Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 01 August 2006 - 03:47 PM

I am a firm believer that the possibility of global warming is evident. However, many theologians that I respect and some political leaders that I don't really think much of, and many others, seem to think that the global warming issue is some crazy illusion. Do some Christians believe that this is some evolutionary scheme to promote evolution? I have found evidence in Revelations that indicate that God will permit such action as a plague to mankind, trying to get humanity to repent before he returns. If such interpretations are true, and i believe they are, then whats the big deal in believing that global warming is happening, especially when the evidence is obvious.
furthermore, global warming has happened in the past, not long after the flood. In our modern times its a sign that mankind has not kept the sacred order of Eden to take care of the earth. So is global warming something a Christian should hide from in fear it favors evolution, or should we be joyful that it favors the fulfillment of Revelations; after all, the end of our earth is the beginning of the next. In the mean time we should be noble about caring for our earth has God commanded us to do.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2006 - 07:57 PM

Indeed, if one believes (or only postulates) that the earth is under human stewardship, then it is only logical that the earth will suffer if mismanaged.

#3 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 03 August 2006 - 03:48 PM

Indeed, if one believes (or only postulates) that the earth is under human stewardship, then it is only logical that the earth will suffer if mismanaged.

View Post


That doesn't answer the question good enough, please be more specific and elaborate. Now I do believe that global warming is evident in our envoirnment, but why do so many people deny this? Why would a Christian feel the need to deny it? I know its not evidence for evolution, so why the farse over what is well known to be evidence. Will somebody please give me the politics behind this?

The Book of Genesis says that God commanded man to take care of all the creatures of the earth and the earth itself. This means that its a noble cause to make safe our environment no matter what the outcome my be.

I've heard a lot of fellow Christians deny this and I want to know why. I don't want some wild bias answer, just a true explanation.

#4 Cataclysm

Cataclysm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • in the pacific nw

Posted 03 August 2006 - 05:49 PM

There's scientific evidence to support global warming, no doubt about it. There is no need to deny it, but it just doesn't follow that doing so has to make you a member of GreenPeace or something.

God never gave humanity control over the weather and the climate.

#5 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 03 August 2006 - 05:56 PM

There's scientific evidence to support global warming, no doubt about it. There is no need to deny it, but it just doesn't follow that doing so has to make you a member of GreenPeace or something.

God never gave humanity control over the weather and the climate.

View Post


I understand that perfectly. Though God did command us to take care of the earth and everything in it. If we believers of God violate this command we could polute the environment and anger God who gave us "dominion" over what god had created. If we violate His will there will be plagues and that could involve global warming. Its not the time God permitted global warming. After the flood, there was a global warming which was followed up by an ice-age. The Book of Revelations also seems to indicate that this can happen again; but this time God is using it to make mankind repent of the sinful greed that led up the the global warming.

#6 Desperado

Desperado

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Ohio

Posted 03 August 2006 - 07:46 PM

After the flood, there was a global warming which was followed up by an ice-age. The Book of Revelations also seems to indicate that this can happen again; but this time God is using it to make mankind repent of the sinful greed that led up the the global warming.

View Post


What references can you cite for the "global warming and ice age" post flood?

And, where is global warming mentioned in Revelations?

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 August 2006 - 10:11 PM

That doesn't answer the question good enough, please be more specific and elaborate.


huh? I wasn’t answering a question I was agreeing with you.


Now I do believe that global warming is evident in our envoirnment, but why do so many people deny this? Why would a Christian feel the need to deny it? I know its not evidence for evolution, so why the farse over what is well known to be evidence. Will somebody please give me the politics behind this?


I was not aware that this was the case, i.e. that Christians (as a block) deny it, do they?

The Book of Genesis says that God commanded man to take care of all the creatures of the earth and the earth itself. This means that its a noble cause to make safe our environment no matter what the outcome my be.

I've heard a lot of fellow Christians deny this and I want to know why. I don't want some wild bias answer, just a true explanation.


If this is indeed the Christian sentiment I to would like to know why. Do you have any theories?

#8 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 05 August 2006 - 01:06 AM

What references can you cite for the "global warming and ice age" post flood?

And, where is global warming mentioned in Revelations?

View Post


Here are two which I believe are prophecies of God permitting global warming because of man's sin of greed:

"The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him" (Rev.16:8-9).

