Climate Change and Conservatism

[angels4u]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Are you suggesting that attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, and their negative effect on humanity, are pointless? I'd like to clarify this before I say anything further. 

Of course we have to stop polluting the earth,we should have done that from the beginning of times,we're seeing the consequences now but don't forget some people are making this topic another religion and they're forgetting God who predicted the end from the beginning ,He will restore and renew this whole earth in His time. The time of His coming is near..  

[thomas t]

9 minutes ago, Alive said:

I did not mention any relative effectiveness, only the efforts

ok. @one.opinion wrote a fantastic comment on this line of thinking. In his opinion Bible requires man to care for nature. It's not about trying. It's about being effective in doing so.

In my opinion, Bible always focuses on the actual implementation of your good intentions (see James 1:22) and never says "just try a bit".

 

 

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, thomas t said:

ok. @one.opinion wrote a fantastic comment on this line of thinking. In his opinion Bible requires man to care for nature. It's not about trying. It's about being effective in doing so.

In my opinion, Bible always focuses on the actual implementation of your good intentions (see James 1:22) and never says "just try a bit".

 

 

I see your point. Have a blessed day.

[The Barbarian]

On 9/29/2019 at 9:12 PM, JustPassingThru said:

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. 

 

The numbers for Tahiti aren't quickly available, but...

Meanwhile, Fiji’s National Climate Change Policy says that it expects global sea level changes to more than double by the end of the century, based on projections from the fourth U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report. The IPPC’s Fifth Assessment Report released in September, however, was even worse, predicting that ocean levels would rise by as much as three feet by the end of the century due to climate change.

The country’s 2012 policy document also notes that average monthly sea levels at the country’s Lautoka tide have been increasing at a rate of 4.6 millimeter per decade since 1993, though satellite observations indicate that the sea level is changing at the faster rate of 6 millimeters per year over the same period.

https://thinkprogress.org/as-sea-level-rises-fijian-village-begins-to-relocate-citizens-4b3eea5d51bf/

 

[angels4u]

They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify Him.Rev 16:9

The earth will get hotter no matter how hard people try to change it.

( I'm not saying we shouldn't do our part to take care of this world as we were told to do.)

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Genesis 2:15

[ChessPlayer]

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. 

On 10/5/2019 at 2:42 AM, ARGOSY said:

My point about evolution is that you are chatting to a community that knows that scientific consensus can be wrong if scientists  are biased . I often read the evidence presented for evolution, and am impressed with the ability to gather data, but not with the interpretation of that data. 

Then you appeal to scientific consensus regarding climate change, when I know how wrong the interpretation can be if one has a bias. 

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. 

On 10/5/2019 at 2:42 AM, ARGOSY said:

I do not support any interference in the natural cycles of earth, and recently there has been a lot of media coverage that mankind contributes a lot more co2 than volcanoes, I would like to see the actual source data so I can interpret it myself, instead of relying on scientists' interpretation which can be wrong.

Sure we may receive short term benefits as plant life flourishes, apparently earth's pollen count is at an all time high. But one doesn't want mankind to interfere in the process of making the earth a healthier place, natural processes are better. 

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. 

On 10/5/2019 at 2:42 AM, ARGOSY said:

Regarding international agreements, I'm not referring to any specific agreement, just the trend to allow international bodies to enforce laws on countries is a worrying trend that should be avoided at all costs. History has proven that when a few people have a lot of power they tend to abuse it, and so power has to be continuously decentralized in order for nations to band together when they see a globalization threat (eg Hitler). Any laws passed on anything that appears to threaten independent  countries having complete sovereignty in all decisions will always be viewed with suspicion. Especially since the climate fearmongers are among the liberal left who support the destruction of borders. The two concepts are pretty scary when presented by the same political party, the likelihood of some megalomaniac running the world increases with any attempt to centralize power. 

So present the evidence succinctly, giving clear simple explanations of the source data and equipment used, and with absolutely no threat of passing international laws, and you may make some inroads. Imagery of the annual ice cap melt along with "scientists say" will definitely not work.

The skepticism is probably largely due to most of us being aware of scientists' clear warnings of rising sea levels the last 30 years and yet when we walk along the beach, the sea levels are the same. The credibility of "scientists say" has been ruined. And this credibility will be further ruined when we enter a new era of improving plant nutrition.

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.

[angels4u]

“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.Gen 8:22

[ChessPlayer]

On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 AM, Alive said:

A couple of points:

1. Climate changes continually

2. Weather is not the same as climate

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.

On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 AM, Alive said:

3. The two biggest contributors to weather and climate are solar activity and ocean currents and we don't have a handle on either.

5. Axis variability may turn out to be a major cause potential (we just don't know)

 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. 

On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 AM, Alive said:

4. The USA has done more to change our emissions than any other nation and continue to do so.

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. 

On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 AM, Alive said:

6. Man-made climate change is not settled science

9. Our present activity changes the balance no more than a large artifact changes the earth wobble.

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. 

On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 AM, Alive said:

7. Man made climate change has both a financial and political aspect to it.

10. Young people are being taught to live in fear and this has affected their health...look around.

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. 

[Alive]

Let's talk in 10 years.

[JustPassingThru]

@ChessPlayer So, ...why don't you refute the 250 years of "scientific" evidence I gave you?