Climate Science

[Beanybag]

I'm wondering, since some of you are the rarer theists who attest to having a good relationship with science what your thoughts are on anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate science? I suspect the science skeptics will be equally skeptical in this department, but I'd be interested to see what the more scientifically inclined (evolutionary theists in particular) think about climate change and what impacts it has theologically (with respect to, possibly, man's dominion of the Earth and maybe the end times?)

[Byblos]

I'm wondering, since some of you are the rarer theists who attest to having a good relationship with science what your thoughts are on anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate science? I suspect the science skeptics will be equally skeptical in this department, but I'd be interested to see what the more scientifically inclined (evolutionary theists in particular) think about climate change and what impacts it has theologically (with respect to, possibly, man's dominion of the Earth and maybe the end times?)

We don't have enough historical documentation to actually state one way or the other.

[Philip]

We don't have enough historical documentation to actually state one way or the other.

That's it: the data is insufficient, the measuring tools and models are inadequate to the task, and the cycles of the planet suggest the present is just another one of many. A few blurry snapshots does not a movie make.

That said, and while I am dubious of man-caused GW, it makes tremendous sense for us to clean up our air, processes and emissions while simultaneously striving for a balance that is economically realistic and yet prudently cautious. Fact is, we just don't KNOW the degree of our collective impact on climate change - which MIGHT be considerable - or NOT. And even IF we are causing GW, our tools to tame it are very crude and perhaps unrealistic - as Hugh Ross says, our theorized remedies might actually exacerbate the problem. No one is certain. But striving for cleaner air, water and environment CAN'T be a bad thing - but we have to first find the appropriate balance and correct strategies.

But I can tell you one thing, the earth will not end because we will MELT ourselves. That's not to say that environmental impacts won't impact earth's future events. Our courses of action and God's plans are all known to Him. He is ultimately in control - of ALL. The end-time events will be exactly as God wants them to be. And so we should not fear what God in HIS wisdom controls. We can only act to the best of our collective wisdom - which has significant limits - not to mention the conflicting agendas that might delay, challenge or prevent effective GLOBAL cooperation measures. We might well sacrifice everything else to prevent or reverse GW, and yet our very measures still be woefully inadequate/irrelevant - or perhaps might even make things worse.

[Pierson5]

//content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

I'm no meteorologist, but when 97% of the scientific community examines the evidence and agrees that man-made climate change is happening, I'm going to go with them on this one. If 97% of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, I think we'd listen to them

[Danieltwotwenty]

I'm no meteorologist, but when 97% of the scientific community examines the evidence and agrees that man-made climate change is happening, I'm going to go with them on this one. If 97% of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, I think we'd listen to them

So if 97% of theologians say God exists would you believe them to.

[Pierson5]

I'm no meteorologist, but when 97% of the scientific community examines the evidence and agrees that man-made climate change is happening, I'm going to go with them on this one. If 97% of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, I think we'd listen to them

So if 97% of theologians say God exists would you believe them to.

Good one. Maybe if theologists employed the scientific method and published convincing evidence, sure

[RickD]

I'm no meteorologist, but when 97% of the scientific community examines the evidence and agrees that man-made climate change is happening, I'm going to go with them on this one. If 97% of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, I think we'd listen to them

So if 97% of theologians say God exists would you believe them to.

Touché.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I'm no meteorologist, but when 97% of the scientific community examines the evidence and agrees that man-made climate change is happening, I'm going to go with them on this one. If 97% of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, I think we'd listen to them

So if 97% of theologians say God exists would you believe them to.

Good one. Maybe if theologists employed the scientific method and published convincing evidence, sure

God has published plenty of convincing evidence, the natural world (book of life) and his written word(Jesus Christ).

[Danieltwotwenty]

Enough derailment and back to the OP question, I am a fence sitter on climate change.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing rapidly, is this a result of human intervention, natural cycle or a bit of both?

I have no idea and even scientists differ in opinion greatly, the world climate has so many variables that the flutter of a butterfly's wings can cause a cyclone on the other side of the world.

There are so many connected systems on such a large scale that any prediction is a wild stab in the dark, every day I read in the news that their predictions were wrong and they have to change their model to suit new information.

So much for the "scientific method".

Dan

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I really hope that global warming is real and I pray that it will accelerate.

I'm just tired of shovelling snow.

FL

[Philip]

I really hope that global warming is real and I pray that it will accelerate.

I'm just tired of shovelling snow.

Then I suggest you fly south - but not too far, as I can guarantee you'll miss your summers! (That's not a laughing smiley face, but a taunting SUN!) I HATE hot weather, but really enjoy an APPROPRIATE amount of snow - yet I certainly don't want to shovel 3 days our of 5 just so I can get to work, either.

[RickD]

I really hope that global warming is real and I pray that it will accelerate.

I'm just tired of shovelling snow.

FL

FL, I suggest you really look into Cape Cod. They really don't get much snow there, compared to the rest of Massachusetts.

And there's always sunny Florida. Just remember, as bad as the long summers are here, they're not as bad as the long winters in Canada. And, November thru may is absolutely beautiful. But, no free health care yet. YOU can only pray Obama gets reelected, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

FL, I suggest you really look into Cape Cod.

Yes...but we like Hull. It has such beautiful panoramas of Boston. And Hull isn't the garbage dump it was when you lived there. Once the riff-raff left, things got better

FL

[sandy_mcd]

every day I read in the news that their predictions were wrong and they have to change their model to suit new information.

So much for the "scientific method".

The news is not a very reliable source of scientific information. And to make it more confusing, "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change". Some local areas are predicted to get colder and in addition to temperature change, more extreme weather conditions are predicted.

The sad part about this (in the US at least) is that climate study is more of a political issue than a scientific one. When people's attitudes are that closely correlated with other beliefs, it is clear that most people (even a lot of the correct ones) are not basing their opinions on science.

[Danieltwotwenty]

every day I read in the news that their predictions were wrong and they have to change their model to suit new information.

So much for the "scientific method".

The news is not a very reliable source of scientific information. And to make it more confusing, "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change". Some local areas are predicted to get colder and in addition to temperature change, more extreme weather conditions are predicted.

The sad part about this (in the US at least) is that climate study is more of a political issue than a scientific one. When people's attitudes are that closely correlated with other beliefs, it is clear that most people (even a lot of the correct ones) are not basing their opinions on science.

When I say news I mean science daily and new scientist websites among others not just the regular news.

The scientists are still arguing about predictions etc...