Global Warming

[Dave RP]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally. And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario. Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

And secondly, regarding global warming - humankind throughout its entire history has done nothing but destroy the planet, from killing off species through hunting, to destroying diversity through farming, with appallingly cruel livestock farming techniques and now we are doing ti through technology. mankind has been the driver of huge murderous extinction events, and we are doing it again. We ought to be ahsamed of ourselves, but greed rules.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, there is no absence of sedimentary layers.

Again, of multiple, independend floods at different times in history.

Nobody is denying that floods occur.

The rest of your post just reeks of denial, conspiratory nonsense and a severe dose of scientific ignorance.

Don't have the time nore the energy to plow through that post now though.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again, of multiple, independend floods at different times in history.

Nobody is denying that floods occur.

The rest of your post just reeks of denial, conspiratory nonsense and a severe dose of scientific ignorance.

Don't have the time nore the energy to plow through that post now though.

I never said anybody was denying a flood. What is being denied is that the evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event. The evidence does not disprove it because such events are not limited to following known processes - if Noah's venture was about a flood following known processes then what is "supernatural" about it?.

So asking where is the common layer with matching carbon dating, where did all the water go, where did all the needed water come from, what about fish and sea creatures....all of those questions are relevant to a natural event - floods we can understand and then say look this is what a flood does. But our knowledge of such things tells us nothing about what a supernatural could or could not do.

That is simple fact, not a conspiracy about hidden evidence for a global flood. Just to observe and make best guesses science requires assumptions, sometimes huge ones - like constant rates for things for one example. All of those assumptions are back on the table as soon as we start talking about supernatural events, because we are talking about something that is INTERFERING with the way things would otherwise naturally occur.

The tallest above water mountain is primarily sedimentary rock - limestone I think. That was the only point, not that we have to imagine all mountains covered with water. The story does suggest local mountains are covered by 20 feet. The mountain where the ship came to rest stands at over 12000 feet, so the idea of a "local" flood covering that mountain does not help those who want to see it that way, even if we suggest the mountain, volcanic I think grew after that event. Even small cones are generally several thousand feet and that still does not bode well for a local flood theory. So I think Christians softening on the "global" part need to rethink, well it was probably a local flood as we have no record of any flood ever cresting local mountains. So to me it is global or nothing.

Science of course agrees it was nothing because what we can see does not support what we know about flooding about sedimentary rock in any understandable way for a single 40 day global flood. OK for science, but totally inapplicable to supernatural events. Meaning hat a supernatural event could be a cause for any portion of the sediment layers we can see has not been disproven by evidence.
It is only possible to suggest the evidence does disprove it by insisting that even if God could find enough water (like He needs a source), He can only use the water He "finds" to flood the earth in ONLY one particular manner, a "natural" way, following all the rules we say He must follow (God has to obey are wishes I guess) such that we could then point to the evidence and say there was a global flood. OK, but what if He did not listen to us and our superior knowledge (to Him)?
What if He did it His Way instead?
Now what?
How can we say we would then know what that should look like or what the evidence from it must look like today?
Forty days is a lot of time for God said to have made it all in 7 (that's a joke not meant to be taken so literally)

He also is said to have spoken in terms of erase and wipe out memory of...etc. in reference to the flood.
That sounds like more than just find a bunch of water and drown everything.
Why should we think God is only able to turn on the water but nothing else?
Is our imagination really that limited to insist an Infinite, Omnipotent God is limited in what He could accomplish over forty days(or an instant) and He must play by the rules we observe from the order He gave His Creation?

No one is asking science or anyone to believe in or accept some proof in God or even believe in a global flood. But at least give Christians as well as yourselves some credit for being able to imagine what Omnipotence could do, even if you don't believe in Omnipotence. Otherwise it looks kind of silly to argue that a supernatural global flood has to play by all the observable rules known to us all. How would that be in any sense Omnipotent (other than a water source).

I can accept my inability to point to a single geographic feature, say yep there it is, test it and you'll see that it proves it, I can easily accept that because I believe in God and He is Omnipotent. Likewise by just imagining Omnipotence everyone else should be able to accept that none of the evidence present to us disproves a supernatural has occurred. This is not about making a "proof" for it. It is about the evidence unable to eliminate the possibility however imagined or not that possibility has to be.

