question about climate change and the Bible

[DannyM]

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.

Good and considerate points, Zoe, and I admire your genuine concern. I just hope you realise that humankind cannot be held culpable for climate variability. If there were some legitimate concerns then as a Christian I would speak out. But there aint. Of course , as Christians we are prime candidates to show a bleeding heart when it comes to God's creation. Let us not be fooled by the political elites into believing that we are somehow responsible for 'something' far beyond our control. Also, let us not believe the c**p, thus justifying the positions of these clmate conmen.

[zoegirl]

Let me ponder this more, its more than simply looking at temperature changes. But I have to go back into what I have read.

[Gman]

I just hope you realise that humankind cannot be held culpable for climate variability.

Danny I believe the argument is that humankind is not held as the main culprit of global warming but merely as a contributor.. What percentage no one really knows. If so, perhaps we should watch how we perform on our planet. Not that we are bad, but simply need to watch our ways.. That's about it..

Sounds reasonable?

[DannyM]

I just hope you realise that humankind cannot be held culpable for climate variability.

Danny I believe the argument is that humankind is not held as the main culprit of global warming but merely as a contributor.. What percentage no one really knows. If so, perhaps we should watch how we perform on our planet. Not that we are bad, but simply need to watch our ways.. That's about it..

Sounds reasonable?

This is my point, Gman, humankind has contributed diddly squat to so-called 'global warming'. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, utterly irrelevant to this non-problem of 'global warming'. Beides, can you or anyone else show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall? What is it about a warmer period of climate that so frightens people?

We simply have a non-issue on our hands.

[Gman]

I just hope you realise that humankind cannot be held culpable for climate variability.

Danny I believe the argument is that humankind is not held as the main culprit of global warming but merely as a contributor.. What percentage no one really knows. If so, perhaps we should watch how we perform on our planet. Not that we are bad, but simply need to watch our ways.. That's about it..

Sounds reasonable?

This is my point, Gman, humankind has contributed diddly squat to so-called 'global warming'. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, utterly irrelevant to this non-problem of 'global warming'. Beides, can you or anyone else show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall? What is it about a warmer period of climate that so frightens people?

We simply have a non-issue on our hands.

Danny, Rich has produced a great article on that question.. When the earth overheats it throws the earth out of it's natural rhythm. Is man partly guilty of it? Maybe yes, maybe no..

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

I understand what you are saying, and it has turned the debate into a political storm.. The bottom line is that global warming is still a huge question mark.. To choose any position too strongly right now would not be wise.. We still need years and years of data to make any solid points.. Therefore, for me anyways, I'm careful how I handle the topic and do my best to thwart the problem (conserve).

That's about all I got to say about it...

[DannyM]

Danny, Rich has produced a great article on that question.. When the earth overheats it throws the earth out of it's natural rhythm. Is man partly guilty of it? Maybe yes, maybe no..

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

I understand what you are saying, and it has turned the debate into a political storm.. The bottom line is that global warming is still a huge question mark.. To choose any position too strongly right now would not be wise.. We still need years and years of data to make any solid points.. Therefore, for me anyways, I'm careful how I handle the topic and do my best to thwart the problem (conserve).

That's about all I got to say about it...

Gman, I appreciate your non-hyperbolic, non-cataclysmic approach. And Rich, true to form, has produced an good, indepth piece which with a lot more time I'll look at and try to give an adequate opinion on.

Hope you're keeping well, my brother.

[Gman]

Danny, Rich has produced a great article on that question.. When the earth overheats it throws the earth out of it's natural rhythm. Is man partly guilty of it? Maybe yes, maybe no..

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

I understand what you are saying, and it has turned the debate into a political storm.. The bottom line is that global warming is still a huge question mark.. To choose any position too strongly right now would not be wise.. We still need years and years of data to make any solid points.. Therefore, for me anyways, I'm careful how I handle the topic and do my best to thwart the problem (conserve).

That's about all I got to say about it...

