Alex,

I agree it is a Christian issue. It is a Chistian issue to deal with the things we can change and Let God control "the global weather."

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2001/May/the-environment-created...

regards,
pat

But... but he didn't say anything at all. He just spouted empty platitudes.

I agree with Robert.
Lots of flashy graphics, but nothing of a spiritual nature, and nothing we haven't heard a million times before.

It seems to me to be a natural extension of the Health Message initated by Ellen G. White. Not only are individuals sick, but the world is sick also, significantly if not largely by man's hand. In Georgia it is obesity big time.

If God gave man dominion, why not use that legacy to improve the environment not merely for selfish reasons but as good stewards and good neigbhors.

Loma Linda has a School of Public Health. Why not use Moses as a template? There is hardly a trace of the 40 years of wandering in the desert. It seems as if they cleaned up after themselves quite well.

If Adventists are proud of their longevity, why not be known as the recyclers of the world also? I don't think it necessary or productive to buy a squadron of P.T. boats to hunt down floating fish factories. But soy beans enrich the soil as well as the body. Why not an ad with a cow saying "Eat more beans!" Chickens certainly are fowling the environment. The additional methane is a small price to pay. Tom

For the interested-

Legitimate Articles and questions concerning “Anthropogenic Global warming” and the “Peer Review” process.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870410710457457209199373784...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204849...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456742391702540...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000142405274870393940457456612425020549...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870488840457454773092498835...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477970457455365284909448...

Regards,
pat

Pat,

God created rivers, which we have grossly polluted. Shall we let God control the rivers? God created forests which are being decimated. Shall we let God control the forests? The same can be said and asked concerning animal species that have been fished or hunted to the brink of extinction.

The issue you raise is whether or not human intervention is warranted.

I would ask two questions.

In the case of all the ecological devastation humans have already caused, were we right to simply let God be in control?

More importantly, is "let God control..." even Scriptural?

When God in Genesis gave the earth to humans to have dominion over and the mandate to protect and serve (Gen 2:15), is there an understanding of having dominion, protecting and serving that includes God controlling?

Jared,

Perhaps it would be useful for "context" if you read my first post and my article in ministry.

I said to Alex, "I agree it is a Christian issue. It is a Chistian issue to deal with the things we can change and Let God control "the global weather."

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2001/May/the-environment-created...

After reading, are you sure I am saying "do nothing" but "let God control."

Look forward to your reply.

regards,
pat

I read it.

What does it mean to let God control? What did God's control look like in the cases I cited?

I am genuinely unsure of what you mean by letting God control and what you see God doing when God controls.

Jared,

I personally think it is the height of human arrogance to think they fully understand all the various factors that control global temperature variation.

It is not arrogant to say you should not pollute rivers or not do strip deforestation etc. One is being a steward wheras I suggest man understanding and "controlling" global temperature is absurd.

Global Computer Models simply can not contain all those mechanisms that cause variability. They fudge data to make model results meet the empirical data.

Does that help?

regards,
pat

Thanks Pat,

You do clarify your position pretty well. I would tend to agree that there seem to be many presumptuous people making some unwarranted claims not borne out by evidence. Where I might differ slightly (and we've trotted this out before, haven't we?) is on which claims and which individuals this would include.

Jared,

Fair enough...but anthropogenic "global warming" is yet unsettled science.

We can agree to disagree. That is what many would welcome by the way.

regards,
pat

Most scientists believe anthropogenic global warming is a reality. It is not open to dispute that CO2 levels have increased significantly over recent history.

Naysayers love to point out that the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community in this respect are based on models. That is true, but most science these days is based on models, and this seems to be perfectly acceptable except where the issue (global warming in this case) is one where the predictions are inconvenient.

Models are used to predict weather, and as they are tested and refined, they are improved, with the result that weather prediction is far better now than it was, say 40 years ago.

The same process is going on with global warming models, and my understanding is that the dire effects (melting of Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic) predicted by the models have, so far, been understated in comparison with observed reality.

We best not bet against the scientists--they have a pretty good record of getting things right.

Don

I love the message of this video. And not to be OCD, but they misspelled "ism" in this video as "isim".

Here is a photo taken in 2008 of Barack Obama not only riding a bicycle but pulling some kind of bicycle trailer as well! (See http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebikelife/ig/Stars-on-bikes/Barak-Obama-...)I wonder if President Jan Paulsen and the other GC employees would like to set the example of riding their bicycles to work and to church. This could encourage members all over the world to reduce global warming and better protect the environment. One of the Prime Ministers of Holland set that very example.

I see that Pat is saying demonstrably false things again about the research on global warming, even as we close out the hottest decade to date.

