ChessPlayer

You are not quite understanding gas chemistry correctly. CO2 (which is about 0.041% - I think you are off by a factor of ten) is highly absorbent in the infrared range while other gases (notably the highly prevalent diatomic nitrogen and oxygen) are less so. This means that such energy is "trapped" by CO2. This energy is later radiated in all directions including back towards earth in the infrared range. If you ever look at an Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) scan you can see two different peaks at around 2400 cm-1 and around 700 cm-1 caused by radiation of energy from the bonds found in CO2. See the FTIR scan below from Evans et al, 2006 for some of the more common radiating greenhouse gases not including water vapor. If not for the greenhouse gases of CO2 (in addition to water vapor, methane, etc) in our atmosphere, the Earth would be an frozen ball of ice having temperatures more comparable to Mars (see Ma, et al 1998 for a CO2 absorption study). Now compare this to Venus which has an atmosphere of thick CO2 (over 96%) and has a "runaway" greenhouse effect leading to surface temperatures hotter than even Mercury. This makes Earth a rather delicate balance of atmosphere and is why dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere has an adverse impact on our climate. As I mentioned in my previous post, convection currents play a large role in atmospheric chemistry and is why we don't see the extreme layering of gases you postulate. If your hypothesis were true, we would be breathing almost almost 100% oxygen while nitrogen would float up to higher levels. Now this is not the case due to mixing due to convection currents. Rather, for the majority of the atmosphere the composition of most gases remains relatively stable. As I mentioned in my previous post this only really changes when you reach the stratosphere and higher until the edge of space. However, while the composition of gases does not change at higher altitudes what does change is the air pressure. Due to basic chemistry and gas laws this means less oxygen molecules are found in a given area (i.e. concentration) at high elevations and is why air is called "thinner" at higher altitudes. Once again, let me reiterate, this is not because gas composition changes but rather concentration changes due to pressure. You keep citing a NASA study of some sort regarding CO2 concentrations. Would you please provide me to a link or just an author, year and title of the publication you are referring to? I tried Googling along the lines of your argument but couldn't find anything. I have access to most academic publications through my work so it shouldn't be a problem if it's behind a paywall or anything like that. Thanks very much!

Ok so the link provided was from a blog of some sort that is skeptical of climate change. In your post, you talked about two major points. The first is the mass of CO2. You are correct that CO2 is heavier than our air composition of mostly diatomic nitrogen and diatomic oxygen. This does mean that if you were to sublimate dry ice (solid CO2) it will initially start lower on the ground. However, gases in the air act somewhat differently than liquids in a test tube which will tend to separate into layers if they have varying densities. Gases in our air are impacted by convection currents which are in turn impacted by temperature differences. Going back to your example of dry ice, you would also note that the CO2 gradually mixes with the surrounding air due to random motion. At certain very high points in the atmosphere (the edge of space) lighter gases like hydrogen and helium exist in higher percentages but outside of very specific cases like that, gases will tend to mix. See this paper on gas mixing in caves: Badino et el 2009, THE LEGEND OF CARBON DIOXIDE HEAVINESS. Note that even in relatively confined spaces like caves mixing occurs and the differences in concentrations of various gases are negligible. This should make sense to us on an empirical basis. If the gases were to layer in such a manner as you suggest we should be breathing much higher levels of oxygen and argon but due to mixing we actually breathe much more nitrogen. Now CO2 makes a relatively small amount of our typical "dry" air composition but it does absorb heat very well as even the blog you cite mentions. The biggest problem for the climate is that CO2 absorbs very well in particular wavelengths notably around 15 um (the infrared range). Dramatically increasing CO2 increases the likelihood of this absorption in our atmosphere which contributes to global warming. This is why CO2 is considered to be a greenhouse gas. It traps energy normally radiated out by other gases in the atmosphere and increases in CO2 concentration will therefore lead to an increase in trapped energy which translates to heat.

