Mother Nature Still Controls Earths Temperature

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
More "catastrophic doom and gloom" for planet Earth and its inhabitants because of CO2.

Do these biologist realize that CO2 was at a very low concentration for plant life, and the atmospheric increase is showing plant life has had borderline CO2 nutrient deficiency?

You DO realize, don't you, that the article you linked to was dealing with OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, not photosynthetisis, right?

Two VERY different topics. Ocean acidification alters the balance of CO3 2- ion in the water which ultimately impacts the ability of carbonate shell forming and reef building organisms to create and maintain the structure.

I should think this would be yet something else a geochemist would understand.
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
PS: Before moving onto your next anti-warming accusation, can you try to address some of the replies you've received above or people may end up just deciding to put you on their ignore list.

He won't. It is interesting that some of us like your post have raised technical points often directly in Heissonear's supposed area of expertise (geochemistry) but the minute you talk geochemistry to him he clams up and won't respond.

I have some guesses as to why that is. It is ironic that the one thing he WON'T discuss is technical information in geochemistry.

But again, this is what one would expect from someone who is just preaching and not teaching.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Too much water will kill you. So will too much salt, too much oxygen, too much food. Yet all of these are NECESSARY for life.

"It is the dose that makes the poison, and current CO2 levels are still way below the levels at which the earth was at its greenest and most verdant. We need more CO2, not less."

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/...titions-epa-to-list-co2-as-a-toxic-substance/

You're seriously quoting WUWT? Sorry Heissonear, but that is not a scientifically respected source. It's a rant, by non-experts in fields outside their own, all suffering tragic cases of Dunning-Kruger. I say that in the full knowledge that I have a welfare-humanities background, and so can easily suffer this effect myself when discussing technical matters. But here's the thing. I can read, and have read enough climate science to, generally speaking, be able to pick the moment the crazies start coming out of the internet's woodwork. Arguing that we need MORE CO2 for plant health is a half-truth just half-true enough to confuse some people. It's true for some species of plant. But check this out!

Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!”

We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Plants are also vulnerable to various problems if they get too much 'plant food'. It messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/08/the-co2-is-good-for-plants-crock-turns-out-not-so-much/

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htm

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased floods and famines.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
More "catastrophic doom and gloom" for planet Earth and its inhabitants because of CO2.
Do these biologist realize that CO2 was at a very low concentration for plant life, and the atmospheric increase is showing plant life has had borderline CO2 nutrient deficiency?
Oh, CO2 was low, was it? According to what control group? According to what norm? According to what sized sun? Yes, sun. Previous climate epochs in earth's history actually had a younger, slightly cooler sun! The sun is hotter today than it was in the dinosaur era. That needs to be plugged into the equation if you're going to go on about one of earth's super-greenhouse periods in the past (which many scientists are now learning were actually ELE's in their own right!)
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟179,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh, CO2 was low, was it? According to what control group? According to what norm? According to what sized sun? Yes, sun. Previous climate epochs in earth's history actually had a younger, slightly cooler sun! The sun is hotter today than it was in the dinosaur era. That needs to be plugged into the equation if you're going to go on about one of earth's super-greenhouse periods in the past (which many scientists are now learning were actually ELE's in their own right!)

I'm open to learn more and to change my viewpoint on what CO2 can do to Earth's climate. I'm open to such change, if what is presented is true.

I'm not a predictor of the future of Earth's climate, like for 2050 or 2100.

But since a young child, I was raise continuously learning, day by day and year after year, how things came about on Earth through natural forces and processes. That has been my habit and course in life. Show me something about what is naturally happening which is true and I will accept it.

The increase in Earth's temperature during our time on Earth is an extension of forces and processes that has controlled climate in times past. This is the default until proven otherwise.

So does that make me a "denier"?

I'm definitely not a denier that climate changes, that is what has happen on Earth since it began. In stratigraphy it is observed through facies.

In turn, I have not yet seen convincing evidence - clear cut CO2 signature evidence - of Earths temperature now influenced wholely or partially due to >300 ppm or >350 ppm atmospheric CO2. There is no evidence observeable that delineates from natural climate controlling factors of the past.

Where is your evidence that what you claim about Earth's temperature is beyond what the natural can clearly explain?

Melting glaciers? It is from the natural warm period we are in, and I can point to the natural factors inducing such melting.

Everything since the 1800's to the present about Earths temperature can be easily, and I do say easily, explained by natural factors and processes. No CO2 needed.

