So they're going to go ahead and start burying the carbon dioxide at two of these new plants, scheduled to be online by 2010. Just what we need, a new kind of landfill.

saccharum : So, do you believe that it is impossible for humans to affect the global environment in a way that ultimately is harmful to us, or that it is impossible for us to change the behavior that has that effect?

I believe that due to shear numbers, it is almost impossible for humans to affect the global environment in any way that is not ultimately harmful to us. As to changing the behaviors, that will only buy us a little time.

I have no doubts that global warming is a very real and pressing problem, by the way. You caught me playing devil's advocate in the last thread, fishing for arguments to use in conversation with people who are not scientifically oriented, but who can be reached with logic. I cetainly wouldn't expect to change many minds by approaching them with hostility.

I have never read anything written by Rush Limbaugh nor listened to his programs. I also don't generally have much respect for posters who resort to personal attacks.

Not intended as a personal attack (I didn't say, "You are like/listen to/approve of Limbaugh,"). He has been known to say that humans cannot significantly affect the earth, which struck me as similar to your statement: I also believe that it is pure arrogance to think that we can escape the natural cycles of the earth. Can't stop what's coming, can't stop what's on it's way...

So, as opposed to, "everything's fine, no matter what we do," you seem to be saying, "disaster, no matter what we do from here." As with this statement:

I believe that due to shear numbers, it is almost impossible for humans to affect the global environment in any way that is not ultimately harmful to us. As to changing the behaviors, that will only buy us a little time.

What course of action do you suggest?

I come back to the point that I don't put any value on what Rush has to say about the environment or any other matter of importance, so why should I comment on his verbiage? Perhaps if he had something to contribute on the matter of prescription drug abuse and legal ramifications for folks other than himself... Hhmmmm...hypocrisy comes to mind.

Yep, for the copious amounts of illegally obtained Rx drugs he bought (~$30,000 worth from accounts) he should be serving a nice long sentence by now. If you or I were caught doing the same and with those quantities we'd surely be charged with "intent to distribute". I recall his constant rants in the 90's about OJ getting away with murder because of his fame & fortune (yes, I used to listen to him, still in deprograming rehab ;o) vgkg

Marshallz: neither you nor I put any value on Limbaugh's opinions on these matters. Sadly though, many people really do! So, it's good to know what sort of thinking that science-minded folk are up against.

I'm sure that you don't actually think I'm setting up Limbaugh as an "expert."

No, but I am a bit gun-shy what with the War of the Press Release followed by mopping up operations by talking heads spinning away all collateral damage and camoflaging rampaging covert and overt agenda.

Marshall, that's a mouthful. You don't really expect very many to eat their words do you?

I have never listened to Limbaugh or such. I think I have heard Paul Harvey a few times. Anyway, it's not hard to see this old world getting deeper and deeper in situations that are breaking down. Truly, this period is Satan's Eden......the great new scientific world that only gets more terrifying.

Wayne, without meaning to belittle those in Faith, I suggest that the apparent veil of evil has less to do with science than hocus pocus manipulating the growing ill-educated and apathetic populations. It is failure of values, not of science, that has cast people adrift in their fears.

Pretty well said there, Marshall. And yet, it is science that has helped evil become more empowered. ....I don't in this present day desire to go back to grandpa's day. This day and age is much more comfortable it is true.

My point would be that without character, power is satanic and today's evildoer's have been empowered to ruin this present world in many ways. I believe the Good Lord will let man ruin himself....if nothing more than to prove the point.

Yet I don't dispair as I believe that is not the final chapter, but actually a bright new beginning.

If this present life is your only hope, then I can understand the reasons for "greater concern" to preserve every tree, hill, and dale.

Greetings all on this day of Christmas [yeah, I believe Lambs are born in spring and not on this very, very cold night]

Wayne, there is no mention of any lambing going on in the Christmas narratives and Israel isn't all that cold in late December (certainly not by Indiana standards).

I believe the issue is that the shepherds were supposed to have had their flocks out that night (e.g. Luke 2:8), which they only do in Bethlehem from April to October (like in SoCal, December is the cold rainy season). It hardly seems coincidental that the births of certain pagan sun-gods were celebrated on Dec. 25th.

Not to hijack the thread or anything :).

I hope everyone who is so inclined is having a great holiday.