Ok so let's deal with these issues one by one. First let's talk about this issue of the "ice age" predictions of the 1970s and 1980s. I think I mentioned this in one of my previous posts but this was a relatively small movement in the 70s that was largely ignored by the scientific journals of the time. It was more of a "popular science" topic. Pedersen, 2008 did a study on scientific journal articles from 1965 to 1979 discussing climate change. From a random sample from scientific journal 7 could be construed as talking about cooling while 42 discussed warming and by the end of the time period mentioned no new articles were being produced that argued for cooling (most of which was based on our rate of SO2 production). Much more of the popularity of this hypothesis is due to "popular science" articles and books by non-peer reviewed sources. Next you discuss global governance and other social issues. Once again, I will reiterate that climate change does not need to be met by abortion, euthanasia or any other form of population control. Nor does it need to be met by global governance. It simply needs to be by met by action that reaches carbon-free energy production status. This can be done through voluntary treaties (like the Paris Climate Accords) or individual government plans (such as the Green New Deal). Neither of these ideas put forward involve one world governance. They are voluntary or individual country plans to combat anthropogenic climate change. The US has even (rather foolishly) withdrawn from the Paris Accords. If they were to pass (in the US and other social democracies) it would be by a party/coalition in power through democratic processes so I don't see where all the fear-mongering about tyranny is coming from. There are multiple paths forward that are technologically not particularly difficult (nuclear fission, space based solar, etc) in addition to more technologically complex options (geoengineering or nuclear fusion). There is a massive leap in logic between reasonable actions taken by the global community in voluntary treaties and some sort of tyrannical global governance. This idea continues to appear over and over again in this thread and yet there has been not one shred of evidence presented as to prove that scientists are somehow in conspiracy with some shadowy cabal to create some sort of dystopian tyranny.

Ok so let's break down a few of the discussions currently being had regarding this subject. I have taken the liberty of breaking this down into a few major subgroups. 1) Personal experience vs. scientific studies Ok so this has come up a number of times throughout this discussion (notably by ARGOSSY, Just Passing Thru and Alive). As I (and others) have mentioned, personal experience is often ineffective as a tool by which to judge climate change. For example, I live in the northern US which is currently about to experience/has already experienced some of the earliest snows and drops in temperature on record. Now some people would argue that this negates the idea of global warming. However, such an argument would have two flaws. Firstly, weather is not equivalent to climate. Second, individual experience does not equate to studies completed over the whole Earth examining global trends. This is not to mention claims of human eyes being able to detect "not a millimeter" of sea level change. Humans brains have a tendency to accept things that conform to a worldview (also known as confirmation bias). This is why peer-review and a second set of eyes in addition to data are integral to climate research and is why scientific studies should be considered significantly more reliable and valid than first hand accounts. 2) We should wait ten years/it isn't that bad/global warming is good I would frame all of these at mitigation arguments. Alive has probably been the one to talk most about this approach. The problem is that the science indicates that waiting 10 years is unacceptable if we wish to continue to live in a world that resembles our current one. It also happens to be an argument that was used ten years ago and just results in the can getting kicked further and further down the road. The next two arguments admit that climate change is happening but may say it is not that bad. Those who argue that it is not that bad have simply not read the science on this. Study after study indicates that this level of CO2 is prevalent in mass extinction events and that our planet is losing biodiversity due to climate change. Some on this thread have even mentioned the argument that there is global greening. I dealt with this a bit on page four of our discussion here but the problem is that this only considered CO2 in isolation. While CO2 is used by plants to produce oxygen considering only CO2 in isolation ignores diminishing returns and the fact that plants need other nutrients to survive and are negatively impacted by climate change as a result. For more on this see the Tahiti study from page four which found plant biodiversity went down as a result of climate change. 3) A global conspiracy of scientists/governments This argument assumes a lot and has no basis in evidence. Are there international agreements regarding climate change? Of course. These are voluntary agreements. For example, the US entered the Paris Climate Accords under Obama and then withdrew under Trump. Some countries simply did not enter the accords (although notably this was because they thought the treaty did not do enough to combat climate change). However, international agreements made by voluntary member nations do not constitute some wild one world government conspiracy. Anyone claiming that scientists all over the world are somehow in collaboration to deceive the public would not to provide evidence and a rationale as to why that is the case. The burden of proof lies on the conspiracy to prove the conspiracy exists. 4) Theological Objections - God Sets the Limits This is the first theological objection presented. The argument stems from the scriptural concept that God has set boundaries by which the physical world must abide. Of course, Christians agree with this. However, I would object to any hyper-literalism regarding some of the passages presented. For example, JustPassingThru has talked multiple times about passages from the Proverbs and Job. Notably, he mentions Proverbs 8:29 in which it states "when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command." Now, I addressed this line earlier but I will do so here again. This is in the broader context of the writer praising God's creative power and control over creation. However, hyper-literalism is not an effective way of understanding this passage. If we were hyper-literal about this passage as JustPassingThru is indicating we would deny the fact that seas dry up and that man has impacted nature by creating harbors, damns, seawalls, etc. That is not to mention natural events like sea surges. Even JustPassingThru seems to understand this and slightly backpedals when he says this in his discussion with thomas t: Now the problem with this line of reasoning is that you could continue it ad infinitum. For example, using such a hyper-literalistic interpretation one could also say that the limit could be just below the tip of Mt. Everest. This hyper-literalism simply fails to grasp the passage in context and is simply a poor hermeneutical and theological argument. 5) Theological Objections - Christ is Coming/The World Doesn't Matter Several people have brought this up notably JustPassingThru, Alive and ARGOSY. While all Christians concur that Christ will indeed return again in glory, Christ reminds us that not the angels in heaven nor us here on Earth know the day or the hour of His return. In the meanwhile, Christ encouraged us to love and care for the least among us and to be good stewards. By ignoring the dangers climate change poses to our fellow man and to God's creative work we do neither of these things. Arguing that the physical world does not matter at all was the root of many of the heresies of the Early Church and was one of the major things the Church sought to address. This theological "objection" is a poor excuse for not taking care of God's creation and our fellow man.

