On Language About "Climate Change" and Global Warming" and "Pollution"

[JulieB67]

This is a science forum.

You need to make assertions with evidence.

This is not a science forum.

It's a current news/events forum. And since this is posted on the Christian only forum for news/events and this article is on the political side regarding climate change- I posted God's promise and my beliefs.

Or did you not think that through when you recited the anti-science myths of your cohort?

Not sure where you getting this, I recited nothing but my beliefs. And nothing I've not posted before on this subject. And I'm not anti-science. I think the Bible and science work together quite well. I for one believe in an old earth and so on.

That's not a problem for Christians who accept climate science, as the story does not promise that EVERYWHERE on earth will ALWAYS have good grain supply - as only a few chapters later Genesis itself records doughts and famines that were across the 'whole earth'

Of course disasters happen, famines I happen. I mentioned that. I'm talking about "global" warming and climate as a whole. We are always going to have cold and hot and summer and winter.

If you want to believe this earth will fry before Christ returns that's fine. But after 50 years and more of failed predictions it becomes much easier to put faith God's promises. In the end, we are promised a new earth and I believe only real change will happen then. This earth/age will be a thing of the past. But until then I expect to see hot and cold temps along with summer and winter.

I can still remember being a child in the 70's and everyone claiming California would be in the water by now. Other alarmists at that time predicted an ice age. That was all the rage until the 80's when global warming took off. Also there were rising sea level predictions that had parts of cities under water by now. And they keep moving the goal posts. I think we're at what now? 2030?

One can even google and find that the head of the UN climate panel stated in 2007 that if action isn't taken by 2012, it would be too late. What would happen before that date will determine the future and the list goes on... You can also google 50 years of failed climate predictions. So you can see where many of us just don't buy into it.

As I've said, I'm old enough to have seen quite a few predictions that have failed. But again, if you and others do buy into the belief that before Christ returns we will be in global warming by all means have at it. If I'm still here in 2030 or at some point in the future and the planet looks like what you believe, I will gladly come back and say I was wrong. But so far I'm waking up to a crisp Autumn morning. And living in the mid west of the US I do expect snow this year. (something that was supposed to be a thing of the past by now)

I personally am not destroying the earth and when it comes to politics as this article is about, I will vote my conscience which aligns with "all" my Christian beliefs. We can't just factor on one thing and throw out the rest. But that's for another topic altogether.....

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW-We are on the brink of nuclear war (Russian and Iran have said as much)

Weak nations with nuclear weapons like to take them out on the table, hoping to scare people. Notice how few rational people take them seriously.

 

[HarleyER]

Weak nations with nuclear weapons like to take them out on the table, hoping to scare people. Notice how few rational people take them seriously.

Rational people are not the ones who are going to use them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Weak nations with nuclear weapons like to take them out on the table, hoping to scare people. Notice how few rational people take them seriously.

Rational people are not the ones who are going to use them.

The think about dictators is, they tend to be personal cowards. Putin might be reckless, but he's not crazy.

 

[HarleyER]

Weak nations with nuclear weapons like to take them out on the table, hoping to scare people. Notice how few rational people take them seriously.


The think about dictators is, they tend to be personal cowards. Putin might be reckless, but he's not crazy.

That's what they said about Hitler, Stalin, and many others.

People can always find other people willing to fly planes into buildings.

 

[eclipsenow]

No, what I'm saying is that you and I have legitimate different views on the matters.

That's simply not a truthful reply. It's like Donald Trump saying "There were good people on both sides." Now in their personal lives they might have been good enough to family and friends - but the fact that one half were Nazi's and the other were protesting against Nazi's is NOT the same thing. (There you go - I decided to share the glory of a Godwin's Law with you.)

There's science, and anti-science. You have not contributed anything sciencey - let alone honest.

EG: What did Al Gore ACTUALLY say?
Where is your honest, heartfelt, Holy Spirit desire for truth?
Do not 'quench the Holy Spirit' over this. Where's your conscience at regarding truth?
Have you truthfully quoted Gore? Can you go back, listen to his words, type them out word for word and share them here? All of them - in context - so we know what he actually said?

Also - can you tell us what the latest IPCC reviewed data says on sea-level-rise and what they have found? How they peer-reviewed the 75% claim Al Gore quoted?

Also - courtesy of PBS - just for fun - here's Washington with 5 meters sea-level rise. The White House and Capitol are waterfront properties!

People point to scientists and data. I've worked with statistics and know how they can be manipulated to suit goals and objectives.

The peer review catches this. Remember glacier gate? It didn't overturn how CO2 traps heat. It didn't overturn the FACT that the planet catches an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second of heat. It didn't overturn the seasons changing or glaciers melting or ice caps ACTUALLY retreating, PRETTY MUCH on schedule (no matter how many times you manipulate Gore's words to manipulate the data to manipulate US! Come on! Be honest!) But glacier gate found ONE study submitted to the IPCC was faulty.

Peer review corrected it.

