Climate change, deforestation, mass extinction...

[Zoness]

If one's religious identity is intrinsically attached to a particular partisan political ideology and philosophy that is intrinsically attached to the prosperity of big business, then anything that might be critical of big business gets filtered down the pipeline as a direct attack on one's religious identity.

Because 'Merica.

-CryptoLutheran

That happens a lot here in 'Merica.

Due to this economic motivation there seems to be a relationship between climate change denier's beliefs when it comes to the world in general; most of it is near term "well I am comfortable now so screw later generations" with regards to climate change and pollution in general. "It's not in my backyard so its not my problem" mentality.

 

[MehGuy]

Sadly, I am one of those individuals who do not care about the environment. What is worse is that I am also one of those people who make jokes about how all the bad environmental consequences will not kick in until after I am dead. Usually these comments are met with agreement and applause.

This stems from my upbringing. My family would mock and call anyone a wuss who dared to recycle. The idea of being wasteful and decadent was seen in good humor in my household. I'm not sure why that was.

Although lately I have been making more of an effort to be a thoughtful person, and I am trying to be more concerned about the state of this planet.

Does anyone know of any good documentaries or articles I could watch that would help me become more informed about this topic?

 

[Zoness]

Sadly, I am one of those individuals who do not care about the environment. What is worse is that I am also one of those people who make jokes about how all the bad environmental consequences will not kick in until after I am dead. Usually these comments are met with agreement and applause.

This stems from my upbringing. My family would mock and call anyone a wuss who dared to recycle. The idea of being wasteful and decadent was seen in good humor in my household. I'm not sure why that was.

If I could theorize I'd say its a general attitude in America especially; the best way to show off material wealth is the be wasteful of it. The more waste you produce, the more wealth you have. It's quite an effective psychological idea.

 

[RDKirk]

You didn't answer the question. What is excess fossil fuel consumption?


There is zero conclusive evidence that CO2 level increases impact temperature. In fact, CO2 level increases speed plant growth, leading to a greener planet.

So, all the fossil fuel now in the ground was once on the surface.

Got it.

Consider it the Third Day. There were no humans at that time. There could not have been humans at that time. Got that?

The issue for Christians is one of good stewardship. A good steward of his master's resources, when told of waste, does not ask, "How much is left?" He stops the waste.

Bill Gates has all the money in the world to pay his electric bill, but if I were Bill Gate's head butler, I would still turn off the lights in unoccupied rooms. That's good stewardship.

 

[awitch]

Does anyone know of any good documentaries or articles I could watch that would help me become more informed about this topic?

Search for "Sci Show climate", "Sci Show Fracking" and "Sci Show Gyre" on youtube and you'll get some 5-10 minute long reliable videos.

 

[dcalling]

I have no problem of protecting the environment, the pollution of the ocean, land, I hate to see the forest go.

But I also have problem of put so much importance on global warming and the reduce of CO2. Some of the measure we have done had more harm than good, i.e. massive use of florescent lights that contain mercury??!! We should ban those and use LEDs instead, much better!

Also many scientists abandon their principals and started to fake data... The hackey sticks, the CRU papers. In a few years it is likely we will see all those are not true. The real danger come from global cooling. Did you see that huge smog on top of entire China? In the 1800s one volcano eruption pushed entire earth to a little ice age. Guess whats coming?

 

[dazed]

I have no problem of protecting the environment, the pollution of the ocean, land, I hate to see the forest go.

But I also have problem of put so much importance on global warming and the reduce of CO2. Some of the measure we have done had more harm than good, i.e. massive use of florescent lights that contain mercury??!! We should ban those and use LEDs instead, much better!

This!!! It's no longer big bad companies vs environment. It's big bad companies vs big bad companies with "saving" the environment schtick. It's Green companies vs Non-Green companies, although they maybe the same.

My gov't entered a sweet heart $8 Billion power deal with Samsung. The same Samsung company that produces cell phones and electronic devices that drives up electricity consumption and pollution.

