the validity of their claims...as did finding that Glacier that was said to have melted b/c of AGW. Whoops...

John Coleman and about 30,000 scientists have sued Al Gore and his group for an open forum just to exchange ideas. They had to sue them b/c Gore's group is on lock down...they don't talk to anyone but themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM&feature=related

I also find the multi-billion dollar conflict of interest a little off-putting:
http://www.generationim.com/

Environmentalists have a way of inflating statistics to push their agenda -- they always push doom and gloom based on false premise. For example, the polar bear population is flourishing -- has been for about a decade. The rain forest is flourishing and dense -- turns out, thinning produces more growth as the nutrients in the ground are funneled to those trees best suited to grow big and healthy. The recycling movement has us producing more waste -- including CO2 to gather, collect and transport...not to mention the production of the millions of blue bins/trashcans at the curb of every suburban house...etc.
 
We have climate change every day. It is always hot in summer and cold in winter. Weather conditions will not destroy the earth.

There is no man-made global warming. It is a hoax. Look how much money Al Gore is making off of his scam. He has been singing his gloom and doom song for over 20 years. Nothing extraordinary has happened.
 
All during my childhood in the 70's and 80's, the enviro nuts threatened global freezing. Now it is global warming. Make up your dang minds so I will know what kind of clothes to buy.
 
flood? they do not understand the full implications of no ice caps, night and day wave goodbye, wild weather mars will be more hospitable, thats the upside? first the ground shakes then come the floods followed by lightning all over the earth.
 
yes, it is a very real threat
see "an inconvenient truth"
it won, not just an oscar, but the NOBEL PRIZE
so, how bad could it be?

and your congressman should be put to a biblical death
instead of stones, throw bibles at him til he dies.
just kidding, barely
 
Remember when these same scientists were going nuts over global cooling in the 1970's? How it would end the world. It seems like they like to create a catastrophe every so often to make themselves feel important. People in 2030 will look back at this global warming thing and laugh at us for buying into it.
 
Destroy the coastal cities, and you destroy most of our population. The congressman is technically right, flooding wouldn't destroy the planet, just destroy everything the human race has accomplished. The planet would still be here doing it's thing, But it would be a global threat.
 
I would like just enough global warming to make my property a waterfront, that would be great.
 
Back
Top