 

[Dave RP]

I never said anybody was denying a flood. What is being denied is that the evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event. The evidence does not disprove it because such events are not limited to following known processes - if Noah's venture was about a flood following known processes then what is "supernatural" about it?.

So asking where is the common layer with matching carbon dating, where did all the water go, where did all the needed water come from, what about fish and sea creatures....all of those questions are relevant to a natural event - floods we can understand and then say look this is what a flood does. But our knowledge of such things tells us nothing about what a supernatural could or could not do.

That is simple fact, not a conspiracy about hidden evidence for a global flood. Just to observe and make best guesses science requires assumptions, sometimes huge ones - like constant rates for things for one example. All of those assumptions are back on the table as soon as we start talking about supernatural events, because we are talking about something that is INTERFERING with the way things would otherwise naturally occur.

The tallest above water mountain is primarily sedimentary rock - limestone I think. That was the only point, not that we have to imagine all mountains covered with water. The story does suggest local mountains are covered by 20 feet. The mountain where the ship came to rest stands at over 12000 feet, so the idea of a "local" flood covering that mountain does not help those who want to see it that way, even if we suggest the mountain, volcanic I think grew after that event. Even small cones are generally several thousand feet and that still does not bode well for a local flood theory. So I think Christians softening on the "global" part need to rethink, well it was probably a local flood as we have no record of any flood ever cresting local mountains. So to me it is global or nothing.

Science of course agrees it was nothing because what we can see does not support what we know about flooding about sedimentary rock in any understandable way for a single 40 day global flood. OK for science, but totally inapplicable to supernatural events. Meaning hat a supernatural event could be a cause for any portion of the sediment layers we can see has not been disproven by evidence.
It is only possible to suggest the evidence does disprove it by insisting that even if God could find enough water (like He needs a source), He can only use the water He "finds" to flood the earth in ONLY one particular manner, a "natural" way, following all the rules we say He must follow (God has to obey are wishes I guess) such that we could then point to the evidence and say there was a global flood. OK, but what if He did not listen to us and our superior knowledge (to Him)?
What if He did it His Way instead?
Now what?
How can we say we would then know what that should look like or what the evidence from it must look like today?
Forty days is a lot of time for God said to have made it all in 7 (that's a joke not meant to be taken so literally)

He also is said to have spoken in terms of erase and wipe out memory of...etc. in reference to the flood.
That sounds like more than just find a bunch of water and drown everything.
Why should we think God is only able to turn on the water but nothing else?
Is our imagination really that limited to insist an Infinite, Omnipotent God is limited in what He could accomplish over forty days(or an instant) and He must play by the rules we observe from the order He gave His Creation?

No one is asking science or anyone to believe in or accept some proof in God or even believe in a global flood. But at least give Christians as well as yourselves some credit for being able to imagine what Omnipotence could do, even if you don't believe in Omnipotence. Otherwise it looks kind of silly to argue that a supernatural global flood has to play by all the observable rules known to us all. How would that be in any sense Omnipotent (other than a water source).

I can accept my inability to point to a single geographic feature, say yep there it is, test it and you'll see that it proves it, I can easily accept that because I believe in God and He is Omnipotent. Likewise by just imagining Omnipotence everyone else should be able to accept that none of the evidence present to us disproves a supernatural has occurred. This is not about making a "proof" for it. It is about the evidence unable to eliminate the possibility however imagined or not that possibility has to be.

You've summed it all up very nicely I think. Christians believe in God, God is all powerful and can do whatever he chooses in whatever manner he chooses. Hence God could "make" all the water necessary for a global flood of whatever size, and the could make the water go away and then he could if so chose to, disguise all the evidence for the flood so that it can't be "proven" and must there be believed by faith alone. That's the deep down fundamental difference between Theist and Atheist, for believers God can do anything he wants and in any way he wants, Atheists don't believe in God therefore all the stories must either be myths, or misinterpreted natural events. Personally I think there were large floods in prehistory, caused by natural phenomena which found their way into religious stories and got inflated over time till a global flood story got written down. My evidence for this, nothing - but as God doesn't exist, that seems a reasonable theory to have.

