Global Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

Southern Baptists Back a Shift on Climate Change

Signaling a significant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention’s official stance on global warming, 44 Southern Baptist leaders have decided to back a declaration calling for more action on climate change, saying its previous position on the issue was “too timid.”

The largest denomination in the United States after the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members, is politically and theologically conservative.

Yet its current president, the Rev. Frank Page, signed the initiative, “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.” Two past presidents of the convention, the Rev. Jack Graham and the Rev. James Merritt, also signed.

“We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues has often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice,” the church leaders wrote in their new declaration.

A 2007 resolution passed by the convention hewed to a more skeptical view of global warming.

In contrast, the new declaration, which will be released Monday, states, “Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed.”

The document also urges ministers to preach more about the environment and for all Baptists to keep an open mind about considering environmental policy.

Jonathan Merritt, the spokesman for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and a seminarian at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., said the declaration was a call to Christians to return to a biblical mandate to guard the world God created.

The Southern Baptist signatories join a growing community of evangelicals pushing for more action among believers, industry and politicians. Experts on the Southern Baptist Convention noted the initiative marked the growing influence of younger leaders on the discussions in the Southern Baptist Convention.

While those younger Baptists remain committed to fight abortion, for instance, the environment is now a top priority, too.

“In no way do we intend to back away from sanctity of life,” said the Rev. Dr. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala.

Still, many powerful Southern Baptist leaders and agencies did not sign the declaration, including the convention’s influential political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy at the commission, played down the differences between the declaration and the Southern Baptist Convention’s position.

The declaration says in fact that lack of scientific unanimity should not preclude “prudent action,” which includes changing individual habits and giving “serious consideration to responsible policies that effectively address” global warming.

The declaration is the outgrowth of soul-searching by Mr. Merritt, 25. The younger Mr. Merritt said that for years he had been “an enemy of the environment.” Then, he said, he had an epiphany.

“I learned that God reveals himself through Scripture and in general through his creation, and when we destroy God’s creation, it’s similar to ripping pages from the Bible,” Mr. Merritt said.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed.”

Right there is the key statement. They are more concerned with what the world says that what the Word of God says.

[Soldier4Christ]

Baptists: No change on climate change
Blame confusion on efforts of 25-year-old seminary student

The Southern Baptist Convention wants you to know there has been no policy change on the issue of global warming.

That official statement from the denomination is meant to clarify confusion generated about the efforts of Jonathan Merritt, a 25-year-old Southern Baptist Theological Seminary student who launched a campaign from within Baptist ranks for stronger action against climate change, which he believes poses an imminent threat to mankind.

The statement titled "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change," written by Merritt received massive media coverage – from the New York Times to the Associated Press to Reuters. It was widely portrayed as a major deviation from a more cautious stance on the controversies surrounding the seriousness of man-made catastrophic global warming.

"For the record, there has been no change in convention policy and despite the media blitz that suggests otherwise, there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for change," explained Will Hall, vice president for news services for the SBC, a member of the executive committee and executive editor of the Baptist Press. "Jonathan Merritt does not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention. Unfortunately, his use of 'Southern Baptist' in the title of his declaration misinforms the public and misrepresents the Southern Baptist Convention."

The SBC released its views on global warming last summer in the statement titled, "On Global Warming."

While not being an official document of the SBC the latest statement was signed by several high-profile Southern Baptist leaders including Merritt's father, James Merritt, a pastor and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. In addition, the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page, endorsed the document as well as Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, who was also a former president of the SBC.

Page also supported the SBC's resolution on the topic that was released last year.

During an annual meeting in San Antonio in 2007, Southern Baptist leaders spoke of the issue of global warming encouraging others "to proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research." It also endorsed public policies that safeguard "an appropriate balance between care for the environment, effects on economics, and impacts on the poor when considering programs to reduce" carbon and other emissions.