God can send an angel to strike the sun and decrease the suns energy, causing it to expand maybe? Or the angel of God allows the suns radiation to pierce through our weakened atmosphere and cause terible heat waves.

Now if this is the case then this should be followed up by natures defenses and produce extreme cold and hail-storms...if I am correct on past environmental sciences of our understanding of the Flood and its after effects.

"From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible" (Rev.16: 21).

Now remember the movie about global warming called "The day After Tomorrow"?
Extreme heat, cold, and hail are signs of global warming; but accourding to prophecy, this is a plague from God because mankind has sinned against God in several ways and still will not repent of their sins and right the wrongs. Are rich and very wealthy and powerful leaders of the world seem to ignore the environment and continue to polute it with the thought that they will be long since dead before their sins catch-up with the earth.

#9 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:53 AM

It is not my impression, at least in my neck of the woods, that there is any direct connection between Christianity and disbelief in global warming. There IS, however, a connection between Christianism and conservationism, and I would expect a connection between conservationism and disbelief in global warming, so this might be the link.

This will change the question to: Why are conservatives more likely to reject GW? I thinkt that the answer is that conservatives prefer the status quo, and will thus be reluctant to accept notions that will require us to upset that (by introducing radical energy saving, etc.).

Hans

#10 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 01 October 2006 - 10:09 AM

The question I would like to ask here is why do so many people believe Christians deny global warming? I’ve yet to meet a single Christian who would deny the Earth is currently on a warming trend.

The point of contention is… what is the primary cause of the current (cycle of) global warming. It appears to me too many people follow the erroneous axiom that if one denies human activity as the primary cause, then one also denies global warming.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence linking current and past sun spot and solar flare activity to past (as well as the current) warming (and cooling) cycles. Many articles I’ve read strongly suggest a large number of scientist (to include a large number of NASA and NOAA scientists) believe solar flare activity more likely to be the primary cause of current global warming and not human activity. So having denied human activity as the primary cause, do we now say these scientests have also denied global warming?

Senator James Inhofe Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee gave an excellent speech from the floor of the Senate on September 25th, in which he acknowledges global warming but denies human activity as the primary cause. By denying human activity as the primary cause, did Senator Inhofe deny global warming (which he just acknowledged)?

(Senator Inhofe's Speech)

A co-worker of mine lives next door to one of NASA’s chief scientist. They both attend the same church (yes, this chief scientist for NASA is a Christian, claims the scientific evidence does not support evolution and believes in Creation). This NASA scientist has told my co-worker that he and other Christian/Creationist scientist working at NASA constantly have to be on their guard as to how they present scientific evidence which refutes PC agendas. This scientist (and others he works with) is quite adamant that solar flare activity, not human activity is the primary cause of global warming. (Having previously stated he believes in global warming, has he now turned around and denied the same thing?)

I’m a Christian. I believe the scientific evidence shows the earth is currently warming. I believe current and historical scientific evidence directly ties cycles of solar flare activity to past and current cycles of global warming and cooling. I do not believe human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

Pop Quiz for those who believe Christians deny global warming: Do I: ( a ) believe the globe is warming up; or ( b ) deny the globe is warming up?

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 October 2006 - 09:48 PM

There's scientific evidence to support global warming, no doubt about it. There is no need to deny it, but it just doesn't follow that doing so has to make you a member of GreenPeace or something.

God never gave humanity control over the weather and the climate.

View Post


The main reason Global warming was thought up, was because of the old earth problem. Seeing how fast global warming is advancing, raising questions about how could early earth be so toxic, and some how clean the atmosphere so well that life could exist?

In fact, if the earth was so well at cleaning it's atmosphere to change from an early volcanic earth, where it's atmosphere was very toxic. We would not have the problem of global warming. But we do.

For an example, take a look at what one volcanic eruption can do. And remember what scientist claim about constant volcanic eruptions forming our earth.

http://www.yecheadqu...0.html6.11.html

So the questions would be:

1) If the earth was able to pull itself from being extremely toxic to life, to what we see today. Why is such a slow global warming taking place?
2) Shouldn't the earth being able to rid itself of this, since it was so well of riding the early atmosphere of things far worse?
3) And where did all the volcanic dust go that the volcanic eruptions caused?

Etc...

