R
Roamer
Guest
Bums up, I say.
Inaction on climate change, given the weight of evidence, seems to be morally wrong. Should it be something Christians are more concerned about?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Bums up, I say.
Inaction on climate change, given the weight of evidence, seems to be morally wrong. Should it be something Christians are more concerned about?
Yes, it's something everybody should be more concerned about. Human driven negative climate change is a statistically proven fact, but among YEC's, pro-Oil Conservatives and hardline capitalists there are a minority of 'mainstream' Christians who will even recognize climate change as a reality.
U
ukkez
Guest
yes, there is alot more people could be doing to help our climate but when ever i speak to people i know and work with peoples attitudes really are, it doesn't matter to me, i cant be without my car when they only live 5 mins away from work, think people just like to be lazy its to much effort to do anything for the environment.
what to people think about eatting less meat or being vegetarian? since that is another thing that is booming is meat production and that is coursing a affect on climate.
what to people think about eatting less meat or being vegetarian? since that is another thing that is booming is meat production and that is coursing a affect on climate.
If vegetables weren't flown to several different countries for different chemical procedures incurring an enormous cost to the consumer (and local farming) I'd eat vegetarian no problem/ I'd be able to afford to sustain myself of it, but at present, a protein rich meat meal with dirt cheap ingredients costs less than organic fruit and veg.
Can blame corporatism for that.
G
gene77
Guest
I can't help staring at that picture, and wondering how they all managed to stick their heads in a symmetrical circle. Also, after experiencing a lot of sand adventures, I can't help imagining how much time and effort they took to wash all the sand out from their hair. 
On a serious note, Tony Abbotts' notoriety has reached Indian shores. From an outsider's perspective, I think he is being downright silly, and making a beautiful nation like Australia come across as dumb. Glad to see that people are taking a stand, even if it means extra shower time. At least it's brought awareness not only to other Australians, but to people all around the world.
On a serious note, Tony Abbotts' notoriety has reached Indian shores. From an outsider's perspective, I think he is being downright silly, and making a beautiful nation like Australia come across as dumb. Glad to see that people are taking a stand, even if it means extra shower time. At least it's brought awareness not only to other Australians, but to people all around the world.
J
jahsoul
Guest
Looks like you are trying to draw on a sticky note with a paint roller.
Your American friend (me) realize that climate change has NOTHING to do with Christian walk. While they are sticking their heads in the sand, I'm out feeding and helping the poor and homeless. Guess people just prioritize things differently. *shrugs*
U
ukkez
Guest
what all the time jahsoul? sometimes we need to make a stand to see a change if its something we believe in. its good to help people now, but what about the future generations?
J
jahsoul
Guest
But what makes this a Christian issue instead of an individual issue? We still have no general consensus on global warming but everyone has their opinions and (dare I say) feelings about this and BOTH sides skew the issues to their leaning. People want to make this a global initiative without looking at the entire globe. But back to my point, this isn't a Christian issue but a political one.
G
gene77
Guest
Not a Christian issue?
Okay, let me tell you what I think about this.
When God gave man, specifically Adam, dominion of the world, He basically made Adam the caretaker of the world. Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden and Adam did take care of the place. Everything in this world needs tending to. God believes in work. So when God has still kept us at the top of the food chain, doesn't He still expect us to take care of the rest of His creation?
So, wouldn't you think that it's a Christian duty to care about issues that destroy what God has created? The relationship between man and nature is a symbiotic one; not a political one. Sure, Abbotts represents the people, and he makes decisions on behalf of the people. But, as a democratic nation, Australians have a right to voice their opinions. And, it can be viewed as an individual issue as well as a Christian issue in trying to preserve one's habitat.
Christianity consists of way more things than just following Christ. It calls for many more duties, as children of God. I believe taking a stand for one's environment can be one such duty.