"Southern Baptists have long stood for a clear environmental message which takes seriously God's call to guard and keep the earth," Page said. "We have been balanced and responsive in our calls for care. ... However, in a broader sense, many of God's people have been timid about speaking out regarding issues which relate to environmentalism. Perhaps this timidity has been a fear that speaking out would tie us to the very extreme left wing liberal environmental lobby. Some in this group are known for harsh political tirades. Others have issued irresponsible calls for economic change which would devastate the economies of some of the poorest nations in the world."


Merritt, who is the project director of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, explained in a teleconference March 10, that his inspiration for the resolution came during a theology class.

"In the lecture my professor made the statement that when we destroy creation, which is God's revelation, it is no different than tearing a page out of the Bible," he said. "At that moment, God began to work in my heart and call me to do something. It is the product of that nudge from God that day."

Merritt's statement reads, "current denominational engagement with these issues has often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better."

The resolution is signed by 46 leaders in the SBC.

The newly released resolution has four main points:

    * Human beings have a responsibility to care for creation and acknowledge their participation in environmental decline.
    * Addressing climate change is prudent.
    * Stewardship of the earth is required by Christian and Southern Baptist beliefs.
    * Individuals, churches, communities and governments should act now.

The statement also emphasizes the signers differ with many environmentalists on population control issues and maintain the SBC positions on biblical marriage and protecting the unborn.

"We will never compromise our convictions nor attenuate our advocacy on these matters, which constitute the most pressing moral issues of our day," the statement says. "However, we are not a single-issue body."

The lack of endorsement of the final document by the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission was notable. In a teleconference, Merritt said that the ERLC has provided input in early drafts of the resolution, but did not endorse the final draft.

ERLC President Richard Land stated that he would not endorse the resolution in a statement to the Baptist Press to preserve the autonomy of the Southern Baptists.

"They reserve to themselves the right to decide through Convention action what the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy positions are to be," Land said. "The ERLC will continue to share the officially adopted positions of the Convention with public policy makers and the media."

In addition, Land commented on the signers' allegation that the SBC has been "too timid" in handling the stated issues.

"The convention has officially addressed the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship in its 2006 and 2007 conventions through resolutions adopted by the convention's duly elected messengers," Land said. Referring to the 2007 action, he added that the approved action "is as close to an 'official' position as the SBC is capable of making, apart from its formal confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. Consequently, in our convention-assigned role to share faithfully with Washington and other public policy venues where the convention is on an issue, it would be misleading and unethical of the ERLC to promote a position at variance with the convention's expressly stated positions."

[Soldier4Christ]

The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias

Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year’s contest for biased climate journalism.
 
Eilperin’s March 10 article entitled, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say” has the same sort of journalistic objectivity that one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.
 
With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that “suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.”
 
“Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further,” Eilperin reported.
 
But none of the models in the studies -- nor for that matter any other mathematical model of global climate -- has proven to be particularly useful. No model has been validated against historical climate data. So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy?
 
As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.

Such model failure should come as no surprise since they have many built-in biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global climate. But all the available real-life data -- including 20th century records and ice core samples stretching back 650,000 years -- fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship. The ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship.
 
Eilperin, who has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must know about the models’ problems, but she apparently chooses not to report it.

In her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of climate experts from around the world entitled, “Nature Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”  She even interviewed one of the experts for her story.
 
A section of that report, entitled “Climate Models Are Not Reliable” discusses in plain language how climate models don’t consider solar dimming and brightening, don’t accurately control for clouds, don’t simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don’t explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate, and don’t produce reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.
 
At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation® Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be -- just games.
 
Not content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn’t like, Eilperin goes on to diminish, if not ridicule critics of her apparent point of view.
 
Eilperin’s March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming orthodoxy as members of a “flat Earth society” and participants in the “climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand.” If Eilperin wants to poke fun at those who disagree with her on public policy issues, she ought to write an opinion, rather than a news column.

Another disturbing aspect of Eilperin’s article was the accompanying photo of downtown Beijing.




 The photo was captioned, “A heavy haze could be seen in Beijing in August 2007. Two recent reports call for a heightened global effort to reduce carbon emissions.”
 
