Thi9s explains why the Foundation refused pointblank to help me get my book on Evolution into print because it has Ecology in its subtitle.
Science deniers beware. You can run, but you can’t hide from the Truth and from God. We are all Stewards of God’s Creation.
As there are more and more people, and more and more technology, time is compressed and speeds up.
There is no time left to procrastinate. Christians need to act in faith that they are able to do what God asks them to do, not fear that it will be too expensive.
We are responsible for the pollution, we need to take responsibility for correcting and eliminating it.
I have to wonder why Christianity is the only religion which suffers from these problems (I blame 1 Corinthians 9:9). Judaism has always had laws against ecological destruction (Bal Tashhit). Check out this horrendous, and downright disturbing scholarship from "Apologetics"Press (how this defends the word of God I don’t know):
Here they suggest animals only deserve care for as long as they benefit us:
Is it true that God would have us to be good stewards of the blessings that He has given us, including the Earth and its contents? Certainly. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) teaches this principle, and the Old Testament gives specific examples of how God expected the Israelites to be good stewards of the land and wildlife around them. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:4 indicates that oxen were not to be muzzled while stamping out the grain from the chaff (Barnes, 1997), that they might enjoy the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 5:18). Exodus 23:12 indicates that one of the reasons for the weekly Sabbath day was to give the animals a day of rest. Leviticus 25:1-7 and Exodus 23:10-11 indicate that every seventh year the land was not to be sown or reaped for food, but was to be given a year to recuperate and to provide food for, among others, the animals of the land. So, God expected the Israelites to consider the well-being of the animals, trees, and fields of the land. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us. We should not waste or be destructive with what God has given us. However, note one of the primary rationales for why we should be good stewards of the land. Deuteronomy 20:19 discusses the protocol that the Israelites were to follow in besieging the cities that they would be coming up against in their conquest of Canaan: “When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them; if you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree of the field is man’s food ” (emp. added). Notice that trees that bore fruit were to be left alone in the making of siege equipment. However, what was the rationale for this? They were to be spared due to their role in sustaining human life. Plants, animals, and the Earth are only important insofar as their value to humanity. They are instrumentally good—not intrinsically good (Warren, 1972, pp. 38ff.).
Wow. If this was the only part of Christianity one came across one wouldn’t recognize it as bearing any resemblance at all to the teachings of that Jesus guy.
This was in the spirit of discussing a “balanced” approach in the face of alarmists. Lomborg’s is very much an econocentric perspective on the problem, which I"m sure will rankle the environmentalists-- it’s easy for them to strawman the whole thing. This article from the Guardian is another take.
Economics perspective is needed because even now, policies in Europe that are barely in place are failing. Emissions goals are unreachable despite heavy investment, and the people have rejected the nascent climate change measures as unacceptable when the economy isn’t doing well. What’s plan B?
Loving our neighbors and stewarding our world are of greatest importance and are complexly entwined. I do wish that we can all do our part, inspired by Godly hope and wisdom, fully informed by science.
Can you say more about why you think they are failing? …Is it that they are not entirely by themselves solving the problem?
The reason I ask is because I just finished reading “Madhouse…” (thanks for that recommendation, @Alan_V) (published in 2018), and they are among those critical of Bjorn - and they give good reasons. It wasn’t clear to me when the Guardian article you linked, @James1, was published. But if it represents a more recent change in tone for Bjorn, then perhaps that is good. But even there it sounds like Bjorn is still advocating for ambitious geoengineering solutions that (not surprisingly!) instead of calling for restraint or regulation or anything that involves reduction of carbon output - calls instead for hugely increased intrusion and manipulation of our environment to make all the existing effects okay. In short … corporate ambition gets us into this mess … so what better way to get us out than … even more environmentally-intrusive corporate innovation!