This position is on past natural controlling factors, that rests on foundational science in explaining what we observe. There is no new hypothesis or estimation or predictions or computer models or men's opinions or judgements needed.

Look at the two graphs below, how natural factors easily show the Modern Warm Period is a continuation of Natural Variability.

This data shows simple tanglible evidence of Earth's trend of warming has been by Mother Nature.

Now Occam's razor, what does it say about competing hypothesis?

How can you state other factors have caused something if you do not FIRST subtract what is happening through continuing natural variability factors?


PDO-AMO_Earth'sTemp.jpg


total-solar-irradiance.gif
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm open to learn more and to change my viewpoint on what CO2 can do to Earth's climate. I'm open to such change, if what is presented is true.
Then why don't you accept things that are true? Please stop repeating 'natural variation' to excuse coal when coal kills 3 million people a year, pollutes our cities, and ultimately will run out! The peer reviewed science shows that all the longer term climate forcings are dormant and the shorter term ones are not explaining the century long trends either.

It's not the sun
Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg


In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
It's not the Decadal Oscillation

PDO_vs_Temp.gif


https://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

By the way, you mentioned the oceans before? Yeah, they're a real concern! The story of 'global warming' should really be renamed the story of 'ocean warming' as they take most of the heat... and belch it out again in super-El Nino's.
image-20150621-3363-rzzyfk.jpg


This all hurts our oceans, and is not good!

“the current rate and magnitude of ocean acidification are at least 10 times faster than any event within the last 65 million years”.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I'm open to learn more and to change my viewpoint on what CO2 can do to Earth's climate. I'm open to such change, if what is presented is true.

So is that why you studiously hand-select only denialist blogs (WUWT) and skeptic scientists like Judith Curry?

I'm not a predictor of the future of Earth's climate, like for 2050 or 2100.

Because science that is "predictive" is silly, right?

That has been my habit and course in life. Show me something about what is naturally happening which is true and I will accept it.

Unless it runs up against your opinions on AGW.

The increase in Earth's temperature during our time on Earth is an extension of forces and processes that has controlled climate in times past. This is the default until proven otherwise.

I believe this has been shown to you numerous times. The fact that you refuse to accept it is actually your "default" position.

So does that make me a "denier"?

Yup.

I'm definitely not a denier that climate changes, that is what has happen on Earth since it began. In stratigraphy it is observed through facies.

Oh my! FINALLY some geology terminology! So why do you think that there's no role for a forcing that involves dumping gigatons of excess carbon into the atmosphere at a rate thousands and thousands of times faster than the absorptive rate of the system and the rate the carbon had originally been sequestered at?

In turn, I have not yet seen convincing evidence - clear cut CO2 signature evidence

That's because the minute any of us utilize earth science or chemistry you clam up and stop responding.

- of Earths temperature now influenced wholely or partially due to >300 ppm or >350 ppm atmospheric CO2. There is no evidence observeable that delineates from natural climate controlling factors of the past.

-sigh-

Yeah, there is. YOu've been shown it multiple times. You just deny it.

If you want people to take your critiques seriously what you should say is: "I've been shown a LOT of data in support of the hypothesis but I simply don't accept it."

THAT would be truthful.

Where is your evidence that what you claim about Earth's temperature is beyond what the natural can clearly explain?

-sigh- Why do people actually respond to this sort of thing after this has all be shown you before?

Melting glaciers? It is from the natural warm period we are in, and I can point to the natural factors inducing such melting.

Is that literally ALL you've gathered from what people have shown you? So you think thousands of individual scientists all over the earth for the past 60 years have developed this science simply based on melting glaciers? Really????

Wow. You really need to read the science.

Everything since the 1800's to the present about Earths temperature can be easily, and I do say easily, explained by natural factors and processes. No CO2 needed.

Actually no, it cannot.

figspm-4.gif


Heissonear: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE THINGS. BEcause if you do it will show that you've seen it.
 
Upvote 0

morse86

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2014
2,215
619
37
✟60,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"Mother Earth" will be destroyed by Jesus. The saints will inherit a NEW earth created by Jesus. One that is free of satanic media.

"Mother Earth's" capstone is Satan. "Mother Earth's" cornerstone is Jesus. The God of this world (the captstone) is Satan. The real God, Jesus, is the cornerstone of this world...he came as a servant the first time.

Satan's right arm is the media/$$$ scientists.