I also know how government and industry works.

Oh - wait a minute - I've got to abandon everything I've learned from peer-reviewed science because some random guy on the internet is about to give me the power of a personal testimony! Please - tell your story....

From a Christian perspective, we are told that this world is going to be destroyed.

You've got your theology wrong there mate. Reformed evangelical theology actually shows that while there are images of 'the heavens melting' (Peter) - the gospel of Jesus death and resurrection is much bigger than saving us individuals (which it does and I'm profoundly, life alteringly grateful for!) Jesus very bodily resurrection - physical meat and all - and then somehow absorbing that up into 'heaven' - that other dimension that is more permanent and real and unchanging than this one - is the firstfruits of the true kingdom of God but ALSO shows how God is going to upgrade this entire universe. "For creation itself groans", etc.

One of the things we are told in Revelation that is a sign towards the return of Christ will be the destructioin of the eco system.

Are you reformed? This next guy has a Phd in Jewish symbolism - please watch! Here's a challenge. Grab your favourite drink and snack, and watch these.
They're only about 11 minutes each. They are BRILLIANT - despite the illustration style.

You think we can save this planet and so you put your trust in men to solve the problem. I think man is corrupt and this is all part of the beginning of the end as foretold in Revelation.

"The end" is NOT foretold - it is promised. That is - Revelation is NOT a time-table of the last 7 years of world history or whatever - or what good has it been to the church for 2000 years? Rather, it describes the Last Days - which we've been in for 2000 years and counting. (Peter's Pentecost sermon from Acts 2). In other words - Revelation describes life generally between Jesus R&R (Resurrection & Return). Some places will have beast governments (North Korea, Russia, China, etc) - and some will be tempted to trust in wealth and security (USA, Australia, etc. I personally think our nations are more spiritually dangerous than areas of persecution! It enables us to become so wealthy, we'll be tempted by wealth to be dishonest with ourselves about a great many things!) So the whole book keeps reminding us of the gospel promise that one day - in 5 seconds or another 50,000 years - we just don't know - the Lord WILL return.

Catherine Hayhoe is an amazing witness in her work - and many environmental crusaders think of her as a hero. The UN gave her one of their highest awards - “United Nations Champion of the Earth!” https://www.amazon.com.au/Saving-Us-Climate-Scientists-Healing/dp/1982143835

She says there are solid biblical reasons to GET STUCK INTO climate activism even as a Christian longs for the new world. One day. We don’t know when. So we have a responsibility to hand over the world to our kids better than the way we inherited it. (Calvin said something similar about a farmer’s responsibility to hand over his fields to the next generation better than they found it!) This is a great episode - and all together a FANTASTIC apologetics podcast as well. I wish more American Christians would listen to it! Good Earth

No matter how much we spend, no matter how many scientists throw their calculataions into the pot, we will not save this planet.

That's like saying we don't have to do anything about slavery - we're not going to save the planet. Or child prostitution. Or a million other things we should care about as well as climate change.

This planet will be destroyed and Christ will return. That is a fact.

The universe will be upgraded when Christ returns. That is the fact.

This is so surreal. I wonder if the scientists have calculated how the atmosphere will handle all the radiation.

Forget the radiation - it rains down in the following 2 weeks and fizzes out pretty quickly after that.

If we had a full scale nuclear war - there would be climate change of a whole DIFFERENT kind to worry about! My page on it actually recommends that Australia do ANYTHING to keep the electricity going - even starting up coal again! This would be a whole different world. We really do have the power to cook or freeze this planet!

There's an irony in the science of all this. The global Warming studies into the Australian mega-fires of 2019 - and how the smoke particulates lofted so high in pyrocumulonimbus clouds - helped refine the data for nuclear Winter climate models. The outcome for the Northern Hemisphere is NOT good! The world loses 360 million in the first hours of the war - but then up to 5 BILLION starve to death in the nuclear winter in the following years. Check the horrible map here. Rebuilding after a full-scale nuclear war

 

[eclipsenow]

This is not a science forum.

Hi JulieB67 - my apologies! I do not know how I found this discussion - and did not realise what forum we are in. Thanks for that - now I'm geniunely feeling less guilty for some of the theology I've discussed lately.
Great to hear you believe in an old earth.

If you want to believe this earth will fry before Christ returns that's fine.

You are misrepresenting what climate science says, and what the Apostle Paul says we should be doing as we wait for Christ to return.
Katharine Hayhoe - climate scientist and evangelical (married to a pastor) explains in under 6 minutes.

But after 50 years and more of failed predictions

Which ones exactly? Unless you quote sources - I'm just going to assume you're quoting your MAGA peer-group.

In the end

When is this exactly? 5 seconds or 50,000 years?
We honestly don't know!

we are promised a new earth

We are. So in the meantime let's just sit back and enjoy our salvation, and not care about whether or not our energy choices kill billions of poor people in the coming decades. Hey - why not increase our coal production so we kill more fellow citizens with coal pollution? That way they face judgement earlier! Aren't we DOING God's work by doing this?

and I believe only real change will happen then.

