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

The Christian Science Monitor has a rather depressing artible about how upcoming emissions from China, India, and the U.S. will swamp any gains made under the Kyoto Protocol. You should read the entire article--excerpt below:

The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

The magnitude of that imbalance is staggering. Environmentalists have long called the treaty a symbolic rather than practical victory in the fight against global warming. But even many of them do not appear aware of the coming tidal wave of greenhouse-gas emissions by nations not under Kyoto restrictions.

By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.

The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn't limit emissions from the developing world. But they also suggest that the world is on the cusp of creating a huge new infrastructure that will pump out enormous amounts of CO2 for the next six decades.

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.

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

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.

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]

Not to hijack the thread or anything :).

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

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

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.

Althea, interesting link.

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

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***