|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Seven Palo Alto churches will ring their bells 35 times on Saturday, Oct. 24, as part of a global effort in more than 140 nations for climate action.
The local event is one of more than 2,000 rallies worldwide organized by environmental website 350.org. It is meant to prompt world leaders into swift and decisive action against global warming.
In Palo Alto, children will be invited to ring a fire-engine bell at the downtown Farmer’s Market, behind the downtown post office on Hamilton Avenue.
Walt Hays, a local organizer of the event, said the 11 a.m. bell ringing will be in symbolic reference to the figure 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide, which scientists have identified as the maximum amount of carbon dioxide the atmosphere can safely contain.
Hays said scientists are saying current carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 390ppm.
Hays said initially they hoped for 10 churches to be involved so they could reach 350 rings, but many churches don’t have bells any more, he said.
“That’s why glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase,” said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and author of the first major book on climate change 20 years ago. “And it’s why we need a huge worldwide movement to give us the momentum to make real political change.”
Accordingly, seven local churches: St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great, All Saints, Unity, Unitarian Universalist, Grace Lutheran and First Lutheran will ring their bells 35 times at 11 a.m. in symbolic reference to the number 350.
Hays said they hoped to get 10 churches to reach the 350 number, but many churches now lack bells.
In addition, the Palo Alto Fire Department will park an engine at the downtown Farmer’s Market Saturday and invite children to ring the bell on the engine 35 times at 11 a.m.
That same afternoon from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the Barron Park Green Team and Gunn High School Green Team will spell out a big number 350 on the Gunn High School Football Field and distribute informational materials.
Palo Alto’s Community Environmental Action Partnership is coordinating this event. These global actions come six weeks before the world’s nations convene in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference to draw up a new climate treaty.
According to a press release, 89 countries have already endorsed the 350 target.
Somebody should let Mr. McKibben know that the glaciers have been receding since long before the industrial revolution.
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-391/ (See the map)
And drought is spreading due to governments blocking access to water due to pressure from environmentalists.
http://gov.ca.gov/proclamation/9898/ (8th WHEREAS down the list)
I just checked out their website and all their information comes from the one-and-only James Hansen. You can read about how he’s been discredited here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8607047/Leading_climate_change_cheerleader_James_Hansen_has_lost_the_plot/#
And here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasa_flacks_for_global_warming.html#
And a whole bunch here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65
Got any links from reputable sources that global warming is a hoax? I loved the link to Inhofe’s site. Very tricky. It almost looks like an official government site. So far it’s you, Fox News, Inhofe and Glenn Beck who think global warming is a hoax.
So, it’s the majority of scientific opinion vs. some non-scientists.
What’s a person to think?
This is a typical example of Palo Alto politics. If all the bells and whistles go off, we can justify hiring a new ‘sustainability czar’. Who cares about the costs? We cannot live without it. That utility department cash cow just keeps mooing, as she gives ever more milk. She is happy to do so.
This seems to be a pretty reputable source:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Lindzen_McCain.pdf
From Richard Lindzen of MIT:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
Anony Mouse,
In case you haven’t been following the news, public and scientific acceptance of the validity of the anthropogenic global warming thesis are on the wane. Palo Alto and it religious leaders are really just making themselves look silly.
First, the data behind the climate models is quite sparse; sparse data equals death in modeling. The world’s climate data has become increasingly sparse with a big dropoff around 1990. There was also a tenfold increase in missing months around the same time. Stations (90% in the United States which has the Cadillac data system) are poor to very poorly sited and not properly adjusted for urbanization. Numerous peer review papers suggest an exaggeration of the warming by 30%, 50% or even more. The station dropout has gone from over 6000 to just 1079 from April 1978 to April 2008.
Second, the climate change movement and its leaders refuse to concede errors in their conclusions, as typified by this recent speech by Al Gore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U
Until the climate change set comes down from their pretentious high perch, we’ll have more and more people question their validity. Neither the IPCC nor govt-funded researcher own the truth in thi debate, and they should be more engaged with the ~50% of people who have serious doubt on global warming.
Third, in contrast to the IPCC model-driven consensus, temperatures have gotten cooler over the past 5-10 years, not warmer. I’ve been making a living from data modeling for several years, and I can tell you that there’s a reason the weather forecast is short-term = that’s all we can figure out. Climate models showing future warming are just that – models – and no more likely to be accurate than models showing the opposite.
Fourth, much, much research points to solar cycles (over 10’s to 1000’s of years) as having orders of magnitude more impact on global temperatures than any human activity. Think about that: orders of magnitude.