Global warming/cooling/climate change is baaliam (satan) propaganda. The earth has enough capactity and resources until Jesus returns.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So is that why you studiously hand-select only denialist blogs (WUWT) and skeptic scientists like Judith Curry?......If you want people to take your critiques seriously what you should say is: "I've been shown a LOT of data in support of the hypothesis but I simply don't accept it." THAT would be truthful....
Heissonear: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE THINGS. BEcause if you do it will show that you've seen it.

Ha ha! I see what you're doing there. :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"Mother Earth" will be destroyed by Jesus. The saints will inherit a NEW earth created by Jesus.
When you can first get your theology right, then we might consider listening to you about science as well! 'Destroyed' is too harsh, far too harsh, even unbiblical. It usually comes from a heart that says "I don't care about loving my neighbours in how I impact the environment, because this whole world is going DOWN!" It rejoices in the destruction of this world, as if this world itself is bad. But Genesis 1 declared it good! Matter is good, the planet is good, the creation is good. But, you reply, then sin entered the world! For sure. But here's another thing.

Romans 8
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.​

1. The groaning here is bad, and not something we are encouraged to rejoice in, let alone participate in!
2. Creation itself will be liberated, not destroyed, redeemed, just as we are!

God loves His creation. He made it, and it was good. Then we messed it up! Do you think God is pleased with you so sarcastically dismissing global warming? Do you think He rejoices when he sees the potential for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of poor people around the world starving to death because the western world dumped so much coal into the atmosphere in our industrial revolutions? Do you think being SMUG about that potential catastrophe pleases God?

One that is free of satanic media.
Well, there's media and there's media. I don't know what you've been watching, but I'm fine with documentaries on science.

"Mother Earth's" capstone is Satan. "Mother Earth's" cornerstone is Jesus. The God of this world (the captstone) is Satan. The real God, Jesus, is the cornerstone of this world...he came as a servant the first time.
What are you going on about?

Satan's right arm is the media/$$$ scientists.
No evidence here, just paranoia!

Global warming/cooling/climate change is baaliam (satan) propaganda. The earth has enough capactity and resources until Jesus returns.
1. Climate change is not a discussion about resource shortage
2. Climate change is about CO2 increasing the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere in a demonstrable, mathematical way that Joseph Fourier discovered nearly 200 years ago and many Christian scientists and climatologists have confirmed since
3. We have more than enough resources to maintain everyone on earth in a comfortable modern lifestyle (although more based on ecocities and moving people, not cars), but not if we destroy the climate in the meantime!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ebia
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟179,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I asked for tanglible data to quantify what natural factors and processes have contributed to Earth's warming over the past 100 years. What answers did I get?

I recieved copy and paste information from an Eco-Extremism website.

Those who posts such have partnership with Eco-Extremism.

The Rise of Eco-Extremism
by Patrick Moore (1994)


http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/ke...nmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I asked for tanglible data to quantify what natural factors and processes have contributed to Earth's warming over the past 100 years. What answers did I get?
No you didn't - you copied and pasted junk science from anti-climate propaganda. This reply once again fails to deal with the issues and data presented (such as solar insolation dropping off the last few decades and the Pacific oscillation not contributing to warming) and all you have done is call valid scientific data names. It's the intellectual equivalent of blowing raspberries!

Greenhouse gases have well understood, easily identifiable thermal signatures.
Greenhouse gases are easily measured.
Greenhouse gas mathematics is not that hard.
X amount more gases = y amount more warming.
4 Hiroshima bombs per second more, in fact.
Physics + maths
4 Hiroshima bombs per second
Can you disprove this?
4 Hiroshima bombs per second
Do you contest this?
Can you answer the question for once in your life, instead of playing 'hit and run name calling'?
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
"Mother Earth" will be destroyed by Jesus. The saints will inherit a NEW earth created by Jesus. One that is free of satanic media.

So does the "satanic media" do the Evil One's bidding by reminding us that WE actually CAN negatively impact the planet? Is it "evil" to remember that we have responsibilities to our own home?

Satan's right arm is the media/$$$ scientists.

HOW DARE YOU accuse scientists of working for Satan. HOW DARE YOU! Who are YOU to sit at the Right hand of the Father? Who are YOU to judge the quick and the dead?

WHO ARE YOU TO TAKE ON THE MANTLE OF THE PERSON TO WRITE THE NAMES IN THE LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE???
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I asked for tanglible data to quantify what natural factors and processes have contributed to Earth's warming over the past 100 years. What answers did I get?

