Climate Change - Help Me!

[methylatedghosts]

Do you think that climate change is happening?

Yes

Do you think that climate change is caused by human activity in full, in part, or not at all?

Absolutely

Do you think the issue is important?

Definitely

Do you do anything to do your part in trying to stop it? If so, what?

Instead of driving, I take the bus or train. Recycling. Electric lawnmower instead of petrol

To your knowledge, how do your religious views affect the way you view climate change and whether or not you take actions to fight it?

They do not. The science isn't even debatable, the facts remain, regardless of any beliefs one might have

Do your beliefs influence how important you find the issue?

Nope

Are your views on climate change shaped by your religious leaders or community (or lack thereof), individual beliefs/practice, religious upbringing, or some combination of the three?

My views on climate change are shaped by the data, not religious or spiritual beliefs. My beliefs are entirely beside the point

Have your views changed over time as your religious beliefs have changed, if so, how?

Nope. Looking after the place I live in has always been important

Also, if you don't have your religion listed, which faith would you say you most closely identify with?

I think it's listed - it's my own brand of pick-n-mix-ism, or make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ism

Thank you so much!

You're very welcome! ^_^

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hey guys, I need your help! I'm doing a project for a class on climate change and it would mean so much to me if you could take just a few minutes to answer a few questions.

No, I'm not going to take just a few minutes to answer you.

(That would be too fast for me. )

You can answer the first set in just a few words but the second set need a few sentences. If you answer any, please please answer all of them, otherwise I won't have all the info I need. Bullet points are fine if you want. To show my thanks, everyone who takes my little survey gets a like!

Note taken!

Do you think that climate change is happening?

Yes.

Do you think that climate change is caused by human activity in full, in part, or not at all?

Almost completely.

Do you think the issue is important?

Absolutely. It threatens the future of our species as well as that of other species.

Do you do anything to do your part in trying to stop it? If so, what?

Yes. For example, I only slept with air conditioning turned on two or three times during the entirety of last summer. Otherwise I used a fan, even on the hottest summer days.

I also try to always turn off the lights, electronic devices, etc., when I don't need them. I could probably do more to be eco-friendly, but this is what I've done so far.

To your knowledge, how do your religious views affect the way you view climate change and whether or not you take actions to fight it?

They don't; I don't have a religion.

Do your beliefs influence how important you find the issue?

Ditto.

Are your views on climate change shaped by your religious leaders or community (or lack thereof), individual beliefs/practice, religious upbringing, or some combination of the three?

No.

Have your views changed over time as your religious beliefs have changed, if so, how?

No.

Also, if you don't have your religion listed, which faith would you say you most closely identify with?

I'm an atheist with a considerable amount of sympathy toward Paganism. I don't practice it or any other religion, though.

Please no debating! The point of this thread isn't to try to prove our sides, but so that I can get a feel for the atmosphere of positions on the issue.

Thank you so much!

Why no debating? Please justify yourself and provide a logical argument.

(Okay, okay. I hope my answers are helpful!)

 

[VioletVortex]

I'm somewhat divided over this issue. I think that climate change is definitely extent, and there is no argument against that, we have gone through many Ice Ages, and we are currently on the downswing of a warm period. There are infinite levels of this cycle.

The temporary increase we are seeing is, however, man made. The thermal properties of CO2 make it an obvious "greenhouse gas". Carbon dioxide is a very good transmitter of light and UV radiation, however it is a poor conductor of heat. This means that the sun heats the lower atmosphere when the light passes through it, but the heat cannot dissipate very quickly.

I don't think that climate change is necessarily a major environmental threat, however, the chemical pollution that goes along with it is, and polluting industries need to be strictly regulated. The small cold era we are approaching is more than enough to counteract man made climate change, which is minuscule in comparison. It is still besides the point, when society collapses, pollution will drop dramatically.

 

[Debateable]

Hey guys, I need your help! I'm doing a project for a class on climate change and it would mean so much to me if you could take just a few minutes to answer a few questions.

You can answer the first set in just a few words but the second set need a few sentences. If you answer any, please please answer all of them, otherwise I won't have all the info I need. Bullet points are fine if you want. To show my thanks, everyone who takes my little survey gets a like!

