UPDATE: February 10, 2009: 8:12 AM:
Endangered Spaces blog (one of my favorites for environmental news) did a timely post on the issue of methane entitled, "Permafrost meltdown means more methane" (February 10, 2009) with a link to a National Wildlife Federation article that I recommend you visit and read: "A Ticking Time Bomb in the Arctic?" by Susan Q. Stranahan (Feb/Mar 2009, vol. 47 no. 2).
Climate scientists fear that massive levels of a greenhouse gas with 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere from the thawing Arctic Ocean.
There's a post over on OpEdNews entitled, "Global Cooling and the Madness of Davos," by Patrick St James, on which I posted the following 2 comments (so far). If you find these interesting, go read the whole of Patrick's article and the other comments there. It's what one might call "cutting edge" right now.
The economic downturn slowed the increase burning. The recession started in 2007. Driving was dramatically reduced during parts of 2008 when gas was at its highest price. People and businesses are now driving and transporting more than then (last year) but still far less than 2006 rates. The Antarctic ice is still melting and breaking despite some earlier libertarian propaganda from Exxon to the contrary. The Arctic ice also did not increase but continued receding more during the summer. The chemtrails and freshwater runoff are impacting. It all adds up. It is a terrible mistake to take things in isolation. Of course the Sun changes. Of course those changes impact the whether [meant weather] here. One volcano can have a larger impact. Many things can. Melting the peat bogs in Russia can. Melting the methane in the oceans can. Why act as if human activity though is all but irrelevant? Were [meant We're] killing the planet in many ways. Global warming is just one aspect, but we need to handle every aspect. By the way, not everyone who wants clean, alternative energy is for Cap & Trade. I'm not. It's lame. I'm not saying you, Patrick, said they are; but it's worth stating here nevertheless.
by Tom Usher
I'm sorry about the spelling errors in my earlier comment: "whether" for "weather" and "were" for "we're," etc. I was actually up all night on account of someone who will remain nameless here.
First, a shill hardly has to be paid in mammon to be a shill. I realize it isn't fashionable to think so, but shill's can be nearly unwitting. I don't say I profess to know you are a witting pawn of Exxon. You do though tout their line. Others, such as Glenn Beck, get huge monetary compensation from the global-overlord system. You can bet that General Electric is not one of his sponsors.
As for the issue of whether or not human-induced CO2 is not a factor in global warming or "climate change" (that was Frank Luntz's – the Republican word smith – contribution and not the "liberals"), the only source you, Patrick, have cited is the Bush administration's U.S. Department of Energy.
You recall that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush and many others in Bush-43's administration were oilmen and women. You recall that Dick Cheney had the top oil executives (exclusively) work with him in formulating the U.S. energy policy (and therefore the Bush foreign policy with the Pentagon suppliers – Halliburton – and paramilitary contractors also very largely in mind). The minutes of the meetings remain secret to this day if I'm not mistaken. You remember that the Middle East's oil was the central imperial "prize," as Dick Cheney termed it, that was the reason the U.S. went into Iraq financially to colonize it under U.S. oil corporation exclusives (exclusive contracts) and that the rest of the story has been proven to have been completely concocted (WMD's, etc.).
Why then do you automatically believe what has been called the anti-science Bush administration when it comes to what is supposed to be scientific data? Are the 3% and 9% figures really correct? What do other scientists say about those numbers? I haven't specifically looked, but I'd be shocked if those numbers are the general consensus, not that the general consensus is always right, far from it. However, you're standing on the one leg of the Department of Energy that developed those figures under an oil-industry's Presidential administration, lock, stock, and barrel. Doesn't it give you pause?
How much CO2 does it take to tip the balance? That's important. How unstable do things get how quickly? Exxon appears willing to gamble to win now and lose later just as the Wall Street investment bankers (now quickly and conveniently regulated banks, to game the FDIC) have shown they were willing to do in their huge sector. The greed motive, the inherent error, doesn't disappear just because one moves from considering one industry to another. Greed is greed. Are the people at Exxon somehow less greedy than are the people at Goldman Sachs? No, they aren't. They aren't less selfish or shortsighted.
To be clear, I'm not in full agreement with Al Gore. I don't though think it's all about money with him. I don't though hold with Exxon-funded junk science and obvious false propaganda at all. It is all about money with them. It is about getting theirs now while they're still alive (mundanely so) to get it and posterity be damned. Let the next generations worry about it. It's not the living's problem.
I'm glad to hear that you are an environmentalist for a carbon-neutral world. I also agree with you that the world has been hotter. The issue though is with the rapidity of change and how it will impact humanity. A more stable climate is easier on the people. I trust you agree.
Also, is this "colder phase" a trend or a blip? Is it the result of secret but visible technology, such as chemtrails, that may be (no doubt are in my book) the harbinger of more environmental degradation that later on, the enthusiast will claim (the chemtrails) held unforeseeable, unintended, negative consequences (externalities) – that could have, however, easily been avoided had the whole thing not been done in secret in the first place. There's no money in being open, honest, and direct though, right?
CO2 is not a poisonous gas in all cases. However, if you are put in a room of nothing but CO2, you'll die if you remain there with only CO2 to breathe. Al Gore isn't claiming that CO2 is a poisonous gas in all settings. Let's be careful to avoid wording that may easily be construed as a blatant attempt to imply that he is and to twist weak minds such as those of the constant Fox News watchers and adherents.
Libertarian propaganda is no contradiction in terms if one is speaking about the Libertarianism of say the Austrian School of economics. To be clear here, I don't hold that what they call liberty is real freedom. I'm a Christian, not a capitalist.
Also, Al Gore doesn't own the debate on the side of those who are opposed to unbridled CO2 emissions.
Finally, where would you draw the line, Patrick, since the 3% and 9% figures don't seem to cause you any concerns whatsoever? Maybe you could clarify. Are you just against the Cap & Trade scheme, or are you against all regulations? How do you achieve carbon neutrality?
I'm for a non-coercive system, but I'm for going all the way to Christian communism. Libertarianism as the term is generally used right now (a misnomer) is not prepared to go there. That Libertarianism (false-hearted) will never make it. It won't last.
Bless you, Patrick.
If you don't know about chemtrails, Google it. Also Google "global dimming." I've written about both before on this site. You can do a site search here on both.
2, CO2 emissions, colder phase, colonize, communism, communist Christian, consequences, culture, current affairs, current events, Davos, Dick Cheney, economic downturn, economics, environmental degradation, environmentalist, exclusive contracts, externalities, Exxon, Exxon shill, Exxon-funded, false propaganda, false-hearted, FDIC, Fox News, Frank Luntz, freedom, freshwater runoff, gamble, General Electric, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, global cooling, global dimming , global warming, Goldman Sachs, Google, greed, greedy, Halliburton, imperial, investment bankers, Iraq, junk science, liberal Christian, liberal Church, liberals, libertarian, Libertarian, Libertarianism, liberty, mammon, media, methane, Middle East, misnomer, news, non-coercive, oil, oil corporations, oil executives, oilmen, OpEdNews, overlord, paramilitary contractors, Patrick St James, peat bogs, Pentagon, philosophy, poisonous gas, politics, posterity, propaganda, real Christian, real liberal, recession, regulations, Republican, Russia, science, scientists, secret, selfish, shill, shortsighted, socialism, socialist Christian, society, spirituality, stable climate, sun spots, technology, the prize, theology, tip the balance, Tom Usher, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. energy policy, unbridled, unforeseeable, unintended, unstable, volcano, Wall Street, WMD's[/tags] —>
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)