Your belief is wrong. We can measure this. It is happening now - from melting ice, increasing sea levels, changing seasons - you name it it's happening.

This earth/age will be a thing of the past.

I think it will be more like Jesus body - upgraded for eternity. I don't think we get to be dismissive of God's creation the way you are! It's NOT something we are allowed to dump in the trash can. The Israelites even had laws limiting how many trees they could cut down during a time of war!

But until then I expect to see hot and cold temps along with summer and winter.

Um, yeah. I do to! See Katharine Hayhoe above. (Short version- seasons are based on the tilt of the earth - which climatologist said THAT is going to change? It's just the seasons will be ever hotter.

I can still remember being a child in the 70's and everyone claiming California would be in the water by now.

By now? Do you have the paper that referred to the actual date? What did the original IPCC report from 1990 say about sea level rise?

"That first report was based on findings that if CO2 levels in the atmosphere were to double, this would deliver a global temperature rise of between 1.5C and 5C, with sea levels rising by about one metre by the end of the 21st century."

The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings | Graham Readfearn

Graham Readfearn: The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

www.theguardian.com

Did UN Official Say Nations to Vanish If Global Warming Not Reversed?

An Associated Press article from 1989 is popular among climate-change deniers.

www.snopes.com

Other alarmists at that time predicted an ice age.

People remember media hype, not the state of the actual science. Have you read a summary of climate science from the 1970's? The science was that the majority of papers predicted warming. Indeed, the warming power of CO2 was confirmed by Eunice Foote in 1856.
Only 10% of papers in the 1970's predicted cooling, and of them, lead authors soon retracted their work. It was all a misunderstanding about how much the sulphur in coal reflected sunlight. It's still valid science, and something we might actually use to cool the earth by flying special dust (not sulphur) 20km up to put some very faint ‘sunglasses’ around the earth. But the maths was complex - and the lead author soon admitted he got it wrong.

But the MEDIA went CRAZY with it - and did not reflect what the majority of papers were saying. So NO - climate science did NOT as a majority predict cooling in the 1970s! That's just factually incorrect. What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Indeed, so many predicted warming that movies like Soylent Green showed global warming. The Bell Telephone company reflected the state of the science catastrophic warming way back in 1958!

That was all the rage until the 80's when global warming took off.

Again, who said this when? You've already recited things I know to be alt-right myths.

EG: Harley can't even bring himself to quote what Al Gore ACTUALLY said about sea level rise - because what Gore ACTUALLY said is VASTLY more nuanced and qualified. So he's just gone quiet on his Gore assertions - and not admitted to the forum that he VASTLY exaggerated it.

So how about you? Going to do some research to find a source? Remember - many climate scientists are Christians who care about the gospel just as much as you do. Do you really want to SLANDER them without knowing what they actually said?

And how is the northern ice cap going? Greenland? What's the melt rate each year? How deep are the Arctic ice-sheets? How thick? Is it decades old ice, years old, or most of it regrowing each year? (In other words - getting precarious and thin?)
What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what the science even says about any of this?

One can even google and find that the head of the UN climate panel stated in 2007 that if action isn't taken by 2012, it would be too late.

Well - it depends what you're talking about. "too late" for "what"? Life on earth? Frying the whole planet? Or something more scientific - like preventing us going over 1.5 degrees? (We've got 5 years before we use up the CO2 budget for that - we WILL be crossing 1.5 as we emit 40 GT a year and we've only got 200 GT left in our 'carbon budget.')

Also - did you know that the first head of the IPCC was a Christian? (He has now died and gone to be with the Lord.)

But again, if you and others do buy into the belief that before Christ returns we will be in global warming by all means have at it. If I'm still here in 2030 or at some point in the future and the planet looks like what you believe, I will gladly come back and say I was wrong.

By then we will have passed 1.5 - and could be on the way to 2 degrees if Trump gets re-elected. Do you have kids? Grandkids? Unbelievers are watching how you live, and whether or not you can be honest about this issue that will affect future generations.
Do you value honesty?

 

[JulieB67]

Great to hear you believe in an old earth.

Yes, I definitely believe in an old earth and the Bible I believe agrees with that.

I don't think we get to be dismissive of God's creation the way you are!

I'm not being dismissive. I just believe that God himself knows the timeline of this earth and if he states while it remains, the climate itself will continue to produce cold, hot, summer and winter, I believe that. It's his creation. I don't believe the earth will ever achieve "global" warming to the extant that people believe before Christ returns.

Again, who said this

Well, I'm 57 and have lived through claims that if such and such isn't done in 20 years, etc it will be too late. By such and such time, this will be underwater and the list goes on. When certain dates arrive, the goal posts continue to move. A search on the internet can produce many claims through the years that have failed. If I posted any you would just cite your own sources so it seems pointless no offense.