Do you think that climate change is happening? Of course, it is always changing

Do you think that climate change is caused by human activity in full, in part, or not at all? In part but very little

Do you think the issue is important? no

Do you do anything to do your part in trying to stop it? If so, what? no

----------

To your knowledge, how do your religious views affect the way you view climate change and whether or not you take actions to fight it? nope, I'm not religious

Do your beliefs influence how important you find the issue? sure

Are your views on climate change shaped by your religious leaders or community (or lack thereof), individual beliefs/practice, religious upbringing, or some combination of the three? nope

Have your views changed over time as your religious beliefs have changed, if so, how? nope

Also, if you don't have your religion listed, which faith would you say you most closely identify with? none

--
Please no debating! The point of this thread isn't to try to prove our sides, but so that I can get a feel for the atmosphere of positions on the issue.

Thank you so much!

 

[DrTCH]

Respectfully submitted:

I did some investigation of this topic a couple of years ago, and derived some strong conclusions.

1. Regardless of the facts, this has become a very important component of (or example of) Politically Correctness, and a kind of dogma (to which many have come to subscribe, often w/o proper scrutiny).
2. There definitely are a number of dissidents in the field, but they are generally shouted down as "Climate deniers!!" (much like religious dissidents were horribly persecuted during the Inquisition).
3. Actual science DOES NOT support the hypothesis...for MANY reasons. Here are but a few:

a. Carbon dioxide (unlike its cousin, carbon monoxide) is not toxic (and, except in huge amounts) plays only a minor role as a "greenhouse gas" (and especially in comparison with water vapor and methane gas). Please notice how the media and politicos keep ranting (like a mantra) about the "horrible role of CO2!! I suppose I could add that methane (assuming no leakage) is an excellent fuel, in that it is very clean-burning (only water and CO2 as products). Gasoline combustion and diesel engines are much dirtier in operation (produce much more noxious emissions).

b. We keep hearing about the erosion of the polar icecaps, yet--except for one small area--the whole of Antarctica has featured a much thicker glacier ice-pack over the last twenty years (and the expected rise of sea-levels has not materialized)

c. In California, about a year ago, there was a MASSIVE release of methane, from one well, and we heard relatively little about this...even though this posed an astronomically greater threat than any other "greenhouse gas." There should have been a HUGE public outcry to stop this terrible development (which went on for many months).

d. Over history, the phenomenon of solar activity appears to be that which most closely correlates to climate activity

e. Toxic emissions in countries like China and India have been enormous, compared to other countries, yet this fact is not often featured in the news. I have a good Chinese friend, who--upon returning from some cities in China-- told me he had been appalled at how terrible the smog-filled conditions were--much worse, e.g., than they were in downtown L.A. in the fifties and sixties.

f. Over the years, there has been significant experimentation in the field of climate engineering (at HAARP installations). Perhaps some of the apparent climate instability can be traced to his activity. This is NEVER covered in the mainline media.

g. Those who insist that recent apparent irregular and extreme changes are something new seem to have forgotten that--during the Middle Ages--there were two periods of most dramatic temperature variation (very much colder, then very much warmer). that dwarf anything seen in recent history. One group of years was so warm that the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland, then had to subsequently abandon their homes and farms because of a terrible swing to the cold. And, the English, at one point, had such cold winters that they were able to ice-skate across the Thames (a most unusual departure from the usual!!).

h. Whence Oxygen? Perhaps you may recall from your high school biology classes that oxygen on Planet Earth originates from photosynthetic plants, which use--as a "building block"--CO2. What's more, moderate increase of carbon dioxide generally results in larger crop yields.

i. The models used by the "Alarmists" have been demonstrated to have serious flaws, and "positive feedback" upon which their terrible predictions depend, has not been sufficiently supported.Thus, the scientific foundation for this hypothesis is exceedingly shaky.

In conclusion…I have no "axe to grind" (and own no shares of petroleum stock), and would suggest that many of those who support this "Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) baloney do have a "hidden agenda," such as a strong interest in "carbon trading" programs (or are extreme environmentalists). I happen to support a move toward non-polluting (or "sustainable") energy generation systems (and new engines), but suggest, as my dad used to say, "Let not get crazy about this!!" I suppose I could add that when many of the Global Warming predictions did not pan out...I found it MOST INTERESTING that the dialog switched to "Global Climate Change" (seemingly a form of "fancy footwork" in the context of problems with a failed theory).