What about the Gnostic biblical passages. I happened to be mostly sleepless last night and so watched off and on a Christmas "history" narrated by Roger Moore. The program tried to prove the accuracy of that part of the traditional New Testament. Kind of like the Exodus of the Holy Family through Egypt and other exotic places of the time. Unfortunately, I did finally fall asleep before the "rest of the story." I was impressed at all the modern miracles attributed to activities and past presence of Joseph, Mary and baby.

No wonder the RC, Orthodox and many Protestant churches fought the heresies of alternative gospels.

OK, that's my last religious posting in keeping with this Christmas season and my very best wishes to all of you and your families.

Marshall

There are two explanations for why the Church settled on December 25th. First, there was a Jewish tradition that prophets died on their date of conception or birth. Easter Sunday is about 9 months before Christmas. The second likely reason is as you noted saccharum. The festival of Saturnalia (a pagan Roman Holyday) was celebrated at about the time of Christmas. Those two factors made the date selection inevitable: It fit with an old tradition and was very convenient.

To Ryan,....Yes the Lamb of God was born in Bethlehem. John The Baptist pronounced Him, "Behold the Lamb of God"......the sacrifical Lamb.
Shepherds were told about the new lamb born in a humble stable....completely fitting.

saccharum and Ryan..........Constantine [a carnal Christian] gave the Christians a feast day to "befriend" them as the pagans had their soltiste holy day and the Romans had their circus. So as Ryan says, it was convient to do what Constantine did.

Marshall, if you want to explore some more about Bible times, here is an interesting link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bible archaeology

FWIW, the breed of sheep thought to be the sheep of Biblical times is the Jacob. A dual purpose breed, the fleece is used for outerwear & blankets.

Here is a link that might be useful: Jacob Sheep

Wayne, I was referring to "literal" lambings (I deliberately missed your point-obscure humor).

Althea, interesting link.

I read an article in the paper the other day regarding lifting of textile quotas, which will happen at the end of this year. The two countries who stand to gain the most are China and India. I thought about the lead post on this thread in relation to the need to build more power facilities to generate more energy for industries which will further impoverish many parts of the world due to lack of quota restrictions. This in conjucntion with the additional greenhouse gasses generated by the facilities is sheer madness.

When such madness is the norm, then insanity is to be found among those pointing out the madness. Or in so many words. :(

Now this new research brings up some disturbing possibilities:

---------------------------------------

Antarctic iced over when greenhouse gases - not ocean currents - shifted, study suggests

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A longstanding theory that provides much of the basis for our understanding of climate change - that the mile-thick ice sheet covering Antarctica developed because of a shift in ocean currents millions of years ago - has been challenged by Purdue University scientists.
Though climate scientists have theorized for decades that the circulation of warm ocean currents was responsible for keeping Antarctica largely ice-free during the Eocene epoch prior to 35 million years ago, a series of deep-sea core samples taken recently from the ocean floor south of Australia indicates that this theory needs reworking. The sampled sediments, which were deposited during the period when Australia and Antarctica were beginning to drift apart, show that cold-loving plankton, including diatoms and dinoflagellates, were common in the waters then located to the east of the two then-adjacent continents.

"These fossils indicate that a cold current, not the warm one that has been theorized, was flowing past the Antarctic coast for millions of years before the ice sheet developed," said Matthew Huber, lead author and assistant professor in the earth and atmospheric sciences department in Purdue's College of Science. "Because the ice sheet then appeared very rapidly, over a period of just a few tens of thousands of years, some other factor must have caused the rapid cooling that allowed it to form."

***snip***

The team found that fluctuations in the carbon dioxide cycle was the most likely explanation for the enigmatic warmth of the Eocene period and of the subsequent cooling.

"Our results are most consistent with very high levels of carbon dioxide in the Eocene and a massive drop near the end of that period," Huber said.

"This decreased quantity of carbon dioxide and the atmospheric feedback mechanisms it triggered are the likeliest explanation for the sudden climate shift at the close of the Eocene," Huber said. "Though we do not have definitive proof of this theory yet, it simply makes more sense in light of the core samples and timing of the ice cap's formation."

Huber acknowledges that his team's work will provoke controversy but also cautions that the conclusions are suggestive, not definitive.

***snip***

Here is a link that might be useful: Evidence of GHG triggers