R
Roamer
Guest
If I had known of the event earlier, I would have stuck my head in the sand too. And after I'd cleaned up, continued on with helping the poor and homeless. One can do both.
jahsoul, I'm happy to fill you in: This was a public reaction to a very long, protracted and ugly war our current government is waging against renewable energies. Our government was the first to scrap a working carbon emissions tax and have shown reckless disregard towards preserving our natural wonders, including our Tasmanian forests and the Great Barrier Reef (which they're on the cusp of turning into a dredge spoil dumping ground.)
Sticking heads into the sand has received great publicity here in Australia - and anything that raises people's awareness about the very real risks of climate change is a good thing.
It's one thing to say that climate change isn't one of our top priorities - it's another to claim that it has nothing to do with our Christian walk. We have to remember that climate change disproportionately affects the poor. (It's no coincidence that Pacific Islanders from low-lying atolls are so frustrated with the lack of leadership on this issue from more developed nations like Australia). Climate change threatens, and is already threatening, people's way of life. Given your admirable concern for the poor, I would have thought this would concern you.
And yes, there is evidence on both sides of the debate. However, the weight of peer-reviewed evidence heavily favours the view that humans are responsible for much of the earth's warming. With the amount of industrialisation and urbanisation that has occurred particularly in the last century, that makes intuitive sense. Regardless of your philosophical leanings towards human-induced climate change, responsible risk management involves acting on statistically significant evidence. By most accounts, that means taking the negative impacts of climate change very seriously, and supporting action to mitigate it.
1st it was global cooling and the coming ice age.
that didn't work
so they came up with the global warming scam.
that didn't work
so now they push the climate change scam.
yes it is all a scam, the creators of the scam is looking to sucker the low information types who fall for the scam out of lots of money.
Climate has always swung up and down. it gets warm it gets cool. its been going on for thousands of years. if you really believe in man made climate change, then I have a bridge i'll sell you for the nice low price of $99.99
that didn't work
so they came up with the global warming scam.
that didn't work
so now they push the climate change scam.
yes it is all a scam, the creators of the scam is looking to sucker the low information types who fall for the scam out of lots of money.
Climate has always swung up and down. it gets warm it gets cool. its been going on for thousands of years. if you really believe in man made climate change, then I have a bridge i'll sell you for the nice low price of $99.99
G
gene77
Guest
Hey.. Look. We found another unbeliever in man-made climate change. Just like Tony Abbott. ^
Ah, well.....
No general consensus? Every major scientific organization on Earth recognizes the validity of human catalyzed negative climate change. There most definitely IS a general consensus, and has been for over ten years. From 'Science' publication, 3 December 2004:
.. while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, it seemed there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
- A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
- S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
- See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
- J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
- National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
- American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
- American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
- See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
- The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
- This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we’re not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
There's absolutely no doubt that such gases have increased exponentially in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. They are produced en masse in practically every country on Earth, and they do cause warming. I challenge you to study the science rather than blindly accept the conspiracy theories. Carbon Dioxide is transparent to the radiation form the sun, but opaque to the heat from the Earth. In the most simple scientific terms I can use, basically, carbon dioxide does not reflect vacuum transmitted radiation from the sun, but does reflect and re-disperse the longer wavelength heat that bounces back of the Earth. It traps heat, and the more CO2 there is, the more heat that gets trapped.
Since the dawn of industry, we have added 42% more CO2, with a temperature rise of almost two degrees farenheit. This increase may seem trivial, but many of the Earth's ecosystems have been decimated by it, floods have occured on low lying plans causing mass evacuations and emmigrations, storms have become more intense and frequent, sea levels have risen almost 4mm annually, 1.5 million sq km of forest has been destroyed and most alarmingly, the decrease in Arctic ice rises by 14% every decade.
The increase in CO2 is also not equally positively corelative with heat increase. In fact, the more CO2, the more severely temperatures rise. It is an exponential increase in temperature. So, fo instance, with a 42% increase in CO2, the Earth's temperature has increased by almost 2 degrees F. With an 84% increase in CO2, the Earth's temperature will have increase beyond 4% Farenheit.