I recieved copy and paste information from an Eco-Extremism website.

GRIDA in Norway is "eco-extremism"? So you opt to simply ignore the DATA shown because...ummm...you've unilaterally decreed GRIDA to be "eco-extremism" even when they cite actual scientific data?

Those who posts such have partnership with Eco-Extremism.

Of course they are, Heissonear. Just like those of us that try to understand mathematics, chemistry and geology technically are "science extremists" and "information extremists".

To be quite honest, Heissonear, I've seen you post some stuff in other threads that indicates you might have a scientific background of some sort, but the stuff you post on here really doesn't show that same degree of expertise. You seem baffled by the basics in this particular area (which is likely why you won't respond substantively to folks who offer to help you with the earth science and chemistry stuff). For one who didn't seem to understand the concept of "temperature anomalies" as the basis for the global temperature trends or who didn't seem to grasp that condensation was an exothermic phase change, I'm not entirely certain you have the skill necessary to label anyone anything on this topic.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟179,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You're seriously quoting WUWT? Sorry Heissonear, but that is not a scientifically respected source. It's a rant, by non-experts in fields outside their own, all suffering tragic cases of Dunning-Kruger. .

"Non-Experts"? "Outside their field"?

Such are incorrect statements. Face up.

You ploy the current tactics of warmists: degrade your opponents.

Dr. Gray and hundereds of his colleagues he references state the opposite to what you say and those you listen to.

Listen to what Dr. Gray plainly states. And think how you reduce such witness as if nothing.


"I have spent 60 years studying, teaching, and forecasting weather and climate. This lifetime study has convinced me and many hundreds of my older and similarly experienced colleagues that there is no physical way that the expected atmospheric CO2 gas increases over the next 50-100 years can possibly bring about the large amounts of global warming (2-4oC) that has been projected by the climate models. The primary climate change which a doubling in CO2 gas will bring about is not temperature but an increase in global rainfall (~3%) which should be overall beneficial for humanity. Contrary to the current general belief, global temperature rise, due to a doubling of CO2 later in this century, should be expected to be quite small (0.2-0.3oC). Most of the global temperature changes of the last century have been of natural origin. There has been no global surface warming in the last 18 years as CO2 amounts have risen."

Source: http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/dr-bill-gray-responds-to-pope-francis/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"Non-Experts"? "Outside their field"?

Such are incorrect statements. Face up.

You ploy the current tactics of warmists: degrade your opponents.

Dr. Gray and hundereds of his colleagues he references state the opposite to what you say and those you listen to.

Listen to what Dr. Gray plainly states. And think how you reduce such witness as if nothing.


"I have spent 60 years studying, teaching, and forecasting weather and climate. This lifetime study has convinced me and many hundreds of my older and similarly experienced colleagues that there is no physical way that the expected atmospheric CO2 gas increases over the next 50-100 years can possibly bring about the large amounts of global warming (2-4oC) that has been projected by the climate models. The primary climate change which a doubling in CO2 gas will bring about is not temperature but an increase in global rainfall (~3%) which should be overall beneficial for humanity. Contrary to the current general belief, global temperature rise, due to a doubling of CO2 later in this century, should be expected to be quite small (0.2-0.3oC). Most of the global temperature changes of the last century have been of natural origin. There has been no global surface warming in the last 18 years as CO2 amounts have risen."

Source: http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/dr-bill-gray-responds-to-pope-francis/
1. You didn't respond to the 200 year old findings of Joseph Fourier and then the Radiative Forcing Equation. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. I even made the text larger.

2. Dr Gray is the one who slanders opponents.
First, he's not even a climatologist but a weatherman.
Second: Professors that have peer-reviewed his work and respect his work on hurricanes wonder why he always plays the man and not the ball?
Gray has been vocal in his skepticism of global warming and was a featured speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. He also appeared in a 2006 news release sponsored by Tech Central Station.

He has described global warming as a “hoax,” and something that “they've been brainwashing us [about] for 20 years.”

Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review on several of Gray's National Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded.

Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. “Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years,” says Webster. “All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical.” [2]
http://www.desmogblog.com/william-gray
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,485
62
✟570,686.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
When you can first get your theology right, then we might consider listening to you about science as well! 'Destroyed' is too harsh, far too harsh, even unbiblical. It usually comes from a heart that says "I don't care about loving my neighbours in how I impact the environment, because this whole world is going DOWN!" It rejoices in the destruction of this world, as if this world itself is bad. But Genesis 1 declared it good! Matter is good, the planet is good, the creation is good. But, you reply, then sin entered the world! For sure. But here's another thing.