Demonstrating that a lighthouse still exists at a given point is not an adequate measurement for sea level. Remember, as I mentioned in my previous post regarding Tahiti and the French Polynesian islands, Tahiti tends to be at a rather higher average feet about sea level due to the volcanic nature of the island and although it is hard to see based on the Google links you provided it seems that the lighthouse is at least several feet above sea level. Nor are supposed eyewitnesses without accurate measurement and documentation. Again, I have asked for these and you have failed to provide them. While you provide supposed eyewitnesses without historical or scientific measurement, I have provided studies which measure and document their findings. Regarding your point about the limits of the oceans, I do believe that God has power over nature and the physical world. However, I would not be so naive or literalistic in my interpretation of Scripture as to say that this limits are affixed with the permanence you seem to believe. Reading scripture in such a way is antithetical to the study of theology and hermeunetics. It also fails to take into account the broader context of Scripture. For example, when we talk of the serpent we do not refer to just a literal serpent but to Satan. In the passages you mention in Proverbs and Job, Solomon and Job are being told of the Creative Majesty of God and his power over all Creation. For God shows himself through his Word and his Works (Creation). After all, we know that tides come in and out, that rivers can change course in time and that seas and lakes can dry up. We have created dams and seawalls and other engineering wonders that impact the sea. Yet we do not decry these natural and unnatural features as antithetical to the Word of God. We do not demand that the Netherlands be a brackish swamp or that Ellis Island be returned to the sea just because these lands are artificial in creation. We know that nature changes and we know that we can impact it. We also know that God is in control. These ideas are not antithetical to each other.

All I asked for is evidence so I can verify your claims. I take your "evidence" with a grain of salt merely because you have not provided a source for your claims. I have been open about providing my sources. You meanwhile have claimed that Tahiti has not experienced a millimeter of sea level rise in 250 years. I would simply like to have access to the historical or scientific data that you found that provides such a figure. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been considerate in providing citations with authors and dates of publications. In some cases I have also provided the journal name or article title. I hope you will do the same. Ah... and we arrive once again to a global conspiracy made of some mysterious outside force. Of course, I cannot disprove such a theory as I can't prove a negative. Fortunately, the burden of proof remains on you to provide evidence for such a claim. As with the above claim, I would hope that you would be willing to provide some evidence to support your assertions. Remember, we are commanded not to bear false witness against others.

Ok, let us be clear here. You believe that the global community of scientists (some of whom are Christian) are engaged in an evil plot to deceiving everyone into taking better care of God's creation? Why are we being deceived into being better stewards of the Earth? On what theological or hermeneutical basis do you claim that Paul was talking about climate change when he was talking to the Church in Ephesus about "vain words?" Based on the previous verses in his epistle it seems that he was talking about greed and immorality leading to vanity in the Church. It seems that you are reading your own biases into Scripture my friend.

