Christians and Climate Change

[ddgently]

So I have a question about Christians and climate change, specifically conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists: What is the source of your skepticism about anthropogenic climate change?

I see two (overlapping) possibilities: (1) it’s a result of the strong affiliation the majority of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have with the Political Right; and/or (2) it has theological roots.

Here’s my more specific question. If your answer to the above is all or mostly (2), can you give some reasons—doctrinal or spiritual, but hopefully both—why you believe anthropogenic climate change is incompatible with your Christian beliefs?

NOTE: This is not meant to be a political thread. So please no answers about government overreach, or a New World Order, or the president is a socialist who wants to control our lives, or a conspiracy in the scientific community. I really want to know if there is a theological/doctrinal/scriptural source for climate change skepticism.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What is the source of your skepticism about anthropogenic climate change?

It has nothing to do with theology.

1.  The reason it's called "Climate Change" now is because all the predictions regarding "Global Warming" never panned out.  Also, it's impossible to deny "Climate Change".  The globe may not be warming, but the climate is always changing.  How can anyone deny that?  They simply attach the word "anthropogenic" and hope nobody thinks about it.

2.  Climate Change (nee "Global Warming") was based on flawed and fraudulent data.  The methodology was completely unscientific, because it attempted to prove causation by showing (faked) correlation.  Even if the correlation was real, it wouldn't prove causation. 

3.  Speaking of causation, Climate Change believers (global warming believers) based their conclusions on the faulty premise of correlation = causation.  Now that CO2 continues to increase and the world is cooling, the consistent conclusion would be that increased CO2 must cause global cooling.  Yet you'll never hear anyone say that unless they can turn it into #3 below. 

4.  It's all about political power (the ability to control anything and anyone that produces CO2) and money (the ability to tax, regulate, buy and sell carbon credits, with a huge slice going into the pockets of politicians and their business cronies). 

 

[subllibrm]

I am doing my part by only breathing half as often. 

 

[subllibrm]

I see two problems with the issue from a theological/worldview position.

1. man thinks so much of himself he has convinced himself that the earth reacts to everything he does (or doesn't do).

2. man thinks so much of him self that he believes the earth will likewise respond to his brilliant attempts to fix the problem.

Both are products of pride. Both are borne of the same mind that tried to build a tower to heaven.

And from the scientific side: what great predicted calamity of the the last half century has actually happened?

 

[qwerty]

To quote Ron White.....

"I'm eating the cattle.... "

 

[ALAYMAN]

This is way too complex an issue to be hashed out in the usual FFF format, but <gasp, dare I say> I pretty much agree with Mater.  I don't think that the complexity lends itself to a theological argument though.


Here's the best view that represents my perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate

 

[BandGuy]

DD:  So I have a question about Christians and climate change, specifically conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists: What is the source of your skepticism about anthropogenic climate change?

me:  I have a question for climate changers:  What is the source of your skepticism about the next ice age which scientists were so sure was coming 30 years ago when I was a kid?  Why do you change from ice age to global warming to climate change instead of simply acknowledging what most of us in the south already have years ago:  global warming= summer, ice age= winter and climate change is nothing more than the changing of seasons?  My guess is that without the disaster looming on the horizon, you wouldn't be able to destroy our economy any further.  Just to be clear, I think all of your chicken little warnings of the end of the world are nothing but a bunch of crap.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This is way too complex an issue to be hashed out in the usual FFF format, but <gasp, dare I say> I pretty much agree with Mater.  I don't think that the complexity lends itself to a theological argument though.


Here's the best view that represents my perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate

Good article.  However, as to this statement: "As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory..."

I do, but mostly because it's an intentionally misleading misnomer.  A greenhouse gets hot because the enclosure blocks convection, not because there are gasses inside the greenhouse that collect heat.  If you want a greenhouse to get cool, open it up and let wind blow through it. 

CO2 does not form an enclosure that blocks convection.  Therefore it is not a greenhouse gas.  It's a gas.  So is jumping jack flash. 

 

[ddgently]

There are biblical statements that debunk the global warming propaganda.

Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”

See this for more: http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/practical-theology/environment/global-warming/

Thank you, Admin, for actually responding to the OP.

 

[ddgently]

This is way too complex an issue to be hashed out in the usual FFF format, but <gasp, dare I say> I pretty much agree with Mater.  I don't think that the complexity lends itself to a theological argument though.


Here's the best view that represents my perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate

Good article.  However, as to this statement: "As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory..."

I do, but mostly because it's an intentionally misleading misnomer.  A greenhouse gets hot because the enclosure blocks convection, not because there are gasses inside the greenhouse that collect heat.  If you want a greenhouse to get cool, open it up and let wind blow through it. 

CO2 does not form an enclosure that blocks convection.  Therefore it is not a greenhouse gas.  It's a gas.  So is jumping jack flash.

