But they aren’t. They are using climate data over thousands of years.
People die of natural causes all of the time. Does this mean that murder never happens?
There are people who smoke but never get lung cancer. There are people who have never smoked but still get lung cancer. Is this any reason to doubt the findings that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer?
I am not interested in what your assumptions or beliefs are on droughts and climate change. I’m interested in the evidence you feel leads you to them. How do you 1) to justify that droughts are actually increasing in number/ intensity lately and if they are 2) beyond natural variability) and 3) how is that specifically linked to anthropogenic warming? So have you read scholarly journal articles on droughts and climate change or are you jut acquiescing to scientific authority as you see it?
That’s not the problem. You cast doubt on the data itself before any such comparison can be made. You have also built up an excuse even if it is shown that there has been an increase in number and intensity because by claiming that droughts happen naturally.
So why even ask for these comparisons when you have already said that you reject the data itself, and would reject any correlation that was found?
I ninja edited simultaneously as you were replying. If you have evidence present it, if not, there is nothing to see here. I’m not interested in tabloid headlines on climate change that link any and every bad thing that happens in the world to anthropogenic warming. If there is actually good and convincing scientific evidence linking specific droughts in the last few decades to it, it should be easy to present, even if it is difficult for many to understand.
It is true that redistribution plays a role. What goes up must come down but not in the same area or even same region. Wet areas may become more wet, dry areas drier.
A good way to find information (facts) is to search using the key words ‘drought climate change facts’. I could copy some links here but you can get those and more by doing the search.
True, millions of years ago. Information about those times gives a crude picture of what to expect if climate change continues uncontrolled. What we would get is not exactly what happened millions of years ago because continents have changed places, there were different currents in the oceans, etc., but much common anyway.
You have already declared that no amount of evidence can be considered valid.
In other words, you are just spit-balling what you think you heard in the news. Have you even read a single scholarly journal article on this specific issue you are so adamant on educating me about?
Yes, I have. This is why I knew you were wrong when you said they only have 100 years of data. Not only that, but you have already declared that they are biased, don’t have valid data, and can’t possibly be right because “variations”. Why do you ask for evidence that you have already rejected without even seeing it?
Wow. After everything T has been explaining to you - based on journals and scientific evidence … that is your takeaway? That ‘T’ or any other evidence-oriented thinkers around here have been claiming anything like that?! Please actually read and try to understand what people write, Vinnie!
As for determining that individual events are specifically caused by anthropogenic causes (vs. others then not) - that’s like asking which specific cigarette it was that caused a person’s lung cancer. …Or if I was carrying a bucket that was slowly being filled with water as I was carrying it - and I eventually accidentally slosh some water over the edge, it makes no sense to ask which specific water it was I spilled and why. The only thing reasonably certain is that if the bucket hadn’t slowly been filling as fast, then my sloshing it out is a lot less likely and will occur less often.
Yes, climate is always changing and will continue to change.
How will the The Seventh Seals and The Seventh Trumpets mentioned in the book of Revelation Chapter 6 to 10 impacts of climate change? Do you think you can stop it?
Our future is in the new heaven and earth as per Rev 21:1. “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” So, don’t worry about this current earth. No amount of “caring” will help since it will eventually be destroyed. Channel your energy to something that will last forever, The Kingdom of God is at hand. Where are the labourers?
Love you brother. Go preach the gospel for the Lord is coming soon.
Science has not been settled but God has settled science, the world will be destroyed one day.
Added edit: [It only just occurred to me that I launched into a reaction (and quite the critical reaction too!) to your post below, without even first so much as welcoming you to the forum! Sorry for that indiscretion, and for what it’s worth (if you can still receive it from me) - welcome to the discussions. And as you will see, even from me already below here if you haven’t already read it, - you can expect challenge and pushback too, for nearly any position one takes. ]
This kind of ‘rapture theology’ is a fairly recent invention from the last few centuries - and only found real traction in the unique flavor of Dispensationalism that caught hold in the U.S. in the 1800s. And even that has morphed over time and suffered from splintering and infighting among fundamentalists as one can learn about in these recent HolyPost interviews with author Daniel Hummel, who traces through the history of this movement.
The posture of “let it burn because it will all get destroyed anyway” is an unbiblical attitude in the extreme since it entirely mistakes the whole reason for caring in the first place. We don’t engage in labors of love and caring because that will solve all problems for all time. We do it because we care and love God’s creation and God’s people here and now - and want to bless and love them and our children and children-to-be as much as we are enabled to know how and do so. This world is a training ground for us, not a disposable diaper. Even for those who do continue to be excited about “imminent apocalypse”, the scriptures make it pretty clear: If we can’t even be bothered to love our needy neighbors or brothers whom we can see here and now in front of us, then we’re just kidding ourselves that we could possibly be loving God, whom we cannot see. And besides, if we are still unable to free ourselves of these gnostic influences that tell us the material stuff is all comparitively worthless, then at least we might just think of it this way: If we can’t be trusted with even these ‘smaller’ treasures, then who will trust us with heavenly wealth?
In the day of return, should the Master find us faithfully exercising what He commanded? Shepherding and stewarding whatever resources He allowed us to be responsible for? Loving and caring for our neighbors? Or are we going to be found instead letting the house burn down around us because we couldn’t be bothered to care any more? We can build with hay and stubble, or we can build with gold. Sharing the gospel is a great thing indeed. We need to make sure that it actually is the gospel (good news) that we are sharing, though, and that we haven’t turned it into bad news. The Kingdom of God is already here among us, and even though we still long for its full realization and fulfillment, we’re supposed to be living according to that higher law of love here and now.
Rapture-based theology (dispensationalism) has proven to be a shaky (at best) and unbiblical foundation on which to build any kind of fruitful faith. One can only sustain this apocalyptic fever for so many decades or centuries before its disappointments and failed prophecies become of greater use to drive people away from faith rather than drawing anybody towards it.
Who was it that wrote, maybe thee decades ago, that Gorbachev was the anti-Christ? Hal Lindsey?
I’m sure he’s only one of many.
Listened to those Holy Post podcasts last week. They were most informative! Thanks for bringing them to our attention!
Firstly, I am not a Dispensationalist and regardless which view you hold about the 2nd coming of Christ, has not bearing to my point that the current earth will destroyed. My emphasis is where do we channel of our energy. So, how does your reading of history on fundamentalists and Dispensationalism support or not support your concept of “Shepherding and stewarding”? Moreover, “Shepherding and stewarding whatever resources He allowed us to be responsible for?” that you hold to is not the gospel which I am sure you would agree. Otherwise, I doubt you are even a Christian. However, reading your statement, “We need to make sure that it actually is the gospel (good news) that we are sharing, though, and that we haven’t turned it into bad news” actually cast doubt whether you know what the gospel is. Hmmm!
All I am saying is that if the amount of resources and energy that you are spending in “caring for the planet” but instead use the same resources and energy to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ will have far greater impact on the Kingdom of God. I am sure the Master will say to you, “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” Matt 25:23.
So, either you spend money on evangelism, or you spend money to address climate change. We can’t do both!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.