Climate Change

[alien444]

The issue is human directed climate change. To call it "global warming" is perhaps inadequate, though we have seen an escalated warming trend since the industrial revolution--it has been rapid.

That doesn't mean it's going to be 100 degrees F in mid-winter North Dakota. It means that the average temperature has gone up--and continues to go up--resulting in polar ice melts that results in the mass introduction of fresh water into the ocean which can have unpredictable long term effects on ocean currents.

It is entirely plausible that left unchecked it could disrupt major currents that keep much of the world at a more temperate climate, such as the Gulf Stream. That would result in major cooling, rather than warming.

The point is that our industry has--and is--introducing an element that is creating a noticeable, observable, recordable change on global climate. And yes, left unchecked the result could be catastrophic. Catastrophic doesn't mean scenarios like "Water World" or "Day after Tomorrow" which are absurd; but catastrophic nonetheless.

Denying this is stupid.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. Thank you, I just couldn't find the strength.

 

[graceandpeace]

The Christian expectation is for God to fix his good creation, not abandon it as a mistake.
And the Christian calling is to live in anticipation of that, not to collaborate with what is messing things up.

"The physical world doesn't matter - we are escaping that" is the gnostic heresy, not authentic Christianity.

^This.

 

[aiki]

I am very concerned about the multitude of environmental and socioeconomic problems that we are in store for over the next century due to climate change. I am afraid that the majority of Christians see this issue as biblical, therefore believing that there is nothing we can do to intervene, it is not man-made, and that it is part of God's plan. I fear that this way of seeing this issue is going to be a major obstacle in convincing those in power to work toward sustainability. Does anyone agree? Disagree?

Well, I don't know what the majority view of Christians is on these things. As this thread indicates, there is not a uniform stance believers take on environmental issues. I do think the issue of climate change has been made unnecessarily political, which has polarized the thinking of many people about it. Regardless, in light of the fact that the Earth we presently populate will be destroyed in fire and a new Earth will be created (Isa. 66:22; 2Pe. 3:10-13; Rev. 21:1), it doesn't seem to me to be necessary to fuss overmuch about the future well-being of the planet. Now, I'm not saying we should be careless stewards of the world God has given to us. Not at all. We are obliged before God to manage what He has given us well. But the fact that the Earth will one day be "dissolved" ought to temper the Christian's fear for the future of it.

Selah.

 

[KWCrazy]

1)The earth's temperature is neither liberal nor conservative.

No, but people are, and people with agendas manipulate truth and science to further those agendas.

2)Do you seriously believe that 97% of the world's scientists are perpetrating the largest and most complicated conspiracy the world has ever known?

Do you seriously believe that 97% of the world's scientists believe anthropomorphic global warming is an impending catastrophe?

"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with."
source

"A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years."
ibid

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed a load of dung.

3)Climate deniers always accuse others of being gullible when they are being fooled by the most unreliable sources on the internet.

Unlike you, I cited my sources. The fact is that there is no hard date to support AGW. You're repeating a lie.

"The same scientists predicting a global warming catastrophe today predicted global cooling and a new ice age in the 1970s. Climate predictions are based on computer models, in which the extent a variable affects the result is an educated guess. Therefore, by varying multipliers, you can get any desired result. The most often claimed consequence of global warming is that the oceans will rise by one inch in 100 years, and not 3 feet by the end of the century, as Mr. Kerry and Mr. Werrell state.

Werrell also states that the eight hottest years occurred within the past decade. According to NASA, average global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century, but they have not changed during this century. Hurricanes and tornadoes, by actual count, also occur less frequently. Global warming theory predicts wet weather where we now have a drought.

We know that the earth was much colder at one time and we had glaciers covering much of the U.S. There were not enough people to increase greenhouse gases, yet the earth warmed to the extent that Vikings were able to farm in Greenland."
source

The sky is NOT falling, Chicken Little. The Lord has the watch. Rest in peace.

 

[alien444]

But the fact that the Earth will one day be "dissolved" ought to temper the Christian's fear for the future of it.

Selah.[/quote]

It is this view that concerns me aiki.

 

[alien444]

No, but people are, and people with agendas manipulate truth and science to further those agendas.

