Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Does that include the expanded area of the ocean as it rises, or is that number just the extra height assuming the exact same size ocean?
    It's the rise in sea level. Vertically, how much higher sea level would be. And yes, it includes the area flooded.

    Is there not a tradeoff, where the more southern and northern latitudes become more habitable?
    There will be some winners, along with losers, yes. The United States just has a larger area where there will be losers. Not just the coasts, but the Great Plans and the mountains.

    Have not peoples always had to deal with changing coastlines, just some more quickly than others?
    Sea level hasn't really changed in our history. I don't think it's been much of an issue, except cases of land subsidence.

    Holland is a good example.
    Sea levels didn't change. Land was reclaimed by dikes and pumping.

    What if we decided to put the money, assuming we had such, into relocating people instead of just wringing our hands hoping it won't get too bad?
    Even a 5 foot rise would still leave much of New York city (for example) habitable. But we're talking costs much higher than reducing emissions would cost.

    Different people would be taking the hit, of course, which is why there's resistance to doing anything about it.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Derf View Post
      Even if the world's ending in fire is predetermined, is its timing also?
      Yes.

      Is it possible that the driving force of climate change, [added:] and possibly the end of the world, is due to the activity or inactivity of Christians?
      It'll be global warming as an extinction-level event. Carbon is of no concern. People are to blame and there's no avoiding it.

      If we are supposed to "occupy" until He comes (Luk 19:13), does that mean we sit by and just let things happen (Luk 19:20)?
      Depends what you're talking about. If you're looking for us to jump on board the carbon fanaticism, forget about it.

      It's a non-issue.

      What about Paul's admonition to obey the proper authorities, Rom 13:2,6? According to Paul, we need pay the taxes assigned to us. I guess we can include carbon tax, once it is established?
      You look after your taxes, I'll look after mine.

      Shouldn't we be able to at least step up and offer a better scheme?
      No carbon tax is a better scheme.

      Easy, huh?

      Gcthomas's point is a good one--if we are not loving our neighbor by trashing the environment, then are we really Christian?
      This is a false dichotomy. The warming hype is nonsense. That doesn't mean the only alternative is that we must trash the planet.

      On the other hand, if we are sure that just because the seasons will continue, there will be no effect of our activities on the environment, we should be able to show it by making predictions about the environment--and seeing them fulfilled. I'm not sure what these would look like, but I would like to suggest that if people follow God's will, that they will not suffer from the effects of climate change. The rain does fall on the just and the unjust.
      The sun will rise tomorrow.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Barbarian observes:Warmer conditions at the poles should increase precipitation. Which is what the models predicted. However, the concern in Antarctica, is not more snow there.[COOR="#800000"]Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever RecordedA chunk of Antarctic ice the size of Delaware will soon break off and drift away to melt. Fortunately, an ice shelf is essentially a big tethered iceberg, so this won't markedly affect sea levels right away. However, when the ice shelves finally go away, the continental ice that will then melt is going to raise sea levels, much as the melting Greenland icecap is doing./COLOR][rl]https: //www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730[/url]Stipe, you aren't really that ignorant, are you? Seriously, Stipe?You come on like you know what you're talking about, and then we get something like this? O.K. Snowfall, in the interior of Antarctica is relatively uncommon. It's cold enough that the relative humidity is quite low.[COLR="#800000"]Despite its thick ice, Antarctica is classified as a desert because so little moisture falls from the sky. The inner regions of the continent receive an average of 2 inches (50 millimeters) of precipitation — primarily in the form of snow — each year. More rain falls in the Sahara desert. [/COLOR]
        [ur]https://www.livescience.com/21677-antarctica-facts.html[/url]So rising temperatures in the interior mean... yep. More snow. However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.
        One, two or three, Denier.

        We know you won't answer.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Barbarian chides Stipe for knowing nothing about the subject on which he wants to lecture us:
          However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.

          (Stipe dodges again, by asking questions already answered)

          For the third time (or maybe the fourth)

          The climate is changing.
          Yep. Last few years have each been the top five all time, and three of them were record highs.

          The actions of men are the reason.
          Yep. CO2 because of the huge amount we're dumping into the atmosphere, and because it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases don't, is a particularly major cause.

          The effects have been and will be catastrophic.
          People living along the Gulf coast think so. The increasing severity of storms and the accompanying damage and increase in insurance rates say so.

          The elevated temperatures and drying of the Sahel, leading to wars and insurrections as people try to find a way to live there indicates so.

          But the worst is yet to come. We haven't seen the continental glaciers start to melt until very recently. The huge loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean won't raise sea levels. Do you understand why, Stipe? Tell us why.

          Now, since I've told you a third time, time for you to man up and answer my question.
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Yes.

            It'll be global warming as an extinction-level event. Carbon is of no concern. People are to blame and there's no avoiding it.

            Depends what you're talking about. If you're looking for us to jump on board the carbon fanaticism, forget about it.

            It's a non-issue.

            You look after your taxes, I'll look after mine.

            No carbon tax is a better scheme.

            Easy, huh?

            This is a false dichotomy. The warming hype is nonsense. That doesn't mean the only alternative is that we must trash the planet.


            The sun will rise tomorrow.
            So Christians have NO responsibility? not even to tell others about the coming catastrophe (the extinction-level event you mention)? You say it like there's no hope for them?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              Yep.
              Yep.
              People living along the Gulf coast think so.
              So you can drop the "denier" epithet.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                So Christians have NO responsibility? not even to tell others about the coming catastrophe (the extinction-level event you mention)? You say it like there's no hope for them?
                Where on Earth are you getting this?
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Where on Earth are you getting this?
                  From you.