Now after looking at that webpage, try to imagine hundreds of volcanoes erupting thousands of times to form our atmosphere. Where is all the evidence of thousands of eruptions, when as we see on that one webpage that One eruption can cause so much dust and air polution?

Don't you think there would be a lot more evidence of this, if it really did happen?

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 October 2006 - 01:50 PM

The main reason Global warming was thought up, was because of the old earth problem. Seeing how fast global warming is advancing, raising questions about how could early earth be so toxic, and some how clean the atmosphere so well that life could exist?

In fact, if the earth was so well at cleaning it's atmosphere to change from an early volcanic earth, where it's atmosphere was very toxic. We would not have the problem of global warming. But we do.


? this is difficult to understand, (not everthing has to be an EvC issue)
I had a look at the wiki on the subject http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming and find that the majority of statements reflect measurements and opinion gathered in the last two centuries, i.e. the effects of human civilisation and industrialisation.
There are references to ice ages etc but that mainly has to do with caution i.e. are we in a cycle or are the current measurements outside of a possible natural cycle.


For an example, take a look at what one volcanic eruption can do. And remember what scientist claim about constant volcanic eruptions forming our earth.

http://www.yecheadqu...0.html6.11.html

So the questions would be:

1) If the earth was able to pull itself from being extremely toxic to life, to what we see today. Why is such a slow global warming taking place?
2) Shouldn't the earth being able to rid itself of this, since it was so well of riding the early atmosphere of things far worse?
3) And where did all the volcanic dust go that the volcanic eruptions caused?



I took a look at your link, and read your argument as

Cars, industry etc… Produce the same pollution as a volcano. But only one causes Global Warming?


I don’t think the global warming issue is likened to a volcano erupting, (these are infrequent) where as pollution is increasing, slowly and steadily with no let up. The cause for concern is that because it is a slow phenomena the effects may be ignored.

#13 Origen

Origen

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Interests:God and His Word
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Team America

Posted 04 October 2006 - 03:06 PM

I really enjoyed reading over all your post on this subject. I guess it's not a scientifc denial of global warming as much as it is a political denial. Ann Coulter's book, "GODLESS" is not a bad book, overall, but, a 93% accuracy is what I rated it. Two major things she gets wrong is (1) on p.4 she seems to believe that we Christians believe that our goal as Christians is to populate the earth until there is standing room only, and then move to Mars, and (2) she denies global warming without providing solid scientific evidence for such a denial. I think some politicians think out of ignorance without no real theological or scientific training to qualify for such political jargon.

#14 Pazuzu

Pazuzu

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 October 2006 - 01:59 PM

Honestly I think a big part of the problem is not so much that many people deny global warming, but that certain political figures have their hands rooted deep in the industries that if they were suddenly shifted would greatly upset the economy. Not to mention take money out of their pockets. Like say Bush for example. With his connections with oil and other leaders speacifically in arab countries, and the fact that the auto industry absolutley relies on oil at present, not to mention other industries, like minded poloticians and industry big wigs would rather campaign against global warming. I don't think they care so much about the future as their own pocket books.

I don't really think christianity per-se has anything to do with the campaigns against global warming, other than maybe those under Bush's wing, and other like minded Republicans.

That's what I get out of the whole deal anyways. From what I've read to what I've seen on the news. Its frightening really.

Cheers

#15 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2006 - 03:35 AM

I really enjoyed reading over all your post on this subject. I guess it's not a scientifc denial of global warming as much as it is a political denial. Ann Coulter's book, "GODLESS" is not a bad book, overall, but, a 93% accuracy is what I rated it. Two major things she gets wrong is (1) on p.4 she seems to believe that we Christians believe that our goal as Christians is to populate the earth until there is standing room only, and then move to Mars, and (2) she denies global warming without providing solid scientific evidence for such a denial. I think some politicians think out of ignorance without no real theological or scientific training to qualify for such political jargon.

View Post


Procreation is one of gods commandments. Gen 9:1

#16 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 13 October 2006 - 08:54 PM

... likened to a volcano erupting, (these are infrequent) ...

View Post



On a global basis, volcanic eruptions are a regular, ongoing and daily event with approximately 50-70 eruptions per year.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 October 2006 - 11:26 AM

On a global basis, volcanic eruptions are a regular, ongoing and daily event with approximately 50-70 eruptions per year.