Also many scientists abandon their principals and started to fake data... The hackey sticks, the CRU papers. In a few years it is likely we will see all those are not true. The real danger come from global cooling. Did you see that huge smog on top of entire China? In the 1800s one volcano eruption pushed entire earth to a little ice age. Guess whats coming?

Produce a paper that casts doubt on climate change and you'll be labeled as an oil company's stooge. Produce an alarming paper and you'll be cast in favourable light by tree huggers in Climate Change extortion.

 

[morningstar2651]

If you know better than the climate scientists, why don't you publish a peer reviewed article to prove those egg-heads wrong?

 

[RDKirk]

I have no problem of protecting the environment, the pollution of the ocean, land, I hate to see the forest go.

But I also have problem of put so much importance on global warming and the reduce of CO2. Some of the measure we have done had more harm than good, i.e. massive use of florescent lights that contain mercury??!! We should ban those and use LEDs instead, much better!

You realize, don't you, that LEDs as lighting is a very recent development, while florescent lighting is over 100 years old?

In terms of a debate over energy efficiency, the only reason florescent lighting didn't dominate the market half a century ago is because it has had problems with longevity and responsiveness compared to incandescents.

Also many scientists abandon their principals and started to fake data... The hackey sticks, the CRU papers. In a few years it is likely we will see all those are not true. The real danger come from global cooling. Did you see that huge smog on top of entire China? In the 1800s one volcano eruption pushed entire earth to a little ice age. Guess whats coming?

Which event was that? Europe suffered a "little ice age" from 1300 to the late 1800s. Europe had gone through the worst of the "little ice age" half a century before the Tambora eruption and was well on the way out of it.

 

[dlamberth]

So... how does your religion relate to the devastating effect our post-industrial species has on the planet, and what does it have to say about combating the mess we've created?

In reflecting the spiritual path that I follow, Wendell Berry in his interview with Bill Moyers said it best:

"It’s an article of my faith and belief, that all creatures live by breathing God’s breath and participating in his spirit. And this means that the whole thing is holy. The whole shooting match. There are no sacred and unsacred places, there are only sacred and desecrated places. So finally I see those gouges in the surface mine country as desecrations, not just as land abuse. Not just as…as human oppression. But as desecration. As blasphemy."

As I look upon the face of the earth and what we human beings have done to it, I can especially relate to the blasphemy comment.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This!!! It's no longer big bad companies vs environment. It's big bad companies vs big bad companies with "saving" the environment schtick. It's Green companies vs Non-Green companies, although they maybe the same.

Yes, "greenwashing" exists, but no, this does not invalidate the concerns raised.

My gov't entered a sweet heart $8 Billion power deal with Samsung. The same Samsung company that produces cell phones and electronic devices that drives up electricity consumption and pollution.

See above.

Produce a paper that casts doubt on climate change and you'll be labeled as an oil company's stooge. Produce an alarming paper and you'll be cast in favourable light by tree huggers in Climate Change extortion.

That's not how peer-reviewing works, and that's not how the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change was reached.
But yeah, major corporations like to paint it in that light. I remember that atrocious commercial culminating in the sentence: "They call it pollution. We call it life."
And stupid Americans gobble that stuff up as if there was no tomorrow.

For the rest ("they predicted a new ice age" et.al.), I point you to the link I shared before. None of these counter-arguments hold any kind of water.

NEXT!

 

[gord44]

we're doomed. best get Dennis Quaid on the line.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

we're doomed. best get Dennis Quaid on the line.

Keep on making fun. All the while, we *are* facing a potential global catastrophe, and the signs aren't looking any good.

Here's how one professor of glaciology put it after seeing methane plumes rise from the arctic ocean floor: "If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd."

And we're not talking about silly CGI wolves stalking a flooded and frozen New York. We're talking about an extinction event to rival the Permian-Triassic extinction, where 96% of all maritime species and 70% of all terrestrial vertebrates became extinct.

 

[gord44]

Keep on making fun. All the while, we *are* facing a potential global catastrophe, and the signs aren't looking any good.

I know we are. I don't deny it. I have always said humanity has some serious trouble ahead. Sorry if I am not alarmed by your posts. It's no surprise to me.

