Christians and Climate Change

[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.

Not all deniers of climate change are Christians.

I didn't say they were.

 

[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.

I didn't say they were.

Which means faith or politics would not be one of their reasons for their belief. Maybe the third choice could be just common sense. Even a young child knows the changes of seasons, etc.

Speaking of verses if you want to use one. Use the one in Ecclesiastes 1:9

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.


It was hot back since the beginning of time, there is nothing new under the sun. Mankind wants to make himself like God. Test tube babies, controlling the climate,etc.

 

[ddgently]

Which means faith or politics would not be one of their reasons for their belief. Maybe the third choice could be just common sense. Even a young child knows the changes of seasons, etc.

An overwhelming number, at least amongst the most vocal, of conservative Christians deny that humans are causing changes to the climate, contrary to the mainstream scientific view. I did not start this thread to debate the merits of that view, but rather to inquire of the origin of its opposition among Christians.

Speaking of verses if you want to use one. Use the one in Ecclesiastes 1:9

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

So to take this quite literally (as would be required to support the proposition for which you cite this verse) Solomon must have had a computer and a car and an electric toothbrush and Star Wars Episodes VII-IX, because nothing ever, ever changes?

It was hot back since the beginning of time, there is nothing new under the sun. Mankind wants to make himself like God. Test tube babies, controlling the climate,etc.

I like how you string sentences together. Their inter-irrelevance has a nice cadence to it.

 

[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.

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

The fact that you say that CO2 having the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is "junk science" --- a process that can be observed and repeated in the lab --- tells me you're not interested in the science at all.

So what motivates your denial? Faith or politics?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The fact that you say that CO2 having the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is "junk science" --- a process that can be observed and repeated in the lab --- tells me you're not interested in the science at all.

So what motivates your denial? Faith or politics?

The fact that CO2 has the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is not junk science. 

Conflating that fact with data correlation (using mostly unreliable data, mixed with some fraudulently cooked numbers) which is assumed to be causation is what makes it junk science.  Conflating that fact with junk climate models is what makes it junk science.  The fact that "scientists" had to rename it from "global warming" to "climate change" because their predictions weren't coming true (not to mention that they had to find a way to blame record cold temperatures and increased ice formation on "warming") is what makes it junk science. 

These are not political or religious reasons.  It's scientific malpractice. 

 

[Ransom]

NOTE: This is not meant to be a political thread.

Therein lies the biggest problem with the question. Since global warming has been presented as a political issue rather than a science issue almost from the beginning, the most reliable predictor of a given person's stance on it is not their scientific awareness - it's their political affiliation.

 

[rsc2a]

My reason: it is terrible science. The politics is the reason this terrible science will not for.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

My reason: it is terrible science. The politics is the reason this terrible science will not for.

Nothing cracks me up more (on this subject, anyway) than when someone compares global warming to the "runaway greenhouse effect on Venus". 

Earth CO2 % = 0.04%
Venus CO2 % = 96%

Earth atmospheric pressure = 1 bar (approx 1000 millibars at sea level)
Venus atmospheric pressure = 93 bars (93,000 millibars)

Just as a point of comparison so you can get a feel for how much 93 bars would be:  When the atmospheric pressure inside a hurricane drops to 900 millibars (0.9 bars), that's considered a major event.  In short, dropping 0.1 bar is a major event. 

So, yeah, I see how we're in danger of becoming like Venus any day now.

 

[ddgently]

The fact that CO2 has the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is not junk science. 

Odd that you would say that, when mere hours ago you stated

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.

So first you say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But now you say it is?

 

[ddgently]

My reason: it is terrible science. The politics is the reason this terrible science will not for.

Nothing cracks me up more (on this subject, anyway) than when someone compares global warming to the "runaway greenhouse effect on Venus". 

Earth CO2 % = 0.04%
Venus CO2 % = 96%

Earth atmospheric pressure = 1 bar (approx 1000 millibars at sea level)
Venus atmospheric pressure = 93 bars (93,000 millibars)

Just as a point of comparison so you can get a feel for how much 93 bars would be:  When the atmospheric pressure inside a hurricane drops to 900 millibars (0.9 bars), that's considered a major event.  In short, dropping 0.1 bar is a major event. 

So, yeah, I see how we're in danger of becoming like Venus any day now.

You know Venus has no plant life, and thus no carbon cycle, and thus the carbon that's there has built up, ergo "runaway greenhouse gas effect."

 

[christundivided]

Which means faith or politics would not be one of their reasons for their belief. Maybe the third choice could be just common sense. Even a young child knows the changes of seasons, etc.

An overwhelming number, at least amongst the most vocal, of conservative Christians deny that humans are causing changes to the climate, contrary to the mainstream scientific view. I did not start this thread to debate the merits of that view, but rather to inquire of the origin of its opposition among Christians.

Lies.... There is no mainstream scientific consensus.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.