Don’t get me wrong - there is plenty of place for corporate innovation, and much of it is already being worked on in terms of making energy consumption less wasteful and investing in renewable sources - also very much involving corporate innovation and investment [but of the subtractive sort - i.e. reducing the ill-effects of yesterday’s innovations]. But if Bjorn is still railing against that (what’s he got against electric cars, anyway? --has he changed his tone on that yet?) then here is his problem: It’s like if you are a chain smoker and beginning to face breathing difficulties. So you consult a tobacco executive [as one does in these political times, apparently] who proposes to you that we now have the medical technology that we could surgically give you a third lung to help you out. “We’ve never done this before”, he cheerfully informs you, “but medical innovators think they’ve got this figured out! Wouldn’t you be excited to have us try this on you?” You ask, “Wouldn’t it be easier for me just to quit smoking?” Comes the reply: “No - no! - that would just be a waste of time and a lot of difficult and expensive effort on your part, and probably wouldn’t solve your problem anyway. No need to change your habits - let us re-engineer your body.”
In like manner, the “fixes” Bjorn proposes sound [are] scientifically far-fetched and almost certainly bad ideas for any one with an ounce of prudence or caution with regard to our impacts on the environment and their unintended and unforeseen consequences. I’ve not yet seen any compelling or rational argument from Bjorn or anyone on why it is a bad idea to reduce the harm we’re doing as at least a part of the family of needed solutions rather than pursue even more expensive and more risky geo-engineering solutions that seem quite likely to make things worse instead of better. But I’m open to listening. If Bjorn isn’t busy feeding denialism - that’s a good thing at least!
Who exactly are you referring to as alarmists here, the majority of climate scientists? Do you consider IPCC reports alarmist? Many people consider them conservative, because they carefully stay within the constraints of what the science can tell us. So for instance, as far as I am aware scientists can only speculate about whether the behavior of tornadoes will change with global warming. They don’t have enough reliable data over a long enough period of time to make accurate projections yet.
One issue I have with people who argue about the economic impacts of dealing with climate change is that they seem to assume the choices are between continuing as we are and making big changes. Unless you are taking a very short-term perspective, the actual choices are between making big changes now or having them forced on us later when they are least opportune. We should be doing everything we can while we have the time and energy to do so.
So our “plan B” is really an outright failure to deal with the problem in the detail it requires. The most economic solutions are wind and solar power, electric cars, energy efficiency, reducing airplane flights, new methods of producing concrete to capture carbon, reforestation, agricultural methods which sequester carbon, carbon capture and storage, and so on, and we have to do all of them all at once. If we don’t, at some point it will be far too late even to be incrementalists.
I have no problem with predictions that turn out to be incorrect (even if it is a string of predictions that prove to be wrong). But I haven’t seen any analysis of why the prediction is wrong. Repeated failures of the predictions, even when the underlying cause is still present, make me doubt the ability of anyone to make an accurate prediction. And this is needed if we want to judge the efforts to solve the problem.
Hi again. I have good resources for you. Please visit Yale Climate Connections. A guy from this organization spoke at my library some time ago–that’s how I found out about them. They have a facebook page, and if you follow it, you’ll get short bits from them almost each day–such as a mini-podcast that’s a minute or so in length, a news story, or whatever. All in small, easy-to-digest bites.
On facebook you might also follow Katharine Hayhoe (note the spelling of her first name). She also has a youtube channel called Global Weirding.
Finally, you might follow Michael E. Mann on facebook. He recently appeared on PBS Newshour to discuss the role climate change plays in the recent European heat wave. Watch it here; it starts at 10:14.
Michael Mann has actually received death threats!!
Note: these people all have advanced degrees in climatology or other relevant fields.
I don’t think you can make generalizations like this about Christianity. Certainly some groups (e.g. many Evangelicals) reject caring for the environment, but that’s not true of most Christians.
Correction, American Evangelicals. Globally, many Evangelicals consider creation care to be a major area of concern for Christians because of the disproportionate negative effects of climate change, water shortages, and pollution on the poor.
Are you in an evangelical denomination yourself, @beaglelady?
Then we’re fortunate to have members on this site who get out a bit, @Christy.
