Exciting new "Climate Change" acknowledgement.

[Igakusei]

I was really confused by your post until I Googled and found the interview you pulled that from. The lack of connection between the "increasing/booming" question and the portion of his answer you quoted made it hard to tell what you were trying to say. And what do you mean by "God cares?"

[BobRyan]

Can someone explain the aversion to climate change science? I understand why Adventists have trouble with evolution, given direct statements by EGW and lots of theological arguments concerning incompatibility with the traditional Adventist understanding of God's character and his relationship with the human race,

And the fact that the Bible flatly contradicts evolutionism.

Yes - we see that part.

As for climate change - I and many others believe that the climate has been getting warmer since the ice age.

Not sure how many other people have noticed it - but I think that number is pretty large in general.

having said that however - when some scientific data comes out indicating a leveling off over a 10 or 15 year period of time - I don't complain about it one way or the other.

But I assume that over a 100 year average that it will show that warming since the ice age - continues. However this is not a theological position - just an observation that a lot of people would accept SDA or not.

in Christ,

Bob

[Ted Oplinger]

I regard what is happening with respect to the climate to be much more natural than anything man-made.

Global climate has been cycling between very warm periods lasting centuries, to very cold periods lasting centuries. It has been doing this ever since the Flood. The very warm periods have indeed wiped out the glacier fields in times previous; today, scientists are finding the remains of forests and human habitation where for centuries there has been ice. It had to have been ice free for a very long time for trees to grow, and habitable for humans. Then the cold and the ice come in and wipe it all out.

Greenland was for centuries relatively glacier-free, as it was colonized, and crops and livestock were raised there. That has not been possible for centuries now. That was during the very well documented Medieval Warm period. Even in today's "record warm years", Greenland still remains covered in glaciers. It may take another 2-3 degrees warming for a few decades to melt that away and return Greenland back to its namesake status.

That would just be a natural cycle from 1000 yrs ago...but from what I hear from people - the natural cycle is simply an unacceptable disaster.

The polar bears survived that thaw...so did everything that uses the Arctic ice pack as a home.

After the Medieval Warm period, it got very cold - climaxing in the Little Ice Age. Our current warming period is but a rebound from that period of cold.

The famous picture of Washington crossing the Delaware river depicts chunks of ice that are documented by the Revolutionary War records - yet when was the last time the Delaware river came close to being that ice-clogged over the winter?

When our science can effectively rule out these natural cycles, as well as the solar activity and the wiggles in the earth's orbit which sometimes moves us a bit closer, sometimes a bit farther, to the sun - I'll entertain the debate as to what are anthropogenic causes of warming. Until then, it is to me but a convenience for some men to make a profit off off of the relative ignorance our science and our populations have on the ebb and flow of global climate.

When 1 volcano can belch out more carbon and sulfur dioxides, in 1 eruption, than man can produce in a century with our worst technology, it seems to me a bit of an overreaction to say man is a bad steward if he doesn't switch from coal to natural gas (that are much more cleaner today than they were 100 years ago).

Sorry - as long as it has been much warmer on earth for much longer in the past, than it is today - today's crowd really cannot tell me the climate is going to into catastrophic overheating simply because we burn coal, drive cars, and live in air conditioned buildings.

Blessings,

[Igakusei]

When our science can effectively rule out these natural cycles, as well as the solar activity and the wiggles in the earth's orbit which sometimes moves us a bit closer, sometimes a bit farther, to the sun - I'll entertain the debate as to what are anthropogenic causes of warming. Until then, it is to me but a convenience for some men to make a profit off off of the relative ignorance our science and our populations have on the ebb and flow of global climate.

[Bravus]

Yes, simply not true that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than us. The Icelandic volcano (which I won't attempt to spell from memory!) actually net *reduced* GHG emissions because it was emitting less than the planes it grounded would have. Large volcanic eruptions are visible in the climate record as cool periods due to the dust they emit.

This is the problem, Ted: you are repeating as fact things that are not factual, in a post in which you lament "the relative ignorance our science and our populations have on the ebb and flow of global climate".

[Bravus]

I guess the other thing that's gone unchallenged here is the notion that doing something about climate change requires trashing economies and standards of living. On the contrary, Germany is the country in Europe that has embraced alternative energy and new technologies most enthusiastically, and is also one of the few European economies flying high. Other factors help explain that success, but obviously their green policies have *not* trashed their economy. Moving to better energy sources than oil is more likely to yield economic growth than stagnation.

[CoAspen]

It's not that the truth will set you free or that the truth is out there or truth is important....but rather if I accept the truth what will it do to my current 'truths'!

I am still amazed by how much info is readily available and people can't seem to grasp it or simply don't 'see' it because it does not fit in with the expected, based on their history. The facts that models account for the supposed issues brought up, to me, shows a lack of research or belief that the individual may have the wrong concepts.

The 'herring effect' of the association of evolution with global warming belief is ...well...rather mind boggling! The 2nd part of the equation is this belief that humans can't possible have the effect on the world they live in that is claimed seems rather near sighted or ostrich like.

[M. T. Cross]

I guess the other thing that's gone unchallenged here is the notion that doing something about climate change requires trashing economies and standards of living.

I have been sitting here trying to figure out how to challenge that without letting emotions get in the way.

I love my modern conveniences. I really do. I love having my car, being able to go to the grocery store and get what I want, being able to sit here talking to people from around the world on my computer. Do I love any of it enough that I could not live without it if it meant ensuring there is a planet that can support life for future generations? I have thought long and hard about that question for a number of years. My answer is no, I do not love any of that stuff enough that I could not live without it. But the thing is, with the knowledge of alternate fuel and energy sources we have, there is no need to live without it. The problem is we put our "right now" economic structure ahead of the big picture. Everything is about profit, wealth and financial success. Frankly it disgusts me. It is pure greed.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Frankly it disgusts me. It is pure greed

I agree. Sometimes I think that all the world is overtaken with it except for me and thee. And sometimes I'm not sure about thee.

God cares!

[Narcah]

I still don't see anyone disagreeing that the earth has, basically, been warming since the ice age carved Yosemite out of solid rock with glaciers. Who caused that warming?

[Igakusei]

I still don't see anyone disagreeing that the earth has, basically, been warming since the ice age carved Yosemite out of solid rock with glaciers. Who caused that warming?

Humans aren't the only things capable of altering the planet's climate. Some extremes:

650 MYa the Earth was almost, if not completely covered by ice definitely two, and possibly three different times. If this happened today it would kill off almost all life on Earth, but luckily it appears that it was enabled by the positioning of the entire Earth's landmass at the equator which isn't the case today.

55 MYa a perturbation in the carbon cycle kicked off a serious bout of global warming that progressed over about 20,000 years, raising temperatures about 6 degrees Celsius and triggering several mass extinctions.

The fact of global warming has not been in dispute; initially the controversy among scientists was whether or not human CO2 emissions were the primary driving factor. But that argument has been settled for decades now, with industries and the media continuing to maintain public controversy.

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=3402

[CoAspen]

Thanks!

[Gerr]

Actually, Adventists, of all people, should be more attuned to global weather change because of the understanding that back in Eden, man was given the responsibility to "to work and keep" his environment. Sad to say, that is not the case.

[Gerr]

I was gratified to see that Hawaii is taking advantage of geothermal energy with their volcanoes. Also there's a lot of wind there, and I saw windmills as well. And I've never seen more solar panels on the roofs than Hawaii. For one thing, the cost of electricity is very high there.