 

[Gene2memE]

I never said anybody was denying a flood. What is being denied is that the evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event. The evidence does not disprove it because such events are not limited to following known processes - if Noah's venture was about a flood following known processes then what is "supernatural" about it?.

Logically, if evidence cannot disprove a supernatural event, then the corollary is also true: evidence cannot support a supernatural event.

I understand that you're referencing science, and its necessary limitation to methodological naturalism, so this references purely physical evidence from the natural world.

However, to my thinking, it leaves those who support the notion of a Biblical-style global flood holding an untenable position.

To quote David Hume "A wise man apportions his belief to the evidence". That is to say, belief in the truth of a proposition should be withheld until there is some evidence to support it. The stronger the evidence for or against a claim, the greater or lesser your acceptance of it.

By arguing that an event that effects the natural world can leave no evidence behind in the natural world, you are in essence arguing that no-one should ever accept such a claim. After all, if there is no evidence to support it, there can be no assessment of whether it is true or not.

Thus, if "evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event", as you argue, and it cannot support a supernatural event, as I believe your argument implies, I see it htat you have three options.

If you wish to treat all claims as of equal merit:

You can believe all supernatural claims.
You can disbelieve all supernatural claims.
Or you can withhold your belief until some form of evidence does come along.

I feel the first position is the weakest, as it leads you to believe fundamentally contradictory claims. For example, almost all religions include a supernatural origin for the beginning of the universe, the creation of the world and of mankind. Many, if not all, of these claims are mutually exclusive - the universe and the earth cannot be created in six days by the deity of Jewish monotheism, as well as being formed from the void by the Great Rainbow Serpent and born from the Cosmic Egg all at the same time.

I also feel that if you argue that flood of Noah happened, and was a supernatural event that does not leave behind evidence like a natural event, then you are arguing for the first case.

If you wish to be consistent, that thinking should be equally valid to the claims of holy books other than the Bible. Unless, you have other, valid reasons not to believe those claims.

For example, in the Koran, it is claimed that the moon was split in half and then reformed as a miracle to convince non-believers. This is a supernatural claim, and one without physical evidence to support it. We've been to the moon and we've mapped its surface and we've found no evidence of it even being cleft in half and reformed.

By your standard of evidence though, this is immaterial. As a supernatural event such as this leaves behind no evidence, then it doesn't matter. By your standards, the claim stands.

This, I am thinking, would lead to all manner of confusion. All supernatural claims are unverifiable, therefore equally (in)valid, therefore equally worthy of (non)belief.

I will finish with a question: To a skeptic, what's the difference between a supernatural event that didn't leave behind any evidence, and no event at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said anybody was denying a flood. What is being denied is that the evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event.

Nothing can disprove "supernatural events", because it is a practical impossibility to disprove unfalsifiable claims. The fact that they are unfalsifiable, makes them indistinguishable from non-existance.

Unfalsifiable claims, furthermore, are infinite in number and therefor meaningless.

The evidence does not disprove it because such events are not limited to following known processes - if Noah's venture was about a flood following known processes then what is "supernatural" about it?.

Nevermind the cause being supernatural or otherwise, flooding is a physical event leaving physical evidence.

If all physical evidence points to such a flood never having occured, and if you wish to clinge to the story anyway, then you are forced to also claim that "god" manipulated everything in such a way so that physical reality looks as if it never happened.

So basically, you are left with a god that goes out of his way to mislead people and then punishes them for being mislead. And all of that, off course, in such a way that it is unfalsifiable, without any merrit whatsoever and with the requirement that it is "just believed" - on faith, of all things.

You really don't see how nonsensical this all is?

So asking where is the common layer with matching carbon dating, where did all the water go, where did all the needed water come from, what about fish and sea creatures....all of those questions are relevant to a natural event

Nope. As I said, whatever the cause (natural or "supernatural"), flooding is a physical event with physical effects.