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

                  You said,
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  It's a non-issue.
                  I know it's a little hard to deal in hypotheticals, but if the bible contains God's wisdom on many subjects, if the bible really "is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), if the bible really does tell people how to live eternally, then it must be able to help us deal with the problems of our age. There are NO non-issues for Christians when it comes to people dying.

                  I don't think it's wrong to question the science, or the scientists' motives, but at the end of the questioning, if we find out that people may die, especially if it's because of something we are doing and can control, shouldn't we be involved in the solution?

                  If Christians just claim to know the answer, but don't reveal it to everybody else, aren't we then at fault for their deaths? Ezek 3:17-19

                  Comment


                  • The non-issue is carbon.

                    Originally posted by Derf View Post
                    I know it's a little hard to deal in hypotheticals, but if the bible contains God's wisdom on many subjects, if the bible really "is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), if the bible really does tell people how to live eternally, then it must be able to help us deal with the problems of our age. There are NO non-issues for Christians when it comes to people dying.
                    People aren't dying from too much carbon; they will die from the results of over-regulation.

                    If Christians just claim to know the answer, but don't reveal it to everybody else, aren't we then at fault for their deaths? Ezek 3:17-19
                    I've told you the answer: Don't impose more taxes.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      The non-issue is carbon.

                      People aren't dying from too much carbon; they will die from the results of over-regulation.

                      I've told you the answer: Don't impose more taxes.
                      PM2.5 carbon particles cause over 3 million premature deaths a year, and that is mostly from coal, cars and trucks. Every 10µg/m³ long term exposure adds 8% to mortality rates, and cities often reach 60µg/m³.

                      The easiest way to wean people off the cheaper but more dangerous technologies quickly it to tax the more harmful ones. These are taxes you don't have to pay, simply by adopting technologies that don't kill your neighbours.

                      Love thy neighbour, Stripe. Simples. And less carbon burning also cuts the CO2 as a bonus.


                      Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                        PM2.5 carbon particles cause over 3 million premature deaths a year.
                        We're talking global warming.

                        The easiest way to wean people off the cheaper but more dangerous technologies quickly it to tax the more harmful ones.
                        Simplicity doesn't justify tyranny.

                        These are taxes you don't have to pay.


                        You'll believe anything.

                        Love thy neighbour, Stripe.
                        Don't tax him into oblivion.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          The non-issue is carbon.



                          People aren't dying from too much carbon; they will die from the results of over-regulation.
                          You may be correct. If so, then it is important to have the conversation and bring up the other effects.

                          In fact, if one could show that the rates of death due to the over-regulation are comparable or worse than those due to the carbon, it's a valid argument for your do-nothing solution.

                          I've told you the answer: Don't impose more taxes.
                          I prefer this answer, personally. But it is a selfish answer much of the time (including when I use it). It still makes me think of the coming famine in Egypt, where Joseph was sent by God to save the Egyptians and his own family--through taxation.

                          This is Joseph, a man of God, telling Pharaoh how to avoid a known catastrophe through taxation:
                          Let Pharaoh do [this], and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years. [Gen 41:34 KJV]

                          Since my premise is that the catastrophe is real, for purposes of discussion, is it appropriate for men of God to suggest (and accept) taxation to save people's lives? You won't be giving in to belief in climate change if you say yes.

                          Or should Joseph have just told Pharaoh that doom was assured?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            Since my premise is that the catastrophe is real, for purposes of discussion, is it appropriate for men of God to suggest (and accept) taxation to save people's lives? You won't be giving in to belief in climate change if you say yes.
                            Did God tell you in a dream that people are destroying the planet with SUVs?

                            He says in His word that the seasons will continue.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              It's the rise in sea level. Vertically, how much higher sea level would be. And yes, it includes the area flooded.
                              Have you actually seen these calculations done or done them yourself?
                              There will be some winners, along with losers, yes. The United States just has a larger area where there will be losers. Not just the coasts, but the Great Plans and the mountains.
                              Again, that assumes there are no offsetting events, such as more moisture being in the atmosphere due to the higher atmospheric temps, and no doubt other things we haven't thought of. I think it unlikely that it also includes the expanded surface area, too, but I don't know for sure.

                              I'm not denying some effect, but I doubt it will be as great as the hysterics usually imply.

                              Sea level hasn't really changed in our history. I don't think it's been much of an issue, except cases of land subsidence.
                              Really? https://www.livescience.com/1759-sto...h-channel.html
                              Sea levels didn't change. Land was reclaimed by dikes and pumping.
                              Is there that much difference?
                              Aren't the techniques the same? Seems the reclamation is the harder task, even.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                                Is all taxing stealing? Was Joseph stealing when he took 20% of the produce of the Egyptians for seven years? How does one decide which taxes are moral and which are stealing?
                                howd that work out for the Egyptians ?

                                Gen 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, in exchange for the grain that they bought. And Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
                                Gen 47:15 And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone.”
                                Gen 47:16 And Joseph answered, “Give your livestock, and I will give you food in exchange for your livestock, if your money is gone.”
                                Gen 47:17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them food in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the herds, and the donkeys. He supplied them with food in exchange for all their livestock that year.
                                Gen 47:18 And when that year was ended, they came to him the following year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent. The herds of livestock are my lord's. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land.
                                Gen 47:19 Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate.”
                                Gen 47:20 So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh's.
                                Gen 47:21 As for the people, he made servants of them from one end of Egypt to the other.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X