I can’t think of a group I’m a member of which fosters the same desire to harmonize opinions to the degree evangelicals seem to. In one sense it is laudable in that people don’t kick each other to the curb over disagreements. But the challenge becomes, when a change of position becomes advisable how do you adviocate for that without beings seen as … not sure of the best term … discontents? Of course this site exists as a prime example of what one group of evangelicals are doing to advocate for ways to understand scripture which allows one to integrate a fuller appreciation of science.
I used to be, but now I’m in a mainline Episcopal church in NYC. I take the train there on Sundays, and it’s worth it. It’s a very diverse congregation. And there are a surprising number of lawyers there who aren’t afraid to argue with the clergy! LOL!
The problem is not that no one has explained why the prediction was wrong, but that no one has explained why the projection was probably right. The projection didn’t mean entire nations, actually low lying island nations, would be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000, it meant they would likely be committed to extinction by 2000 because of delayed effects.
The earth is out of energy balance. In other words, even if we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases today, the planet would continue to warm for decades. This is because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, which take time to warm up even as they absorb huge amounts of heat from global warming. Oceans show less heating than land at the surface, but absorb much more. Some estimates of the lag time are between 20 and 30 years, which means the warmth that present amounts of greenhouse gases can capture won’t be reflected in actual temperatures for another 2 or 3 decades, and perhaps longer.
So although the earth has warmed 1C (1.8F) above the preindustrial average temperature, as much as another 0.5C (0.9F) of warming is probably already unavoidable without actively reducing the present concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This means it’s already later than many people think.
Similarly, sea levels will continue to rise for centuries after temperatures stop increasing, since it takes such a long time for the ice sheets to melt.
Even with present concentrations of CO₂, both Miami and New Orleans will be flooded by the ocean. Other cities may be able to build effective sea walls at great expense, but most coastal residents will be forced to retreat in the future. Sea levels will likely continue to rise until 2300, and an extra 8 inches of sea level rise is likely for every 5-year delay in peaking our emissions. Presently 275 million people live in areas which would be committed to flooding at 3C of warming. Land subsidence and gravitational effects of mass ice loss would likely result in an additional several feet of sea level rise along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, above the global average.
If we burn all the known reserves of fossil fuels, the ice sheets may melt entirely over the long run. That would submerge all of the coastal cities in the world. Hundreds of millions of people would become climate change refugees. The economic losses would be incalculable and continuing. If the earth was completely ice free, the sea level would rise around 75 meters, or about 250 feet higher. Of course, such melting would likely take centuries.
Denialists use the complexity of climate science to cast doubt on the findings of scientists, because the general public and often the denialists themselves don’t understand the science.
Christianity is the only faith that desacralizes the universe. If you want science, then you risk humanity trying to use the universe as it pleases.
The problem is not in Christianity, but in the misuse and abuse of science for selfish purposes. The excuse that many scientists, who do not want to curb pollution, give is that they refuse to re-sacralize the universe by recognizing ecology. .
The only thing wrong about this is that the date is a bit off. . The Marshall Islands, an island nation, are disappearing beneath the sea. Climate change is destroying their homes and threatening their culture.
Nice way to move the goal posts. And if correct, since 2000 is 20 years ago, it is too late to do anything now.
The balance is between incoming and outgoing radiation.
Thermal inertia would slow the heating of the oceans and likewise slow the cooling after the atmosphere cooled. Oceans absorb heat only at their surface. This heat would then have to be transported elsewhere.
Painting with a rather broad brush there. There are “denialists” that understand the science quite well.
That’s how I read it too, until @Alan_V pointed out that it doesn’t say the nations will be wiped out by 2000. It says if the warming trend isn’t reversed by 2000, entire nations could be wiped out. The emissions already put out will continue to cause warming, which will continue to raise sea levels:
That is true, but the U.S. has the greatest number of Evangelicals. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist, is actually a Canadian Evangelical. She now lives in Texas and teaches at Texas Tech.
Visit her website here.