 

[gord44]

And don't knock Dr Quaids docudrama.

 

[1watchman]

Wow! This has been a real debate on the obvious decline of mankind in every way; however, God has told us about the decline in His Word, and the obvious scene to me is that we are experiencing a "prelude to the end", as I have often said ---speaking of the Tribulation Time foretold which will come suddenly.

All these things Jane has shown are part of the end-time scene, I see, and will likely get worse. If mankind does not heed the warning signs and start changing to be caretakers of this planet, as told in the Book of Genesis; and start honoring God in morality, ethics, godliness in humility, etc. and faith in God's "...so great salvation" in His beloved Son, there will be no hope.

Judgment is a promise of God and it is not far off, I understand. One needs to get ready, get right, get God and His eternal blessings in Jesus, the Christ of God. Look up and not just around!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Unfortunately, environmental collapse does not operate along the lines of karmic or divine punishment. Biblical eschatology, in spite of all of its grim imagery, seems to be oddly comforting to many people on account of its "poetic justice", so to speak: the guilty will pay for their crimes, suffering will be amended and the scales put right, etc.

Not so with the kinds of disaster we are facing because of pollution, overconsumption and environmental degradation: chances are that the first to suffer will be people who've contributed extremely little to the catastrophe, while the ones who've grown fat and content on overconsumption will be among the last to face any serious consequences. And that's only looking at our own species, not at the complex ecosystems that are on the verge of annihilation at this point.

First world crimes followed by third world victims: that's how most of this show will play out, at least to begin with. In the worst case scenario, none of us will escape unscathed.

 

[Lukaris]

Whoever is able to, support The Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy | Protecting Nature, Preserving Life

 

[gord44]

First world crimes followed by third world victims: that's how most of this show will play out, at least to begin with. In the worst case scenario, none of us will escape unscathed.

Actually lines up with end time thought quite well. I am not a crazy end timer but several passages speak of the 'rich' being 'fattened' for slaughter. The idea is God will allow the sheep to fatten themselves on their spoils for as long as possible. Like a sheep being fattened up before going to the chopping block.

 

[BaconWizard]

Produce a paper that casts doubt on climate change and you'll be labeled as an oil company's stooge.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nobody HAS produced a scientific paper (or very few anyway) because you need proper evidence and to be able to cite scientifically sound, independent studies to do so.

To publish a paper that anyone will read at ALL, requires that the work behind the study can be examined and ripped-apart potentially, and attempts made to replicate it, the maths all checked, the sources checked, sample-sizes checked.... everything checked. Publicly.

That's EXACTLY what happens to a paper when it is published in order to BE scientific. And even after that, the conclusions will not be TRUSTED until others have confirmed it.

People who fear that process, avoid it. ONLY people who fear that process, avoid it. And avoiding it is what studies done by oil-companies etc, have done.

People who want to find the truth, welcome it even if it shows their own conclusions to be wrong. And that means making all those details fully available in the paper. A study paid-for by WHOEVER, is utterly irrelevant to any conclusion the scientific community might reach a consensus upon, if those details are kept hidden.


It is FAR from a perfect system, because some papers are not sufficiently interesting for anyone to take much time over it. If enough time passes without anyone debunking its contents then someone else further down the line who doesn't check their citations properly may assume that it is accepted science when in fact it just got ignored.
That's where it fails sometimes; it can make advancement slower and more conservative than it needs to be, though not seriously wrong in any major fashion and always advancing in roughly the right direction until the truth is inevitably reached.

With one exception: Whatever the unscientific media decides to cherry-pick and turn into a headline without any research. Which of course, is what people who do pseudo-science (ie poorly conducted research that is designed to reach a desired conclusion, not the other way round) want.

That's why people who understand science get science from scientists, not from journalists whose priority is shouting loudly about something or nothing.

So where does that leave us with regard to climate change?

It leaves us with the KNOWLEDGE that the climate is changing and that it is going to be horrendous for our species and for many others upon some of which we depend, if something is not done by those who have the power to do it.