He also posted several links from one of the few editorial pages still arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change. It treats Climategate as significant. It's not. .

It has got to be pretty significant that not a single country has changed its stance at Copenhagen in light of the leaked climate science emails.

Here is the non-partisan and widely respected Annenberg Public Policy Center doing a fact check:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

"However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as 'smoking guns' have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer."

Alex,

If you choose to believe it, that is fine with me.

It remains true, none the less, that the empirical data do not match the GCM's forecast and that is why it is necessary to fudge the data.

regards,
pat

Pat,

For Florida's sake, I hope this is not just a left wing scientists/National Public Radio conspiracy. After all, we had been warned for years about what could happen to New Orleans, but no one believed them...

http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/12/10/florida-faces-drastic-change-from-se...

New Orleans?

You mean the "shock" that a below sea level city could be deluged by rain and storm surge from a hurricaine? Wow! Now that is deep science.

I hope that was a joke Neville.

Why has the conversation changed to "climate change" from previous Anthopogenic global warming of late? It is because we are talking about man's contribution of less than 2% of "climate changing" gases and the expected outcomes of the models can only be seen by "forcing data" to come close to the "empirical" evidence of the likes of weather baloons and satalite temp.imaging data.

Believe what you choose but the science is not settled.

regards,
pat

The situation in New Orleans was caused by man's refusal to adequately plan for a known potential flood. The Netherlands engineers have the best floodgates for their lower-than-sea-level land and have never been flooded since installing them.

The Army Corps of Engineers is presently being sued for lack of proper building and maintenance of the floodgates around New Orleans. So, it was a disaster caused by man's ignoring the known potential of the below-sea-level city of New Orleans.

Global warming and its consequence could also be mitigated by human plannning and preparation. What are the disastrous results of planning for a possible climate change of major proportions? There is abundant evidence of the warming effect in receeding glaciers and the eventual flooding of coastlines. Whether man-made or other reasons, shouldn't we plan for such a possible situation? Did Noah plan and build for a coming flood?

To those who have been mentored by EGW, I wonder how this quote might relate to man's ability to understand global weather and weather patterns?

" The knowledge current in the world may be acquired; for all men are God's property, and are worked by God to fulfill His will in certain lines, even when they refuse the man Christ Jesus as their Saviour. The way in which God uses men is not always discerned, but He does use them. God intrusts men with talents and inventive genius, in order that His great work in our world may be accomplished. The inventions of human minds are supposed to spring from humanity, but God is behind all. He has caused that the means of rapid traveling shall have been invented, for the great day of His preparation. The use which men have made of their capabilities, by misusing and abusing their God-given talents, has brought confusion into the world. They have left the guardianship of Christ for the guardianship of the great rebel, the prince of darkness. Man alone is accountable for the strange fire which has been mingled with the sacred. The accumulation of many things which minister to lust and ambition has brought upon the world the judgment of God. When in difficulty, philosophers and the great men of earth desire to satisfy their minds without appealing to God. They ventilate their philosophy in regard to the heavens and the earth, accounting for plagues, pestilences, epidemics, earthquakes, and famines, by their supposed science. Hundreds of questions relating to creation and providence, they will attempt to solve by saying. This is a law of nature.
There are laws of nature, but they are harmonious, and conform with all God's working; but when the lords many and gods many set themselves to explain God's own principles and providences, presenting to the world strange fire in the place of divine, there is confusion. The machinery of earth and heaven needs many faces to every wheel in order to see the HAND beneath the WHEELS, bringing perfect ORDER from CONFUSION. The living and true God is a necessity everywhere."

FE 408-409.

regards,
pat.

To say that "the science is not settled" implies that until there is 100% certainty, we should defer any action until then.

How many medical conditions waited for science to be settled before treatment began? In most science there is always room for more knowledge, but should never prevent attacking the problem when we are confronted. That global warming is quite certain is indisputable; that all the evidence is unclear about all the possible causes may never be completely identified should never prevent man's attempt to do whatever is possible to halt such progression.

Neville,

From Climatologist John Christy who says sea levels have risen 6" over the past 100 yrs. He is Climatologist for Alabama predicting such changes for Alabama commerce effected by such...etc.

Now perhaps he is just speaking for the "Gulf of Mexico" side of Florida and not the Atlantic side that will deluge the Florida Keys. :~)

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf

regards,
pat

“Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870419450457503140427576988...

“The overall picture is still far from complete. Water vapor's role may be important, but "it doesn't rule out other contributing factors," such as changes in ocean currents and solar activity, says Dr. Solomon.”

In other words. The science of global weather is still uncertain when making GCM’s correlate with empirical evidence.

Regards,
pat