Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:But have you considered that it could be perceived that much of what you post seems to be saying there's something wrong with people like those who don't agree with the mainstream scientific community?
I don't think that's quite where I'm coming from. Maybe starting with what Sudsy said would be helpful:
Sudsy wrote:The men I have contact with outside of church mainly scoff at the thought of global warming and when it gets colder than the historical average (reflected on internet weather updates) or even last year, they laugh at what scientists are saying. I think many men scoff at lawyers, politicians, religions and scientists and those who appear to be 'in the know' when things don't appear or are not what these 'intellectuals' think. When climate change does come up in a conversation, in my experience, men don't see any real threat.
I think "scoff" and "laugh at" are about right. The problem isn't that people have more than one opinion.

It's one thing to say, e.g., "I don't understand what climate change is all about", or "I know mainstream scientists seem to think this is a problem, I'm not sure I trust the experts on things like this". That's quite different from mocking them - especially when mocking them for things they aren't even saying. The phrase "you mock what you do not understand" comes to mind. People seem to be acting like they have proven that the experts are wrong when they haven't even read what the experts are saying. And the obvious hostility makes it really uncomfortable for me when I feel that I have taken the time to read and understand these things, including articles posted on the other side of the issue.
GaryK wrote:I found it interesting that you choose not to agree with the mainstream scientific community on the issue of human origins. Why the picking and choosing?
Do you believe the mainstream scientific community when you choose whether to drive over a bridge, whether to drink water when you can't actually see what's in it, or what to do in order to observe a solar eclipse safely? I suspect most people believe the mainstream scientific community on many issues, whether or not they agree on human origins.

That doesn't mean I don't question what my doctor says, or how someone did a water sample. But I do take the time to carefully understand what they are saying and why first. And I don't mock them for their opinion.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:But have you considered that it could be perceived that much of what you post seems to be saying there's something wrong with people like those who don't agree with the mainstream scientific community?
I don't think that's quite where I'm coming from. Maybe starting with what Sudsy said would be helpful:
Sudsy wrote:The men I have contact with outside of church mainly scoff at the thought of global warming and when it gets colder than the historical average (reflected on internet weather updates) or even last year, they laugh at what scientists are saying. I think many men scoff at lawyers, politicians, religions and scientists and those who appear to be 'in the know' when things don't appear or are not what these 'intellectuals' think. When climate change does come up in a conversation, in my experience, men don't see any real threat.
I think "scoff" and "laugh at" are about right. The problem isn't that people have more than one opinion.

It's one thing to say, e.g., "I don't understand what climate change is all about", or "I know mainstream scientists seem to think this is a problem, I'm not sure I trust the experts on things like this". That's quite different from mocking them - especially when mocking them for things they aren't even saying. The phrase "you mock what you do not understand" comes to mind. People seem to be acting like they have proven that the experts are wrong when they haven't even read what the experts are saying. And the obvious hostility makes it really uncomfortable for me when I feel that I have taken the time to read and understand these things, including articles posted on the other side of the issue.
GaryK wrote:I found it interesting that you choose not to agree with the mainstream scientific community on the issue of human origins. Why the picking and choosing?
Do you believe the mainstream scientific community when you choose whether to drive over a bridge, whether to drink water when you can't actually see what's in it, or what to do in order to observe a solar eclipse safely? I suspect most people believe the mainstream scientific community on many issues, whether or not they agree on human origins.

That doesn't mean I don't question what my doctor says, or how someone did a water sample. But I do take the time to carefully understand what they are saying and why first. And I don't mock them for their opinion.
I believe both weather patterns and human origins are things that only God is/was in control of. I trust God in both. You choose to believe mainstream scientists when they say humans are in effect changing the weather patterns. What do the majority of these scientists believe about God controlling nature? History has proven that it's really difficult for mainstream scientists to accurately predict long term weather patterns and I believe it's because God is in control.

Mainstream scientists can accurately tell me that it's safe to drive over a bridge because they have ways of accurately testing bridges to see if they are safe. But when mainstream scientists predicted decades ago that certain things were going to happen to the climate and they didn't come true, for some of us it just reinforces the belief that only God is in control of nature.

Can you give us a good reason to trust the mainstream science on this issue of climate change?

Can you also give us a good reason why we shouldn't trust mainstream science on the issue of human origins?