There are several short term solutions. Dispersal of aerosols in the atmosphere to cool the Earth, the planting of many, many more trees to convert CO2 into Oxygen, heavy regulations on logging (which is absurdly irresponsible in the US, with somewhere betweeen 85 and 95% of forest having been logged in the last century), and heavy regulations on emissions. But these are only temporary hinderances to climate change. What we really need is a worldwide push for renewable, environmentally friendly energy sources, mass production of hydrogen engines, mass installation of hydrogen pumps, abolishment of fossil fuel use, a turn towards sustainable farming, fair trade and regulation of corporate cattle industry, a massive reduction in transatlantic or transpacific food transportation for irradiation and/or washing etc (a practice where food grown in America, for instance, is flown to South Africa for washing, then to Europe for waxing, then back to America for retailing). There needs to be a lot more done about the problems, because currently, the very reason fuel is so expensive, why travel is a heavy cost, why food is overpriced and why people are poor is because of the capitalist, corporatist, globalized fiat money culture we live in.
There's no reason six organic apples need to cost £3, except that they've been flown here and there by corporate powers via jet liners that burn extremely expensive fossils fuels. There's no reason you have to pay usury on a government loan funded by fiat money printed by private financial institutions other than that they money is borrowed by your government at usury to the banks. There's no reason you have to pay £35 for a train ticket 50 miles away other than the fact that a rich oil oligarch holds sway in your political system and appoints people who profit off of oil. There's no reason we have to pay £1.40 for a litre of fuel other than we use the same oil that is fast running out and which is supported by the politicians who can profit from its use. Hydrogen is cheaper to manufacture, more abundant, and completely non toxic, with 0% emissions. In fact, hydrogen is 275% cheaper than American gasoline. There's no reason your sons and daughters need be fighting in some foreign land for oil control when more viable, safer, cheaper, healthier alternatives are available. The only people stopping this are the people in power.
It's absurd to think that people should want to hold on to our current oil-debt-conflict-climate damaging culture when the alternative would be more profitable for everyone, create more jobs, create cheaper energy, cheaper foods, better quality of product, higher life expectancy, less flooding, less debt, better provisions and a localized farming-consumption culture that's better for everyone involved. The only people who would benefit less from such a system are, unfortunately, the same insanely wealthy people that control the system, and the don't want it to change.
Think you can work out why?
R
Roamer
Guest
Thanks Human, for posting facts and figures I would've been too lazy to. The points about scientific consensus and the financial interests of a rich few in the fossil fuel industry are spot on. I'd just like to add a few more things to think about:
1) I'm no scientist, and neither are most of us here (although if you are, I'd be interested to hear your views). I can Google some science papers that support my view, you can do the same, and we'd be no closer to finding common ground. (Although as has been pointed out, the weight of evidence falls significantly on the side of human-induced climate change.)
However, as someone with a background in risk management, I'm always amazed at how reluctant some people are to accept that to do nothing would be hugely irresponsible in the face of such evidence. Most finance analysts would kill to have the high level of statistical significance that climate science affords when making decisions. The finance and banking industry makes decisions to the tunes of millions and billions of dollars every day, based on future projections with much less certainty - and no one has a problem with that.
The fact that most of the world's largest corporations have factored in the risks of climate change into their operations strategies and are willing to accept a price on carbon - including major oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil - also speaks volumes.
In fact, we all employ strategic risk management in our daily lives based on much less information and certainty than is available for human-induced climate change. Most of us still pay insurance premiums to cover for events that are much less likely to happen than the negative impacts of excessive fossil fuel consumption that are already happening. We forgo current income and stash it away in retirement funds, despite knowing that we may die prematurely of a whole multitude of unnatural causes. It's basic risk management. There's no reason why we shouldn't apply the same prudence to climate change risk.