Do you seriously believe that 97% of the world's scientists believe anthropomorphic global warming is an impending catastrophe?

"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with."
source

"A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years."
ibid

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed a load of dung.

Unlike you, I cited my sources. The fact is that there is no hard date to support AGW. You're repeating a lie.

"The same scientists predicting a global warming catastrophe today predicted global cooling and a new ice age in the 1970s. Climate predictions are based on computer models, in which the extent a variable affects the result is an educated guess. Therefore, by varying multipliers, you can get any desired result. The most often claimed consequence of global warming is that the oceans will rise by one inch in 100 years, and not 3 feet by the end of the century, as Mr. Kerry and Mr. Werrell state.

Werrell also states that the eight hottest years occurred within the past decade. According to NASA, average global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century, but they have not changed during this century. Hurricanes and tornadoes, by actual count, also occur less frequently. Global warming theory predicts wet weather where we now have a drought.

We know that the earth was much colder at one time and we had glaciers covering much of the U.S. There were not enough people to increase greenhouse gases, yet the earth warmed to the extent that Vikings were able to farm in Greenland."
source

The sky is NOT falling, Chicken Little. The Lord has the watch. Rest in peace.

A few things before I go. I cant find the citation but a group of Yale Grad students found that there are more Climate Scientists named Steve than than the number of "scientists" who have signed these highly suspect petitions online.

Do you trust science only when it is convenient: when you take medicine, use technology, drive your car 70 mph, fly in a plane, or have surgery. All of these things would not be possible without the scientific method, scientific consensus, the ethics of scientists, and scientific peer review. You either trust these things or you don't. If you don't trust them, you probably don't understand them.

I started this thread because I wanted to explore the diversity of Christian thought on this issue and I heard from some posters who have not let their political or religious beliefs cloud their judgement, which is great and I thank them. However, I fear your view is the loudest and certainly the most dangerous.

I stopped formally debating climate deniers (and young earth creationists) awhile ago because nothing is ever accomplished and I fear it is bad for my health. Perhaps someone else can take over. Good luck.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is this view that concerns me aiki.

I think there is some trouble that some have with texts such as the following:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2 Peter 3:10

There are some who would read this as a literal description of heaven and earth literally ceasing to be in a grand cataclysmic act.

Others, such as myself, may read this more apocalyptically. That this is fairly typical judgment language. Fire has a tendency to get two not-so-mutually exclusive uses: judgment and purification.

Fire destroys, but fire also purifies. When raw gold is put into the refiner's fire it does two things: it burns up, destroys the impurities and it purifies the gold so that what is left is something better.

Both ideas tend to be found in biblical judgment language that employs the imagery of fire. There is that which cannot last, which cannot endure into the future age because it has no place in God's new creation--all our evil works, all the things we have done and continue to do against one another harming one another. There's no place for that there. There's no place for war, no place for murder, no place for greed, no place for malice. And so all these things will, indeed, be destroyed, burned up. But then what is left on the earth? All that is good and right. God will take us--and creation--through the fire and that which cannot stand will fall, and that which is good will remain. Again, I'm not talking literal fire, fire is the imagery of judgment, it invokes certain ideas.

That is, in fact, why the author of 2 Peter says these things, that since judgment is certain we should be mindful of how we conduct ourselves, because if what is chaff is to be burned up, then we should not live as chaff.

Because if there is going to be a day when all is set right, when God raises up out from the ruin of this present age reigned over by death and evil His good, restored world--that means even the very resurrection of bodies--then whether we are part of this falling, decaying, dead world or whether we are part of God's good, justified world matters a great deal. That is also the distinction, I'd argue, of "Heaven" and "Hell"; are we people who cling to our own self-destructive way, who are so entrenched in our own death and dying that we won't let in even the tiniest ray of light, the tiniest spark of life and thus continue to remain that way? or are we people who will be transformed and brought out from death into life, to come out of the dark and into the light of day, and stand with feet planted on soft green grass, and breath in the cool crisp air of God's good world?

