What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

[eleos]

Life here on earth is all about Jesus. It's about preparing for eternal life with Him .... or not. Nothing will have an effect on the climate (although there will always be people who claim that). Yes, there will be climatic events ... the bible talks about that .... man will "blame" it on "man's material doings" citing "science" etc. but the climate change and all the atrocities in the world are due to sin, which of course for the most part "scientists" dismiss the existence of God.

Jesus states the end times will be like in the days of Noah.

Luke 17

26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

So, regarding above, in "laymen's language". Noah preached about the coming flood for about 120 years. There was neither Greek (gentiles) of Jew's in his day. There was the righteous and the unrighteous. The Lord protected Noah and his family in the ark ..... the rest were taken away (destroyed). "Destroyed them all."

Luke 17

28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— 30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Basically same thing here (versus 28 thru 30) God removed the righteous and those left in Sodom were the unrighteous. "Destroyed them all."

So, at the 2nd coming of Christ ....

1st Thessalonians 4

15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,d that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Again the Lord removes or separates the righteous from the unrighteous, and eventually He destroys all the unrighteous, along with satan and his minions and burns them up with the earth (as everything is infected with sin) and then He makes everything anew and no more sin ---- AMEN!

Like I said this is just real "laymen's language" ... just a brief ... very very brief summary. However, the principles are the same.

 

[way 2 go]

Nice try. Like that photoshopped TIME story they faked.

On the other hand, real scientists, even then were thinking warming was on the way...

nice try but

actually Ice Age was the term nobody bought

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

You can tell when Blablabarian is flustered; he starts accusing people of being angry. :chuckle:

Blablabarian blathers:

You need to...

...separate the fact of anthropogenic climate change, from your notion of what we might do about it.

:rotfl:

Wait. Watch:

1. The climate is changing.
2. It is the fault of mankind.
3. The results have been and will be catastrophic.

Which of those three statements do you disagree with?

I know this whole "conversation" thing is a bit beyond you at the moment, but take your time and try to think clearly for a bit. Which numbers, if any, do you disagree with?

The denier argument...

One. Two. Three.

Which ones?

...always comes down to "we don't want to do what we think it would take to fix the problem, so the problem can't exist."

Surprise!

You can't fix the problem. You can't stop the climate from changing.

Sorry.

:mock: Warmists.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Stipe blathers:


You need to separate the fact of anthropogenic climate change, from your notion of what we might do about it.

The denier argument always comes down to "we don't want to do what we think it would take to fix the problem, so the problem can't exist."

(Why does Stipe always post laughing smilies when he's angry?)

Because it's all he seems to be capable of. Cut him some slack...

 

[User Name]

You can't fix the problem. You can't stop the climate from changing.

It's called carbon dioxide. If we can alter the amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, we can alter the climate.

 

[The Barbarian]

(You can tell when Stipe gets flustered; he starts posting random videos)

Stipe gets something right:

1. The climate is changing.

Yep. We're seeing a large increase in man-made carbon dioxide, which as you know, increases the retention of solar energy in the atmosphere, thus warming the Earth.

2. It is the fault of mankind.

Human activity has markedly increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Would you like to learn how we know?

3. The results have been and will be catastrophic.

If you mean less rainfall in parts of Africa that has greatly extended the desert there. It's caused a lot of trouble for people trying to live there. If you mean increased hurricane severity on the Gulf coast, with attendant massive increases in damage and property insurance rates, yes. If you mean reduction in snow melt in the American west, with an accompanying increase in withdrawal of water from non-replaceable aquifers, yes.

But mostly, we haven't seen global catastrophes yet.

I know this whole "evidence" thing is a bit beyond you at the moment, but take your time and try to think clearly for a bit.

Calm yourself, try to find some evidence that supports your denial, and then come on back and see if you can make a contribution to the conversation, other than comic relief.

Worth a try?

You can't fix the problem. You can't stop the climate from changing.

Wrong again. We're in a sunspot minimum right now. That should mean cooler temperatures (slightly lower solar output). Instead, we're getting record high temperatures. Because of that increase in carbon dioxide, which overrides the natural cycle.

Sorry.

Again, calm yourself, and see if you can contribute something of substance to the conversation.