Why would we expect a physical flood of supernatural cause to be any different in terms of physical effect, then a physical flood of natural cause?

Wheter the water comes from rain, condensation, "fountains of the deep" or gigantic cosmic Perrier bottles... Water is water is water... and in flooding it causes erosion, sediments, etc. No matter where the water came from.

- floods we can understand and then say look this is what a flood does. But our knowledge of such things tells us nothing about what a supernatural could or could not do.

Unless you are going to claim that the matter of a flood of "supernatural" origins has completely different physical properties then the matter of a flood of "natural" origins.... again: why would we expect any difference?

Water is water and floods are floods. Again, no matter what causes the flooding... no matter where the water came from.... it is still water. It is still a physical substance with physical manifestation and physical effects.

Do water molecules of superantural origin behave any differently then water molecules of natural origin?

That's what you seem to be claiming.

Good luck demonstrating that claim.
The default position is that water is water and not non-water - no matter where the molecules come from.

All of those assumptions are back on the table as soon as we start talking about supernatural events, because we are talking about something that is INTERFERING with the way things would otherwise naturally occur.

Does a flood of supernatural origins make water molecules behave any differently or do those water molecules gain different physical properties when the cause of the flooding is not natural?

The tallest above water mountain is primarily sedimentary rock - limestone I think.

Mountains form over time. What is today the top of a mountain was the bottom of the ocean before it was a mountain.

Science of course agrees it was nothing because what we can see does not support what we know about flooding about sedimentary rock in any understandable way for a single 40 day global flood.

Right.

OK for science, but totally inapplicable to supernatural events.

So, you DO believe that the water molecules in a flood of supernatural causation, has different physical properties and different physical behaviour?

Meaning hat a supernatural event could be a cause for any portion of the sediment layers we can see has not been disproven by evidence.

Last Thursdayism hasn't been disproven by science either.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You story is not "true" or even only "likely" just because science can't disprove it.

Especially not if it can't disprove it by definition, because the claim is unfalsifiable.

Try actually coming up with evidence FOR / IN SUPPORT OF your claim, instead of simply saying that there is no evidence against it.

It is only possible to suggest the evidence does disprove it by insisting that even if God could find enough water (like He needs a source), He can only use the water He "finds" to flood the earth in ONLY one particular manner, a "natural" way, following all the rules we say He must follow (God has to obey are wishes I guess) such that we could then point to the evidence and say there was a global flood. OK, but what if He did not listen to us and our superior knowledge (to Him)?

No.

The flood is very easily disproved with just 2 observable facts:
- no global layer of sediment
- no universal genetic bottleneck in extant life.

Boom. Story debunked.

Because as I've explained already, no matter what caused the flood, the flood itself is a physical event. Physical events leave physical evidence.

No one is asking science or anyone to believe in or accept some proof in God or even believe in a global flood. But at least give Christians as well as yourselves some credit for being able to imagine what Omnipotence could do, even if you don't believe in Omnipotence.

The problem is that your idea of entertaining what "omnipotence could do", is nothing but a get-out-of-jail-free-card with as only purpose to believe ANYTHING you want, in spite of overwhelming evidence of the contrary and/or a total lack of evidence in support of it.

I can accept my inability to point to a single geographic feature, say yep there it is, test it and you'll see that it proves it, I can easily accept that because I believe in God and He is Omnipotent.

Yep! You have succesfully put yourself in a position where you can just handwave-away any imaginable objection to your beliefs by simply saying "god can do anything!".

Not particularly convincing.

It is about the evidence unable to eliminate the possibility however imagined or not that possibility has to be.

Here are some other things that evidence is unable to "eliminate as a possibility":
- last thursdayism
- thor causing lightning
- undetectable dragons following you around
- the matrix
- hidden pots of gold at the base of rainbows by leprechauns
- ...

Any unfalsifiable claim, really... the total amount of which, is only limited by your own imagination.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Apparently if only if you throw out much of the tree ring data and select a species that supports the hockey stick. This according to a statistician reviewing the data - but have read similar critiques.
Steve McIntyre’s ICCC09 presentation with notes

Article from 2009 about a hockey stick from 2001. The climate has kept on changin'.