For you answer. All good Christians are skeptics. Basically, we don't accept much of anything from morons that keep lying to us that there is some "mainstream scientific consensus" on an a very difficult subject.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The fact that CO2 has the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is not junk science. 

Odd that you would say that, when mere hours ago you stated

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.

So first you say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But now you say it is?

Reading comprehension.  You need it. 

 

[ddgently]

The fact that CO2 has the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is not junk science. 

Odd that you would say that, when mere hours ago you stated

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.

So first you say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But now you say it is?

Reading comprehension.  You need it.

You're really pretty cool usually, and I love your avatar, but give me a break.

You're very first post ignored my request in the OP to avoid political or scientific arguments and focus solely on your religious objections to climate change.

Second: greenhouse gasses are defined by their ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. So if you say with one breath that CO2's ability to do so is not junk science, and in a previous post that "Therefore it is not a greenhouse gas" you are being inconsistent.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The fact that CO2 has the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is not junk science. 

Odd that you would say that, when mere hours ago you stated

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.

So first you say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But now you say it is?

Reading comprehension.  You need it.

You're really pretty cool usually, and I love your avatar, but give me a break.

You're very first post ignored my request in the OP to avoid political or scientific arguments and focus solely on your religious objections to climate change.

Second: greenhouse gasses are defined by their ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. So if you say with one breath that CO2's ability to do so is not junk science, and in a previous post that "Therefore it is not a greenhouse gas" you are being inconsistent.

Me:

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.

You:

call them "radiation absorbing gasses" if that makes you feel better

It does, although "radiation absorbing and reflecting" might be more accurate. 

CO2 does not warm the earth like a greenhouse warms its internal environment.  It is a misnomer to call it (or any other gas) a "greenhouse" gas.  Using that term poisons the entire discussion with misinformation, which might have been the intent of the people who started fussing about "greenhouse" gases.

 

[Green Beret]

Which means faith or politics would not be one of their reasons for their belief. Maybe the third choice could be just common sense. Even a young child knows the changes of seasons, etc.

An overwhelming number, at least amongst the most vocal, of conservative Christians deny that humans are causing changes to the climate, contrary to the mainstream scientific view. I did not start this thread to debate the merits of that view, but rather to inquire of the origin of its opposition among Christians.

Lies.... There is no mainstream scientific consensus.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

For you answer. All good Christians are skeptics. Basically, we don't accept much of anything from morons that keep lying to us that there is some "mainstream scientific consensus" on an a very difficult subject.

It's a sign of the Apocalypse! I actually agree with CU on this point! Jesus truly is coming soon!

 

[ddgently]

CO2 does not warm the earth like a greenhouse warms its internal environment.  It is a misnomer to call it (or any other gas) a "greenhouse" gas.  Using that term poisons the entire discussion with misinformation, which might have been the intent of the people who started fussing about "greenhouse" gases.

Actually, it's just about exactly the same process. Heat can get into the greenhouse, in the form of infrared radiation. But when it is reflected off the ground, some of it gets absorbed by the material of the covering, and it gets re-emitted in all directions.

It's totally, exactly the same.

This is what leads me to conclude that ideology is driving your denial, rather than facts. So I reiterate: is it religious or political ideology?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

CO2 does not warm the earth like a greenhouse warms its internal environment.  It is a misnomer to call it (or any other gas) a "greenhouse" gas.  Using that term poisons the entire discussion with misinformation, which might have been the intent of the people who started fussing about "greenhouse" gases.

Actually, it's just about exactly the same process. Heat can get into the greenhouse, in the form of infrared radiation. But when it is reflected off the ground, some of it gets absorbed by the material of the covering, and it gets re-emitted in all directions.

It's totally, exactly the same.

This is what leads me to conclude that ideology is driving your denial, rather than facts. So I reiterate: is it religious or political ideology?

It's not even close to being the same.  But I'm not going to continue to fight your ignorance on the subject beyond this one quote from Wikipedia.  And, ironically, Wikipedia seems to be fully invested in the notion of global warming, er I mean, Climate Change. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

If you want to continue to flaunt your ignorance, be my guest.  I'm done.

 

[ddgently]

Fine. I'll concede I was wrong about the exact mechanism.

But I still would like to know why you think labeling CO2 a greenhouse gas is deceptive.

The mechanism is different, but the effect is the same. You've conceded that CO2 has the effect. So you just object to the name?

 

[christundivided]

Fine. I'll concede I was wrong about the exact mechanism.

But I still would like to know why you think labeling CO2 a greenhouse gas is deceptive.

The mechanism is different, but the effect is the same. You've conceded that CO2 has the effect. So you just object to the name?

The effect isn't the same.

 

[christundivided]

"climate change" is so 2013s

Get with the times! It is now "global climate disruption!" Unless they changed the terminology again last night

I think they call that "being shifty".....