Perhaps a reading of Job 38 & 39 would be in order. God himself is speaking!
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:I believe both weather patterns and human origins are things that only God is/was in control of. I trust God in both. You choose to believe mainstream scientists when they say humans are in effect changing the weather patterns. What do the majority of these scientists believe about God controlling nature? History has proven that it's really difficult for mainstream scientists to accurately predict long term weather patterns and I believe it's because God is in control.
You seem to be saying that for you it is a matter of faith that humans can't predict this kind of thing. I don't think that's teaching of the Bible, but if it is a matter of faith for you, then there's not much to discuss.

Or does it matter if scientists can accurately predict these things or not? Let me talk about local short-term weather reports as an example. I can generally plan when to go running using my weather app now because these predictions are much more accurate than when I was growing up. Do you believe scientists can do a good job of predicting weather during the coming week? If they do, are they doing something wrong?

Is it really just a question about how well scientists do at predicting this kind of thing? Or is really a statement of faith that scientists can't do this or shouldn't do this even if they can?
GaryK wrote:Mainstream scientists can accurately tell me that it's safe to drive over a bridge because they have ways of accurately testing bridges to see if they are safe. But when mainstream scientists predicted decades ago that certain things were going to happen to the climate and they didn't come true, for some of us it just reinforces the belief that only God is in control of nature.
When I have looked at the predictions of the IPCC over the years, my impression is that climate changes were within the window of likely outcomes that they predicted. Would it be useful to take a look at that data together, or is data relevant here? I often get the feeling that looking at data just makes me a target, because a big part of this thread is ranting against elitists who think they know what's happening, and I'm not sure people actually want to look at the data to see how well scientists have done on their predictions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these models were making accurate predictions. Would that affect your views?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:Perhaps a reading of Job 38 & 39 would be in order. God himself is speaking!
I love those chapters! And yes, we are not God, we do not understand the universe fully.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
It's about who God is and who we are, and our place in the universe. Clearly, God is in control. But that doesn't mean we can't affect the world in bad ways - we have clearly done that at times via pollution.

Are you suggesting all certainty about climate change is wrong? Would it be equally wrong to claim, with great certainty, that scientists are wrong? Would you say it's wrong to be certain about pollution? Would it be wrong to treat the possibility that scientists are right as a risk we should take into account?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Boot, the two most important questions in my previous post have not been answered.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:Boot, the two most important questions in my previous post have not been answered.
Which two questions?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:Boot, the two most important questions in my previous post have not been answered.
Which two questions?
The last two
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:Can you give us a good reason to trust the mainstream science on this issue of climate change?
This was my answer:
When I have looked at the predictions of the IPCC over the years, my impression is that climate changes were within the window of likely outcomes that they predicted. Would it be useful to take a look at that data together, or is data relevant here? I often get the feeling that looking at data just makes me a target, because a big part of this thread is ranting against elitists who think they know what's happening, and I'm not sure people actually want to look at the data to see how well scientists have done on their predictions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these models were making accurate predictions. Would that affect your views?
Do you want to discuss that or not? Is this really a question about whether scientific models are making accurate predictions over the last several decades? If so, let's get out the graphs and take a look. If not, why bother?
GaryK wrote:Can you also give us a good reason why we shouldn't trust mainstream science on the issue of human origins?
That's a different topic, I think.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Job 38:8-11

“8 Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’

The One who said this is the One I trust above any man who tries to predict what the sea is going to do. I'm simple enough to believe that God is still controlling what is happening with the sea today, not man.
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:Can you give us a good reason to trust the mainstream science on this issue of climate change?
This was my answer:
When I have looked at the predictions of the IPCC over the years, my impression is that climate changes were within the window of likely outcomes that they predicted. Would it be useful to take a look at that data together, or is data relevant here? I often get the feeling that looking at data just makes me a target, because a big part of this thread is ranting against elitists who think they know what's happening, and I'm not sure people actually want to look at the data to see how well scientists have done on their predictions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these models were making accurate predictions. Would that affect your views?
Do you want to discuss that or not? Is this really a question about whether scientific models are making accurate predictions over the last several decades? If so, let's get out the graphs and take a look. If not, why bother?
GaryK wrote:Can you also give us a good reason why we shouldn't trust mainstream science on the issue of human origins?
That's a different topic, I think.
No it's not. You are implying that we need to trust mainstream science in climate issues but not in the issue of human origins. Why do you trust them in one but not the other? To me it's a matter of where we as followers of Jesus put our trust in matters we don't control. If you don't want to discuss this then I have nothing further to say.
0 x
Post Reply