Jump to content
ChessPlayer

Climate Change and Conservatism

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

I have become deeply concerned of late with Christian (mostly conservative) voices railing against the science of climate change.

What climate change?

What scientific data?

I'm a Conservative Christian and I live on an island in the middle of the South Pacific ocean, been here 28 years, drive by and work right beside the ocean every day, 365 days of the year, ...I don't know what "scientific data" you have been reading or listening to, ...but in those 28 years, add to them, ...since Captain Samuel Wallis discovered Tahiti on June 23, 1767  and set anchor in Matavai Bay, and 30 years later Henry Nott, Christian missionary sent to Tahiti by the London Missionary Society, also landed in Matavai Bay and founded the first Church on the beach at Matavai Bay, ...AND, there is a monument where the first church was, ...AND, I have visited it many times, ...SO, ...I can "scientifically" tell you, from on hand continuous observation, ...that in the last  252 years the ocean has NOT risen even one tiny little millimeter.  

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Brilliant! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon caused climate change is a out and out lie.. A propaganda campaign used to deceive people on mass..  The major cause of climate change is variation in the Sun's output not Carbon dioxide which is plant food..

And the exploitation of mentally wounded Children like Greta Thunberg is twice as evil as the deception of carbon caused climate change.. Causing children suffering from mental conditions to be traumatized by the lies of climate change should cause revoltion in the stomachs of Christians.. These climate alarmist liars are engaged in Child abuse by indoctrinating kids into believing the world will end in 10 years time.. What EVIL..  These deceivers are coldly using Children effectively like ISIS used innocents,, As human shields..  They put the Children forward so that if you oppose what the children are lead to say then the evil manipulators behind them can accuse you of child abuse.. Yeah Child abusers calling other people Child abusers, How sickening..

Sooner or later reality will defeat the lies of these climate change propagandists.. May those who have taken part in promoting this deception fully repent of this evil when they know their lies have been exposed..

 

 

  • Well Said! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

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. 

 

If you are on the look out for differing views then you should of watched the countless lectures, papers, articles, documentaries, etc against the theory of climate change. Have you seen or read any of the counter arguments to climate change? It doesn't sound like you have. Before you were most likely born science predicted sea level rises along with all kinds of things. None of it came true. There is a vast difference between theoretical science and hard science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 90's the National Academy of Sciences released the only real in depth scientific data I have ever seen on the issue.  At that time they were the beloved poster child of those trying to push this theory on everyone, but when they revealed their findings they became an after thought.  I remember at the time one of the gentleman from that group tried desperately to get a chance to speak on the matter, but naturally since they no longer delivered the proper message the news outlets weren't willing to give them a voice anymore.  According to that study, the data showed mans impact on the climate change was less than one one thousandth of a degree.

The above mentioned study was at that time largely focused on the area of fossil fuel emissions, and I have seen absolutely no trustworthy or scientific evidence regarding that area since.  However, in my own research I have stumbled across some compelling evidence of a way that man has indeed impacted the natural order of things.

From the time measuring temperature has been available, someone has been recording it.  People today will argue that early thermometers were not accurate measurements and such, so I am sure there will still be naysayers but the data we have still supports the theory.  You can go back and look at the records for any city across the United States and see what temperatures were recorded there going back a long ways.  What you will find to be true in every city, is that when roads began to be paved, and concrete was introduced to the surface, the temperature rose significantly.

It makes perfect sense of course.  Grass, trees, and other natural vegetation absorb the sunshine, for them it is food.  Concrete does not do this very well, it heats up of course, but for the most part it is reflecting those rays back into the air.  Shingles on your home do the very same thing, they deflect the rays back into the air.  The only serious impact we have on climate would require getting rid of all the roads, tearing down skyscrapers, and coming up with new roofs for all our homes.  The reason you don't hear about this is because those who claim to care so much about the environment aren't actually interested in doing anything about it.  They will never give up their comforts.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the others here, I am also waiting for the hard evidence that humans are destroying the environment. I find the videos of the annual ice melt unconvincing, even if it accompanies a thin looking polar bear on a bare rock. These images are highly emotive but do not reflect actual trends.