Yes, It’s an important issue..in that it is nothing more than (very egregious) propaganda, and we must DEBUNK IT!!

No, my position on this issue has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

 

[DrTCH]

I'm somewhat divided over this issue. I think that climate change is definitely extent, and there is no argument against that, we have gone through many Ice Ages, and we are currently on the downswing of a warm period. There are infinite levels of this cycle.

The temporary increase we are seeing is, however, man made. The thermal properties of CO2 make it an obvious "greenhouse gas". Carbon dioxide is a very good transmitter of light and UV radiation, however it is a poor conductor of heat. This means that the sun heats the lower atmosphere when the light passes through it, but the heat cannot dissipate very quickly.

I don't think that climate change is necessarily a major environmental threat, however, the chemical pollution that goes along with it is, and polluting industries need to be strictly regulated. The small cold era we are approaching is more than enough to counteract man made climate change, which is minuscule in comparison. It is still besides the point, when society collapses, pollution will drop dramatically.

May I assume you mean EXTANT?

 

[metis]

So, apparently to some, NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the NSA, Scientific American, the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institute, etc. are all fools, liars, or both.

Got it.

 

[VioletVortex]

Respectfully submitted:

I did some investigation of this topic a couple of years ago, and derived some strong conclusions.

1. Regardless of the facts, this has become a very important component of (or example of) Politically Correctness, and a kind of dogma (to which many have come to subscribe, often w/o proper scrutiny).
2. There definitely are a number of dissidents in the field, but they are generally shouted down as "Climate deniers!!" (much like religious dissidents were horribly persecuted during the Inquisition).
3. Actual science DOES NOT support the hypothesis...for MANY reasons. Here are but a few:

a. Carbon dioxide (unlike its cousin, carbon monoxide) is not toxic (and, except in huge amounts) plays only a minor role as a "greenhouse gas" (and especially in comparison with water vapor and methane gas). Please notice how the media and politicos keep ranting (like a mantra) about the "horrible role of CO2!! I suppose I could add that methane (assuming no leakage) is an excellent fuel, in that it is very clean-burning (only water and CO2 as products). Gasoline combustion and diesel engines are much dirtier in operation (produce much more noxious emissions).

b. We keep hearing about the erosion of the polar icecaps, yet--except for one small area--the whole of Antarctica has featured a much thicker glacier ice-pack over the last twenty years (and the expected rise of sea-levels has not materialized)

c. In California, about a year ago, there was a MASSIVE release of methane, from one well, and we heard relatively little about this...even though this posed an astronomically greater threat than any other "greenhouse gas." There should have been a HUGE public outcry to stop this terrible development (which went on for many months).

d. Over history, the phenomenon of solar activity appears to be that which most closely correlates to climate activity

e. Toxic emissions in countries like China and India have been enormous, compared to other countries, yet this fact is not often featured in the news. I have a good Chinese friend, who--upon returning from some cities in China-- told me he had been appalled at how terrible the smog-filled conditions were--much worse, e.g., than they were in downtown L.A. in the fifties and sixties.

f. Over the years, there has been significant experimentation in the field of climate engineering (at HAARP installations). Perhaps some of the apparent climate instability can be traced to his activity. This is NEVER covered in the mainline media.

g. Those who insist that recent apparent irregular and extreme changes are something new seem to have forgotten that--during the Middle Ages--there were two periods of most dramatic temperature variation (very much colder, then very much warmer). that dwarf anything seen in recent history. One group of years was so warm that the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland, then had to subsequently abandon their homes and farms because of a terrible swing to the cold. And, the English, at one point, had such cold winters that they were able to ice-skate across the Thames (a most unusual departure from the usual!!).

h. Whence Oxygen? Perhaps you may recall from your high school biology classes that oxygen on Planet Earth originates from photosynthetic plants, which use--as a "building block"--CO2. What's more, moderate increase of carbon dioxide generally results in larger crop yields.

i. The models used by the "Alarmists" have been demonstrated to have serious flaws, and "positive feedback" upon which their terrible predictions depend, has not been sufficiently supported.Thus, the scientific foundation for this hypothesis is exceedingly shaky.