I'm sorry- I know you're passionate about this as are other Christians but I'm just as passionate about other issues when it comes to politics and my Christianity. Neither side is perfect so I have to vote on my conscience. And my conscience tells me that here in the US, we are constantly moving away from God when we should be moving towards him. We can't even pray at certain times without someone getting offended. But that was all predicted so it's about right on schedule.
Climate aside which we differ on there are many more serious issues that pulls us away from God.

our energy choices kill billions of poor people in the coming decades.

Not to get too off topic -but it's ok to sit back and watch others make purposeful choices that leads the deaths of many (all innocent) on the other side of the spectrum? Sorry but to me that's much worse although you see obviously see that differently.

We're not going to sway one another on this, so in the end, we'll see.

 

[HarleyER]

There's science, and anti-science. You have not contributed anything sciencey - let alone honest.

Thank you for your "honest" appraisal.

here's Washington with 5 meters sea-level rise. The White House and Capitol are waterfront properties!

Since 2000, according to climate scientists, the sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters). So in roughly 25 years, the sea level has risen .5 meters. That would mean that in another 25 years it should have risen to 1 meter. And following this train of thought, that means it should give or take about 350 years to achieve what you've posted.

Climate people no longer like to talk in global warming or global cooling since it simply exposes this folly. So they talk about climate change as were doing here. Now if you are telling me that the world is heating up (global warming), then 350 years should be enough time to save Washington DC-although I will admit why bother. If on the other hand you are telling me that the world is cooling down (global cooling) then I wouldn't worry about it because it will all turn to ice.

So, don't worry. Be happy.

The peer review catches this.

Obviously you have no idea how government contracts or industrial proposals for grants and contracts are written.

Forget the radiation - it rains down in the following 2 weeks and fizzes out pretty quickly after that.

I'm sure the Japanese would like to forget the radiatiton from the Fukushima nuclear power disaster as well as the Russians would like to forget Chernobyl. Neither one of those has fizzed out and probably won't for a long time.

Sadly the radiation from Fukushima is seeping into the ocean and contaminating the fish as well as contaminating the atmosphere by wind and rain polution. Somehow, I think the effects of radiation being spread over the entire globe is far more pressing than CO2 emissions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for your "honest" appraisal.


Since 2000, according to climate scientists, the sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters). So in roughly 25 years, the sea level has risen .5 meters. That would mean that in another 25 years it should have risen to 1 meter. And following this train of thought, that means it should give or take about 350 years to achieve what you've posted.

According to NASA, sea level has risen about 100mm since 2000. Where did you get that 500 number from?

Sea Level | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Really, the locations that are most threatened, are states like Florida, or Mississippi, where many people already live at or near sea level.

And 100 years might sound like a lot. But the reality is that, picking houses and picking buildings up, and moving them inland, is expensive. It's not cheap trying to move a skyscraper or a roadway made of asphalt or concrete.

So, at a rate of ~100 millimeters, or 10 cm or 4 inches, every 20 years.

You would have 1 foot of sea level rise in about 60 years, or less because it's speeding up.

And that's a huge infrastructure concern that in a single person's lifetime, the sea rises by a foot. Or a foot and a half, or even 2 feet, depending on where you live.

And tie that in with storm surges that are already blowing Florida away, and you have a pretty significant problem to deal with.

It's true that people can just get up and walk away when a storm is coming. But whatever housing they had. Whatever cities or towns are built next to the sea, you can basically kiss them goodbye. Or spend a lot of money on concrete walls and expensive water pumps.

We don't even have to debate the topic. We can just observe.

Aside from the 200+ people that had died, there is also a massive amount of economic damage. For people that survived, good luck to them getting help from their insurance companies.

 

[HarleyER]

According to NASA, sea level has risen about 100mm since 2000. Where did you get that 500 number from?

I Googled it. It comes up as part of it's AI Generating tool:

AI Overview​

Learn more…Opens in new tab​

​

The global sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters) since the 2000s. The rate of sea level rise has accelerated in recent years, and is expected to continue to rise:​

...​

Even if global warming were to stop today, sea level would continue to rise. Scientists predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100.​

Please note this last point. Even if you stopped global warming, the sea levels will continue to rise. Of course, this is Google's AI.

"Really, the locations that are most threatened, are states like Florida, or Mississippi, where many people already live at or near sea level."

And yet Florida, at least, is building like crazy. I didn't build in Florida simply because of the hurricanes. Lots of politicians and business leaders (like Bill Gates, Shaq, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi) are buying houses along the coasts and don't seem to be the least concerned. Shaq just recently sold his megahome not because of global warming but simply because he wasn't using it. If the government was really serious about this, they would no longer offer low cost insurance to people in flood zones.

I'm not sure what those videos were from but climate people often uses things like this to "validate" their message. Yet when one examines the data, it is often the case that some place had an "once-in-a-century" river that rose, a hurricane/tornado, or they built in a flood plain. Yet it is touted a "proof" when the actual cause is that people, like New Orleans, bought someplace that was lower than a nearby body of water.

