GOP Lawmaker claims GOD will provide unlmtd natrl resources

[terranus]

Mike Beard, a Republican state representative from Minnesota, recently argued that coal mining should resume in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, in part because he believes God has created an earth that will provide unlimited natural resources

Full Article

I guess this guy was next up on the Republican's list of potential head's of the House Energy Committee, right behind the guy who said he believes the bible ("god's word") is infallible and therefore we don't have anything to worry about because god won't let us ruin the Earth, and the current head of the energy committe who apologized to BP b/c Obama was too hard on them and made them pay money to clean up their mess down here.

[fester30]

He's right in a way, although it's not any god that will provide them.  Think of it.  We use up all the fossil fuels. Our population outgrows our ability to feed it.  We fight great wars over fertile soil and fresh water supplies.  We destroy the earth as we know it.  Millions of years from now, our fossils, and those of the plants and animals we killed, turn into more coal in Minnesota.  He's right... unlimited natural resources.  We're so arrogant to think we can actually destroy the earth.  Nature is a great balancing act.  If we tip the scales too far one way, nature will tip them back the other and come back to balance.  Long after we're gone, the earth will again be habitable.

[xSilverPhinx]

I've finally found something that's even more unbelievable than god(s). That guy.

Nature is a great balancing act.  If we tip the scales too far one way, nature will tip them back the other and come back to balance.  Long after we're gone, the earth will again be habitable.

That is if we don't turn this planet into another Venus with all the CO2 that we're releasing into the atmosphere which might kill off vital organisms that cause the Earth to maintain a balance because of trapped heat first.

[fester30]

I've finally found something that's even more unbelievable than god(s). That guy.

Nature is a great balancing act.  If we tip the scales too far one way, nature will tip them back the other and come back to balance.  Long after we're gone, the earth will again be habitable.

That is if we don't turn this planet into another Venus with all the CO2 that we're releasing into the atmosphere which might kill off vital organisms that cause the Earth to maintain a balance because of trapped heat first.

I really don't think we're capable of turning the Earth into another Venus on our own.  We'd need a lot of help from volcanoes.

[xSilverPhinx]

I've finally found something that's even more unbelievable than god(s). That guy.

Nature is a great balancing act.  If we tip the scales too far one way, nature will tip them back the other and come back to balance.  Long after we're gone, the earth will again be habitable.

That is if we don't turn this planet into another Venus with all the CO2 that we're releasing into the atmosphere which might kill off vital organisms that cause the Earth to maintain a balance because of trapped heat first.

I really don't think we're capable of turning the Earth into another Venus on our own.  We'd need a lot of help from volcanoes.

Good point...though maybe all the methane that's now being released into the atmosphere because of melting permafrost might do some serious damage.

Remind me never to watch Al Gore's movie. I'm already too much of a fatalist.  

[fester30]

Al Gore's little graph had a very curious property.  CO2 and temperature were hand in hand all the way until the industrial revolution.  Then CO2 went up at an incredible rate... while temperature only went up a little bit comparatively.  You gotta be careful what you do with graphs and numbers when you are trying to make your point.  In this case, he made it look like temperatures cause CO2, because if CO2 caused temperatures, you'd think the temp graph would go right with the CO2 graph in the 20th century.  I just think it means the effect isn't as sensational as people like Gore or those with the most disastrous estimates of climate change would have you believe.  As with all other things, between the two extremes, somewhere in the middle, is the truth.

Reminds me of a DUI brief/tired driving brief we had at the Air Force base.  The safety guy said something like 30% of fatal accidents involve alcohol.  30% of fatal accidents occur at night.  So I told him that must mean we're focusing on the wrong group.  Sounds like me the real problem is the 70% of fatal accidents that involve sober drivers during the day.  You can make numbers say whatever you want.

[xSilverPhinx]

I just finished reading Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Drunkard's Walk" in which I learned that most people not trained in maths are really poor analysts when it comes to statistics, especially since they fail to grasp the bigger picture, as in the case that you mentioned on drunk drivers. Or don't see that whole chunks of information are missing.  

I didn't watch his movie, firstly because I'm generally swayed by sensationalism    and secondly because by what knowledgeable people have said, his film is more that than fact. I'll save myself the waste of time.