I'm assuming you are referring to your anecdotal evidence regarding sea level rise in Tahiti where you personally have not seen sea level rise. I did not see any specific paper or historical work that actually measured sea level change mentioned in your post. If you had numbers or a paper I could look at I would be more than happy to do so but at this moment, I am taking your "evidence" with a grain of salt. However, I can provide some studies that focus around French Polynesia and Tahiti although there is little specific research on the island itself. Now Tahiti is a slightly unusual case due to its volcanic nature. Much of the island is at relatively high altitude (according to the French Polynesia Bureau of Statistics) due to this and is therefore not in danger of being submerged. However, low lying areas are under more serious threat according to a 2013 study by CNRS/Université Paris-Sud which estimated the loss in land to be 5-12% by 2100 given current global sea level rise. This is probably one of the more exhaustive studies done on the subject. A further study by Pouteau et al 2016 indicated a link between biodiversity loss on Tahiti and climate change with a high R-squared value between climate and plant biodiversity on Tahiti. Also note that certain weather patterns that already affect Tahiti and the other Pacific Islands are heightened due to climate change as noted by the studies Kripalani and Kulkarni, 2012 and Anselme and Bessat, 2012 (the first focusing more on the region as a whole while the second focuses on French Polynesia and Tahiti in particular). Please also note that Tahiti hosted a conference of scientists in 2011 who warned of the impact climate change would have on French Polynesia as a whole including the total submergence of certain atolls. These are just a few sources I found and are by no means an exhaustive list. As I noted before, Tahiti is not generally studied exclusively but rather in the context of the region and French Polynesia as a whole. As I mentioned before, if you have a study or historical source that you feel demonstrates some point about climate change, I would love to see it. Just give me the authors names and a date and I'll give it a whirl. Thanks!

I'm sorry but this answer is simply unacceptable. I responded to your criticisms of the science around global warming, presented scientific papers and evidence and all you say is that we will see in ten years. Putting something off ten years will not change the science. Nor does it change our moral duty as stewards of creation and our fellow man. The only thing we do by delaying our reaction to climate change is limiting our ability to deal with the consequences.

With point two we completely agree. A cold winter or a hot summer defines weather and not climate. Climate focuses on global or regional trends over longer periods of time. And yes, regarding point one, it is true that the climate can change naturally. However, currently, the problem is due to anthropogenic climate change and the rapidness of the associated change in climate. The current pace of climate change is matched only by periods that led to extinctions and serious harm to life. See the paper Jourdan, et. al, 2014 from the journal Geology for more on this. I'll come back to point four in a second. These fit comfortably into a category I like to define as "natural explanations" for observed climate change. While it is true that climate is impacted by solar activity, ocean effects, etc. they are relatively stable over the centuries and are even taken into account by models. For example, from Krivova et al, 2007 we can actually see a that solar irradiation has gone down recently while the climate has continued to warm. See the graph below. Also the IPCC study took into account volcanic activity, natural phenomenon (ocean currents, etc), solar activity, internal variance and anthropogenic effects in their look at causal links to climate change by humans. They found that the sun adds about 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by about 0.1-0.2°C. Natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C depending on the year. Anthropogenic change has heated the climate by over 0.8 °C. This is enough to establish a clear link between anthropogenic industrialization and climate change. See the IPCC study from 2013 Chapter Five for more excellent graphs that better visually represent this. It depends on how you define "done the most" or "done more than any other nation." Are we defining by total emissions, per capita, per some level of GDP? You would have to provide me a source for your information in order for me to evaluate this point. Any way you measure it doesn't really matter to me. The US is not even close to reaching carbon neutral goals (nor are most countries for that matter) and as a leader in industry and technological innovation I expect better from my country. Actually it is settled and there is evidence of it's large impact. The basic science of the greenhouse effect has been around since the 1820s and scientists have studied man's influence for decades now. Science deals in probabilities at when that probability nears 100% it is considered "settled." For papers on how man has influenced the climate see Manning 2006 for measurement of fossil fuel emissions (their type, impact etc), see Harries 2001, Chen 2007 or Griggs 2004 for direct measurements of anthropogenic climate change via satellites, see Jones 2003, Alexander 2006 or Braganza 2004 for what this means in terms of the atmosphere and lastly see Wang 2009 or Evans 2006 for more on how that impacts the surface. These are just individual papers of course. Now let's look to the broader community of subject matter experts. 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem per the IPCC. Additionally, the following internationally recognized institutions focused on scientific research have explicitly backed the IPCC and/or anthropogenic climate change. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) American Meteorological Society (AMS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) If that isn't international scientific consensus, I don't know what is. Ok and finally we reach the last two points. Firstly, these claims require evidence. I worked as a chemist in a renewable energy laboratory for some time. I have since left and now am much more substantially stable in my current line of work (pharmaceuticals). I can personally attest that the field is not all that lucrative compared to some of the other fields you can enter with a scientific degree (notably pharmaceuticals or petrochemicals for someone with my background). Granted, this is just my experience in searching for jobs but I am sure you can find something that ranks high paying entry level jobs by scientific degree and I doubt renewables will be high on that list. Regarding the political aspect, this assumes that the scientific organizations listed above and the 97% of subject matter experts all have some sort of political ax to grind in presenting their evidence to the world. Once again, this is rather begging the question as to why this is the case and you present no evidence. Regarding young people being taught to live in fear, to be honest, you are partly right. Young people are scared because they are educated to the realities of the science. And they should be. Climate change is not a laughing matter. Evidence suggests that climate change in the past has resulted in mass extinctions on Earth. This is why, as a general rule of thumb, young people tend not to be climate change deniers. They will deal with the impacts and have every right to be worried. This is especially true given the stubborn nature of the political process which is slow to move even under the most dire conditions. However, I have yet to see a study that has shown a causal link between worry over climate change and the impact on the health of young people. Sorry for the long post but I thought I'd deal with some of these rather common objections. Grace and peace to you all.

