Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which is all to the good…yes, many theists are “good stewards” of the planet.I can't speak for all "Eternal Bliss" seekers - but those I know of tend to be more Conservative and enjoy things like hiking, camping, hunting, fishing etc - making them some of the most conservationist-minded people I know.
Not to mention their love of God and His Creation.
As a non-theist, I do not see Anyone rushing in to “save” Their plan or Creation and that whatever happens with the planet with regards to AGW is on human beings alone…and if we make Earth uninhabitable for human beings, that’ll be the endgame for evolution’s experiment in giving us brains that are bigger than they absolutely needed to be.What I see happening is they believe that God gave the Earth to Man for His purposes and that there is nothing that Man can do to frustrate or destroy those purposes.
I personally believe that anyone who believes that Man can destroy the Earth is someone infected with hubris or some level of delusion - thinking that we could destroy God's plan for His children.
Then when we get into how political the whole thing has become - it leaves many doubting the claims made - about how imminent or large the threat actually is.
I see it as a vehicle that people are using to make money and to gain power.
If it wasn't a threat then you wouldn't have to do anything about it.I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.
If you were to reread my initial comment to you, I said, "Basically - it does not require the biggest polluters to really do anything."I asked: 'Maybe you can point to any country who has done literally nothing.'
Your only response, using an analogy: '...yet they don't decide to really do anything about it...'
So we go to: 'So you think that some countries aren't doing enough, so therefore there can't be a problem.' And I asked you for the third time for some examples.
You have ignored the question. And I'll save you answering because I know why. You don't know of any countries that are literally doing nothing. You are basing an opinion on the stated position that 'they don't decide to really do anything' without examining the science behind the decision of every single country on the planet (bar 3) agreeing that a problem exists (you are being stepped through that as the thread proceeds and you show no indication that you are ahead of the curve in this matter).
But hey, it's probably not affecting you directly at this moment. So why bother.
That doesn't change the fact that the loudest advocates of climate change are still those flying those private jets, sailing those massive yachts, driving the giant cars and buying up the beach-front property.For those with beach-front properties on the leading edge of where climate change is making them unlivable, they're sometimes getting handouts from We The People to save them from total losses.
A car driving down the street is not a threat unless I run into the street.If doing nothing about a situation would result in loss of life or property, then that situation is, by definition, a threat.
We know how this world will end from the scriptures. God knows the beginning from the end. We cannot frustrate His plans because they have already been revealed.Do you think that there would be no serious repercussions to mankind detonating all their nuclear warheads simultaneously?
I don't see it as a threat. Things change."Imminent" depends a lot on the nature of the situation.
Suppose you're in a car travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes into the street 200 feet in front of you. If no action is taken, there will be an accident in a little over 2 seconds. Fairly imminent.
But with a normal reaction time, the stopping distance is about 175 feet.
So disaster can be avoided.
But suppose you're the engineer of a cargo train travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes onto the tracks half a mile in front of you.
Disaster is 30 seconds away, but in fact it is unavoidable. Because of its greater weight and inertia, it takes a mile for such a train to stop.
If we're talking a ship, the stopping distance might be a couple nautical miles, and the time it takes to stop might be 12 minutes.
View attachment 348160
The overall climate has even greater inertia. It may not seem to be moving 'fast' at less than a degree per decade. But the time it takes to stop it (much less reverse it) is also measured in decades. And some significant effects are decades away. And billions are already being spent to ameliorate them. The opportunity is now to start applying the brakes. We've already used up our "reaction time".
Sea levels are starting to rise faster. Here’s how much South Florida is expecting
“Presently, sea level is tracking in the intermediate-high to high, the two fastest [future scenarios],” said Randall Parkinson, a coastal geologist with Florida International University. “The other three scenarios, you might not even think about because we’re already rising faster than that.”
Two feet of sea rise by 2060, compared to present-day levels, would be a shock to the system for Miami, where the average elevation is three feet. That’s why local governments — and the state — are spending billions to keep streets dry.
What is the alternative?Well. Are you aware of the country of thr Netherlands? Or perhaps thr situation in Bangladesh?
Netherlands has been fighting the ocean for centuries but it cannot win the speed of the changes brought by global warming. And in terms of hydrology, damning and water moving, nobody, and I mean NOBODY bests the Dutch.
And Bangladesh, well they are simply too poor.
In which case we need to consider whether something like the displacement of 20 million people is considered an event we should try to mitigate.
What do you propose be done?Sea level change is largely driven by melting of polar ice caps. The amount of melting in the future based on future temperature increases in the polar region. A collapse of an ice sheet could cause several meters or more of ocean rise. You can't mitigate against that. Cities will be just lost at that point.
If you're talking about taking measures to protect life and property, you're already in the street in this analogy.A car driving down the street is not a threat unless I run into the street.
I don't consider cars in the street a threat because I don't stand in the street.If it wasn't a threat then you wouldn't have to do anything about it.
Which is all to the good…yes, many theists are “good stewards” of the planet.
Perhaps because it is not as big of a threat as you perceive it to be.As a non-theist, I do not see Anyone rushing in to “save” Their plan or Creation and that whatever happens with the planet with regards to AGW is on human beings alone…and if we make Earth uninhabitable for human beings, that’ll be the endgame for evolution’s experiment in giving us brains that are bigger than they absolutely needed to be.
My not running into the street is the measure I took to protect myself.If you're talking about taking measures to protect life and property, you're already in the street in this analogy.
I was pointing out that there has been world wide consensus in signing the Paris Accord. And that fact that every country is doing something about the problem shows that everyone agrees that there is a threat. Complaining that the Accord didn't force anyone to take specific measures is having something of an each way bet because I'm certain you'd have complained if they did.Your original argument was that climate change had to be an imminent threat because all these countries decided that it was.
And here I thought it was supposed to be the carbon.I was pointing out that there has been world wide consensus in signing the Paris Accord. And that fact that every country is doing something about the problem shows that everyone agrees that there is a threat. Complaining that the Accord didn't force anyone to take specific measures is having something of an each way bet because I'm certain you'd have complained if they did.
Do you know what the main problem is? People who insist that there is no problem.
Is that line of thinking going to be used as an argument? 'It's not affecting me, therefore it's not a threat'.I don't consider cars in the street a threat because I don't stand in the street.
From your posts so far it I don't think that you've put enough thought into it to know.And here I thought it was supposed to be the carbon.
More if it is detectable, measurable and somewhat predictable - you can prepare for anything - making it not a threat.Is that line of thinking going to be used as an argument? 'It's not affecting me, therefore it's not a threat'.
Seriously?
Your earlier response is proof positive for me that this entire climate change conversation is a tool of Satan to divide us.From your posts so far it I don't think that you've put enough thought into it to know.
The regular thing -- emit less CO2. It's not real difficult to understand.What do you propose be done?
And that will prevent the climate from changing?The regular thing -- emit less CO2. It's not real difficult to understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?