Fifth, it’s not yet been proven that increased atmospheric carbon causes global warming; it is possible (and many think probable) that it’s increased temperatures that cause higher atmospheric carbon concentrations, and not the other way around.
I could go on and on and on, but suffice to say that as little as a decade from now, global warming will be recognized as one of the greatest swindles in world history. It has so little scientific basis, it can only rationally be considered a political scam.
Chris,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It’s clear that the public opinion battle is still being fought “~50% of people who have serious doubt on global warming.”
A question or two,
When will there be enough data?
Who is responsible for the loss of data collection facilities? Is that also a political act?
Finally, your response was thoughtful engaging until the last sentence, “global warming will be recognized as one of the greatest swindles in world history. It has so little scientific basis, it can only rationally be considered a political scam.”
You lost me there. If I am to believe that you are a person of goodwill, with honesty in your heart, and not part of some “political scam”, shouldn’t I also give the other side the same benefit of the doubt?
I think we should give both sides the benefit of the doubt. However, it disturbs me when those believers in man-made global warming state this issue is “not debatable” and settled science. I never knew there was such a thing as settled science, at least not this early in research. I am also troubled by the fact that a political figure such as Al Gore reaps millions of dollars from the issue. It is in his interest (and apparently an entire industry’s) for global warming to be as frightening and crucial an issue as possible.
When people are making that much money off an issue and don’t want to debate it, they lack credibility. Perhaps the man-made global warming believers should divorce themselves from politics and make it a purely scientific issue open to debate.
The high speed rail issue is another example of PA politics. Of course, there was a unanimous declaration by city council to support that measure on the state ballot. Why not? It’s ‘green’. Costs don’t matter. An elevated train through Palo Alto doesn’t matter (until it suddenly does). For those of you who think that deal is going underground, even the moo cow cannot provide enough money to cover the extra costs. It will be built, and it will be above ground. Does anybody know if it will prevent any CO2? Does it really matter?
Sam, you are right on the mark about if it’s “green” then our council will jump at it. And Yes, the city council told us to vote for the HSR, but Larry Klein said that he was misled. After all he is an experienced lawyer, but those HSR officials put one over on him.
It would be interesting to live long enough to see how this plays out. I’ll consider humanity fortunate if this is the biggest problem we face. Regarding trust in scientific opinion, as a high school student in the 60’s I was deeply disappointed to be told with certainty there would be no oil left by the late 80’s. Geophysicists had all their charts and graphs. Unassailable.
Nothing like creating a problem to push a political agenda! When they (the advocates of Global Warming) have the govt they want, viola, problem solved, no more Global Warming! Anyone remember the Global Cooling scare in the 70’s — you don’t need to be a scientist to figure out there is something fishy here. I’m a big supporter of the environment but guess you can’t tax that as well as this latest scare tactic that the earth is about to collapse if we don’t have cap and trade. Sounds like “indulgences” to me — like when the church was selling credits to save souls.
Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian
October 23, 2009
The number of Americans who believe in global warming has plummeted, falling 20% in two years, a survey said today.
Only 57% of Americans believe there is solid scientific evidence that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming, said the poll of 1,500 people by the Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press.
That is a fall of 77% from 2007. The number of people who believe that human activity is causing global warming also fell to just 36%.
The public uncertainty about the evidence behind global warming comes as the Senate prepares to begin debate next week on climate change legislation. Yesterday, 18 scientific organisations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming.
Are things not right? Can’t get your business going the way you used to? Are things you once enjoyed disappearing? Are some of the regulations that are surrounding you restricting your space and starting to get in the way of your living? Do you wonder what the heck is going on? Well this may enlighten you and no you are not going crazy – just being kept in the dark! Re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-WX3xDQJA
Ringing Bells will cause global warming,
Not ringing bells will save energy and the carbon footprint of all the yocals showing up to support this event.
I am working from memory [Wiki didn’t pay off] but the midwife of Global Warming, [Steve Snider?] just happens to also have been the midwife of The Coming Ice Age and, surprise!!! – his solution for both was/is a significant increase of government control over people’s lifestyle options. Hansen’s magic box program is a stepchild of Carl Sagan’s completely discredited “Nuclear Winter” program that predicted dire consequences of weather in the event of a nuclear war. The obvious failing of Sagan’s “Scientists lying for a good purpose” was that it made no correction for the stored heat of the oceans, a failing so apparent that it can only have been an intentional omission. I cannot speak for scientists, but engineers know that the answer can never be more accurate than the input data – and I, Who 54 years ago numbered weather station monitoring among my initial engineering responsibilities, was flabbergasted to read about the “Urban heat island correction factor”, a hodgepodge of assumptions that, in the end, would yield any number you wanted with impeccable math.