 

[Job 33:6]

I Googled it. It comes up as part of it's AI Generating tool:

AI Overview​

Learn more…Opens in new tab​

​

The global sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters) since the 2000s. The rate of sea level rise has accelerated in recent years, and is expected to continue to rise:​

...​

Even if global warming were to stop today, sea level would continue to rise. Scientists predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100.​

Please note this last point. Even if you stopped global warming, the sea levels will continue to rise. Of course, this is Google's AI.

"Really, the locations that are most threatened, are states like Florida, or Mississippi, where many people already live at or near sea level."

And yet Florida, at least, is building like crazy. I didn't build in Florida simply because of the hurricanes. Lots of politicians and business leaders (like Bill Gates, Shaq, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi) are buying houses along the coasts and don't seem to be the least concerned. Shaq just recently sold his megahome not because of global warming but simply because he wasn't using it. If the government was really serious about this, they would no longer offer low cost insurance to people in flood zones.

I'm not sure what those videos were from but climate people often uses things like this to "validate" their message. Yet when one examines the data, it is often the case that some place had an "once-in-a-century" river that rose, a hurricane/tornado, or they built in a flood plain. Yet it is touted a "proof" when the actual cause is that people, like New Orleans, bought someplace that was lower than a nearby body of water.

Do you not know how to check the source of your AI? Where are you getting that data? Google AI isn't a source, it's just an automated response based on something else.

No wonder you're confused about things, if you don't know where your information is even coming from.

 

[Job 33:6]

I Googled it. It comes up as part of it's AI Generating tool:

AI Overview​

Learn more…Opens in new tab​

​

The global sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters) since the 2000s. The rate of sea level rise has accelerated in recent years, and is expected to continue to rise:​

...​

Even if global warming were to stop today, sea level would continue to rise. Scientists predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100.​

Please note this last point. Even if you stopped global warming, the sea levels will continue to rise. Of course, this is Google's AI.

"Really, the locations that are most threatened, are states like Florida, or Mississippi, where many people already live at or near sea level."

And yet Florida, at least, is building like crazy. I didn't build in Florida simply because of the hurricanes. Lots of politicians and business leaders (like Bill Gates, Shaq, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi) are buying houses along the coasts and don't seem to be the least concerned. Shaq just recently sold his megahome not because of global warming but simply because he wasn't using it. If the government was really serious about this, they would no longer offer low cost insurance to people in flood zones.

I'm not sure what those videos were from but climate people often uses things like this to "validate" their message. Yet when one examines the data, it is often the case that some place had an "once-in-a-century" river that rose, a hurricane/tornado, or they built in a flood plain. Yet it is touted a "proof" when the actual cause is that people, like New Orleans, bought someplace that was lower than a nearby body of water.

Here is my Google AI:.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is my Google AI:.View attachment 355811

By clicking on the little blue circles at the end of the statement, you can read where it's drawing it's response from.

 

[Job 33:6]

And yet Florida, at least, is building like crazy. I didn't build in Florida simply because of the hurricanes. Lots of politicians and business leaders (like Bill Gates, Shaq, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi) are buying houses along the coasts and don't seem to be the least concerned. Shaq just recently sold his megahome not because of global warming but simply because he wasn't using it. If the government was really serious about this, they would no longer offer low cost insurance to people in flood zones.

Have you considered the fact that people might just be unintelligent in terms of where they build houses? Peoples houses get washed into the sea every year in the outer Banks. But that doesn't stop people from wanting beachfront properties.

And it's not all of Florida that is immediately problematic. It's just those along the shores edge.

I'm not sure what those videos were from but climate people often uses things like this to "validate" their message. Yet when one examines the data, it is often the case that some place had an "once-in-a-century" river that rose, a hurricane/tornado, or they built in a flood plain. Yet it is touted a "proof" when the actual cause is that people, like New Orleans, bought someplace that was lower than a nearby body of water.

It's just a fact. Even states like Florida are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on flood mitigation in an effort to deal with these encroaching issues.

And statistically, we know that storms are becoming stronger and more frequent.

Just like every year how you hear about record breaking temperatures. It just is what it is.

Link Between Earth’s Heat and Hurricane Strength Grows

New research further substantiates the connection between warming trends on Earth and hurricane intensity.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[eclipsenow]

I just believe that God himself knows the timeline of this earth and if he states while it remains, the climate itself will continue to produce cold, hot, summer and winter,

Hi again Julie,
Hey – we’re almost the same age! I turn 57 in a month. Nice to meet you.