Romans 8
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.​

1. The groaning here is bad, and not something we are encouraged to rejoice in!
2. Creation itself will be liberated, not destroyed, redeemed, just as we are!

God loves His creation. He made it, and it was good. Then we messed it up! Do you think God is pleased with you so sarcastically dismissing global warming? Do you think He rejoices when he sees the potential for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of poor people around the world starving to death because the western world dumped so much coal into the atmosphere in our industrial revolutions? Do you think being SMUG about that potential catastrophe pleases God?


Well, there's media and there's media. I don't know what you've been watching, but I'm fine with documentaries on science.


What are you going on about?


No evidence here, just paranoia!

morse86 said:
"Mother Earth" will be destroyed by Jesus. The saints will inherit a NEW earth created by Jesus."




He is right. Jesus will destroy the whole earth and make a new earth. This will be after the millennial age and the white throne judgement. It is on this new earth that heaven will descend and be forever. God will finally be with His blessed creation.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
morse86 said:
"Mother Earth" will be destroyed by Jesus. The saints will inherit a NEW earth created by Jesus."
He is right. Jesus will destroy the whole earth and make a new earth. This will be after the millennial age and the white throne judgement. It is on this new earth that heaven will descend and be forever. God will finally be with His blessed creation.
JacksBratt,
here's the thing: how are we to think about global warming until then? Because nothing in my bible explains when the Lord is going to return: 5 seconds or 50,000 years? We don't know. In the meantime, it is a social justice concern Christians should have on their radar just like child poverty, slavery, the effects of inappropriate contentography on society, etc. Also, as I said in the following post, I think Morse's emphasis on destruction is downright unbiblical! Yes I know the 2 Peter 3 verses about the heavens being destroyed by fire, etc, but those are apocalyptic images about the judgement of God. Everything in the earth will be 'laid bare', exposed for judgement. No single evil person will escape God's judgement. But here's the thing. That passage is imagery about God's judgement, not about his care for his good creation! As I said to Morse:

When you can first get your theology right, then we might consider listening to you about science as well! 'Destroyed' is too harsh, far too harsh, even unbiblical. It usually comes from a heart that says "I don't care about loving my neighbours in how I impact the environment, because this whole world is going DOWN!" It rejoices in the destruction of this world, as if this world itself is bad. But Genesis 1 declared it good! Matter is good, the planet is good, the creation is good. But, you reply, then sin entered the world! For sure. But here's another thing.

Romans 8
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

1. The groaning here is bad, and not something we are encouraged to rejoice in, let alone participate in!
2. Creation itself will be liberated, not destroyed, redeemed, just as we are!

God loves His creation. He made it, and it was good. Then we messed it up! Do you think God is pleased with you so sarcastically dismissing global warming? Do you think He rejoices when he sees the potential for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of poor people around the world starving to death because the western world dumped so much coal into the atmosphere in our industrial revolutions? Do you think being SMUG about that potential catastrophe pleases God?

Global warming/cooling/climate change is baaliam (satan) propaganda. The earth has enough capactity and resources until Jesus returns.
1. Climate change is not a discussion about resource shortage
2. Climate change is about CO2 increasing the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere in a demonstrable, mathematical way that Joseph Fourier discovered nearly 200 years ago and many Christian scientists and climatologists have confirmed since
3. We have more than enough resources to maintain everyone on earth in a comfortable modern lifestyle (although more based on ecocities and moving people, not cars), but not if we destroy the climate in the meantime!
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,485
62
✟570,686.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
JacksBratt,
here's the thing: how are we to think about global warming until then? Because nothing in my bible explains when the Lord is going to return: 5 seconds or 50,000 years? We don't know. In the meantime, it is a social justice concern Christians should have on their radar just like child poverty, slavery, the effects of inappropriate contentography on society, etc. Also, as I said in the following post, I think Morse's emphasis on destruction is downright unbiblical! Yes I know the 2 Peter 3 verses about the heavens being destroyed by fire, etc, but those are apocalyptic images about the judgement of God. Everything in the earth will be 'laid bare', exposed for judgement. No single evil person will escape God's judgement. But here's the thing. That passage is imagery about God's judgement, not about his care for his good creation! As I said to Morse:

When you can first get your theology right, then we might consider listening to you about science as well! 'Destroyed' is too harsh, far too harsh, even unbiblical. It usually comes from a heart that says "I don't care about loving my neighbours in how I impact the environment, because this whole world is going DOWN!" It rejoices in the destruction of this world, as if this world itself is bad. But Genesis 1 declared it good! Matter is good, the planet is good, the creation is good. But, you reply, then sin entered the world! For sure. But here's another thing.