The juxtaposition of the article and photo clearly implied that unless we cut carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. cities would soon look like Beijing.
 
But as virtually anyone who breathes knows, carbon dioxide is an invisible gas. Not only can you not see it, there’s no possible way for carbon dioxide emissions to cause smog, haze or whatever was fouling Beijing’s air in the photo.
 
The irrelevant and misleading nature of the photo has been pointed out to Eilperin, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and the paper’s editors. As of the writing of this column, none have responded and it remains to be seen whether the Washington Post has the journalistic integrity to remove the photo from its web site and publish a correction in its print edition.
 
It’s quite possible that if Eilperin and the many other members of the mainstream media who so far have been in the tank for global warming started reporting on the very real debate about climate model validity rather than simply regurgitating what the agenda-driven modelers tell them, then we could avert the looming national economic disaster that Congress is preparing for the next president to sign into law.

[Soldier4Christ]

Something that even this article fails to mention is that bringing CO2 levels close to zero would be hazardous to all life on earth. CO2 is required plant life. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas in the first place. It is a gas that is needed in greenhouses and often artificially increased in greenhouses in order to obtain healthier plants. Zero CO2 levels would mean the demise of plants and therefore the demise of humans.

A really big DOH!

[Soldier4Christ]

... as attested to by a company that designs and builds greenhouses and provides associated supplies for them:


Use of CO2 in Greenhouses

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.

Modern growers are becoming increasingly aware of the value of CO2. Particularly now that most greenhouses are purposely shutting out CO2 [air] to conserve energy.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!

Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.

The process called photosynthesis is that plants take in CO2 through pores called stoma, in their leaves during the daylight hours. They give off oxygen at the same time. Without this oxygen animal and human life would not be possible.

The reason you will get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with a higher CO2 level is because plants must absorb CO2 in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight which produces sugars which are vital for growth. If any of these elements are missing or low, plant growth will be retarded. When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality.

The best time to add CO2 is from dawn to dusk. CO2 ranges from 400 to 500 ppm during the night due to plant respiration. Right after sunrise a level will drop to about 300 ppm. After three to four hours of early sun light it will drop to 100 to 250 ppm at which time growth will stop. If you add CO2 during the winter months when ventilators are closed and CO2 concentrations are low, you will get increased yield and bloom which normally happens during the spring and summer.

This is a formula which can be used to figure what amount of CO2 must be added to reach 1000 ppm.
9 ft.³ of CO2 per hour per 1000 ft.² yields 1000 ppm

When there is sunlight and vents are closed you should be adding CO2 continuously to your greenhouse. If the vents are open because of heat you should continue to add CO2 for two additional hours.

[Soldier4Christ]

As does the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs of Ontario, Canada.

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm. As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.

[nChrist]

Something that even this article fails to mention is that bringing CO2 levels close to zero would be hazardous to all life on earth. CO2 is required plant life. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas in the first place. It is a gas that is needed in greenhouses and often artificially increased in greenhouses in order to obtain healthier plants. Zero CO2 levels would mean the demise of plants and therefore the demise of humans.

A really big DOH!

           ROFL!

Sadly, COMMON SENSE isn't communicable to GREEN INTELLECTUALS!

The GREEN INTELLECTUALS prefer to sound the ALARM that the SKY IS FALLING! SO, where's ELMER FUDD when they need him the most?   

[HisDaughter]

A blurb from Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: Global Warming Stack. John Coleman is back. This is the founder of the Weather Channel, 1982. He says, you know what? This whole thing, this whole global warming thing is a hoax, and it's financial fraud. The selling of carbon credits is a fraud. He wants to sue Algore, because the Algores of the world will not have a debate about this. The Algores of the world are out there and his supporters are accusing the skeptics of being "deniers." So John Coleman (paraphrased), "Let's have a lawsuit about this. If we can't get a debate, let's get a debate in a court of law and let's make these people show up and prove all this." He says out of every 100,000 molecules in the atmosphere, 38 are carbon dioxide. Thirty-eight out of 100,000, and it was 33 about five years ago. The temperature did go up in the last hundred years one degree, but we lost that degree last year.