Engineers work every day with empirical formulas, but those formulas have been validated by real world tests. Hansen’s magic box has not been subject to any significant validation. Early on I issued a still unanswered challenge – using the Hansen program, input the change in our behavior being demanded and demonstrate the end state result change – if we sacrifice a life of independent choice and the only result is a tenth of a degree lessening in the predicted temperature rise, all the lifestyle changes and ringing of bells is just throwing virgins into vulcanos, and the “scientists” signing in are primarily those whose own grant sucking is enhanced by the “threat”.
This must be an uncomfortable moment for some-churches that profess the existance of a supreme being getting behind global warming. The eco crew must feel very conflicted having a bunch of believers on their side.
Consensus (as in justification for believing man caused global warming is a settled fact) is not a basis for science. Just look at the very recent work on dinasaur bones thought to be from the first rung or two in the evolution to birds. Thought for years to be so by many, now the conclusion of those researchers is that a lot of dinasaurs had feathers, and the one in question had bone structure that was not at all bird-like.
“This must be an uncomfortable moment for some-churches that profess the existance of a supreme being getting behind global warming.
If you believe that religion speaks for God, then you’ve been given the definitive word on global warming. From here on only aetheists can be doubters, and therefore all doubters must be aetheists.
Interesting discussion.
The Global Warming faction has become a sort of pantheistic religion, faith beyond reason.
They are bedfellows with the creationist.
Also, follow the money, many activists on the Global Warming team will profit financially from the Cap and Trade deal, Gore is the prime example.
His new house consumes 100 times the energy of most others homes, his new boat also and his travels add to the the carbon footprint.
Yet he is profiting greatly from the cap and trade initiative– follow the money
Actually I meant that global warming extremists do not normally if ever think about associating with people who believe in God-they spend much of their time deriding them as non-Darwinists. And putting smug symbols or stickers on the back of their own cars proclaiming themselves distanced from Christianity.
So there must be a lot of conflict thinking how to deal with their new ‘strange bedfellows.’ i.e. conflicted.
The so-called science surrounding this hoax is so odious that a third grade child could debunk most of it.
Boundaries must be drawn between science and non-science, Even stronger boundaries between fact from fiction must exist science and pseudoscience for science to be valid, and there must always be high walls between science and religion. The people who are pushing this Global Warming matter have no boundaries. This will doom them to the flat earth believers of the 4th century BC.
What you need to ask yourself is why do they wish to control you with such baseless ideas? What is the objective of the promoters of this hoax? How will you loose if they get their way?
“So there must be a lot of conflict thinking how to deal with their new ‘strange bedfellows.’ i.e. conflicted.”
Only for those whose “thinking” is strictly confined to their ideological boxes. Clearly the global warming issue has transcended ideology, except for the ideological.
God has now spoken. Deniers have three choices: deny God, deny that their church represents God and find a church whose God is more to their liking, or proclaim aetheism.
Brace yourself, Paul, but we seem congruent on this issue.
“Brace yourself, Paul, but we seem congruent on this issue.”
OMG!
I hope to God that my church is not one of these useful idiots being used to promote more government control over individual lives (tyranny).
The unholy alliance of the “faithful” with tyrants has caused much harm in this world, and I would really hate it if my own church is going to join in this fray. Churches need to stay OUT OF defining specific scientific areas of concern, let alone OUT OF specific political or scientific solutions. Churches can say “this is God’s world, take care of it”…GREAT!! They should NOT be saying “This is God’s world, CO2 is going to boil it over, sign onto Cap and Trade” else it causes some of the faithful to lose faith, confusing the foolishness of manmade power-grabbers with the actual reality of God.
It is a pity. Think twice, rectors and leaders of our churches.
Oh, God help us..my church is part of the silliness. I should have known.
Stay out of science and politics, oh Catholic Church. Have you learned nothing from the historical alliance of Church and Communists in South America, let alone Church and Flat-Earthers ( when “everyone knew” the earth was flat”) and Church and the “everyone knows the sun goes around the earth”?
The recent book from the “Freakonomics” outlines several easy solutions to cool the planet should it in fact get hot.
Their evidence based cooling strategies will cost 1000s of times less than the eco-pantheist, neo-communist CO2 fanatics.
The vat majority of the population are sick and tired of the eco-pantheist and fellow travelers hysterical rhetoric, the fad is over, cooler heads are now prevailing, thank G-d
“Oh, God help us..my church is part of the silliness. I should have known.”
Why do you think God’s word is silly?
Or do you not believe your church channels God, in which case why do you belong to it?
Or do you, in your hubris, think God ought to conform to your opinions?