View Post

I agree.

An early earth is supposed to have 10-50 times more of this. Why? How else could such a huge atmosphere be formed? If someone can name another working mechanism for the forming of the atmosphere, I'm all ears.

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:27 PM

It is not my impression, at least in my neck of the woods, that there is any direct connection between Christianity and disbelief in global warming. There IS, however, a connection between Christianism and conservationism, and I would expect a connection between conservationism and disbelief in global warming, so this might be the link.

This will change the question to: Why are conservatives more likely to reject GW? I thinkt that the answer is that conservatives prefer the status quo, and will thus  be reluctant to accept notions that will require us to upset that (by introducing radical energy saving, etc.).

Hans

View Post


The reason most Christians fall into the conservative status is because the alternative is the opposite of what we believe. And mocks God on an open bases everyday.

I reject global warming is made by man, and can be corrected by man.

Example: I used to install air conditions in cars back when R-12 was the freon of choice. Then all this stuff came out about an additive in R-12 version of freon was depleting our atmosphere (during Clinton's administration I might add). I went and ask a friend who had installed freon, and fixed ac's almost all his life, what's going on. He showed me a write up about the situation from dupont, who at the time was not to happy about it.

In the write up it explained the the freon scare was a hoax thought up by enviromentalist to get the worlds attention. Because while all of this hoopla was going on, and R-12 was being banned. Some other scientists were conducting studies on this and found that our oceans produce the same chemical in such mass quanity. That compare to us, we were like a drop in a 5 gallon bucket, compared to what our oceans put out on a everyday bases.

So would stopping our expelling of the gas that freon has really make a difference? Nope. It's like saying: If we could just get a drop of water into a desert, it would not be a desert anymore. That just is not going to happen.

It has also been found out that the gas that is claimed to rise into our atmosphere, is actually heavier than our atmosphere. So how does a heavy gas rise?

And here's the reall kicker. Was R-12 really banned, and then phased out? Nope. You can still get it installed in your car. It just cost 50 times what it cost to make. I wonder who pockets the money, and how many scientists are paid of to keep their mouth shut?

So it was banned being made in the U.S. But Dupont moved it's freon plant to mexico. Which also took a lot of our Jobs with it. And guess what. R-12 is still being produced, moved across the border to sell for 50 times what it costs to make. In fact here are the prices between the two countries:

Mexico: R-12 freon costs 3-7 dollars per pound.
America: R-12 costs 50-100 dollars a pound. Plus you have to pay a certified EPA person to put it in for you. So having it installed can cost as much as 150 dollars for 1 pound (1 can).
Actual manufacturing costs: .50 cent-1 dollar.

So does science know about this deception? Of course. Why are they not doing anything about it? Money.

Do I care about the enviroment? Yes. I currently work for a company that produces products that reduce waste oil (cars, trucks and industry) by 10 times the amount currently being produced. They also produce the only certified 100% non-toxic fertilizer that works just as well, if not better, than the chemical stuff. And I'm a conservative also. Imagine that. :)

#19 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 22 October 2006 - 03:36 PM

Global Warming is not the only issue affected by bad science....


Politics of Environmentalism

By Michael R. Fox, 10/19/2006 12:03:14 PM

The pursuit of science historically has been quite straight forward for the most part. Hypotheses are put forward, experiments are devised, data are collected, then the key question Can the hypothesis explain the data? Additional tests are made, peers are consulted, criticisms offered, replications attempted. It is the first obligation of the honest scientist to try to prove he wrong. It is no disgrace that improvements are made. Some notable exceptions are known historically, but still these principles were largely followed.

Nobel physicist Richard Feynman said it best about scientific truth: “Experiment is the sole source of truth. It alone can teach us something new; it alone can give us certainty”. Feynman went on to say “If it (the hypothesis) disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. (Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”, The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156).

More simply if one’s temperature predictions do not match those taken in the field, the computer model is wrong. Today’s models can not replicate yesterday’s climate, when all of the climate data are known! Yet we are asked to believe people who claim to make predictions of climate 100 years from now? Really? The Feynman statements make clear that computer calculations and predictions ARE NOT experimental data. Instead we get exaggerations as happened so many times before.

