Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Whose in ultimate control of Climate Change

Post by Wade »

Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I wonder if someone who is challenging global warming could put together an outline of the main sources of evidence for global warming and the challenges against them.
See, this is the disinformation again. I know of no one challenging climate change. I have, and have seen others, challenge the idea that it is solely and primarily do to humans.
Solely? I don't think many scientists believe that. Predominantly? Many do. I think this is a good summary statement:
The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
I'm afraid I wasn't 100% precise in my wording. I promise that wasn't meant as disinformation. But I don't think mainstream science is disinformation either, and so much of the argument against their conclusions is funded by people who have a dog in the fight, strongly political, and prone to say that people who agree with mainstream science are using disinformation, are deluded, are suspect as Christians, etc.

Scientists can be wrong, but they are certainly careful about how they gather evidence and reason from it. And that process is really important. Could you perhaps make an outline of the main lines of argument for this consensus and the evidence for them? If you were writing a high school paper, you would be required to do that before claiming to have debunked it.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Whose in ultimate control of Climate Change

Post by MaxPC »

Wade wrote:
Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Amen! :up:
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Whose in ultimate control of Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Wade wrote:
Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
I think it's still possible for humans to pollute rivers and air, deplete the organic matter in fields, and do other things that have consequences for the way we live on this earth.

I started a separate thread for that passage, I'd like to better understand exactly what promises it does give us. For instance, I assume famine is still possible.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: Whose in ultimate control of Climate Change

Post by gcdonner »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wade wrote:
Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
I think it's still possible for humans to pollute rivers and air, deplete the organic matter in fields, and do other things that have consequences for the way we live on this earth.

I started a separate thread for that passage, I'd like to better understand exactly what promises it does give us. For instance, I assume famine is still possible.
I totally agree with that assessment, I just don't believe in the idea that "global warming" is totally human made. Those on the far left would say the best solution is to eliminate a major part of the earth's human population. The only problem with that mantra is that I don't see any of them volunteering to be the first in line. It is always about someone else and boils down to survival of the elite.
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:Could you perhaps make an outline of the main lines of argument for this consensus and the evidence for them? If you were writing a high school paper, you would be required to do that before claiming to have debunked it.
Well, I am not in high school and you are not my teacher, so do not expect anything like that from me.

I have presented plenty of information by credible sources and you choose not to consider them. Your choice. You do not have to believe the way I believe. I am just not convinced that the "concensus" is as concise as many try to make it out.

The argument is not climate change, but human causality. I see several other things that would be a much better candidate for causality.

A few possibilites:
1. Solar activity.
2. Earth tilt.
3. Volcanic and other tectonic activity.
4. Ocean currents.

Climate is actually a combination of all the above along with other factors. CO2 levels are a minor part compared to some of these other items.

And lastly, Al Gore is not a scientist nor would I trust much of what he presents. He started this band wagon with faulty evidence and outlandish conclusions refuted by the scientist he says taught it to him.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
temporal1
Posts: 16275
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by temporal1 »

i have met, worked with, personally known, interacted with many highly education, multi-degreed folks in my lifetime. lawyers, scientists, engineers, physicists, etc. (a consequence of living near a large state university, i suppose.) in more recent years, due to personal and family needs and illnesses, i've interacted with medical and psychiatric doctors, many with multiple degrees. many very fine minds. :)

the one common thread i notice, the more education, combined with real life experience, the more likely these "experts" will rush to clarify - they are NOT experts! - i.e., the more they learn, the more humble they become, the more they realize they do not know, the more anxious they are to clarify,
they do NOT "know it all."

thus, i was glad to read in your link to the Inuit folks, a NASA official stated the elusive truth:
they do not know.

Al Gore .. career politicians .. :? :? whatever. :-| :blah:
your google search may vary. :P

repeating:
we are to be good stewards of all of God's creation.
we are also warned to be cautious of false claims used to exploit.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote: I am just not convinced that the "concensus" is as concise as many try to make it out.
What do you mean by 'concise' here?

In the last five years, has any reputable scientific association published a statement questioning the consensus on climate change? Here's a list of scientific associations that believe global warming is largely caused by human activity. There are links to their official statements.

By "reputable scientific association", I don't mean political lobbying groups like the Heartland Institute.
Robert wrote:The argument is not climate change, but human causality. I see several other things that would be a much better candidate for causality.

A few possibilites:
1. Solar activity.
2. Earth tilt.
3. Volcanic and other tectonic activity.
4. Ocean currents.

Climate is actually a combination of all the above along with other factors. CO2 levels are a minor part compared to some of these other items.
OK, you have just stated a hypothesis - a scientist would take this hypothesis and then test it using available data. Your hypothesis is that C02 levels are a minor contributor to global warming compared to these other things. And a scientist would also do what's called a literature review, examining what others have said when they try to evaluate the same claim using other approaches or other kinds of data. Then a scientist would write a paper that makes it easy to compare one set of claims to another. Other scientists would question those claims, there would be debates, over time scientists would come to agree on various aspects, and over time they may be able to reach broad agreement.

That's not what I see happening on internet forums. I see people taking strong positions, and even identifying with them, calling other people into question if they do not take the same positions. I see them using propaganda terms like 'disinformation' or 'as many would like to make out' and sometimes even questioning the Christian faith of people who disagree.
Robert wrote:And lastly, Al Gore is not a scientist nor would I trust much of what he presents. He started this band wagon with faulty evidence and outlandish conclusions refuted by the scientist he says taught it to him.
You're right, Al Gore is not a scientist, and some of the things he says in his movie probably exaggerate the level of danger, but there's a great deal of uncertainty. I'm generally nervous when people say we should just go ahead and pollute as long as we can't conclusively prove that the result will be catastrophic. I think there's wisdom in cleaning up after yourself.

