Global Warming

[gluadys]

It is also mathematically possible to calculate a threshold at which climate change becomes runaway and irreversible with the potential to destroy most if not all life on the planet.

Why should a Christian worry about this?  Did Jesus predict that the world would end due to global warming?

Did Jesus predict the world would end in a nuclear holocaust?  Surprisingly many people think he did, but I certainly find the images of destruction in Revelation resonate very well with ecological disaster. 

The main point though is that we should not be bringing about the possible destruction of the planet by our own action/lack of action.  God's judgment is for God to bring about, not us.  And until God decides end the world, our mandate is to preserve it. 

I believe that CHristians should be good stewards of the earth, but not to the degree that people suffer unnecessary inconvenience.

Personally, I think the destruction of the whole way of life of the Pacific islanders, the Inuit and other circumpolar peoples, the introduction of tropical diseases and insects into temperate climates, the disappearance of glaciers (an important source of fresh-water in many parts of the world), and the desertification of many current "breadbaskets" which is conservatively estimated will generate some 150 million ecological refugees world-side is a decided inconvenience we should attempt to minimize on sheer pragmatic, not to mention moral, grounds.


It is precisely in order to be good stewards of the earth that Christians should be concerned.  I find "inconvenience" in this regard a very strange reason for a Christian to proffer.  Christ suffered the unnecessary inconvenience of dying for us.  Can we not change to fluorescent compact light bulbs, energy-efficient cars and wind/solar power to preserve the lives of many he died for? 

[gluadys]

but at some point you need to make something happen, even if you die trying.  My ancestors moved thousands and tens of thousands of miles from home, with nothing in order to make something happen or die trying.

Just as thousands of Mexicans are doing as they attempt to follow the example of your ancestors by crossing the desert into the south-west US. 

If one is Christian, it is silly for them to believe that we can do anything to change the ultimate plan of God.

Are you suggesting that human-driven global warming is God's ultimate plan for the earth?  Even if this were an entirely natural phenomenon, it is entirely possible we could do something to mitigate it.  And since it is not entirely natural, nor do we know it is God's plan, we must act responsibly because we are in the position of stewards of God's creation. 

Until we have marching orders otherwise, our mandate is to tend this garden for the benefit  of all its inhabitants, whether human, animal, vegetative or bacterial. 

I do believe that there needs to be global change, but I do not believe that America has to suffer in order to do this. 

In the first place, I don't know of any reason that taking the necessary steps to minimize global warming would be especially hard on America. America's corporations are among the best placed to take commercial advantage of new clean technologies.  Where is the down side? 

In the second place, I really have trouble with the short-sightedness of the attitude that the whole world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as America doesn't suffer.  How can America not suffer when the rest of the planet is?

Jesus did not die an unnecessary and inconvenient death.  His death was necessary and very convenient for all of mankind.

Exactly.  Necessary for humanity.  Not necessary for himself.  Jesus did not have to die.  He did so  voluntarily.  Hence, from that perspective, his death was not necessary as it was not necessary for God to do anything to save humanity from sin. God could simply have turned his back on humanity rather than pay the enormous cost of salvation. 

AND people shouldn't be mandated to do certain things, the government should give incentives, it goes over much better.

At least you are not so far gone into libertarian anarchism as to totally deny a role to the government.  Yes, certainly people should be mandated to do certain things, as they already are.  For example, we mandate those who bear children to provide for their daily needs, their medical needs and their education.  We mandate those who wish to use automobiles to earn a licence and obey the rules of the road.  We do not rely solely on incentives to assure that these things happen. 

Government can certainly provide incentives to reduce carbon footprints.  In fact, government should provide such incentives when they mandate reductions in carbon emissions.   The government of Germany is doing exactly that:  strong mandates accompanied by strong financial incentives. 

Not to mention, have you heard about the dangers of your unnecessary and inconvenient fluorescent bulbs? 

My fluorescent lightbulbs are not the least inconvenient.  They screw in easily to the standard sockets that formerly held incandescent bulbs.  They are conveniently available a my local hardware store, and even my supermarket.  They last a lot longer and save me money.  Yes, I have heard of some dangers with them, but I figure the risk-benefit analysis lies with the benefit on this one. 

[SquirleyWurley]

Incentives can work well, yes.

So can regulations when it comes to factories re: certain types of chemicals which may contribute the most to global warming or pollution.

One one extreme there's neglect or denial, on the other extreme there's over-regulation and huge systems based in the ideals of environmentalist ideologues.

[Faithfulee]

There is plenty of food and land for all people of the world, it's a matter of distribution.  People who continue to live in areas of poor economic structure and agriculture don't resonate too much with my sensibilities.  I definitely feel bad for the terrible situation they are in and I than God for my good fortune, but at some point you need to make something happen, even if you die trying.  My ancestors moved thousands and tens of thousands of miles from home, with nothing in order to make something happen or die trying.

If one is Christian, it is silly for them to believe that we can do anything to change the ultimate plan of God.  We are supposed to be good stewards of the earth, but how that is done is a matter of debate.  I believe that we are given the earth to use, not to preserve for eternity.  I do believe that there needs to be global change, but I do not believe that America has to suffer in order to do this. 

Jesus did not die an unnecessary and inconvenient death.  His death was necessary and very convenient for all of mankind.

AND people shouldn't be mandated to do certain things, the government should give incentives, it goes over much better.

