question about climate change and the Bible

[Gman]

Nice post tidalforce.. Yes I happen to agree with those charts as well.. While global warming is still a controversial issue, I believe we have a lot of evidence for climate change..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

[tidalforce]

My understanding of the subject (I'd say I have a good lay understanding of the field) is that the climate debate can be drawn along these lines

1. Greenhouse gases have/do not have the potential to cause global warming
2. Greenhouse gases have/have not increased in quantity in the atmosphere since the dawn of industry
3. Global temperatures are/are not at an unexpectedly high temperature currently...and rising
4. Greenhouse gases are/are not responsible for the current global temperature deviation from 'normal'
5. Greenhouse gases are/are not at inflated levels due to human rather than natural influences
6. Human actions are/are not unable to halt current temperature rising trends
7. If temperatures rise unchecked then there is/is not the potential for catastrophic consequences

I've listed them in increasing order of controversy (or, if you like, decreasing order of data solidity). The evidence for the first 5 of those is just about as close to watertight as you could hope for on any scientific matter. The data is dense, of course, and requires careful statistical analysis especially where identifying trends and deviations from expected 'norms' is concerned; but the data is just hugely abundant in favor of all 5 of those propositions.

The final 2 items above are where political interest groups start to really get involved; environmental groups pressure for green changes, oil & gas and certain governmental concerns stress the unknowns. Very often when someone says "climate change isn't happening" press them and you will discover that what they really mean is "climate change is happening...but it's part of a natural cycle, not human-caused" or "climate change is happening...but there's nothing we can do about it" or "climate change is happening...but it's nothing to worry about, no disasters will happen.

My position? "Climate change is happening...we almost certainly can do something about it although it's unclear just what the long-term consequences of long-term unchecked temperature increases would be".

Hope that helps.

[DannyM]

Absolute twoddle!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/c ... -ice-ages/

This link and site is a must for all you suckers out there. It deals with the bogus graphs. Please, for the love of God, educate yourself on this issue and stop being a sucker.

[Canuckster1127]

Well DannyM, you've certainly helped to illustrate the point about this being an emotional and political issue for many.

Let me ask you something. What would it take to convince you that there is indeed an issue here, apart from the politics and social engineering elements? Please be as specific as possible.

[tidalforce]

DannyM - if I may ask where do you draw the line of 'utter twoddle' on the above 7 points?

[DannyM]

DannyM - if I may ask where do you draw the line of 'utter twoddle' on the above 7 points?

My laptop is down so forgive periods of absence.

Let's go to 'point' number one: what is global warming? Do you even know that it is a non-word?

[DannyM]

Well DannyM, you've certainly helped to illustrate the point about this being an emotional and political issue for many.

Let me ask you something. What would it take to convince you that there is indeed an issue here, apart from the politics and social engineering elements? Please be as specific as possible.

Well Canuckster1127, you expect me to leave out the politics and social engineering, the very driving force behind this lie?

Predictions of future warming are based on computer climate models, models, incidentally, which do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—leaving aside the fact that water vapor is not within our control. It's gerrymandering of the highest order. I'll be back more permanently soon and will dive into this ridiculous thread straight awayI promise.

[Canuckster1127]

DannyM,

You didn't answer my question. Just as a question of a scientific phenomenon, what would it take to convince you that there is any legitimacy to this concern?

You seem to be implying in your response that it's simply impossible to be able to scientifically prove that there's any legitimacy to the issue and then immediately leap to the commitment that you'll scientifically prove that there is no issue.

Do you not see the inconsistency there? You're proposing to prove a negative while presenting that the positive counterpoint is not provable.

I'm not trying to yank your chain here. I'm asking you to step back for a moment from the politics and the emotions of the issue and think about it for a moment.

blessings,

bart

[tidalforce]

DannyM - if I may ask where do you draw the line of 'utter twoddle' on the above 7 points?

My laptop is down so forgive periods of absence.

Let's go to 'point' number one: what is global warming? Do you even know that it is a non-word?

A non-word? Increase of global temperatures over time beyond statistical norms, to give one definition.

I don't understand how gerrymandering is at all relevant to this discussion btw.

[zoegirl]

What he is probably referring to is the change in terms from GLobal warming to climate change.

[DannyM]

DannyM,

You didn't answer my question. Just as a question of a scientific phenomenon, what would it take to convince you that there is any legitimacy to this concern?

You seem to be implying in your response that it's simply impossible to be able to scientifically prove that there's any legitimacy to the issue and then immediately leap to the commitment that you'll scientifically prove that there is no issue.

Do you not see the inconsistency there? You're proposing to prove a negative while presenting that the positive counterpoint is not provable.

I'm not trying to yank your chain here. I'm asking you to step back for a moment from the politics and the emotions of the issue and think about it for a moment.

blessings,

bart

I do not understand your point, Bart. I'm saying quite clearly that 'global warming' is a buzz word, which means absolutely nothing in terms of climate variability. We have warm periods; we have cool periods. For example, Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book. I mean, go figure. I'm also saying that human activity has no relevant impact upon the climate. It cannot be proven otherwise.


That's my position. Let somebody prove otherwise.

Danny

[DannyM]

DannyM - if I may ask where do you draw the line of 'utter twoddle' on the above 7 points?

My laptop is down so forgive periods of absence.

Let's go to 'point' number one: what is global warming? Do you even know that it is a non-word?

A non-word? Increase of global temperatures over time beyond statistical norms, to give one definition.

I don't understand how gerrymandering is at all relevant to this discussion btw.

Great! I just sent a response and lost it. I'm now out of time. I'll repeat it later.

[zoegirl]

I think the entire discussion of climate has unfortunately been hijacked by a political philosophy, to the point that most people don't even want to consider it because they view that any agreement with it as agreement with the political agenda. It's an unfortunate relationship that most Christians are wary of, but I would suggest that such an important mandate by God to be proper and wise stewards of His creation means that we must try at all costs to examine whether there is any merit to the concerns about climate change.

If, and yes there are some good questions on either side, but IF there are any pieces of evidence that warrants concern, then we, of all people, should be at the forefront of debate and willingness to take charge. It's always a bit shameful to me to see those who are dismissive of climate change also vociferously defend their right be to wasteful, proudly declaring there willingness to drive inefficient cars or brag about deforestation or worse, declaring that "God's creation can handle it". It's that sort of attitude that led to the dustbowls in the early 1900's. On the other hand, it is also shameful to see good stewardship hijacked by a political agenda. I don't like it when this issue becomes so polarized. I am proud to say I am conservative and vote that way, but I am also happy to say that I wish we were more conscious and proactive about environmental issues. (and I am frustrated that I feel condemned by conservatives...I once participated in a discussion in a conservative church on this matter and I felt condemned when I expressed support and concern for the issue). It's become SO politicized that I end feeling that I can trust neither side, and that's unfortunate.

As Christians we should be leading the way in wise stewardship and wise council.

[Gman]

As Christians we should be leading the way in wise stewardship and wise council.

Yes I feel that exact same way too.. There are other subjects that I will disagree on, but global warming is still a big question mark... As a Christian and an environmentalist myself, I would throw caution to the wind on this subject, for if it is true, then we are guilty of not being good stewards of this planet.

I won't risk that...

[zoegirl]

I know for my part I distrust much of what is out there because it has been so entrenched in the governmental policies (socialist agendas) and it's hard to distinguish between the motivation of the politicians and the true concerns.

I know of several respected Christian scientists that express concern and because I trust them I am wiling to examine this more than I perhaps would have because of that distrust of the politicians.