We saw in the DDT debates in 1972 that the DDT ban came about from exaggerations, dishonest advocacy, misrepresentations of DDT toxicology, carcinogenesis, and health effects on man and birds, etc. Since the ban between 30 million and 50 million 3rd World citizens have now died from malaria as a result of the misguided advocacy led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Hundreds of millions suffered from the non-fatal effects of malaria. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed this ban, the EPA has not, to this day. Isn’t it time to reassess the motives and the values of a movement which put upwards of 50 million people into their graves, and injured hundreds of millions permanently? And some still want to? Their promises did not match the deadly results, even after 30 years.

We saw similar exaggerations in the proposed EPA chlorine ban in the early 1990s. This also was being pushed by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the National Resources Defense Council and others. Although chlorine is used widely around the house, (table salt, water purification, bleaches, various table spicing, etc), as well as wide use in industry, the ban was pursued. Chlorine has been a godsend to public health around the world as an effective disinfectant. In the United States, typhoid fever rates fell from 20 deaths/100,000 in 1910 to essentially zero deaths/100,000 in 1940. (http://tinyurl.com/yeks4t). We rarely hear of typhus anymore.

In the early 1990s Peru caved to EPA and environmental pressures to ban chlorine in disinfecting drinking water. As a result within months a cholera epidemic swept through Peru killing 13,000 people and making 1.3 million very ill. Today it’s estimated that 2.2 million children die annually around the world for the lack of clean water (http://tinyurl.com/yeks4t).

Junkscience has been appalling, costly, and wasteful on many fronts of science. As can be seen from the above examples (there are many others) there is also a decidedly anti-human element as well as pervasive junkscience among the promoters of these activities. As we’ve seen with the EPA, the corruption of science has reached the highest levels of federal and state governments and formerly well regarded institutions such as the national Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of England. They, in great measure have gone the way of the lawyers and propagandists into the world of advocacy. It has become a coin toss as to whether their reports are those of science or advocacy. These should always be mutually exclusive.

Recently, Bob Ward of the Royal Society (http://tinyurl.com/ootdt) wrote a letter on Royal Society’s letterhead to ExxonMobil questioning the company’s contributions to groups with which Mr. Ward had disagreements.

Mr. Ward expressed no concerns about the $40 billion recently spent by the US government on global warming, and no concerns of the millions more from leftwing foundations. Mr. Ward, unable to debate serious scientific issues being raised by the under-funded skeptics, was attempting to silence the skeptics by cutting off their meager funding. Scientific giants from the past such as Galileo must be weeping at the continuing attempts by the Royal Society, the International Panel on Climate Change, etc., to suppress and end scientific debate for political purposes. Shame on the Royal Society for its decent into censorship.

Remarkably, a recent study of climate change from the Danish Center for Climate Change reported experimental verification of the physics of cloud formation (http://tinyurl.com/y5kz5f). For the past 10 years or so, attention was drawn to a curious relationship between solar magnetism, cosmic radiation, and cloud formation. The physics of this relationship has now been unraveled.

Cosmic radiation from deep space and the free electrons it produces in the upper atmosphere is now known to be intimately involved with cloud formation. The cloud formation in turn has a direct impact on global temperatures. A third variable is the variation in the Sun’s magnetic field. The stronger the solar magnetic field the more it appears to protects the Earth from cosmic radiation. Since the Sun’s magnetic field varies in strength over time, it therefore modulates the cosmic radiation intensity, thereby modulates cloud formation, and subsequently, modulates global temperatures.

This new and significant climate driver is obviously a completely natural driving force and has not been known until now. These mechanisms of cloud formation have now been experimentally reproduced in the Danish laboratory. These findings point out that the well known variations in our climate have significant natural causes having little to do with man’s activities and have been going on for presumably millions of years.

The fact that these findings were published in the Journal of the Royal Society is a delicious irony, given the recent attempts by the Royal Society to suppress valid, if opposing, views of the skeptics (http://tinyurl.com/ootdt). It is fortunate for science and for all of us that free speech and free scientific inquiry continues in Denmark.


Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter. A resident of Kaneohe, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He is also the Director Center for Science, Climate and Environment for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 October 2006 - 09:55 PM

Interesting stuff DR. I'd like to see the evidence of how the sun's modulated magnetic field affects the earth's weather and atmosphere.

This evidence might come in handy for predicting a bad year of hurricanes. Dry years, and wet years.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users