In conclusion…I have no "axe to grind" (and own no shares of petroleum stock), and would suggest that many of those who support this "Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) baloney do have a "hidden agenda," such as a strong interest in "carbon trading" programs (or are extreme environmentalists). I happen to support a move toward non-polluting (or "sustainable") energy generation systems (and new engines), but suggest, as my dad used to say, "Let not get crazy about this!!" I suppose I could add that when many of the Global Warming predictions did not pan out...I found it MOST INTERESTING that the dialog switched to "Global Climate Change" (seemingly a form of "fancy footwork" in the context of problems with a failed theory).

Yes, It’s an important issue..in that it is nothing more than (very egregious) propaganda, and we must DEBUNK IT!!

No, my position on this issue has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

I can see where you are coming from. Global warming is fairly insignificant when compared to the way it is portrayed in the media. Natural temperature decrease is much more powerful than the man made increase. Still, that doesn't invalidate the general problem of pollution. It's harmful either way.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hey guys, I need your help! I'm doing a project for a class on climate change and it would mean so much to me if you could take just a few minutes to answer a few questions.

You can answer the first set in just a few words but the second set need a few sentences. If you answer any, please please answer all of them, otherwise I won't have all the info I need. Bullet points are fine if you want. To show my thanks, everyone who takes my little survey gets a like!


Do you think that climate change is happening?

Do you think that climate change is caused by human activity in full, in part, or not at all?

Do you think the issue is important?

Do you do anything to do your part in trying to stop it? If so, what?

----------

To your knowledge, how do your religious views affect the way you view climate change and whether or not you take actions to fight it?

Do your beliefs influence how important you find the issue?

Are your views on climate change shaped by your religious leaders or community (or lack thereof), individual beliefs/practice, religious upbringing, or some combination of the three?

Have your views changed over time as your religious beliefs have changed, if so, how?

Also, if you don't have your religion listed, which faith would you say you most closely identify with?

--
Please no debating! The point of this thread isn't to try to prove our sides, but so that I can get a feel for the atmosphere of positions on the issue.

Thank you so much!

No on everything

Belief in anthropocentric weather is the most ancient superstition known to mankind, it has always been with us and always will, whether simulated by scary masks and dances or scary computer sims make little difference.

There are plenty scientific explanations for weather events that we don't like, none of them could care less what sort of car you drive!

 

[lovesong]

Thanks to everyone who replied. The project went well and I'm very pleased and impressed with how many people had a really good grasp on the importance of climate change and how many of you do things to help.

 

[metis]

Thanks to everyone who replied. The project went well and I'm very pleased and impressed with how many people had a really good grasp on the importance of climate change and how many of you do things to help.

It is so serious that Steven Hawking says that there's a necessity for looking into making plans in the future to occupy another planet or moon.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Respectfully submitted:

I did some investigation of this topic a couple of years ago, and derived some strong conclusions.

1. Regardless of the facts, this has become a very important component of (or example of) Politically Correctness, and a kind of dogma (to which many have come to subscribe, often w/o proper scrutiny).
2. There definitely are a number of dissidents in the field, but they are generally shouted down as "Climate deniers!!" (much like religious dissidents were horribly persecuted during the Inquisition).
3. Actual science DOES NOT support the hypothesis...for MANY reasons. Here are but a few:

a. Carbon dioxide (unlike its cousin, carbon monoxide) is not toxic (and, except in huge amounts) plays only a minor role as a "greenhouse gas" (and especially in comparison with water vapor and methane gas). Please notice how the media and politicos keep ranting (like a mantra) about the "horrible role of CO2!! I suppose I could add that methane (assuming no leakage) is an excellent fuel, in that it is very clean-burning (only water and CO2 as products). Gasoline combustion and diesel engines are much dirtier in operation (produce much more noxious emissions).

b. We keep hearing about the erosion of the polar icecaps, yet--except for one small area--the whole of Antarctica has featured a much thicker glacier ice-pack over the last twenty years (and the expected rise of sea-levels has not materialized)

c. In California, about a year ago, there was a MASSIVE release of methane, from one well, and we heard relatively little about this...even though this posed an astronomically greater threat than any other "greenhouse gas." There should have been a HUGE public outcry to stop this terrible development (which went on for many months).