It seems that the topic has rather exploded since I last posted. Thank you to everyone for their input. I will start by addressing some of ARGOSY's points. Ok. I personally disagree with you regarding the study of evolutionary biology but that is neither here nor there. You are claiming that some bias exists in the field of climate science and this causes the field in it's entirety must be flawed in the interpretation of the data. However, I feel that you fail to prove any bias. Nor do I see a rational reason for anyone (let alone thousands of scientists across multiple continents and languages) to engage in a massive conspiracy to form some sort of international group bias. Your assertion that the science must be wrong because of some intangible bias doesn't seem to have much support. I would not disagree with you if these processes were natural. However, the data does not support such an interpretation. As I mentioned in my previous post, the data supports a causal link between human industrialization and global climate change. Regarding the source data about CO2 emissions from volcanoes and humans please see the following: Kerrick, 2001. "Present and past nonanthropogenic CO2 degassing from the solid earth" Mörner and Etiope, 2002. "Carbon degassing from the lithosphere" Burton, et al., 2013. "Deep Carbon Emissions from Volcanoes" All of these should be fairly to easy to find via a Google Scholar search or another academic journal search of your choice. To me, this last part of your post just seems irrelevant as climate change should be a non-partisan issue. Science is apolitical. I really wouldn't care if people decided to form an international coalition to stop climate change or each country individually made substantially progress towards a carbon neutral economy. This is not a left vs right issue. This is how we preserve the creation we were granted stewardship of and how we protect and help our fellow man in the process. And I'm sorry but looking out at a beach once in a while and noticing no change is about a terrible a scientific argument as saying that the weather was cold this year and therefore climate change does not exist. Yes there is variance depending on where people live. Climate science looks at the whole and judges overall trends. In conclusion, I don't really understand why this issue has become so partisan (especially where I live - the US). Just a decade ago people on both sides of the aisle agreed to work towards a sustainable renewable future and combat climate change in a way that made economic, environmental, scientific and national security sense. I would argue that it is a moral imperative as well. Nowadays, it seems that one cannot bring up climate change without being branded as a tool of the "radical left" seeking one world governance.