Not to mention, have you heard about the dangers of your unnecessary and inconvenient fluorescent bulbs? 

We live in a world of abundance as you say, and I agree that God (or whatever one believes to be in control of earth) it is obvious.  Go back a hundred years when we were also concerned about running out of food.  Has anything changed??

With faith and intelligent, God "fearing" an God "loving" attitudes we will make the same advances as we have been over the past 100 years.  Just consider nuclear energy.  It could be the ultimate source of energy to power our earth for decades.

With faith in God and a broadly concerned mind, we needn't fear global warming.  Rather we should celebrate the abundance with which God has graced this earth . . . .  and use it wisely and responsibly.
 

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to me the best attitude is one of openness to opportunities to identify and solve problems, openness to correcting our actions, openness to reality.

This sort of openness can be optimistic, but it is also open to severe correction from reality, which can lead to a pessimistic evaluation, also.

[Faithfulee]

It seems to me the best attitude is one of openness to opportunities to identify and solve problems, openness to correcting our actions, openness to reality.

This sort of openness can be optimistic, but it is also open to severe correction from reality, which can lead to a pessimistic evaluation, also.

And solving problems using modern methods and thinking.  Politics and especially democrat politics are grounded in the past and what they think will help them with the public.

There are some studies today that say the globe isn't warming.  That won't reasonate with the dims.  Besides, it is presumptious to think that we can do much to prevent or accelerate global warming. 

[Faithfulee]

The first of many hits from google  “No global warming”

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof

So why should we respond to politicians who promote schemes to address global warming when there is "no proof" that this is true??

[SquirleyWurley]

I thought the issue was climate changes, up and down, increasing rates of change in any direction.

[gluadys]

The first of many hits from google  “No global warming”

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof

I am sorry, but that is just bs. The kind of changes we have seen in global temperature over the last 50 - 100 years are far from normal and no scientist who has studied the situation will tell you anything different. 

I don't deny there is some controversy over what to do about it, or how effective various measures will be.  But to deny that the climate is changing is like denying that the sea is salty. 

The writers of that drivel should take a trip to either the Arctic or the Antarctic and see for themselves.  (Changing temperatures are more dramatic at the poles and the damage to sea ice and permafrost is easily visible and very worrisome.)  Or they should look at how far glaciers have retreated world-wide in the last decade.

The more the climate is studied, the more obvious the signs are. 

[Acumen]

Hey Gluadys,


Okay, given the presumption that we are indeed experiencing global warming, do you believe it's related to the carbon emissions caused directly by humankind, or do you believe that it a cyclical process that will reverse has it appears to have done in the past 10 years?

[SquirleyWurley]

As for myself, I'm concerned about the potential for radical cooling as well as about radical warming, i.e., about global climate CHANGE (it's wrongly called 'global warming').  Erratic weather can be disastrous either way, and it seems that carbon emissions may be involved.

[metis]

Okay, given the presumption that we are indeed experiencing global warming, do you believe it's related to the carbon emissions caused directly by humankind, or do you believe that it a cyclical process that will reverse has it appears to have done in the past 10 years?

The overwhelming, but not universal, consensis amongst the researchers is that much, if not most, of the global warming is due to CO2 emissions.  This consensis has also finally become accepted by those in the Bush administration's environmental experts, which reported on it again just last week.  According to the projected models of years past, what we are now seeing happening fits all too well.  The effect of higher CO2 emissions is not an unknown entity, and the greenhouse effect has been pretty much common knowledge amongst the scientific community for several decades now. 

What is not known with any certainty is whether this will be self-balancing after a while, but most of what I have read in Scientific American and elsewhere is that they're not too optimistic in regards to the kind of damage they think is most likely to occur.     

[gluadys]

Hey Gluadys,


Okay, given the presumption that we are indeed experiencing global warming, do you believe it's related to the carbon emissions caused directly by humankind, or do you believe that it a cyclical process that will reverse has it appears to have done in the past 10 years?

The scientific consensus is that it is both.  The anthropogenic warming is accelerating and intensifying what would happen naturally.  So although we cannot avoid global warming, we can moderate it by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.  Carbon dioxide is only one of several ghg's but it is the most prevalent and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels both through conservation, improved efficiency and moving to other energy sources as well as protecting and increasing carbon sinks is one obvious way to lessen and moderate the impact.

Also, your cycle is far too short.  Current global warming has been at least 50 years in the making even if we are only beginning to document the phenomenon.  It will take at least a century to bring average global temperature back to what it was in the '80s no matter what we do now. 

[gluadys]

As for myself, I'm concerned about the potential for radical cooling as well as about radical warming, i.e., about global climate CHANGE (it's wrongly called 'global warming').  Erratic weather can be disastrous either way, and it seems that carbon emissions may be involved.

Radical cooling (i.e. ice age cool) would also be a problem, but its not the one we are dealing with today.  Nor will it be for a few centuries.  I think we can safely leave that for another generation to tackle. 

Erratic weather is an outcome of global warming.  It tends to intensify the power of storms and make things like tornadoes and hurricanes both more frequent and more damaging.  Not to mention desertification of inland territories in the tropical and temperate zones and the loss of coastal areas to rising sea waters.  Ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream, could change too, with profound effects on the climate.  This would be a principal effect of the melting of the ice cap.  Ironically this could temporarily cool the climate of Europe, yet it would be an effect of global warming. 

[SquirleyWurley]

Thanks for the clarifications, all.