Paul, the biggest mistake, in my opinion, that people have made since the beginning of time is projecting their own desires onto God and assuming that God conforms to their wishes. I prefer to keep my brain intact, that God gave me to use, and do the best I can to follow the first, biggest, most universal rule of God in all religions around the world, “Love my neighbor as God loves me” ..in other words, at least cause no harm, at least grant them the ability to live free and pursue their dreams, as I have been able to do myself..maybe even help them stay free to achieve their dreams.
The global warming hysteria has already done tremendous harm,( see “The True Cost of the Global Warming Hysteria” by the Heritage Foundation if you prefer documentaries, or read any of the links and books mentioned ad nauseum every time this comes up), and if we continue along this path with Cap and Trade and yet more rules about cars and transferring wealth from the masses into the hands of a few well-connected people ( think Tesla and their investors..) to push items people don’t want to buy, even more harm will fall onto us.
All in the name of following an agenda which LOOKS like it is “saving the world”, an easy buy-in for people who want to feel powerful like God, but is in fact, and has been since its conception, doing nothing but trying to concentrate ever more power into the hands of a few politicians and their well-connected bedfellows. This is our modern Tower of Babel in the Church, but unfortunately the unscientific leaders, and their followers, don’t see it.
That is why I call these church people useful idiots. It is a pity. They COULD be doing so much real good with their time and energy. If they really believed the earth was warming, ( which it isn’t) then they could be spending their time helping people learn to adapt to the warming earth, helping them move to better climates, helping them take advantage of being able to grow food and live in places that have been ice-locked for the last 500 years since the last time they were warm, etc. If they really believed that fossil fuels were destroying the earth, they could be putting their own time and energy into helping to build different energy sources, helping to build different, cleaner engines etc. I would send them many blessings and maybe even invest some of my own time/money in the right venture that looked like it would actually work.
Instead they constantly push to FORCE me to support their goals, instead of remembering the first belief of God-loving people…God gave us free will, and nobody has the right to take it away. And so I push back, in the name of freedom…everyone is free to support or not a cause, nobody should be able to force it on anyone else. I believe in every human “voting” with their own time and money, not having their time and money stolen from them to support other people’s “causes”.
Instead they ring bells and continue to call for economic destruction in the name of the god of eco-fascism. I honestly feel like it is the emporors of Egypt using the people to build their pyramids, all in the name of their belief that the gods wanted it. I am sure the people believed they were doing good work to please the gods, but in the end what was it? It was harnessing and destroying so many lives that could have been used to who knows what else purpose.
After all, like the emporors, these well-meaning church folks have made their own choices and believe they know best what everyone else should do in the name of God, so why should anybody else be free enough to make their own choices?
And that is why I think my church is silly for following this bell ringing.
“I prefer to keep my brain intact, that God gave me to use, and do the best I can to follow the first, biggest, most universal rule of God in all religions around the world, “Love my neighbor as God loves me” “
“I call these church people useful idiots.”
I have seldom seen such a jarring justaposition. Either you believe God considers you a useful idiot and you’re passing the favor on, or you preach God’s love and practice the opposite.
It’s this simple: If churches speak for God, then God has spoken on this matter. If they don’t, what do they do? Channeling God is, after all, their reason for existence. Freethinkers and aetheists may use their brains as they like, but churchgoing denialists have a profound crisis of faith to confront.
This is absolute nonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
“I have seldom seen such a jarring justaposition [sic]. Either you believe God considers you a useful idiot and you’re passing the favor on, or you preach God’s love and practice the opposite.
It’s this simple: If churches speak for God, then God has spoken on this matter. If they don’t, what do they do? Channeling God is, after all, their reason for existence. Freethinkers and aetheists may use their brains as they like, but churchgoing denialists have a profound crisis of faith to confront.”
“This is absolute nonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.”
It depends on the sincerity of one’s faith, especially whether that faith is stronger than one’s politics. As they often warned us in Catholic school, faith would be tested often. This is one of those tests.
Sorry about the misspelling. The S is just above the X on my keyboard, and they got juxtaposed.
Paul, faith has nothing to do with doing what the Church tells you. In fact, sometimes Faith means fighting AGAINST what your Church tells you…
Atheists and freethinkers are free to think for themselves, true..as are all people of faith. The difference for me, as a Christian, is the dimension of Faith which is added to my freethinkers mix of analysis.
Which brings us back to the “Out of control” post above, which is that I hope all people use their own, individual, brains about how much humans contribute, or don’t, to climate change, and don’t simply follow, like sheep, unscientific leaders, be they religious or political, trying to turn an article of science into an article of faith…