Climate Change and Conservatism

[ChessPlayer]

3 hours ago, Alive said:

Let's talk in 10 years.

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.  

[JustPassingThru]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

...forget the actual proof and evidence to the hoax, ...sure the are, I've given it to you, physical observation for the past 250 years, ...here, I'll post it again, ...not even one (1) tiny millimeter! 

 

Also if you search Google's biased agenda for climate change,  "sinking islands in the South Pacific," you will see the proof of their deception, ...the people living on Fiji, the Solomon Islands and the Marshall islands ALL say their islands are sinking, ...and the "scientific" experts tell the guillible, just like chicken little, ...the seas are rising, ...the sea are rising, ...when actually their islands are situated on the Ring of Fire fault line and they are on the tectonic plate that is going under the other plate that is rising, ...and surprise, surprise, on the plate that is rising there are new islands being formed, ...but climate change "scientific" experts don't bother to report those facts!

People, be warned, ...the Holy Spirit through the quill of Paul told us that at the end there would be a GREAT deception:

Let no man deceive you with vain words (climate change, gender confusion, evolution, etc.), for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.  Eph 5:6

 

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.  Matt 24:24

But it's not possible to deceive the Lord's children, ...because those that rely only on the teaching of the Holy Spirit believe what God has said;

 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb?  When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band,  and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors,  and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.  Job 38:3-11

and,

...when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth; Pro 8:29

Lord bless

[ChessPlayer]

10 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

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

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! 

[ChessPlayer]

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

People, be warned, ...the Holy Spirit through the quill of Paul told us that at the end there would be a GREAT deception:

Let no man deceive you with vain words (climate change, gender confusion, evolution, etc.), for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.  Eph 5:6

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.     

[JustPassingThru]

I gave you the "scientific" number, observer by thousands upon thousands of people over the last 250 years, ...but of course you "take it with a grain of salt," ...because it refutes your agenda, ...big time.

This can't be serious, ...ALL of the islands in the Polynesian Triangle are volcanic, ...some rose above the sea level and some barely reached the surface, they are called islands and atolls, islands have black sand beaches, ...like Tahiti and Atolls have white sand beaches because of the waves breaking up the coral and making coarse sand. 

All of the "studies" you read are paid for, funded by the Globalists to bring about a One World Government, ...it's all a part of the last days agenda explained to us in the Word.

Let me ask you if you believe this "study" about "climate change" ...declared by God Almighty, ...Creator of Heaven and Earth?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb? When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band, and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors, and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.  Job 38;8-11    

...when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth;  Pro 8;29

Edited October 8, 2019 by JustPassingThru

[ChessPlayer]

2 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

I gave you the "scientific" number, observer by thousands upon thousands of people over the last 250 years, ...but of course you "take it with a grain of salt," ...because it refutes your agenda, ...big time.

This can't be serious, ...ALL of the islands in the Polynesian Triangle are volcanic, ...some rose above the sea level and some barely reached the surface, they are called islands and atolls, islands have black sand beaches, ...like Tahiti and Atolls have white sand beaches because of the waves breaking up the coral and making coarse sand. 

All of the "studies" you read are paid for, funded by the Globalists to bring about a One World Government, ...it's all a part of the last days agenda explained to us in the Word.

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. 

[JustPassingThru]

17 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

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 gave you my "source," thousands upon thousands of Tahitians and foreigners "eye" witness over the last 250 years, ...but okay, if that isn't enough, ...if you "see" it will you believe it?

Click on the link

https://www.google.com/maps/@-17.4943706,-149.4940478,176m/data=!3m1!1e3

Do you see Point Venus?

Here's another view.

https://www.moanavoyages.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/P2_08_TAHITI_00388-1.jpg

That Lighthouse was built in 1769!!!

Now will you believe, ...not even ONE (1) tiny millimeter in 250 years, ...how much more proof do you need?

I answered you request, now it's your turn to answer mine...

Let me ask you if you believe this "study" about "climate change" ...declared by God Almighty, ...Creator of Heaven and Earth?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb? When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band, and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors, and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.  Job 38;8-11    

...when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth;  Pro 8;29

Edited October 8, 2019 by JustPassingThru

[ChessPlayer]

2 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

I gave you my "source," thousands upon thousands of Tahitians and foreigners "eye" witness over the last 250 years, ...but okay, if that isn't enough, ...if you "see" it will you believe it?

Click on the link

https://www.google.com/maps/@-17.4943706,-149.4940478,176m/data=!3m1!1e3

Do you see Point Venus?

Here's another view.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-17.4943706,-149.4940478,176m/data=!3m1!1e3

That Lighthouse was built in 1769!!!

Now will you believe, ...not even ONE (1) tiny millimeter in 250 years, ...how much more proof do you need?

I answered you request, now it's your turn to answer mine...

Let me ask you if you believe this "study" about "climate change" ...declared by God Almighty, ...Creator of Heaven and Earth?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb? When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band, and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors, and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.  Job 38;8-11    

...when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth;  Pro 8;29

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.      

[JustPassingThru]

Like the old adage says, ...you can lead a horse to water, ...but you can't make him drink!

I'm done!

[ARGOSY]

11 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

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.

Haha I had to laugh at your comment about anecdotal evidence I saw in another post, it is really quite hilarious. 

You prefer scientific evidence, well if I look at the unchanged high water line in the Harbour over my lifetime of 50 plus years, on a stable continental plate like Southern Africa, I prefer my evidence to your evidence. Sorry you lost that argument, hahaha. 

But I am interested in the studies you have posted will look through them over time. 

Regarding partisan politics, there is a very real danger of internationalization. If you want the world to work together on climate change, you have to structure it as volunteer nations working  independently towards the same goal. Any attempt at coercion will be fought against, the human population is far more at risk from a centralized world government than from climate change and it is liberals working towards that centralization using climate change as the excuse. If one can somehow separate the two issues, then you would gain more support among conservatives. 

So ignore partisan politics at your discretion, but that would ruin the potential of garnering support among conservatives who prioritize national independence. History is full of megalomaniacs wanting to conquer the world, and normally the most evil acts of racism, xenocide etc follow the consolidation of power. The potential of an evil leader doing a mass population cull on the grounds that the ends justifies the means, is more evil than the observed climate change so far. The possibility of increased pollen counts, better nutrition, and coastlines staying exactly the same, and average temperatures growing by 0.5 percent is currently way preferable to the thought that an evil leader could possibly gain international power and decide to cull some less popular race groups. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by ARGOSY