Anyway, the world already is warming to the extent that climatologists predicted – and then some! The last year it’s actually a little bit ahead of schedule – which I’m hoping is some temporary phenomenon they just haven’t nailed down – not an indication that the overall climate sensitivity is even higher than they think! See – we KNOW CO2 traps heat. This can be demonstrated in any decent physics lab on the planet. Mythbusters have even done it! Eunice Foote did it in 1856 by sticking thermometers in equal glass jars and filling them with different gases and leaving them in the sun together on the same day. Guess what? CO2 was hotter than regular air, and methane even hotter! There’s no debate. It’s just a fact. What is trickier is measuring where that EXTRA heat goes and how fast it will warm the earth’s climate given most of that heat goes into the ocean.

“It's his creation. I don't believe the earth will ever achieve "global" warming to the extant that people believe before Christ returns.”​

Sorry for the length of the next bit - but it's important. It's the bible. The bible does not agree with the way you’re using God’s covenant with Noah. Genesis


Chapter 8: “21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 “As long as the earth endures,​

seedtime and harvest,​

cold and heat,​

summer and winter,​

day and night​

will never cease.”​

But then just FOUR CHAPTERS LATER it 'seems' God DID forget his promise about how ‘seed time and harvest will never cease?”

Genesis 12:10 “10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe.”​

2 words cause immense problems to the way you are reading Genesis 8. SEVERE. FAMINE. Did God’s promise to Noah fail?

Then Chapter 26 starts with “Now there was a famine in the land—besides the previous famine in Abraham’s time—and Isaac went to Abimelek king of the Philistines in Gerar.”

Then in Genesis 41:59: This one is so famous the story became a best selling musical on broad-way. Sing it with me. “Go, go, go Joseph—you know what they say…” (OK – enough of that – I don’t have a great voice.)

This is the mega-famine. One so bad God warned Joseph about it – and he helped save Egypt and set up the Israelites in Egypt. The famine was ‘severe EVERYWHERE’ for 7 years.

DID GOD’S PROMISE TO NOAH FAIL IN GENESIS ITSELF?

Four comments:-
FOCUS: the bible’s immediate focus here is the ‘known world’ of the Ancient Middle East. Again – not the Australian or Chinese or American first nations. Abraham and his family, and what’s happening around them.

GENESIS WORSE THAN CLIMATE CHANGE? Because of the narrow focus of Genesis on the Middle East only as ‘the world’ – it is described as WORSE than anything climate scientists are modelling for this century. Far worse! The whole ‘known world’ to them, for 7 years! But the science roughly models only a 25% reduction in global crop outputs by 2050 – and that’s one of the more ‘negative’ scenarios. So at a surface reading Joseph’s famine is FAR worse than anything climate science predicts!

(Well – it’s not a ‘prediction’ so much as a series of different models. The models cover variables like how much CO2 we end up emitting – because this could change with enough political action or market action as clean energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels!)

CONTEXT: Let’s put Joseph in his context of Genesis – and what Genesis wants to record – and today’s climate science in its context. Genesis is concerned with Abraham and his family. The ‘known world’ is the Ancient Middle East – Canaan and the surrounding nations. Just as the flood was ‘dressed up’ in Chiastic symmetry and the cosmology of the Ancient Middle East, this story of a famine across ‘the whole world’ does NOT contradict God’s promise to Noah because that promise was that he would not send another flood that ‘uncreates’ the WHOLE world.
It's a promise that says there will always be seasons and grain somewhere. Guess what? By 2050 there will still be winter. Still be grain. And still be night and day. Because these things are determined by the tilt of the earth and the fact that we only have one sun, so the other side of the earth will always be dark! Climate science does NOT say we’re going to ‘cook the earth’ to the point where there is NO grain!

REVELATION: What do you make of verses in Revelation about hunger? EG: Revelation 8:7 “7 The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.”

ALL of the grass? Did you know that livestock grazing is across 30% of the land on earth – and is largely grasses and pastureland? Another 4% of the land on earth is used to grow crops like soy that are then sold to American feedlot cattle. 34% of the land on earth. Revelation talks about a massive natural disaster that wipes out all the grass. That’s all the dairy and meat cattle and other livestock, gone! (1/3 of our protein, but only 18% of our calories. But what about crops in this chapter of Revelation?)

Now – Reformed Sydney Anglicans such as myself read Revelation as generally describing life between Jesus Resurrection and his Return – so this imagery could cover any natural disaster that affects the land and farming. Chapter 8 has 5 of the ingredients in Moses 10 curses against Egypt – and the people – like pharaoh – do not repent!

SUMMARY: From Genesis to Revelation – there are famines and droughts and natural disasters through the bible. God’s promise to Noah is NOT that all people will have all their crops come in exactly on time every time. It’s the opposite – a promise against the other end of the scale – that he will not universally wipe out all life and all crops across the entire world the way he did in the Noah story. In other words there is PLENTY of room in the bible for climate change to occur! 25% of the world’s crops by 2050. Do you think Christians should be dismissive to such a thing, and curse our children and grandchildren to such a world?

Well, I'm 57 and have lived through claims that if such and such isn't done in 20 years, etc it will be too late.