The Christian Gospel, the Christian declaration, is that God has inaugurated that new, good, whole world in and by Jesus, who having died has, in fact, risen and lives as the triumph over death and the firstfruit, the firstborn of the resurrection; and that in Him is found that new, good world; and that in Him God saves, justifies, us taking us out from our death-filled lives into His new, resurrected life. So much so that on that coming day, even this very flesh that hangs off of our bones is going to be restored, renewed, transformed, raised up to life--everlasting life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dcalling]

I disagree. In science majority does equal truth. One person or a group proposes a hypothesis, tests it, publishes the results, and based on the hundreds or thousands of peer reviews and recreations of the experiments, a consensus is reach on whether it is a plausible explanation for a phenomenon.

Truth is truth, no matter how few people believe in it. Just a couple hundred years ago many believed in a flat earth, that doesn't make it true

All the claim of the hocky stick, huge nature disasters, I eventually realized they are based more on emotion. The computer models used to prove global warming are most likely wrong. There was a paper on how water vapors neutralize the warming trend (more heat=>more water vapor=>less sun=>lower temp). And the fact that the earth was much warmer before proves warming is not dangers.

My theory is that we might be heading to global cooling due to human activity. The huge fog in China (and the big fog appears in France too) will have the same effect as the volcanic eruptions during the 1800s, which easily put us in a small ice age. Of course it might be neutralized as well, i.e. cooler=>less human activity=>less fog=>warming up. In my mind cooling is much harmful than warming. Only time will tell.

 

[KWCrazy]

A few things before I go. I cant find the citation but a group of Yale Grad students found that there are more Climate Scientists named Steve than than the number of "scientists" who have signed these highly suspect petitions online.

Since you don't obviously understand the implications behind signing a petition which is contrary to the opinions of the people responsible for your funding, you can't appreciate those who are willing to come out publicly and admit that AGW is a politicized myth.

Do you trust science only when it is convenient: when you take medicine, use technology, drive your car 70 mph, fly in a plane, or have surgery.

Why do otherwise intelligent people resort to such blazingly stupid arguments? The science behind these things is provable, testable and observable. AGW is an anti-establishment political claim that has no solid evidence, which is why the leading researchers had to FALSIFY EVIDENCE! If something is true, you don't need to lie about its evidence. Belief in AGW is pure foolishness.

I started this thread because I wanted to explore the diversity of Christian thought on this issue...

Or, perhaps you were looking for people who believed in you that somehow America and western technology is to blame for all of the world's problems. Sorry, but driving a Prius isn't going to save the planet, it's only going to get your family killed. Stopping the use of coal in America will only put Americans out of work and drive up energy costs for everyone. It's a typical socialist tactic to invent a crisis and make big government regulation the only solution. Sorry, but you guys have absolutely no credibility. You manipulate data and make outrageous claims, and then stand around dumbfounded when its discovered that the polar ice caps are NOT melting.

However, feel free to go back to your own little world where the industrial revolution is the greatest evil in human history and cows have to be fitted with scrubbers to capture the methane from their flatulence. Wallow in your fraudulent junk science and pretend that you are somehow more enlightened than those of us who know better. Pretend that Al Gore is prophet rather than a profiteering charlatan. It doesn't matter. The light of reason doesn't shine on the AGW crowd anyway.

 

[Sketcher]

But the fact that the Earth will one day be "dissolved" ought to temper the Christian's fear for the future of it.

Selah.

It is this view that concerns me aiki.

I really don't see why it should, because that doesn't indicate a "devil may cry" attitude towards pollution. We don't exactly require a sense of panic in order to do the right thing. Moreover, the disagreements about the nature and threat of global warming that I have heard from Christians are entirely secular, not rooted in our faith at all.

 

[oi_antz]

We are obliged before God to manage what He has given us well.

This needs to be emphasized, since it is the first commandment given by God.

But the fact that the Earth will one day be "dissolved" ought to temper the Christian's fear for the future of it.

How and why do you suggest fear for the future of a habitat should be tempered? It implies a dangerous attitude, of burning the bridges we have crossed.

Edit: in the context of this topic, the attitude of concern is more like burning the bridges ahead.

 

[aiki]

But the fact that the Earth will one day be "dissolved" ought to temper the Christian's fear for the future of it.
​

How and why do you suggest fear for the future of a habitat should be tempered? It implies a dangerous attitude, of burning the bridges we have crossed.