If you live near the coast, every few years you will get a storm surge of high surf during a high spring tide. This does not reflect rising sea levels, I have seen no difference in our local jetties over my lifetime. 

The planet is over populated though, it would be great if countries with high population growth rates could be encouraged to have smaller families. Sure we must look after the planet but not at the expense of national sovereignty, the media is trying to use climate fear to scare each country to sign away our national sovereignty. 

In summary, we lack good data,  instead we are bombarded by emotionalism in this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this climate change hogwash weren't so sad it would be funny, they think cow flatulence is one of the causes, ...just wait, ...yes, climate change is coming to this planet very soon and unfortunately these poor children will experience it, but it's not man made, ...it comes from God, ...ALL of the water, both fresh and sea will be turned to blood and the Sun and Moon will no longer shine and the planet will be plunged into darkness, ...NOW, that's climate change by the One who can actually cause it!

Like Petra sang, ...The whole world needs Jesus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

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. 

 

I'm not a scientist and am not qualified to read scientific studies. Neither will I trust a media article that just states that scientists say this or that. After all scientists say most extant species exist due to evolution even though the fossil evidence shows no great indication of evolution. Nearly every phyla appeared fully formed in the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian without fossil precursor. A thinking man would say that points to a creation event, not evolution. So why can't scientists think for themselves. If the evidence is that phyla appeared, surely that is what the evidence is showing? If scientists can get that so dramatically wrong, they can get everything wrong. 

If the media wishes to present evidence and get us on board, they should present graphs that are easy to read, convincing, and easily convincing that the causes are man made. 

Even so, plants do better with higher co2, and we eat plants. Co2 levels haven't reached peak health yet for humans, the co2 worry is premature, we are better off with higher co2 due to the improved nourishment from eating better plants. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

 

The earth has regularly been through climate change, including melted ice caps. This has been historically natural, not man-influenced. We must be very careful when interfering in that natural process. 

 

Look how easily China dropped their population growth, population is the main cause of the human problem. If Asia, Africa and South America could drop their population growth, this will reduce the human effect on the planet. It is an easily solvable problem, China proved it. 

 

The problem is so multi faceted it is impossible to summarize in a few short posts. But instead of dealing with the multiple facets it seems that the main drive is to reduce national sovereignty by tying all countries into international agreements without presenting the urgency in a logical fashion. It smacks of scare tactics, and no one trusts being frightened into quickly signing away sovereignty through scare tactics. We don't like being manipulated. 

 

The irony is that on judgement day, you may find that the very people who want countries to sign away their individuality, are the very ones who are doing the most to destroy the earth. 

 

I do agree that plastics should be reduced, coal burning reduced, exhaust fumes reduced, and cattle farming reduced. International agreements which gradually improve these over time would be a good thing, as long as they do not challenge national sovereignity. Of course population reduction will naturally reduce all those problems, it's the higher populations that are obviously the highest polluters. 

Edited by ARGOSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

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. 

 

It' been quite some time since this 72 year old was in statistics classes in college, but the main thing I learned in those classes was that if you choose the right data and present it in the best light in whatever you are proposing, you can prove just about anything you care to make an endeavor to do.  That is what they did with the famous hockey stick graph that showed man caused a huge jump in temperature....    it was the method they used to normalize the data.    We caught NOAA fudging their ocean temperatures by picking and choosing which data to use.

   I was here when the climate change was supposed to be another Ice Age....   that was back in the 70' as I remember and there was all kinds of data to prove that also.

So yes I have read through the studies and have been doing so for at least 50 years...   and as the need for power on the global scale grows the supposed disaster of climate change grows much stronger.  Sometimes colder, and sometimes warmer...        Man made Climate change disaster is the grasp for global government which Satan has been attempting since God messed up his little party at the tower of Babel.  This go around it's pushing fear on the world that they are the only ones who can save us...     PFFFT

 

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...