Romans 8
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

1. The groaning here is bad, and not something we are encouraged to rejoice in, let alone participate in!
2. Creation itself will be liberated, not destroyed, redeemed, just as we are!

God loves His creation. He made it, and it was good. Then we messed it up! Do you think God is pleased with you so sarcastically dismissing global warming? Do you think He rejoices when he sees the potential for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of poor people around the world starving to death because the western world dumped so much coal into the atmosphere in our industrial revolutions? Do you think being SMUG about that potential catastrophe pleases God?

Global warming/cooling/climate change is baaliam (satan) propaganda. The earth has enough capactity and resources until Jesus returns.
1. Climate change is not a discussion about resource shortage
2. Climate change is about CO2 increasing the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere in a demonstrable, mathematical way that Joseph Fourier discovered nearly 200 years ago and many Christian scientists and climatologists have confirmed since
3. We have more than enough resources to maintain everyone on earth in a comfortable modern lifestyle (although more based on ecocities and moving people, not cars), but not if we destroy the climate in the meantime!

You are right, nobody knows when Christ will return and we are stewards of the land. It is always best to recycle, be careful of what we put in our garbage, be prudent when discarding things to the garbage and being environmentally conscious in all our daily actions.....

However, this globe we live on is huge. The Pacific ocean is enormous and controls much of our weather.

To believe that "global warming" or "climate change" is created by our miniscule human activity on this massive globe is just not, imo, possible.

I think it is a multinational farce of propaganda being spawned to take more money from our pockets, guilt people into backing this total joke and construct a political arena for other policies and bogus money transfer between countries..

At any moment there is 1007 years of this age left. Seven years of tribulation followed by the millenial age which will be followed by the white throne judgement. After this, the earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth will be created....

As for what I am doing in the mean time.... living for Christ, spreading the gospel ( as they say "go into all the world and preach the gospel.... sometimes....use words ) being environmentally conscious, and not falling for any evolutionary, climate change or other global farces and lies of man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,306
1,735
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟142,779.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
To believe that "global warming" or "climate change" is created by our miniscule human activity on this massive globe is just not, imo, possible.
Why? Have you asked a Christian climatologist, online, to explain the math to you? Joseph Fourier discovered greenhouses gases nearly 200 years ago. Today's Radiative Forcing Equation shows that CO2, an easily understood gas with easily understood thermal properties, is trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Yes, it is a very massive globe, and so that heat is spread across the planet, working out to be a Christmas light per square meter of surface area.

I think it is a multinational farce of propaganda being spawned to take more money from our pockets, guilt people into backing this total joke and construct a political arena for other policies and bogus money transfer between countries..
Why? I see no evidence of any such thing, and plenty of evidence for that already occurring in oil-related wars and invasions. Alternative energy such as renewables, thorium, and uranium fission are local energy sources funding local construction and energy jobs. What on earth are you talking about? A few poverty relief & solar energy programs to help Africa? As a Christian, shouldn't you be rejoicing in those?

At any moment there is 1007 years of this age left. Seven years of tribulation followed by the millenial age which will be followed by the white throne judgement. After this, the earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth will be created....
I'm Amil, and completely reject that Revelation is a timetable for the future sometime. It has always been relevant to all Christians and ABOUT all Christians, alive and martyred, until the final moment when Christ returns. Read chapter 1. John wanted HIS generation to obey his letter. How do you obey a letter that might be about the year 4000AD? That's nonsensical. Anyway, I'm tired of debating eschatology. There are plenty of Amils in the eschatology thread if you want to discuss that there. We're not meant to be debating that here.

As for what I am doing in the mean time.... living for Christ, spreading the gospel
Yes, spread the gospel, but that also means having an opinion on who to vote and how to live and how to spend your money on a whole range of issues, one of them being how not to trash this planet for the next generation. It's your Christian duty to actually figure this out, and not just make stuff up about it without any evidence.
 
Upvote 0