As I said, we are to be good stewards of what God has given to us. But this planet isn't going to last. It has an expiration date. To what degree, then, ought we to concern ourselves with its preservation? God's Word tells me that I am to "set my affections on things above, not on things on the Earth." (Col. 3:2) THe apostle Peter explains further:

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

In light of the future dissolution of this planet, Peter urged greater holiness and blamelessness, not a preoccupation with one's carbon footprint. Am I free, then, to make a pig sty out of the environment in which I live? No. But I don't have to freak out every time I'm served coffee in a styrofoam cup, or condemn myself for running the A/C when it gets hot, either.

Selah.

 

[DennisTate]

I am very concerned about the multitude of environmental and socioeconomic problems that we are in store for over the next century due to climate change. I am afraid that the majority of Christians see this issue as biblical, therefore believing that there is nothing we can do to intervene, it is not man-made, and that it is part of God's plan. I fear that this way of seeing this issue is going to be a major obstacle in convincing those in power to work toward sustainability. Does anyone agree? Disagree?

I am a Christian who believes that we humans can do a great deal to stabilize the climate….. For one thing we can support plans to produce food in the desert……

Home - Sahara Forest Project

I really like the analysis of this given by a New Mexico biologist:

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

 

[oi_antz]

As I said, we are to be good stewards of what God has given to us. But this planet isn't going to last. It has an expiration date. To what degree, then, ought we to concern ourselves with its preservation? God's Word tells me that I am to "set my affections on things above, not on things on the Earth." (Col. 3:2) THe apostle Peter explains further:

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

In light of the future dissolution of this planet, Peter urged greater holiness and blamelessness, not a preoccupation with one's carbon footprint. Am I free, then, to make a pig sty out of the environment in which I live? No. But I don't have to freak out every time I'm served coffee in a styrofoam cup, or condemn myself for running the A/C when it gets hot, either.

Selah.

Thanks, that makes it clearer. WRT your question of what degree of concern we ought to have, I say it should be at least the minimum required but ideally the most economical and affordable for every generation. This is compared to the most profitable for our generation, which is the mindset of present cultures that I believe is irresponsible.

You mentioned that the planet has an expiration date, do you know when that might be? It has been some 2,000 years since the idea you are referencing was recorded. Do you think it will certainly not be another 2,000 years in the future?

 

[parsley]

Most Christians I know try to be good stewards of their resources, property, and community. Some have been practicing it for a very long time, well before the topic came up in the news. Not all, of course.

Many people who are active online or reading books have been finding research that shows this is a much broader issue than simply separating plastic and turning out lights. They get irritated that small issues are used to detract from larger ones, and this reaction can be misinterpreted as disinterest.

For example, try to calculate the amount of heat and CO2 generated from activities listed on this page:

List of nuclear weapons tests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or the climate changes that resulted from activities on these pages:

Clients & Projects | Weather Modification, Inc.

Weather Modification Association

Patent US5762298 - Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect ... - Google Patents

 

[1watchman]

Whether liberal or conservative, one must bow to the Word of God; and if one is not saved and made a "child of God" by the new birth, then that one should be much concerned about the end time for civilization and loss for their own soul. Read John 1; John 3; John 14, and see what God has provided for our eternal soul --Heaven or Hell. Salvation and all blessing is found in the Lord Jesus Christ. When saved one need not be worried about the end time and the wrath of God on this world.

 

[alien444]

When saved one need not be worried about the end time and the wrath of God on this world.

Another example of Christian ideas that are dangerous for climate change.
It's this idea that it simply doesn't matter because the world as we know it is going to be changed/destroyed/saved or whatever by God soon anyway. Therefore policies affecting climate change are not really a primary issue for the near future.

 

[KWCrazy]

Therefore policies affecting climate change are not really a primary issue for the near future.

Policies do not affect climate change.
Mankind does not affect climate change.
Anyone who says that AGW is proven science is lying. Nothing has been proven. All the models have failed. After predictions of a coming ice aged the planet warmed, and after predictions of global warming the climate has been cooling for 17 years. The fact that the leading researchers collaborated to falsify research proves that AGW is not scientifically provable without fraud.

Being a good steward of the environment does not include making policies that increase poverty and hardship among the poorest of Americans who lost their jobs because of over-regulation.