Thanks to everyone for responding to my inquiries. I find that it is rather pointless to start a discussion unless I have a decent understanding of what position people are coming from. Let me jump into a few of the points mentioned. I don't begrudge anyone that hasn't read studies on the subject. I have only read maybe two dozen on this subject in any serious detail. I think the question then becomes does one trust the evidence one has read in combination with the consensus of subject matter experts or not. I'm not entirely sure what evolution has to do with the subject of anthropogenic climate change. Although I am sure that there are some evolutionary biologists interested in climate change I personally have not read many papers from evolutionary biologists regarding it. I see no real connection here. Claiming all scientists must be wrong due to you believing evolutionary biologists are wrong is rather throwing the baby out with the bath water. In part, I agree with you here. Scientists are not exactly amazing at communication, especially with those outside their technical field of expertise. I mean I could talk about DESI and MALDI mass spectrometry techniques until the cows come home but it's not exactly a great conversation starter outside of my field of chemistry. So yes, I would say that the evidence has been presented badly. However, I would also say this is somewhat the fault of the 24 hr news cycle as well which always wants to balance out a scientist with a climate change denier when talking about these issues on TV. A better way for the public to understand the consensus on this issue would be to have 97 climatologists on one side of the studio and 3 climatologists on the other. Could communication be better? Certainly. Ok so let's talk about the higher CO2 levels. First let us note that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas but it does get a lot of attention due to it being a byproduct of every organic carbon chain combustion reaction. Now CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis. However, as that news article mentions (and the study mentions in more detail), scientists know that this has diminishing returns at higher concentrations of CO2. This is due to plants needing things other than just CO2 to survive. And yes, the earth does go through historical non-anthropogenic climate change. We even know about this from fairly recent accounts of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. And I agree that we must be careful when talking about toying with natural phenomenon. However, both of these periods occurred before the mass introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via industrialization. Since then, global climate change has dramatically changed from following any natural pattern and the overwhelming scientific consensus indicates that this latest phase of warming is anthropogenic. I actually agree with some of what you say towards the back end of your post. Certainly a population boom has contributed to changes in the climate. This is largely possible due to industrialization and continues to explode the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. China currently has the highest CO2 output in the world and India will almost certainly eclipse the US as number two shortly. And I'm completely in agreement with you that we should work towards improve our renewable status in the world. I am somewhat confused on whole national sovereignty issue. Which agreements do you feel that countries have entered that have given up national sovereignty? I agree that there are certain ways to make data look a certain way if you have no ethics and can do so with the statistics available. This also assumes no peer review process or at the very least a very lazy peer reviewer. In all of these cases, you are rather begging the question as to why scientists would do this, why nothing is caught in peer review and what proof do you have that this is happening. They certainly aren't getting paid off to do it. I mean a simple look at education funding in the US can tell you that. I think someone else has addressed the false claims about NOAA fudging ocean temperature data. If not, please direct me to the study you are referring to and I try to make things clearer. Regarding the Ice Age in the 70s, there were a few isolated reports that there was meant to be a mini Ice Age in our future. This was in part due to a book based loosely in the science of the day called the Cooling by Lowell Ponte and some other popular science articles from that time. Let me be clear, these were in no way compare to the thousands upon thousands of papers published by scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change. It's interesting how people will support a few popular science articles and books from the 70s but deny scientific consensus today. This seems slightly hypocritical. I won't really go into addressing some wild conspiracies about a plot to form a world government as it really doesn't have anything to do with the science and once again is rather begging the question.

Thanks to everyone for replying. I wanted to clarify a few things before I respond to some of the points made. Firstly, are those posting here arguing that climate change does not exist at all or that it is not anthropogenic (linked to human activity) in nature? This is a somewhat important distinction to make as some people favor one approach or another. Secondly, have people actually read any of the scientific studies about climate change? For example, the IPCC reports, studies published by climate scientists in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature, etc. To be clear, I have certainly not read every single one (that would be almost impossible) but I worked in a laboratory that did renewable energy work so I do have some familiarity with the material. If so, what conclusions were drawn from those studies? Lastly, do people believe in some sort of conspiracy by scientists, some failure in modeling or some misinterpretation of the data? If so, could you please elaborate on such a misinterpretation, failure or conspiracy? I hope that by answering these questions, I can better address some of the objections to the science you have presented. Thank you all for taking the time to respond. Grace and peace.

Hello all. I discussed this briefly in the US politics section of the forum but I feel like it has more of a home here where we discuss the intersection of science and faith. I have become deeply concerned of late with Christian (mostly conservative) voices railing against the science of climate change. Things became especially toxic in recent weeks due to the most recent round of UN talks where Greta Thunberg spoke passionately on the subject demanding nations take action. As a result, I thought we may like to discuss climate change and the role Christians should play in trying to limit the impact upon our planet. For me, it is sad to see such an issue become so partisan in the United States when even the previous presidential candidates for the GOP noted the real threat posed by climate change. I also fail to grasp why people are opposed to plans like the Green New Deal or other radical changes in infrastructure and energy consumption in order to preserve the planet. I am even more distraught that many who self-identify as Christian are opposed to taking action to protect our environment. To me, this is part of our stewardship of creation. However, I am always curious and on the look out for differing views. This forum (by and large) tends to have more conservative leanings than the average member of the public and I was wondering why people are objecting to the scientific data.

That's fine. I won't begrudge anyone for a lack of knowledge on any particular subject. The war in Yemen is really complicated with tons of different factions fighting for control. My point really is that you say that you "don't disagree with Trump on anything." This would include his foreign policy decisions. As you've admitted you aren't entirely sure on some of his foreign policy setups. So perhaps we should avoid such absolutes, especially with politicians. There may be some things about Trump that you like but I would hesitate to support all of his policies especially if you haven't read up on them. For example, as you may be able to guess I don't support Trump's policy with regard to the Saudis. However, I am grateful that he is keeping to his promises to avoid armed conflict especially with regards to Iran and North Korea. Despite his verbose language he does not seem inclined towards military intervention in either case which I believe is a good thing.