At least until 2016 was the hottest year on record.

 

[Loudmouth]

But all floods, like the global one, would produce sediments and we have an abundance of sediment deposits. So we are not lacking in evidence for floods.

That's like saying that magic leprechauns with magic water cans could cause a driveway to be wet. Therefore, seeing a wet driveway is evidence for magic leprechauns.

The evidence is consistent with local events over millions of years. The simple rule of parsimony states that the natural explanation is the right one.

As far as how a supernatural natural global flood may or may not behave, what else may or may not been supernaturally involved at same time, who can say. After all He basically did say He wanted to erase most everything and start over. What the deposits should or should not look like not now after such a "reset" - who would know besides God?

Why would a recent supernatural global flood look exactly like natural local events spread over millions of years? Did God go out of his way to fake the evidence? If we can't trust the Creation to tell us the truth, then why should we trust the Bible?

Not only does creationism pose serious scientific problems, it also poses serious theological ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said anybody was denying a flood. What is being denied is that the evidence cannot disprove a Supernatural event.

We all agree that supernatural events are immune to disproof. That's why we reject them. If there is no evidence that would ever change your mind then you are adhering to a dogma. If there is no way of knowing if you are wrong, then how can you know that you are right?

I also find it interesting that you have no idea what a supernatural flood would do, yet you are 100% confident that a supernatural flood would leave sediment layers behind. Is it me, or does that seem contradictory? Why couldn't supernatural flood float 1 foot above the land and never actually touch it? How can you claim any evidence if you don't know what evidence a supernatural flood would produce?

This is where global warming comes in. Anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable. We can do experiments and determine if we are wrong about the basic fundamental aspects of the theory. We can do something as simple as measure the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, as one example.

If people who claimed AGW was occurring stated that there was no evidence that would ever change their mind on the matter, what would your reaction be?

That is simple fact, not a conspiracy about hidden evidence for a global flood. Just to observe and make best guesses science requires assumptions, sometimes huge ones - like constant rates for things for one example.

Constant rates aren't assumed. We have evidence that they were the same in the past.

 

[RickG]

Fine. I remain skeptical and the case made it seems principally from a local uptick in temps over a ten years or so that has since reversed does not help.

I'm not sure what that is a reference to, the assumed pause perhaps?

It appears most scientist remain skeptical as well. Again, not about our contribution to heating things up, but about the extent of our impact.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2a180222171b
Thank you for the link, I appreciate it. It is to a Forbes Magazine article describing an article, in as best I can tell, a non-science journal where a poll was taken where the scientists polled do not subscribe to the agreement of the global warming consensus of the greater scientific community. Nevertheless, I was able to source the actual article being described in the Forbes article. In reviewing it I find numerous problems with it. The journal is not one that specializes in climate science, nor does the article describe any specific faults or overturn any science whatsoever. Essentially it describes a poll the authors took, not of practicing climate scientists, but professional experts in the petroleum and related industries in Canada.

Conversely, I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, but I will mention it again, that the 97% consensus of AGW is not a poll. It is a peer review study of the existing peer review climate science literature as to whether the research described in those papers agree with AGW or not. Thus, the 97% consensus is not an opinion poll, rather what the actual scientific research shows. Taking it one step further, every single Academy of Science in the world has a published statement agreeing with the 97% consensus.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

 

[Root of Jesse]

The best way to detect pseudoscience is if people claim they are being persecuted for talking about the science. Over and over I hear about these people who are being persecuted like no one has ever been persecuted before, but when you ask for evidence all of the sudden these people don't exist, or the persecution never happened.

Instead of ramping up the violin solo for the poor persecuted souls, just show us the data.



There is obviously no evidence that will ever convince you. As the old saying goes, you can't change someone's mind with evidence when they didn't arrive at their current position due to evidence.

We have a saying: For the unbeliever, no evidence is possible, for the believer, no evidence is necessary. But the truth is, we have evidence-the Bible-for the flood.

That is entirely made up.

No, it's not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why doesn't it support that conclusion?