AGW is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue fueled by well funded environmentalists wackos and the politicians they purchased with their "donations." For many it's a way to feel good about themselves as they lead retched, ungodly lives and wallow in their own sin. They see their environmental activism as their redemption; showing that they are good people after all. The Lord blessed us with resources we can use to make a better world for all. Unfortunately some wealthy elites want to burn the ladder of success so they won't have to share their lifestyle with Joe Factory-worker who saves and invests his entire life so he can retire with dignity.

Technology has showed us how to feed and protect half the world. In the last 50 years we've dramatically cleaned up the air and water. There was no population bomb. The glaciers didn't return. The ice caps didn't melt. The only thing the extremists have accomplished is that more Americans have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty because businesses have re-located in countries not run by those who sold their souls to the highest donor.

There is no anthropological global warming. God is in control. Rest in peace.

 

[alien444]

Policies do not affect climate change.
Mankind does not affect climate change.
Anyone who says that AGW is proven science is lying. Nothing has been proven. All the models have failed. After predictions of a coming ice aged the planet warmed, and after predictions of global warming the climate has been cooling for 17 years. The fact that the leading researchers collaborated to falsify research proves that AGW is not scientifically provable without fraud.

Being a good steward of the environment does not include making policies that increase poverty and hardship among the poorest of Americans who lost their jobs because of over-regulation.

AGW is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue fueled by well funded environmentalists wackos and the politicians they purchased with their "donations." For many it's a way to feel good about themselves as they lead retched, ungodly lives and wallow in their own sin. They see their environmental activism as their redemption; showing that they are good people after all. The Lord blessed us with resources we can use to make a better world for all. Unfortunately some wealthy elites want to burn the ladder of success so they won't have to share their lifestyle with Joe Factory-worker who saves and invests his entire life so he can retire with dignity.

Technology has showed us how to feed and protect half the world. In the last 50 years we've dramatically cleaned up the air and water. There was no population bomb. The glaciers didn't return. The ice caps didn't melt. The only thing the extremists have accomplished is that more Americans have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty because businesses have re-located in countries not run by those who sold their souls to the highest donor.

There is no anthropological global warming. God is in control. Rest in peace.

Do you just repeat everything verbatim from a a Glenn Beck or Mark Levine broadcast. You can't base a scientific argument on resources from the fringes of sanity. The real "extremists" are the energy companies and elite wealthy who propagate this pseudo-science BS for the internet gullible to spread around like fertilizer hoping that their disinformation will grow confusion in the public. You are a puppet in that game.

 

[oldandslow]

My 2 cents....

I suspect humans impact many things, including the climate. Since I was born back in the 1950's, the population of the planet has doubled. Has it changed things. Oh yeah.

I read a study the other day that said farmers were going to have to produce 40% more food than they do now to feed everyone by the year 2050.

They don't know how to make that happen.

There is an island of trash as big as a good size state floating around the Pacific Ocean. That's new.

You tried to buy fuel, or lumber, or food recently. What you get is watered down or seconds or filled with high fructose corn syrup. And its price tag is beyond comprehension.

I live near a town of about 1500. Last week 56 folks were arrested for making meth. Two of them were just up the road from our farm. That caused me great pause.

Would God allow man to throw enough carbon in the atmosphere to mess it up...Yup.

He told us to live sacred lives - we gave Him Sodom.
He told us to eschew violence - we gave him the world right before the flood.
He told us to be good stewards - we are giving him a polluted planet.

Our entire system is based on created desire, satisfying that desire, and then being confronted with the lack of happiness satisfying the desire brought about. Thus the cycle begins again.

Might this cause climate change? Could be.

But those who would attempt to change it often tickle me in kind of a horrid way. The last climate conference in Rio is a great example. The flights of all the folks who flew there left a larger carbon footprint than the policies they enacted would solve. Governments cannot curb human selfishness. Never has and never will. Indeed, governments tend to engorge it. And once the system of govt becomes too large it takes more and more resources to keep it from collapsing.

Ultimately, I will say this with the most humble heart possible. Only Christ can allow us to become good stewards. His Grace alone. You wanna "save the planet?" Accept him. Become a steward of his world. Christ teaches us to say ENOUGH!

Anyway, I have rambled enough. Thanks for reading.