I think I've seen this before. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think you're not specifically thinking of climate science and its warnings, but the broader environmental movement. EG: "Greenie predictions that failed." Now - this is a VERY big tent covering all sorts of other issues. Some of them ARE crazy - or at least some of the 'predictions' were! I've written about them. You might be reacting to Doomers. The whole point of my blog is to discourage Doomerism - which I see as having all the dynamics of a secular cult! Tragically I saw this Doomerism convince a young bloke I knew of online to take his own life. This was nearly 20 years ago. I've met with the father to discuss what happened in that 'peak oil' email list. It's why I am who I am, and what I do. It's on my summary page. So if you're talking about failed 'greenie prophecies of doom' like Paul Ehrlich's claims about the Population Bomb - I'm with you!

But this is climate change. It's a new concern to some of the 70's concerns - and it really is urgent. It really is based on old physics we've known for 200 years - that the atmosphere traps heat - and CO2 specifically we've known about since 1856. If you are keen to know the TRUTH - you MUST try and isolate out what you heard about climate change specifically! You've asserted you do not believe climate change because of ITS failed predictions - and now it is up to you to demonstrate why you believe that about climate change specifically.

This is about whether or not you are being intellectually honest with yourself. Whether you're honouring or dishonouring God in this behaviour! So please - literally for the love of God - can you try and find out if what you 'believe' about climate science is actually true? Please - try and do the hard work. Of being honest about what you truly 'know', and how much of that is just from the people around you. I've had to do this in the past - and it gets harder as I get older.

Climate aside which we differ on there are many more serious issues that pulls us away from God.

I actually don't think the government should legislate godliness - but leave us to share the gospel. Government is about the 'least harm' to society.

Not to get too off topic -but it's ok to sit back and watch others make purposeful choices that leads the deaths of many (all innocent) on the other side of the spectrum?

If you're talking about abortion, then
Abortion is about poverty and the fear of it getting worse with an extra mouth to feed, NOT laws written on a bit of paper! Banning abortion does not stop it, but drives it underground and kills mothers as well. Indeed, abortion is 4 times higher in some countries where it is ILLEGAL - simply because the poverty is worse!

Opinion | Anti-abortion activists need to admit the truth: Outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them

Though abortion restrictions are incredibly harmful and coercive in the U.S., they aren't a primary driver in the national decline in pregnancy terminations.

www.nbcnews.com

But the EU has abortion rates HALF America’s! Yet the EU generally has less church going people. Abortion Foes Should Vote Democratic

So what's important to you? Rewriting some words on a bit of paper in Congress or ACTUALLY reducing the number of abortions? To ACTUALLY reduce abortions, try policies that improve the welfare state. Things like - free quality education that increases economic policy and decreases poverty. Universal healthcare that will possibly HALVE America’s excessive, crazy healthcare costs! (Australia has socialised healthcare - the only way to bring costs down!) Healthcare in the United States - Wikipedia

Sex education. Affordable housing for all - although this one requires boldness in policy. It's not just ugly cramped public housing for the very poor. Vienna shows us how to do this.

If America does these things - you'll be well on the way to RADICALLY reducing abortion. Generally speaking - the abortion rate has been falling over time as nations get wealthier. And NONE of this was due to banning it! But look at the figures under the Trump administration - when he cut taxes to the rich and worse - cut government services? Abortion rates went up under Trump!

Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

CHRISTIAN COMMENT: See - if you want to decrease abortion - vote Democrat. If you want to prevent the world from climate change, vote Democrat. If you want to encourage clean energy that will save American lives by reducing pollution, vote Democrat. If you want to bankrupt Putin and other Petro-Dictators across the Middle East by supporting the growth in EV’s - vote Democrat. If you want to be Patriotic and “MAGA” - vote Democrat - as the I.R.A. bill is bringing important manufacturing home to America - especially computer chips and batteries!
But if you want to vote Trump - you’re voting for someone that dozens of psychiatrists have diagnosed from thousands of hours of TV footage as having Malignant Narcissism. (Weirdly experts in narcissism say it’s easier to diagnose someone from behaviour OUTSIDE the clinic - because they can just lie to your face so much it’s tricky to diagnose 1 on 1. Behaviour out in the real world is far more revealing!)

Sure they have other ‘progressive’ things I’m not aligned to as a Christian. Voting is a process one does holding one’s nose. But I’m convinced that voting Democrat with Kamala is “less bad” than voting Republican - ESPECIALLY WITH TRUMP! But that’s getting off topic.

We're not going to sway one another on this, so in the end, we'll see.

So you don't feel ANY conscience about having asserted that climate science made failed predictions - and not actually being able to back that up? Your people are SO Republican you will bury your Christian responsibility to do due diligence on assertions you have made publicly? What if you are wrong? What if it's actually true?

What if the Lord is saddened by the peculiarly white American evangelical culture that just sneers at this reality?

 

[eclipsenow]

Thank you for your "honest" appraisal.