 

[Stripe]

It's called carbon dioxide. If we can alter the amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, we can alter the climate.

So now you want the climate to change?

Make up your mind.

(You can tell when Stipe gets flustered; he starts posting random videos)

:darwinsm:

:mock: Blablabarian.

We're seeing a large increase in man-made carbon dioxide, which as you know, increases the retention of solar energy in the atmosphere, thus warming the Earth.

Debatable, but harldy worth discussing.

Human activity has markedly increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Would you like to learn how we know?

Humanity is responsible for the event that buried that carbon.

Would you like to learn how?

Or are you only interested in your side of the discussion?

But mostly, we haven't seen global catastrophes yet.

Billions of dead things buried in water-deposited rock the planet over, but no global catastrophe.

Gotcha.

I know this whole "evidence" thing is a bit beyond you at the moment, but take your time and try to think clearly for a bit.

Wrong again.

Nope. We know you're a haughty sod, but you can't stop the climate from changing.

Sorry.

 

[Interplanner]

It's called carbon dioxide. If we can alter the amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, we can alter the climate.

But there is nothing in the evidence that it is doing what the warmers thought, which is why they switched to climate change. There was the heat wave of 2003 or so in France, obviously one off and not flooding. The event this week is now said to be something that can be humanly engineered; that should be the question of the day, not climate change.

 

[Jonahdog]

Uh oh, Stripey is reduced to channeling Kent Hovind. How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope. You should be looking in scientific journals, not listening to economists and writers of popular literature.

As you see, even a half-century ago, scientists were becoming concerned about warming. Edward Teller's warning was only the first of many.

The report I posted, didn't include newspaper reporters, economists, and the like. Because there was a short cold spell in the 70s, a lot of uneducated people concluded that it was going to get a lot colder. But climate scientists, even then, knew better.

Here's one denier site, with a list of the "journals" predicting global cooling. Running down the list, I found that there wasn't one scientific journal article therein.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

I have no doubt that someday, future deniers will cite FOX, faked magazine covers, and Donald Trump as "proof" that scientists in the early 2000s doubted global warming.

I go with the lead meteorologist at MIT and Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, who was there in the decade you think was so consistent.

 

[The Barbarian]

I go with the lead meteorologist at MIT and Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace,

Hmmm... don't think so... (Barbarian checks)

Greenpeace was founded by Irving Stowe and Dorothy Stowe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace

Neither of your "experts" are climatologists. Do you have your barber do your taxes?

Moore has often falsely claimed to be the founder of Greenpeace, though, so it's not surprising that someone told you he is.

who was there in the decade you think was so consistent.

No one told you that decade was constant. At least no one with any sense. It's just the baseline period scientists use to measure the change in the Earth's surface temperature.

Notice that when we track down those "scientists thought the Earth was cooling" stories, we find newspaper articles, faked magazine covers, fake "experts" like Moore, but no journal articles in the literature.

As you learned, even in the 70s, scientists were concerned about warming. Physicist Edward Teller had realized this 20 years before that, and had issued a warning.

 

[gcthomas]

I go with the lead meteorologist at MIT

Who says Lindzen was the lead meteorologist at MIT? He wasn't the head of the Climate Modelling Initiative centre of MIT, he wasn't the Head of Department he worked for at MIT. He was a tenured Professor. That's it, as far as I can tell.

So, apart from it being a favourite trick of YECs to over-egg qualifications over specific research evidence, why would you choose to claim a seniority that it appears Lindzen never had?

 

[Stripe]

Sounds like the Darwinists are back on their favorite topic: Who said what?

 

[gcthomas]

Sounds like the Darwinists are back on their favorite topic: Who said what?

Yup, creationist lies and dissembling. Fave topic. :wave:

 

[Stripe]

Yup, creationist lies and dissembling. Fave topic. :wave:

:troll:

 

[The Barbarian]

Yup, creationist lies and dissembling. Fave topic. :wave:

Climate denial seems to be more vulnerable to hoaxes like those just debunked here.

 

[Stripe]

Climate denial seems to be more vulnerable to hoaxes like those just debunked here.

Blablabarian will say anything to avoid a sensible conversation.

One, two or three, muppet?

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Bored much Stripe?

:yawn:

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe's just out of excuses and venting, now.