Because we cannot know what the data would have been had we all not been here.

Then what evidence would disprove a recent global flood, if found?

Just as you cannot disprove God (you can only say you think he doesn't exist), you cannot prove that a global flood didn't happen. You can only prove that there is no evidence. BTW, you keep injecting 'recent' in there, which I have never said. I don't believe that our planet is only 6000 years old. I believe the Genesis account's use of 'day' and 'night' do not consist of 24 hour periods.

 

[RickG]

A single eruption we know can spew tons more CO2 into the air than any cumulative total contributions from humans, so the idea what we do makes any appreciable difference is beyond presumptuous as is the idea we could or that we should even try to use technology to control it.

I don't know the source of that information but it simply is not true. Volcanoes emit approximately 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year which is only is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Annual Energy Review - Energy Information Administration

 

[Loudmouth]

Because we cannot know what the data would have been had we all not been here.

Actually, yes we can.

Take a look at graph (a). The grey line represents what the temperature would be like if we were not here. The red line is the current temperature. Notice how the red line is higher than the grey line. That is the difference that humans have made.

Just as you cannot disprove God (you can only say you think he doesn't exist), you cannot prove that a global flood didn't happen.

Why not?

BTW, you keep injecting 'recent' in there, which I have never said. I don't believe that our planet is only 6000 years old. I believe the Genesis account's use of 'day' and 'night' do not consist of 24 hour periods.

Since you insist that humans were around for the flood, that limits it to at least the last 200,000 years. That is very recent in geologic terms.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have a saying: For the unbeliever, no evidence is possible, for the believer, no evidence is necessary. But the truth is, we have evidence-the Bible-for the flood.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

No, it's not.

Then please cite a scientific reference demonstrating that a volcanic eruption releases as much CO2 as humans have produced over the last 150 years.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No I dont believe it. Im certain its a parable

A Christian who disbelieves what the Bible says...very interesting...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Personally I find the concept of the biblical flood ridiculous for a number of reasons, amongst which are:

1. God really chose to murder everyone on earth except one family, so every other human being on the entire planet deserved to die - really?

Why wouldn't you believe he could, if he wanted to? Or if he thought he could do better?

2. Where did all the water come from to cover the entire planet including all the mountains?

3. Where did all the water go to?

That's a question among many I would ask Him when I meet Him.

4. Covering then entire planet with water would have killed all the plants, what would the survivors have eaten?

Um...seaweed? Who knows? God provided manna and quail for the Hebrews in the dessert.

5. Noah and his family interbred like crazy to repopulate the world - really?

Another mystery.

6. If they all got off in modern Turkey or wherever, how did (for example) kangaroos hop all the way to Australia, leaving no kangaroo fossils anywhere else, and no kangaroo offspring anywhere else (repeat for huge numbers of other organisms found only in isolated populations)

You're aware that the earth was not always in its current form?

7. How could one family have fed and watered and cleaned this huge ark with thousands of animals doing their business every day?

Great question. I'll add it to my list.

Frankly the whole story is so ridiculous the more relevant question would be - why does anyone give it any credence at all?

Because it's in the account that every Jew and Christian has believed since before it was ever written.

 

[Loudmouth]

A Christian who disbelieves what the Bible says...very interesting...

If you don't think the Prodigal Son was a real person, do you not believe the Bible?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't know the source of that information but it simply is not true. Volcanoes emit approximately 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year which is only is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Annual Energy Review - Energy Information Administration

Even there apparently there is not agreement.
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
No matter, as we both already answered the OPs question from an opposing Christian perspective which also helps explain your position (and many Christians) along with the case many non-Christians make against Christianity. Am very happy to be on the opposing side of that view along with the poster of the OP.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And secondly, regarding global warming - humankind throughout its entire history has done nothing but destroy the planet, from killing off species through hunting, to destroying diversity through farming, with appallingly cruel livestock farming techniques and now we are doing ti through technology. mankind has been the driver of huge murderous extinction events, and we are doing it again. We ought to be ahsamed of ourselves, but greed rules.

You'd think we'd be a smoldering cinder by now, wouldn't you?