d. Over history, the phenomenon of solar activity appears to be that which most closely correlates to climate activity

e. Toxic emissions in countries like China and India have been enormous, compared to other countries, yet this fact is not often featured in the news. I have a good Chinese friend, who--upon returning from some cities in China-- told me he had been appalled at how terrible the smog-filled conditions were--much worse, e.g., than they were in downtown L.A. in the fifties and sixties.

f. Over the years, there has been significant experimentation in the field of climate engineering (at HAARP installations). Perhaps some of the apparent climate instability can be traced to his activity. This is NEVER covered in the mainline media.

g. Those who insist that recent apparent irregular and extreme changes are something new seem to have forgotten that--during the Middle Ages--there were two periods of most dramatic temperature variation (very much colder, then very much warmer). that dwarf anything seen in recent history. One group of years was so warm that the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland, then had to subsequently abandon their homes and farms because of a terrible swing to the cold. And, the English, at one point, had such cold winters that they were able to ice-skate across the Thames (a most unusual departure from the usual!!).

h. Whence Oxygen? Perhaps you may recall from your high school biology classes that oxygen on Planet Earth originates from photosynthetic plants, which use--as a "building block"--CO2. What's more, moderate increase of carbon dioxide generally results in larger crop yields.

i. The models used by the "Alarmists" have been demonstrated to have serious flaws, and "positive feedback" upon which their terrible predictions depend, has not been sufficiently supported.Thus, the scientific foundation for this hypothesis is exceedingly shaky.

In conclusion…I have no "axe to grind" (and own no shares of petroleum stock), and would suggest that many of those who support this "Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) baloney do have a "hidden agenda," such as a strong interest in "carbon trading" programs (or are extreme environmentalists). I happen to support a move toward non-polluting (or "sustainable") energy generation systems (and new engines), but suggest, as my dad used to say, "Let not get crazy about this!!" I suppose I could add that when many of the Global Warming predictions did not pan out...I found it MOST INTERESTING that the dialog switched to "Global Climate Change" (seemingly a form of "fancy footwork" in the context of problems with a failed theory).

Yes, It’s an important issue..in that it is nothing more than (very egregious) propaganda, and we must DEBUNK IT!!

No, my position on this issue has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

Very well said, accurate, informative, though entirely besides the point I fear.

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2, it's a GH gas, and 95% of climastrologers agree it's a problem- that's as far as any believer will look into the 'science'-

They are not stupid, they are simply not interested, nobody could care less about the science of 'global cooling' when I was at school either, it ain't the 'problem' it's the 'solutions' that are the driving force behind this,
the problem can be anything, the 'solutions' remain the same

 

[VioletVortex]

Very well said, accurate, informative, though entirely besides the point I fear.

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2, it's a GH gas, and 95% of climastrologers agree it's a problem- that's as far as any believer will look into the 'science'-

They are not stupid, they are simply not interested, nobody could care less about the science of 'global cooling' when I was at school either, it ain't the 'problem' it's the 'solutions' that are the driving force behind this,
the problem can be anything, the 'solutions' remain the same

No, they know that pollution is a real problem, they are just money-hungry and willing to exploit anything in order to make money.

What does make me question the theory some is the fact that these researches (or assumptions) are being conducted with money behind them. This means that "scientists" could be getting paid to bend the truth or straight out lie to the public. This could be done by the government as some sort of tax scam, to benefit someone involved. Regardless, there is definitely some truth to the greenhouse effect, because of the translucent and insulative properties of C02.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, they know that pollution is a real problem, they are just money-hungry and willing to exploit anything in order to make money.

What does make me question the theory some is the fact that these researches (or assumptions) are being conducted with money behind them. This means that "scientists" could be getting paid to bend the truth or straight out lie to the public. This could be done by the government as some sort of tax scam, to benefit someone involved. Regardless, there is definitely some truth to the greenhouse effect, because of the translucent and insulative properties of C02.

Pollution is a problem yes, but what has that got to do with CO2 or global warming?

unless photosynthesis is driven by 'pollution'
'pollution' is what makes earth green
we are 'pollution' based lifeforms?

In which case we need a new word for substances that are somehow harmful!

a couple of extra molecules in 10000 of air is nowhere near enough to have any noticeable effect on the climate, far less a deleterious one!

