So you can drop the "denier" epithet. :up:
What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
So you can drop the "denier" epithet. :up:
Where on Earth are you getting this?
Derf
Well-known member
From you.
I asked, "What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?"
You said,
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
The non-issue is carbon.
People aren't dying from too much carbon; they will die from the results of over-regulation.
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.
gcthomas
New member
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.
We're talking global warming.
Simplicity doesn't justify tyranny.
:darwinsm:
You'll believe anything.
Don't tax him into oblivion.
Derf
Well-known member
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 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?
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.
Derf
Well-known member
Have you actually seen these calculations done or done them yourself?
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.
Really? https://www.livescience.com/1759-stone-age-settlement-english-channel.html
Is there that much difference?
Aren't the techniques the same? Seems the reclamation is the harder task, even.
way 2 go
Well-known member
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.
I've seen them, but without the elevation database on which to do them, not easy to replicate. The data are open for anyone who wants to put in the time.
There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water—water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3), as shown in the table below. If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
So even a doubling of the present humidity would be a drop in the bucket, so to speak, if the continental glaciers continue to melt.
It does consider the additional capacity of flooded coastlines, but since they'd be so shallow, it doesn't do very much.
(Barbarian notes sea levels haven't changed much in our history)
Yep. Last big change was the end of the ice age, about 8-10 thousand years ago. Long before historical times.
https://www.livescience.com/1759-stone-age-settlement-english-channel.html
Since the ice sheets then covered a lot more land than they do now, I don't think it would be hundreds of feet difference.
Barbarian notes that putting up dikes and pumping out water is not the same thing as changing sea level.
No. That land is still below sea level. They have to maintain dikes and pump out water to keep it from flooding.
Have you ever, ever seen Stipe cite that kind of scripture? Cafeteria Christians take the parts they like, and ignore the rest.
:darwinsm:
Jose Fly
New member
Meanwhile....
Long-term Warming Trend Continued in 2017
But I guess since 2016 was the hottest, that means we're in a cooling trend.
Long-term Warming Trend Continued in 2017
But I guess since 2016 was the hottest, that means we're in a cooling trend.
Derf
Well-known member
Was Joseph immoral in doing what he did?
way 2 go
Well-known member
howd that work out for the Egyptians ?
Derf
Well-known member
They became one of the richest nations in the world at the time.
But the deniers in Egypt said that you can't change things like that.
They quoted lots of other deniers, and said that Joseph's plans cost too much money and were fake news.
They quoted lots of other deniers, and said that Joseph's plans cost too much money and were fake news.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not saying it was a good thing for the Egyptians. God raised them up, and later showed His power in destroying both country and army in freeing His people. My point was that wisdom from God often points in a direction that goes against our understanding of how politics should be. And it is pretty important who we pick to be our rulers, if we have a choice
I'm not too thrilled with the idea that nations may need to spend some funds on this problem. I'm not convinced it IS a problem. But if it is, and if we need to expend resources, I want the best possible thing to be done.
Unfortunately science doesn't always pick the best possible thing to do--science doesn't have the capacity to do so. But it should be able to offer different solutions that can be chosen by people that can weigh the effects--if we can keep them from seeking to gain from their positions of power over others. [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION]'s point was valid, and it seems to say that while Joseph did well in collecting the grain for seven years, he wasn't too generous with the country's stores afterward. He was in charge, so he didn't do anything wrong, but was it the best thing to do?
I don't like that Christians (some at least) don't want to participate in the discussion. But there are also some Christians that discount the potential for gleaning wisdom from scriptures to apply to the world's problems. These are the two ditches on the side of the road, neither of which we should fall into.
That's not what science is for. It merely shows you what there is. What, if anything, to do about it, is a political engineering question, involving moral, ethical, and pragmatic considerations that are not part of science.
My point is that it's foolish to deny the facts, just because one suspects that they will indicate that one should do something about them.