The Year of Climate Change?
2 January 2008
The Year of Climate Change?
image:
Please, dear God, let this more than just empty political posturing.
Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post that "Bush's views [on climate change] have evolved. He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter. . . .
"The coming year offers a final test of whether Bush is willing to move beyond the policies of the past seven years and embrace more aggressive measures, including a mandatory limit on carbon emissions with pollution credits that can be bought and sold -- a system known as cap-and-trade. . . .
"Bush's attention comes at a time when he and top advisers feel better about his presidency, confident they have turned a corner after two years of political setbacks and can now focus on reformulating his legacy. Heading into his final year, Bush has turned to big, bracing challenges abroad, most notably finding Middle East peace and forging a consensus on climate change. If global warming turns out to be a defining issue of this generation, advisers said, Bush does not want to be remembered as a roadblock."
Billie Joe, Mike, and Tre of Green Day talk about how they got interested in protecting the environment.
After spending 2007 reading critically and blogging on this issue, it baffles me that some folks still express skepticism and cling to their conspiracy theories or what they can find on Google or hear on the radio: the Oregon petition, Crichton or the handful of fossil-fuel industry hack scientists. Climate change will affect the next generation the most. Significantly, it appears that they are ready to take both private and public action. Why deny that?
Here are two smart resources for dealing with the issue. If you are unconvinced, please take the time to read these direct, document guides from the Royal Society in which they deal with the following misleading arguments.
- Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
- Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
- Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
- Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
- Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
- Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
- Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
- Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.
And then there is always this, the mother of explanations and reasoned-argument from Grist magazine.
Search
- Gillian Ford on LiveBlogging - Built Ford Tough
- B Jones on Book Club Discussion--Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Adventist Perspectives
- Jared Wright on LiveBlogging - Built Ford Tough
- PLM on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Mike MacLennan on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Renie Longfellow on LiveBlogging - Built Ford Tough
- orthodoxymoron on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Michael on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- Aage Rendalen on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Mike MacLennan on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
How about putting it to the Pascal's Wager? If global warming IS here and continuing, what have we lost by accepting the fact and changing our lifestyles?
If there IS no global warming, what will have been lost by our conservation efforts?
The Economist also echoed that recently and decided that it is to our economic advantage to act to cut carbon reductions. Most scientists agree that 80% by 2050 will get us on the right track.
You know, Adventism may hold a key that could have a profound impact on climate change: the good-old-fashioned-Big-Franks-and-Stripples-Health-Message!
Incidentally, I just finished a piece about how the health message could save the world in '08. [click my name if you care to find out how]
As for cutting emissions, I agree. It's something that will benefit America *far* more than harming anybody.
Great ideas, Jared. I've read about the impact of livestock on greenhouse gases. And one would think Adventists would be motivated to return to their roots both by that argument and by the findings of the LLU Health Study.
On the other hand, I wonder how many Adventists are among the "doubters" on global warming, possibly for the same eschatological reasons as many evangelicals.
Just a "way out there" thought. Has anyone considered the "possibility" of a National rest day to save the planet and reduce emissions...just a thought.What a great unifier and coalition maker.
I don't hear anyone talking about it in the environmental community. Especially in my neck of the woods, in the real world of interfaith work those sort of manditory religious ideas don't fly. Too many egos, too many religious differences -- folks don't like to be told how to burn energy, much less worship God.
Beyond thoughts of national rest days, if people are interested in what's happening next at the grassroots level, you might check out the Focus the Nation event on Jan 31st.
http://www.focusthenation.org/nationalteachin.php
Alex,
Not a "religious" rest day...a "secular one" to save the planet...the others just part of the coalition vision.
I have been watching the "players" for 30 yrs.and this has long been a "segue" feeling of mine.
Just call me a "watchful skeptic." I'll live my life the same tomorrow!!
Regards
The players, eh?
I'm curious which players you've watched. Over the years, what have you thought of Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider, or evangelical environmentalist Jim Ball or Christian author Bill McKibben?
What environmentalist books have you read in the last ten years?
What's your framework for this issue? I just want to clear up your epistemological foundation: Do you feel like this is one big socialist, UN, pointy-headed academic conspiracy to destroy business, or Christianity, or the American way? Do you really think that vegetarianism is unbiblical?
I've noticed that you've used "feeling" to undergird your point of view elsewhere. I still have yet to hear from you whether you still believe that the Oregon petition is reliable? Or those two Alabama scientists? Or that Car and Driver columnist?
Comments here and there don't always tell the whole story, but looking through a year of deniers of climate change and evolution reveals a pretty common pattern of treating personal lack of information as warrant for skepticism.
http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/ecology_and_faith/...
http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/science/index.html
The U.S. already has two "rest days" on the weekend when the majority of people are not working. At the same time, there are most likely millions who must work on those "off days." Has there been a noticeable lessening of the carbon emissions on the weekend?
Alex,
We've gone through this before. The "players" meaning primarily the "interfaith" participants including Pope John Paul II as well as founding environmental voices. Yes and the UN and it's "interfaith partnership for the environment" though I don't personally call it a "conspiracy" but if you choose to that's your choice. I personally call it people trying to acheive goals within their own "perspectives" and agendas which may differ from mine.
The "players"(some of which) I mentioned in the Ministry article in May 2001."The Environment, Created and Sustained by whom?" Jim Ball- Creation care Magazine was referenced in the article although Ron Sider was the controlling voice at the time I wrote the article.
This is a philosophical/religious/political movement also as you are aware and that can at times influences outcomes.
Vegetarianism as a "biblical mandate" is unbiblical. Out of choice..no problem.
...and if you still think Dr. John Christy is a "Pseudoscientist" after being a primary author of the IPCC report we have nothing to discuss. The policy seems to be to discredit all who disagree regardless of credentials.
Believe what you will Alex but the science is not yet there to establish and predict present and future "warming" based on "human input" as the sole cause.
"My" God is Creator and He sustains His creation as regards to the global climate. If you prefer "naturalistic" causes that is ok with me...is there room for other views?
Regards,
pat
"National rest days," to counter global warming? Sounds to me like a method that would make it easier to enact a national Sunday law. Perhaps Gov Hukabee and his right wing evangelical supporters would go for this. I'm for doing what we can to counter the present global warming trend, but please, no "national rest days." Having ceased being a carnovore many years ago, and having experienced measureable improvment in health as a result of this change in diet/lifestyle, AND considering the measureable impact on global warming created by grazing livestock, it would seem that a comprehensive, long term health education program would not only benefit healthful living, but also help reduce herds of grazing livestock, and in turn reduce global warming. Granted, there are many other factors contributing to the ongoing warming trend.
Post new comment