 

[VioletVortex]

Pollution is a problem yes, but what has that got to do with CO2 or global warming?

unless photosynthesis is driven by 'pollution'
'pollution' is what makes earth green
we are 'pollution' based lifeforms?

In which case we need a new word for substances that are somehow harmful!

a couple of extra molecules in 10000 of air is nowhere near enough to have any noticeable effect on the climate, far less a deleterious one!

Certain pollutants, notably CO2 are linked with the "greenhouse effect', but you're right, it's pretty insignificant.

I was trying to say that the fact that toxic chemicals are being pumped into the air and water is far more concerning than an insignificant temporary increase in temperature. Natural global cooling will far outweigh it in less than 50 years.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Certain pollutants, notably CO2 are linked with the "greenhouse effect', but you're right, it's pretty insignificant.

I was trying to say that the fact that toxic chemicals are being pumped into the air and water is far more concerning than an insignificant temporary increase in temperature. Natural global cooling will far outweigh it in less than 50 years.

I think that's a good point, there are real environmental concerns to worry about without making more up. But the belief that bad weather is caused by people angering nature, has such an intuitive appeal, it's been with us since the dawn of civilization and always will be I think. The 'solutions' are always the same too, sacrifices to appease the weather gods (accepted on their behalf by those kindly bringing our attention to the problem!)

Also that cooling is really the greater worry, it happens for many reasons, there is no quick fix, and the consequences are devastating- no computer sims needed.

R.I.P Lemmy!

 

[VioletVortex]

I think that's a good point, there are real environmental concerns to worry about without making more up. But the belief that bad weather is caused by people angering nature, has such an intuitive appeal, it's been with us since the dawn of civilization and always will be I think. The 'solutions' are always the same too, sacrifices to appease the weather gods (accepted on their behalf by those kindly bringing our attention to the problem!)

Also that cooling is really the greater worry, it happens for many reasons, there is no quick fix, and the consequences are devastating- no computer sims needed.

R.I.P Lemmy!

I don't like it when people make up lies to push a cause; even if it's the greatest cause in the world, the lies are **** and they tarnish the image of said cause.

Lemmy was one of the few deceased metal gods who seemed like a god before his passing. He projected an "all knowing" aura of himself when he talked. He seemed very wise. So yes, R.I.P Lemmy! Though given his attitude, he'd probably rather rest in action.

 

[DennisTate]

Hey guys, I need your help! I'm doing a project for a class on climate change and it would mean so much to me if you could take just a few minutes to answer a few questions.

You can answer the first set in just a few words but the second set need a few sentences. If you answer any, please please answer all of them, otherwise I won't have all the info I need. Bullet points are fine if you want. To show my thanks, everyone who takes my little survey gets a like!


Do you think that climate change is happening?
Yes... definitely.

Do you think that climate change is caused by human activity in full, in part, or not at all?

In part but substantially.

Do you think the issue is important?

Extremely important

Do you do anything to do your part in trying to stop it? If so, what?

I try to make people aware of an alternative theory on climate stabilization that I believe can be sold to conservatives.

Carl Cantrell.

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

----------

To your knowledge, how do your religious views affect the way you view climate change and whether or not you take actions to fight it?

I lean toward the response to climate stabilization that agrees with Isaiah 35.
Isa 35:1

¶
The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.......
Isa 35:6

Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Do your beliefs influence how important you find the issue?

Yes..... I feel that GMO plants are defective and set the world up for eventual famine. I try to warn people about the dangers in these.

Are your views on climate change shaped by your religious leaders or community (or lack thereof), individual beliefs/practice, religious upbringing, or some combination of the three?

Yes.... one nation on earth has experienced COOLING in their climate since 1950. That nation is Israel and I am sure it is not a coincidence that on a per capita basis they led the world in planting trees and in large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation projects and for towns experiencing drought.

Have your views changed over time as your religious beliefs have changed, if so, how?

I believe that we humans must make the world better and better and we need to inform people around us of what puts them in danger.

Also, if you don't have your religion listed, which faith would you say you most closely identify with?

Messianic Gentile and Noahide Movement.

--
Please no debating! The point of this thread isn't to try to prove our sides, but so that I can get a feel for the atmosphere of positions on the issue.

Thank you so much!

Thank you for the questions.