Since 2000, according to climate scientists, the sea level has risen 20 inches (500 millimeters). So in roughly 25 years, the sea level has risen .5 meters. That would mean that in another 25 years it should have risen to 1 meter. And following this train of thought, that means it should give or take about 350 years to achieve what you've posted.

The IPCC models a certain amount of sea level rise, but it excludes things they do not know how to model (yet) like "rapid dynamic shifts in ice". In other words - sudden collapses. Greenland's fresh water ice is melting down through the ice and undermining its contact with the rock shelf below. It creates the risk that kilometre thick ice could suddenly 'slip' into the ocean and melt! But other than this - the models say anywhere from 44 cm in a LOW emissions scenario to about 1 meter by 2100. Sea level rise - Wikipedia

Going on and on about sea-level rise misses the point! By 2050 crops will be down 25%, the global GDP about 18%, and we will have 'Wet Bulb' heatwaves. These are all FAR greater risks than a little sea level rise (which itself is a real social justice issue for low lying countries where a few cm means km's of agricultural land lost!)

Climate people no longer like to talk in global warming or global cooling since it simply exposes this folly. S

It's not folly, it's science that you do not like.
And it has ALWAYS been called "climate science" - the term 'global warming' was a media thing started in the 1980's.
Then, the George W Bush administration decided to change all press releases about it to 'climate change' because it was LESS ALARMING than Global Warming. Now Republicans attack climate science with the charge that "They can't even decide what to call it!" when they're attacking a media term and then a REPUBLICAN PRESS DECISION!

If on the other hand you are telling me that the world is cooling down (global cooling) then I wouldn't worry about it because it will all turn to ice.

Glad to see you know your other Denial myths. You're behaving true to type.

Obviously you have no idea how government contracts or industrial proposals for grants and contracts are written.

Obviously you have no idea how science works. Did you know there isn't a single National Academy of Science on the planet that disagrees with the consensus? Nor any major private scientific organisation?

I'm sure the Japanese would like to forget the radiatiton from the Fukushima nuclear power disaster as well as the Russians would like to forget Chernobyl. Neither one of those has fizzed out and probably won't for a long time.

Sadly the radiation from Fukushima is seeping into the ocean and contaminating the fish as well as contaminating the atmosphere by wind and rain polution. Somehow, I think the effects of radiation being spread over the entire globe is far more pressing than CO2 emissions.

Reactors contain vastly more and DIFFERENT nuclear fuel to nuclear BOMBS. I'm not physicist - but I had to get my head around the 'story' of nuclear power back when I supported it. (Renewables are now a cheaper way to create clean energy.) The fission explosion of a nuclear bomb burns up different nuclear material configured differently to do different things. Basically - the majority of it fizzes out in 2 weeks.

The climate change from a FULL scale nuclear war would be far worse than the 0.5 degrees of cooling we saw from Mt Pinatubo! 5 BILLION people would starve to death in the dark.

Now - when are you going to quote what Al Gore ACTUALLY said to demonstrate that you have the guts to admit you were wrong?

 

[HarleyER]

Do you not know how to check the source of your AI? Where are you getting that data? Google AI isn't a source, it's just an automated response based on something else.

No wonder you're confused about things, if you don't know where your information is even coming from.

Obviously you must be a AI denier.

Apparently it comes from Climate.Gov which states the same thing.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

 

[HarleyER]

Here is my Google AI:.View attachment 355811

You left out this part:

Even if global warming were to stop today, sea level would continue to rise. Scientists predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100.

 

[HarleyER]

These are all FAR greater risks than a little sea level rise (which itself is a real social justice issue for low lying countries where a few cm means km's of agricultural land lost!)

And there in lies the issue and the agenda. Social justice to poorer nations. Globally shifting resources through governments and industries.

It's not folly, it's science that you do not like. And it has ALWAYS been called "climate science" - the term 'global warming' was a media thing started in the 1980's.

I notice how you change the title. "Climate science" has been around since the 19th century. However, global warming was started in 1975 by a book written Wallace Broecker. Climate change in the 1980. Newsweek first ran an article about global cooling in 1975.

Climate science was, at one time, a respectable analysis. It has since be highjacked.

Did you know there isn't a single National Academy of Science on the planet that disagrees with the consensus? Nor any major private scientific organisation?

Of course they don't disagree. Government fund these organizations and if they want money given to them, it has to be for some reason. They aren't going to get funding for just saying the temperature rose 2 degrees last year.

Basically - the majority of it fizzes out in 2 weeks.

How about an dirty bomb hitting a nuclear power plant. You are far more concerned about the climates and "social justice" then you are about the wars that are raging. It is rather surreal.

Now - when are you going to quote what Al Gore ACTUALLY said to demonstrate that you have the guts to admit you were wrong?

No, I'm not wrong. This is the agenda of the World Economic Forum made up of government and business leaders. (Please see https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/7-key-messages-from-new-york-climate-week-in-2024/) One of the agenda is to try to stop what they deemed "misinformation", the same that you are doing here.

Sorry, but you've been hoodwinked.