2) Even if you still have a deep philosophical bent against climate change, there are many other reasons for acting to reduce carbon emissions and minimising our reliance on fossil fuels. Preserving biodiversity (as gene77 said, we have a duty to protect as far as possible the environment God created), removing serious health hazards, providing incentives to develop renewable energies and make them even more efficient than they already are, are just a few.
1) I'm no scientist, and neither are most of us here (although if you are, I'd be interested to hear your views). I can Google some science papers that support my view, you can do the same, and we'd be no closer to finding common ground. (Although as has been pointed out, the weight of evidence falls significantly on the side of human-induced climate change.)
However, as someone with a background in risk management, I'm always amazed at how reluctant some people are to accept that to do nothing would be hugely irresponsible in the face of such evidence. Most finance analysts would kill to have the high level of statistical significance that climate science affords when making decisions. The finance and banking industry makes decisions to the tunes of millions and billions of dollars every day, based on future projections with much less certainty - and no one has a problem with that.
The fact that most of the world's largest corporations have factored in the risks of climate change into their operations strategies and are willing to accept a price on carbon - including major oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil - also speaks volumes.
In fact, we all employ strategic risk management in our daily lives based on much less information and certainty than is available for human-induced climate change. Most of us still pay insurance premiums to cover for events that are much less likely to happen than the negative impacts of excessive fossil fuel consumption that are already happening. We forgo current income and stash it away in retirement funds, despite knowing that we may die prematurely of a whole multitude of unnatural causes. It's basic risk management. There's no reason why we shouldn't apply the same prudence to climate change risk.
2) Even if you still have a deep philosophical bent against climate change, there are many other reasons for acting to reduce carbon emissions and minimising our reliance on fossil fuels. Preserving biodiversity (as gene77 said, we have a duty to protect as far as possible the environment God created), removing serious health hazards, providing incentives to develop renewable energies and make them even more efficient than they already are, are just a few.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't buy into scams, sorry. and this climate change stuff is nothing more then a scam..
Simple fact is, in 1,000AD vikings were able to graze livestock in Greenland. Greenland in 1000AD had grass and small forests thus it was much warmer in 1000AD vs today. Last I checked nobody had gas hog SUV's nor jet liners nor massive factories in 1000AD. Go back a few thousand years more and the Sahara desert was wet and green.
So go ahead and believe in the man made global coolin... er... global warmin... er.. climate change scam.
The Sahara was green because of river routes, and Greenland warmer because of ocean currents. The Earth's a tectonic system. Rivers etch into land. These things change naturally over time, regardless of warming. None of it means that human-caused negative climate change is false.
R
Roamer
Guest
wisebeardman, it's great that you're engaging in this conversation. That's a good thing.
On the other hand, I do believe that your claim that this 'climage change stuff' is nothing more than a scam requires more evidence than the fact that the Vikings grazed livestock in Greenland one thousand years ago. The wellbeing of current and future generations deserves more rigorous analysis. I'd be happy to look at any sources you think would convince me otherwise.
Personally, I prefer visual representations of complex longitudinal phenomena. Easier on the eyes
May I suggest starting with a survey of a variety of studies from a cross-section of reputable institutional and academic bodies? Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming
2013 In Climate And Energy Charts
My favourites here:
Source
Lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University: "What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.
Healthy skepticism is a desirable trait - but it requires engaging seriously with the available information that is out there, not just clinging onto the bits and pieces that happen to fit with our preconceived notions. Climate change science is complex and no one is saying there's not more to learn, but what we do know currently is quite alarming.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
gene77
Guest
oh and how about the warming on venus,mars,jupiter,saturn? let me guess man is doing that as well?
Oh and if you people are so worried about the scam known as climate change, what are you doing using electricity and computers? bet you also live in a house.. and drive a car...
Oh and if you people are so worried about the scam known as climate change, what are you doing using electricity and computers? bet you also live in a house.. and drive a car...