It was so cold that we lost a degree. In one year, we lost it. What if we're heading into a cooling phase or period? So he wants to sue Gore and all these other people in a court of law, and he also lashed out the Weather Channel. He said (paraphrased), "I don't think people want to watch the Weather Channel to find out how to live. The weather is the single most important thing to people's day, day to day, planning and so forth, safety, security. It involves economics. If you're going to have a Weather Channel, you turn on the Weather Channel and get the weather. You don't get some babe telling you about your lightbulbs or showing you pictures of polar bears or what have you. Give us the weather!" I love this guy, John Coleman. He was the staff weatherman for Good Morning America back when it was worth watching, back in the eighties.

[HisDaughter]

THE SKY IS FALLING!  

[nChrist]

       


I'm thinking that a yellow big-bird outfit would be more appropriate. I also think it would be nicer to the viewers if we could cover up at least part of his face with big-bird beak.

[Soldier4Christ]

Now that is funny.

      


I'm thinking that a yellow big-bird outfit would be more appropriate. I also think it would be nicer to the viewers if we could cover up at least part of his face with big-bird beak.

That would be denigrating Big Bird because I think that Big Bird shows more intelligence (at least part of the time).

[nChrist]

That would be denigrating Big Bird because I think that Big Bird shows more intelligence (at least part of the time).

    

My Apologies to Big Bird. Maybe GOOFY would be appropriate, at least to continue the sales job on GLOBAL WARMING.

 

[Littleboy]

I wish i knew how to put my pictures on here.
I have one with him AS Rainman walking next to bill, Charlie Babbot!
Man is it funny!
"Smart, BUT SO STUPID"!
YLBD

[nChrist]

Hello Littleboy,

Try the link below for help on posting pictures. It's in the questions and answers area. There are several more posts there and elsewhere about posting graphics.

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=9751.msg217960#msg217960

The big thing that a lot of people don't understand is that you must have LIVE and HOT links on the Internet for the graphic or photo to be able to post it on forum or anywhere else. Just having it on your own computer won't work because there is no LIVE and HOT link from your computer with an address the Internet can use and understand.

Your computer uses a file structure to find individual files. The Internet uses addresses assigned to servers, and those servers are ready to display that address 24/7. An example is the Internet address assigned to the help information I gave you above, the one that starts with "http:". If the same information was already on your computer, it might be found in the file structure as something like this:

c:\help\graphics.txt

The Internet doesn't understand the file structure on your computer, and the individual files on your computer don't have Internet addresses UNLESS your computer is a Web Site, an FTP site, or a SERVER site of some sort specifically designed to deliver or display files. Each of those files will have an Internet address that the entire Internet understands and can access.

There are quite a few FREE services on the Internet that you can use to store your graphics. It assigns the Internet address, and you simply use the addresses it supplies anywhere you wish. Here's one example and the one I use:

http://photobucket.com/

All you have to do is sign up for an account, and the service is FREE. There are easy instructions for uploading the graphics you want to use. Each graphic is given a specific Internet address that is a LIVE AND HOT LINK 24/7. I just gave you one example. There are many FREE SERVERS that store and deliver graphics. Once you have working Internet addresses for your graphics, they can be posted here with the IMAGE command button. You will see this button while making a new post. It's over the posting window - second row down - second from the left. It becomes very easy once you've used it a couple of times. Each forum is different, but this one has very easy to use command buttons right over the posting window. You don't have to remember any hard commands, rather you just click an easy to use command button.

By the way, there's also an excellent HELP SYSTEM built into the forum. Just click the HELP BUTTON near the top of your screen and see detailed instructions for just about everything that can be done on the forum. However, the COMMAND BUTTONS while posting a new message do most of the work for you without the need to know a ton of details.

I hope this helps.

Love In Christ,
Tom