Gman, I appreciate your non-hyperbolic, non-cataclysmic approach. And Rich, true to form, has produced an good, indepth piece which with a lot more time I'll look at and try to give an adequate opinion on.

Hope you're keeping well, my brother.

Thanks Danny..

[rcbako]

Man played a big part in climate change. Science and bible teachings supports others explanation. Nature only response to the inputs made by man.

[DannyM]

Man played a big part in climate change. Science and bible teachings supports others explanation. Nature only response to the inputs made by man.

Uhm, come again?

[Seraph]

Sorry to bump a several month old thread but I have stuff to add.

The data used to support global warming has taken into account the Earth's natural climate change patterns and shows that despite that, Earth is warming up at a rate faster than it is supposed to, and that it is a correlation with the increased amount of gases humankind has produced since the industrial revolution.

As for if Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change: have you ever seen the planet Venus and what its atmosphere is made up of? It's atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide. As a result, it is also far hotter than the planet Mercury despite being much further from the Sun. It is a clear visible example of what happens during a runaway greenhouse effect, the thing that human beings are creating through the pollution of greenhouse gases.

[jlay]

As for if Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change: have you ever seen the planet Venus and what its atmosphere is made up of? It's atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide. As a result, it is also far hotter than the planet Mercury despite being much further from the Sun. It is a clear visible example of what happens during a runaway greenhouse effect, the thing that human beings are creating through the pollution of greenhouse gases.

Really? What data has the power to go back in time and measure climate changes?
Most thinking places the earth at billions of years old. How long have we been keeping accurate global records of earth's climate change patterns?

I can show you data that correlates the earth's temp rise directly with solar activity.

Don't get me wrong, I am for clean air, and responsible industry. etc.

[Seraph]

They've documented the climate changes back quite a ways actually. Just because you don't know of a method of measuring past temperatures doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are ways to study what a temperature was at a time period aside from measuring it directly, such as studying ice cores that date to a certain time period, tree rings, ocean levels, etc.

The solar activity that is often cited as being the cause of global warming does change the climate but it is generally a cycle of ten or so years, while the increase in temperature has been going on for much longer. On the flip side, although the Sun is in a stage of evolution where it is heating up gradually (main sequence stars heat up as their fusion increases under pressure) this increase is far too slow to account for the apparent global warming, only increasing a very small amount over a million years.

You can probably find a lot of "data" that supports just about anything, but if their research methods are shakey then the data can probably be dismissed.

More info: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

Tying back to the opening post, even though I think man-made global warming is a real thing, it isn't in contradiction with Revelations or God's plan for the world. Though most models predict that global warming will be harmful to the human race, most of them don't predict that it will wipe out humanity. Sea levels may rise and cause problems for many countries, but it won't spell extinction. That, and I wouldn't be too quick to cling to a literal interpretation of Revelations, to where the cause of humanity's end has to be a certain thing.

[DannyM]

Hi Seraph,

From your link,

Scientists have been able to piece together a picture of the Earth's climate dating back decades to millions of years ago by analyzing a number of surrogate, or "proxy," measures of climate such as ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun


The relationship between proxies and temperatures is largely considered too weak to detect a rapid rise in temperatures over "short epochs" and to accurately reconstruct over a 1000 year period.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more ... g-changes/

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/14/mcsh ... cussion-2/

http://climateaudit.org/proxy-data/

This is just an FYI.

[Seraph]

Perhaps individually, but it is much more reliable when combining many different proxy studies together. When tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, and boreholes all show the same trend, the relationship is much more reliable. Plus, scientists have been measuring temperatures directly with satellites since the 70s and it shows the same trend predicted by the proxy studies for the past 30 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

The graph shows the temperatures predicted by many of these methods, and the all show the same thing.

[DannyM]

Seraph,

With more time I'll read your link. But can you explain how unreliable individual surrogate measures become reliable when clustered together with lots of other unreliable individual surrogate measures? Did you read my links? That these unreliable surrogate methods tally with the predictions of unstable climate-model data tells me nothing.