MennoNet.com

Yep.

Robert wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/23 ... eptic-too/

So it boils down to a few questions:

1. Is the climate changing?

2. If it is, does it matter?

3. If it is changing and if it does matter, is it man's fault?

4. If it is man's fault, is it really possible for him to do anything about it without destroy values or other things that would be more destructive than the damage the climate change will cause?


Some people say no to the first question, and therefore can ignore the rest. While the whole discussion is more political and hysterical than it should be, this does seem to be a bit of a head in the sand approach. Most people can look around them and see indicators of a shift in the climate with their own eyes.

I hang up between the second and third question. Climate changed has happened before. The last time it happened in a major way was before the industrial revolution, which casts some doubt on question three. The earth has it's own mechanisms to deal with climate change, but this does force mankind to adapt. It can lead to short term hardship and famine, etc. while we are in the process of adapting. By short term, I mean a century or so.

Now I don't doubt that the greed of capitalism and self-serving socialistic communism has aggravated the problem. But nature is amazingly resilient and has handled everything man has thrown at it to date. I'm not convinced that our hysterical attempts at fixing the problem will really help. I suspect that all that will happen is that certain powerful entities will take advantage of the situation to further enslave mankind and to fill their own pockets in the process. I'd rather put up with what nature brings our way than what the Rothschilds and friends want to do with it.

One's eschatology matters here.

Do we really believe we can exterminate humanity and life on earth, or do we believe God is in control of man's affairs and will guide what happens?

More importantly, could we really claim climate change isn't part of God's plan for the earth?

lesterb wrote:So it boils down to a few questions:

1. Is the climate changing?

2. If it is, does it matter?

3. If it is changing and if it does matter, is it man's fault?

4. If it is man's fault, is it really possible for him to do anything about it without destroy values or other things that would be more destructive than the damage the climate change will cause?
....

I think that the focus on 'man-made' climate change "excuses" people for the things they actually can do on their own, at the basic level. Back when I was first exposed to "environmentalism" (around the time of the first 'Earth Day'), the priorities were on things like the part each of us takes in filling the earth with landfills, scattering glass & plastic, and, to some extent, filling the air with smoke from the exhaust of our automobiles. ('Deforestation' never had much of a grip on me until I lived in the Amazon, because where I grew up on the Great Plains the ecological change was being brought about by forestation, not de-forestation.) It changed from a grass-roots movement of What can I do to a political movement of How can I force other people to do something. And in the process the poorest of the poor bear the brunt of the greatest cost in terms of level of subsistence. (Such as in the cost of refrigeration after freon was outlawed.)

Josh wrote: More importantly, could we really claim climate change isn't part of God's plan for the earth?

I think God allowing us the natural catastrophic consequenses of our sins is sometimes part of God's judgement on us. I don't expect he will allow us to end all human life on earth, either through climate change or nukes, until his time.

Josh wrote:One's eschatology matters here.

Do we really believe we can exterminate humanity and life on earth, or do we believe God is in control of man's affairs and will guide what happens?

More importantly, could we really claim climate change isn't part of God's plan for the earth?

I think that's overcomplicating it.

Is polluting the air a good idea or a bad idea? If it's a bad idea, should we do it? If the vast majority of scientists who have seriously studied the question say we are changing the climate in ways that could be bad, should we assume that there's at least some significant risk that they are right?

How can any of us claim we know enough to be certain they are wrong? If we buy insurance for other risks, shouldn't we try to cover our risks here?

Robert wrote:

i was wondering why Al Gore seemed to be getting so much air time recently.
then i saw he recently had a movie come out. ah-ha. i see.
evidently, the movie was .. not successful.

i have no plans to view it.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/20/1433 ... 16-al-gore

NASA's chart looks different: From https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/