MennoNet.com

This thread is to discuss whether we are better or worse off if the earth warms up. You can vote and/or comment. You can also change your vote.

Bootstrap wrote:

RZehr wrote:I mean this kind of stuff:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-nort ... -tropical/
And:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... 2-research
As a believer in a young earth, it’s hard for me to be too concerned about the consequences of manmade global warming considering these articles. Meaning if the earth was this different in the last 4000 years, then we probably will be okay with a rise in temperature.

Depends what you mean by "okay". Many of our current cities would be lost along with significant amounts of coastline and some island nations, if scientists are right. That's the kind of thing we call a natural disaster when it happens today. We would move to other places, build new cities, etc., but that's disruptive and expensive. As Lester points out, Canada might well benefit.

Some change will happen naturally, and we have to adapt to that. That change is slower, giving us more time to adapt. But scientists are telling us that we are causing our own problems here, on a shorter timeline. I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm not convinced that scientists know how everything came to be. But I think they know a lot about the current climate and what we can measure now.

To me, this is a lot like the federal deficit. It's invisible, but it has consequences. We can choose to clean up after ourselves now, or we can leave the problem for future generations. The longer we let it slide, the more expensive it is to fix.

If you make a mess, clean it up. It's a good principle to live by.

Here's one post on the subject:

Bootstrap wrote:I think another argument was that global warming might be nice in cold areas. That's probably true - depending on where you live. Science Magazine published an article that assesses this county-by-county. According to their estimates, there will be significant winners and significant losers.

...

...

Another cost worth considering is the cost of disruption. Take a look at this simulation - here's what the worst case scenario looks like, you can use the control to examine more likely scenarios. We have already seen the cost of dealing with more minor disasters involving New Orleans and Miami. This would certainly be a greater cost than that.

If anything like this happened, we would normally call it a natural disaster.

RZehr wrote:This thread is to discuss whether we are better or worse off if the earth warms up. You can vote and/or comment. You can also change your vote.

good question.
i’m not ready to vote, but .. i recognize, those of us who survived the bitter-harsh 1970’s “returning ice age,” and all the fearful talk (with charts+graphs) at that time, are not too keen on jumping aboard today’s bandwagon .. i don’t recall the 70’s fears being so-driven by visions of mega-profits of those making the claims, while, those same folks indulge in huge carbon footprints of their own! they are not “tightening their belts.”

when folks are truly convinced “the end is near,” no urging is required, they race to sacrifice to avoid it. their behavior does not add up. not a convincing sales tactic.

between an ice age or warming, those of us in more northern climes might tend to choose a bit more warmth. i can assure you, -20F below, and lower, with bracing winds and white-out blizzards for a month, can be quite frightening. if the power goes out - you’re done. it’s unnerving.

a few years ago, there was a gardening show interview with a couple in Minnesota.
they were describing recent somewhat milder winters which allowed them to plant a better variety than they’d been accustomed to. they were not complaining.

with every change, there will be winners+losers.
scriptures tell us, in all matters, to rely on God, He has us firmly in His hands.

scriptures also tell us to be good stewards, this is also of great importance.
much can be done before resorting to spending billions in questionable experiments, some creating much pollution, waste of resources, in the process.

when billions are at stake, people can convince themselves of all sorts of things.
i might be as vulnerable as any! thankfully, it’s not likely i’ll be in “the hot seat” over those decisions.

Jesus never suggested we refer to statistics, charts+graphs, polls, etc., for our decisions.
He could have. He did not.
His instructions are clear, not complex. in response, we spend our lives attempting to resist.
i do not know why.

Bootstrap wrote:Another cost worth considering is the cost of disruption. Take a look at this simulation - here's what the worst case scenario looks like, you can use the control to examine more likely scenarios. We have already seen the cost of dealing with more minor disasters involving New Orleans and Miami. This would certainly be a greater cost than that.

If anything like this happened, we would normally call it a natural disaster.

Screen Shot 2018-01-09 at 11.24.21 AM.png

There are many ancient settlements found under water. Nothing new here.

Robert wrote:There are many ancient settlements found under water. Nothing new here.

yes.
people have always settled where they could survive, sometimes, choices do not work out.
our present notion of insurance and government being fully obligated to build+rebuild in locations known to be vulnerable, may not be an “eternally” great notion.

scriptures assure us that all on earth is temporal; i’ve seen enough to be convinced.
“all” meaning all.

Robert wrote:There are many ancient settlements found under water. Nothing new here.

That's true. There are also many people who prefer not to join them. The people in those ancient settlements generally considered it a net loss.

Net gain for the sunscreen business.