I didn't start this thread to debate the science, but I can't let this stand unchallenged. Greenhouse gasses, as you say, do not refer to the gasses inside a greenhouse. They do however, trap and re-emit infrared radiation. So here's how it works:

- Infrared energy comes from the sun, strikes Earth's surface
- Earth's surface absorbs some and warms, reflects the rest.
- Without an atmosphere ALL the energy goes back into space
- With greenhouse gasses (call them "radiation absorbing gasses" if that makes you feel better) some of that energy is reabsorbed
- The energy is then re-emitted in all direction INCLUDING back toward the surface
- This results in the average temperature rising

Without greenhouse gasses, the earth would be much much cooler. We need some, but not too many (see Venus).

 

[FSSL]

I don't think that the complexity lends itself to a theological argument though.

That is quite the surrender.

 

[ddgently]

I see two problems with the issue from a theological/worldview position.

1. man thinks so much of himself he has convinced himself that the earth reacts to everything he does (or doesn't do).

2. man thinks so much of him self that he believes the earth will likewise respond to his brilliant attempts to fix the problem.

Both are products of pride. Both are borne of the same mind that tried to build a tower to heaven.

And from the scientific side: what great predicted calamity of the the last half century has actually happened?

Let's do a thought experiment:

Suppose the world's entire nuclear arsenal was spaced evenly around the globe, and then detonated simultaneously. Would that not drastically alter the climate and/or kill all or nearly everything living on the surface?

So I reject your first premise for two reasons. (1) proponents of climate change don't assert that the earth reacts to EVERYTHING; and (2) we are at a point in our history where man is able to take actions that can affect life on earth on a global scale (i.e., nuclear holocaust).

 

[christundivided]

Here is what I see some common ground in the relationship..


Most Christians have little idea what their training manual teaches. Much less, how to apply said teaching.

Most weather forecasters/scientists can't get the weather forecast right three days from now. Much less, understand a trend that has taken place over thousands of years.

 

[christundivided]

we are at a point in our history where man is able to take actions that can affect life on earth on a global scale (i.e., nuclear holocaust).

yeah.... we can stop the sun from "scorching men's backs"....

 

[ddgently]

Here is what I see some common ground in the relationship..


Most Christians have little idea what their training manual teaches. Much less, how to apply said teaching.

Most weather forecasters/scientists can't get the weather forecast right three days from now. Much less, understand a trend that has taken place over thousands of years.

Well, again, I didn't start this thread to start a debate about the merits of whether anthropomorphic climate change is actually happening. I started it to find out whether Christians deny it because of their faith or because of their politics.

I've gotten my answer.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Here is what I see some common ground in the relationship..


Most Christians have little idea what their training manual teaches. Much less, how to apply said teaching.

Most weather forecasters/scientists can't get the weather forecast right three days from now. Much less, understand a trend that has taken place over thousands of years.

Well, again, I didn't start this thread to start a debate about the merits of whether anthropomorphic climate change is actually happening. I started it to find out whether Christians deny it because of their faith or because of their politics.

I've gotten my answer.

There is at least a third option:  Because it's junk science. 

 

[ddgently]

There is at least a third option:  Because it's junk science.

No disrespect meant here, but your previous post in this thread demonstrates that you don't have a firm grasp of the basic underlying scientific principles that would allow you to evaluate the more nuanced claims of climate scientists.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is at least a third option:  Because it's junk science.

No disrespect meant here, but your previous post in this thread demonstrates that you don't have a firm grasp of the basic underlying scientific principles that would allow you to evaluate the more nuanced claims of climate scientists.

So it's junk science that you believe.  Ok.

 

[subllibrm]

I see two problems with the issue from a theological/worldview position.

1. man thinks so much of himself he has convinced himself that the earth reacts to everything he does (or doesn't do).

2. man thinks so much of him self that he believes the earth will likewise respond to his brilliant attempts to fix the problem.

Both are products of pride. Both are borne of the same mind that tried to build a tower to heaven.

And from the scientific side: what great predicted calamity of the the last half century has actually happened?

Let's do a thought experiment:

Suppose the world's entire nuclear arsenal was spaced evenly around the globe, and then detonated simultaneously. Would that not drastically alter the climate and/or kill all or nearly everything living on the surface?

So I reject your first premise for two reasons. (1) proponents of climate change don't assert that the earth reacts to EVERYTHING; and (2) we are at a point in our history where man is able to take actions that can affect life on earth on a global scale (i.e., nuclear holocaust).

If you include the 70% of the globe covered by water I would say no. Would a lot of people die? Without question. Would there be changes tot he weather patterns? Of course. Would those changes be permanent? Not any more than the changes that follow volcano eruptions and the many nuclear blasts that have already occurred. Could be longer but not permanent.

Much like the human body, the earth is self cleaning and self healing.

 

[4everfsu]

Here is what I see some common ground in the relationship..


Most Christians have little idea what their training manual teaches. Much less, how to apply said teaching.

Most weather forecasters/scientists can't get the weather forecast right three days from now. Much less, understand a trend that has taken place over thousands of years.

Well, again, I didn't start this thread to start a debate about the merits of whether anthropomorphic climate change is actually happening. I started it to find out whether Christians deny it because of their faith or because of their politics.

I've gotten my answer.

Not all deniers of climate change are Christians.