But you're wrong when you say Al Gore started this. Would it be helpful to review the history behind this science? One good starting point in any conversation on global warming / climate change is to ignore all politicians, politicized claims, and lobbying groups, and focus on scientific publications.

But I think it's a mistake to ignore the scientific community. They really are pretty good at evaluating scientific claims. Most of us are exposed to a whole lot more politics and Internet sensationalism than science, and a lot of people want to influence our opinions. So before taking a strong stance on a scientific question, it's good to have a pretty good overview of the science on that question. Especially if we know these other people are trying to influence us.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3970
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by ken_sylvania »

Bootstrap wrote:One good starting point in any conversation on global warming / climate change is to ignore all politicians, politicized claims, and lobbying groups, and focus on scientific publications.

But I think it's a mistake to ignore the scientific community. They really are pretty good at evaluating scientific claims. Most of us are exposed to a whole lot more politics and Internet sensationalism than science, and a lot of people want to influence our opinions. So before taking a strong stance on a scientific question, it's good to have a pretty good overview of the science on that question. Especially if we know these other people are trying to influence us.
I agree with your position to a certain extent, but I also am concerned about the idea that we blindly trust the scientific community unless we can prove them wrong.
In my experience, there is a certain amount of real-world "common sense" that can tend to be missing in academia. Agricultural scientists have done a lot of research and provided much helpful input to farmers to help them improve their farming methods. With just a bit of time, I'm certain that I could pull together a list of 100 different feed additives and/or changes in practice that a farmer could implement that have been shown in scientific studies to improve profits by anywhere from $0.03 - $.50 per head per day. Do the math. If the average profit increase is $.20 per method, that's an increase in profit of twenty dollars per head per day, or about an additional $7,000 per head per year. Not going to happen, sorry.
Or, for a very recent example, take a look at what science and clean energy policy have managed to produce in London. The scientists said that clean diesel cars were the way to go. They ran scientific tests, compared the emissions of diesel vehicles with gas vehicles, and concluded there would be a terrific public health benefit by transitioning to diesel vehicles. The government spent huge sums of money to incentivise the purchase of diesel vehicles, which in turn have contributed significantly to nitrous oxide pollution problems, estimated to have killed over 14,000 people in the UK in 2012 alone.
Do you think this would encourage the scientific community to approach problems with a little more humility? Maybe cause them to proceed with a bit more caution in their recommendations? I sure haven't seen it! Instead, they come out swinging and say "We found our problems, we fixed our problems, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! If you don't agree with us you are a fake, a fraud!" The taxpayer gets stuck with the bill for the old research that was wrong, for the cost of the misguided incentives to encourage the environmentally damaging behavior, the administrative cost and other costs associated with the whole business, in addition to all the costs associated with studying and implementing this new policy. Somehow the rest of us are supposed to accept whatever new product they are peddling and only question it if we have the time to pore through and arrange all the data ourselves. Well, guess what. I've got work to do. So I have to develop my opinions as I can, based on the information I see.
Are we expected to accept the scientific community "consensus" about human origins as well? I don't have time to do another rant on that branch of science right now, but it's the same idea that we are concerned about. A "consensus" has emerged, and alternative viewpoints are marginalized because they don't fit the "consensus" viewpoint. At some point the consensus becomes self-perpetuating and immune to challenge. Science has had that problem plenty of times in the past, and I see no reason to think it will not continue.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:One good starting point in any conversation on global warming / climate change is to ignore all politicians, politicized claims, and lobbying groups, and focus on scientific publications.

But I think it's a mistake to ignore the scientific community. They really are pretty good at evaluating scientific claims. Most of us are exposed to a whole lot more politics and Internet sensationalism than science, and a lot of people want to influence our opinions. So before taking a strong stance on a scientific question, it's good to have a pretty good overview of the science on that question. Especially if we know these other people are trying to influence us.
I agree with your position to a certain extent, but I also am concerned about the idea that we blindly trust the scientific community unless we can prove them wrong.
I'm not a big fan of blind trust in anyone but God. On many questions, the best starting point is, "I don't know. How could I find out?"

But I don't think we should dismiss the scientific community without first understanding the big picture of what they are claiming and what evidence they have for their claims. There are very few issues where most scientists would say there is a scientific consensus, and very few issues where this many scientific associations have weighed in. The scientists involved are working for various research institutes all over the world, in many scientific fields.

Could they be wrong? Sure. And we could be wrong about smoking, too, maybe smoking is actually good for your health, prolonging life, giving us energy, and promoting weight loss. But I would like to see people challenging scientific consensus present the same amount of evidence and use the same cautious and verifiable methodologies that the scientists do.

And useful skepticism requires a little more fairness than I usually see. The people who challenge any study that has received any government money should be at least a little skeptical of studies funded primarily by lobbyists working for the 90 companies that are responsible for 2/3 of global warming.

And there's another point that is much more important to me. We all know how much lobbyists value the Evangelical vote and try to tie their causes into Christianity. But we really should not beat each other up over their causes. And we should not stake the credibility of our faith on this kind of thing. When we get to the point that we question each other's faith over positions on things like global warming, there's a very deep problem.

And we're going to have a very hard time preaching the Gospel to anyone who believes in mainstream science if we associate Christianity with rejecting the scientific consensus on global warming.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply