A Tulsa writer says that GOD is asking HUMANS to wake up
about the issues of CLIMATE CHANGE in new novel titled POLAR CITY RED
TULSA -- Jim Laughter, 59, is a man of God, a deeplycaring Christian
and a former pastor as well. He has written
a novel now about climate change and religion, asking serious
religious questions about the impact of God on
the climate debate in the USA and overseas.
"My book ''
POLAR CITY RED" does have a strong Christian perpective on
the climate debate. I ask readers to think
about the moral and religuious issues of climate change, and several
of the characters in my novel wrestle with
these qusetions of God and the Bible as well. There is even one
character who starts a BiBLE study class in
the library in Alaska where the story takes place in 2075 AD,
"Yes, the novel is sci fi, i call it cli fi or a climate thriller. But
> the book has a strong religious anchor, too. I ask what moral and
> religious issues will humans be faciing in the distant future? ANd the
> last chapter ends with a note of hope, that GOD will triumph and
> humans will survive'
> the coming problems associated with climate change, BUT only if they
> pray to God and take action now"
GOOD REVIEWS of POLAR CITy RED by TULSA pastor JIM LAUGHTER
www.jimlaughter.com
these all on Amazon com
> 1. By the time I had read the prologue, I was hooked. The description
> of earth by 2075, supported by scientific research and most probable
> outcomes, engaged my mind and heart. We've all heard the concerns
> raised about global warming. This novel helped me to internalize that
> reality.
>
> 2. Jim Laughter's interpretation of many possible events is nearly
> equal to my own. The story does look at some of the more troubling
> aspects of what's coming at us. However, he has some repetitive
> tendencies laced throughout the book. Otherwise, it is a fairly decent
> read.
>
> 3. An angry voice calling orders from out of the darkness immediately
> brought me into the fascinating plot of POLAR CITY RED.
>
> A family that had to escape the results of global warming in order to
> survive is left defenseless as the man with the angry voice approaches
> them--a huge man wearing an animal skin mask and carrying a primitive
> crossbow.
>
> Laughter's book about the possible impact of global warming on our
> society is fascinating, but also frightening--scary because of the
> possible future reality of this fictional story. The amount of
> research that went into this book is impressive. The characters are
> well-developed with distinct personalities.
One of the more
> interesting aspects of this book is the Polar City Lottery--a lottery
> that is implemented because the men outnumber the women in this town
> approx. six to one.
>
>
> 4. I was drawn into the story with the first paragraph. Mr. Laughter's
> descriptive phrasing helped me to visualize the frightening
> possibility of our planet truly experiencing this devastation. He does
> an excellent job with characterization, showing his depth of research
> into the subject of global warming and the inticacies of human
> frailities. A very interesting book.
================
Evangelicals and Climate Change: Global Warming Activists (Pt. 2)
26
Share7
Featured PostsDangerous Calling
How to Be Good and AngryTom and Jim are two angry men whose lives are radically different, and whose ...
U.S.
Christianity Today Writer Is Founder of a Company Fined for Deceptive Business Practices; With Child Porn Ties
The co-author of a recent Christianity Today article is one of the founders of ...
Column
Ask the 'Jewish God' to Enlighten You
The "Jewish God" is the one true God. He always has been, and always will be. ...
Column
Pat Robertson vs. the Spirit of Adoption
I had promised never to mention Pat Robertson here again. Every few months he ...
By Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter
June 20, 2012
7:10 am
Editor's note: In part two of our series on global warming, CP reports on the internal process of a prominent evangelical organization, the National Association of Evangelicals, to reach a climate change position at the urging of evangelical activists.
For evangelicals who are global warming activists, convincing the Christian community to get engaged has been a process.
For example, Richard Cizik, though he was cited in 2008 by Time Magazine as one of the top 100 most influential people in the world for his work as a 'green evangelical,' had a very tough time convincing his organization to back him at the time.
Cizik was formerly vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). While there, he helped craft the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which was discussed in part one of this series.
Though Cizik helped initiate and advance the ECI, he was asked not to sign the statement at the time it was first published. Several evangelical leaders, including the late Chuck Colson, convinced NAE that the statement did not represent the views of evangelicals well, due to the significant divisions among evangelicals on the topic. Since NAE represents a broad spectrum of evangelicals in the United States, they reasoned, it should not take a position on the controversy. (NAE's current president, Leith Anderson, signed the document, but he was not president at that time.)
Cizik criticized the NAE for not taking a strong enough stance on climate change.
Follow us
"The [NAE] should come out and forcefully indicate that evangelical leaders ... because we do know what the effects of global climate change are, ... assume our rightful role in guiding the movement," he said.
The NAE has taken more steps on climate change since Cizik left. Last December, NAE published a document, "Loving the Least of These," that seeks to help Christians understand how to address the issue of climate change. It focuses particular attention on how climate change might harm the poor and vulnerable.
In a May 24 interview with The Christian Post, Galen Carey, vice president of governmental relations for NAE, described the document as a discussion paper.
"We need to give people information and perspective, but we don't tell them what to think. That's not really an effective strategy for engagement. Rather, one needs to help people think biblically about the issues as well as engaging with the science. They can come to their conclusions," Carey said.
In an email to The Christian Post, Cizik said he applauds "Loving the Least of These," but hopes that NAE will take it a step further and come out with an official document or position statement on climate change.
"Thus, I will gently prod and hold Evangelical leaders to a higher standard. Are we as a movement unwilling to pass judgment on issues such as religious freedom which come before the legislative or executive branches? Of course not. Nor should we punt on climate action," Cizik wrote.
Cizik, now president of The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, holds master's degrees in both divinity and public affairs. He believes that if evangelicals do not take action to reduce global warming, the public image of the movement will suffer, much in the same way it suffered for not getting involved in the Civil Rights Movement.
"The moral principles that [evangelical] organizations live by will shape the movement as a whole and shape this country. It's really important," Cizik said.
He believes that global warming skeptics do not accept the realities of climate change because it threatens their worldview and they have an "illusion of the mind."
"They're reluctant to change due to the accompanying fear, or their current comfort level with their status quo position. And, it's either an active choice or its a passive choice. Either way it's a choice," Cizik claimed.
The good news, he said, is that energy consumption can be quickly reduced without diminishing quality of life through energy efficiency.
"The Lawrence Livermore Labs found that 58 percent of all energy produced in the U.S. is wasted, including over 65 percent of the energy produced for electricity, and over 75 percent of the energy produced for transportation. ... What various analysts ... have found is that energy consumption in the United States could be reduced from seven to 28 percent by 2030 through changes in behavior and the use of existing and emerging technology with no real change in lifestyle. Isn't that amazing?"
"We can do this," Cizik said,"and we have a moral duty."
To better understand the global warming skeptics position, The Christian Post spoke with Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesperson for Cornwall Alliance, for the third installment of this series on evangelicals and climate change.
Sort by
Highlighted
Newest
Oldest
Most agreed
Most disagreed
Page 1 of 1 Ι See all (26 comments)
Kevin Hammond
FollowMute2:02 AM on June 22, 2012
yikes! Climate change is NOT man made folks! or very little of it. The climate has been changing ever since it was created. Just watch the film climate gate on google or yotube!
Reply
Agree(5)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(0)
Russell
21 FollowersMute1:37 AM on June 22, 2012
I would take the AGW advocates more seriously if their recommended actions to stop AGW were plausible. Nuclear power and electrified transportation might work. Windmills, solar cells, and curlie cue light bulbs won't do anything.
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(4)
Report abuse(0)
nateRspencer
1 FollowerMute7:34 PM on June 21, 2012
Is anyone else's mind boggled by the figure that we waste nearly 60% of the energy we use? Sorry, there's no way it wouldn't be a good idea to waste less energy.
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
ozmiz
6 FollowersMute6:05 PM on June 21, 2012
Article Snippet: "….convincing the Christian community to get engaged has been a process." – *raises hand*, yep that would be me. I’m actually pretty overwhelmed as it is trying win all I can to Christ to help them avoid a different kind of global warming of an unprecedented nature. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of ...more
Article Snippet: "….convincing the Christian community to get engaged has been a process." – *raises hand*, yep that would be me. I’m actually pretty overwhelmed as it is trying win all I can to Christ to help them avoid a different kind of global warming of an unprecedented nature.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. less
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Michael Reed
4 FollowersMute
12:24 PM on June 21, 2012
I agree that scientific studies and faith in God is a wonderful way to study the environmental sciences. In fact, there is no conflict between research and God's Word. Therefore, we must put our faith in God, not in American " Christian" morality values,and/or politicial party ( John 14:6; John 18:36).
Reply
Agree(5)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Velma Mitchell
37 FollowersMute12:09 PM on June 22, 2012
Michael Reed - As always, well said, Michael Reed!
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Lawrence Mckechnie
FollowMute
10:46 AM on June 21, 2012
as a scientist, I think global warming is like evolution: they are both religious in the wrong sense and border on blind faith for, although there is some evidence which appears to confirm either of these positions, there is also evidences which points to the converse position which shouldn't be ignored, thus showing ...more
as a scientist, I think global warming is like evolution: they are both religious in the wrong sense and border on blind faith for, although there is some evidence which appears to confirm either of these positions, there is also evidences which points to the converse position which shouldn't be ignored, thus showing that our conceptions of these things are not complete. They are ideologies and those who do not agree with their premises are deemed to be ignorant or somehow out of the conversation. Unfortunately, global warming and evolution are worldviews which are part of the current episteme and are pretty dogmatic; these worldviews are projected onto data and singular observations and, therefore, the story is already written before data is properly validated. An example would be (I can't quite remember the details) when scientists in England apparently observed that there was data which appeared to go against the grain of the environmentalist/green movement but it was quickly discarded. I think we, as Christians, should be careful about embracing the premises of the global warming community which is deeply religious as regards the central premises of its ideology. It is not real science ; kind of anti-science tbh :s less
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(5)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute5:35 PM on June 21, 2012
"...An example would be (I can't quite remember the details) when scientists in England apparently observed that there was data which appeared to go against the grain of the environmentalist/green movement but it was quickly discarded......"as a scientist is all your work this detailed?
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
CaptainSlog
10 FollowersMute11:53 PM on June 20, 2012
Man-made global warming/climate change is a religion, and as with all religions, we should always be skeptical and demand evidence for outrageous claims and predictions.
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(0)
rfong
12 FollowersMute
9:01 PM on June 20, 2012
If, as many evangelicals believe, we are in end times and judgement day is just ahead, there really is no point in bothering with this climate change stuff. There is no point in engaging with it at all, pro or con, because the Rapture will take care of everything. To adopt even a skeptical viewpoint is to discard one's own eschatological outlook.
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(7)
Report abuse(0)
nateRspencer
1 FollowerMute7:06 PM on June 21, 2012
rfong - Wow, this is totally wrong. Even setting aside the eschatology debate, the nature of Christian practice and witness has always been rooted in the Resurrection, which is the renewal of life and earth, not the expectation of its destruction. People who value the claim of the resurrection work FOR creation's health, they don't disregard it cause it's all gonna burn or something.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
cmaglaughlin
6 FollowersMute
7:52 PM on June 20, 2012
"moral duty"...bs Cause of global warming?...the Sun.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(6)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute5:38 PM on June 21, 2012
cmaglaughlin , if it was just the Sun that warmed the Earth the GMST of the planet would be -15 C, so you are missing something, can you guess what it is?
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
wordbased
1 FollowerMute
4:11 PM on June 20, 2012
We had better be very careful here because, if we spend our grandchildren's inheritance of attempting to stop something that we cannot stop, we will have no more money to help those affected by the changes. it is too bad that the science is not absolute.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(4)
Report abuse(0)
nateRspencer
1 FollowerMute7:08 PM on June 21, 2012
wordbased - I think what he's saying is that we're spending our grandchildren's inheritance by continuing to blow resources as if they were infinite or something. I hear a theology of spending less here, not spending more.
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Ben Faeth
18 FollowersMute
3:28 PM on June 20, 2012
Evangelicals have no place in the global warming prevention that will occur within this century. They have no standing because they are not scientists nor climatologist. It would be like asking a preacher to go to CERN and tell the particle physicists how to do their job. This is what evangelicals should be saying: "We are ignorant of the science of climatology and as such, we step back as authority figures and let the real scientists do their jobs protecting mankind for the future."
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(10)
Report abuse(2)
theophile40
FollowMute4:05 PM on June 20, 2012
Ben Faeth - So you are saying there is no such thing as a Scientist who is an Evangelical Christian?
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(0)
Ben Faeth
18 FollowersMute7:57 PM on June 20, 2012
theophile40 - Considering that only 40% of scientists are religious, and how there only has to be a small chunk of this that would be stupid enough enough evangelize the issue without using his actual credentials as to make your point irrelevant.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(4)
Report abuse(3)
CaptainSlog
10 FollowersMute11:49 PM on June 20, 2012
Ben Faeth - I believe that figure of 40% came from a 1999 poll. If it was conducted today I'd be surprised if it was over 4.0%
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Ben Faeth
18 FollowersMute5:25 PM on June 21, 2012
CaptainSlog - Nah that would be too generous. I would be surprised if it were below 30%.
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
DataWumpet
3 FollowersMute
11:21 AM on June 20, 2012
We almost never hear about is the fact that massive climate change has been a part of the Earth’s history long before manmade greenhouse gases ever entered the picture. Consider the oil fields of Alaska and Saudi Arabia. Science tells us that oil is formed from vast amounts of decaying plant and animal material ...more
We almost never hear about is the fact that massive climate change has been a part of the Earth’s history long before manmade greenhouse gases ever entered the picture.
Consider the oil fields of Alaska and Saudi Arabia. Science tells us that oil is formed from vast amounts of decaying plant and animal material under pressure over long periods of time. The areas where the Alaskan and Arabian oil fields are located are not, because of current regional climate, conducive to the production of large amounts of plant and animal matter. This strongly suggests that both the ancient climate and geography in these regions was radically different from what it is today.
In addition, ice core studies reveal that while there does appear to be a correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperatures, there have been cyclical patterns of rising and falling gas levels and temperatures occurring over the past 400,000 years. This was long before man had any significant impact on these levels. Why these levels fluctuated over time we do not know.
More impacts climate than simply greenhouse gases.
Large urban and suburban areas absorb and radiate heat differently than the normal habitat. Large cites effectively become heat islands because the concrete and other building materials absorb and retain heat more than soil and plants. This can affect local weather patterns by causing storms to become stronger or track differently than they would were the city not there. Those of us who live in northern climes can observe a variation of this in the fall of the year when the first frosts start to appear. Unless there is an unusually severe temperature drop, we see frost first in the outlying rural areas, then it begins in the suburbs, and finally, when the city has given up its stored heat, we regularly see frost in the city proper. As population centres continue to expand, the impact they have on local and eventually regional weather patterns can be expected to increase. (This is one reason why are are beginning to hear Chicken Little increasingly call for population control.) In addition, every paved road or sidewalk and every home or other building changes the water absorption and runoff pattern. This in turn decreases the amount of water that penetrates down into the water table, decreases the amount of water that an area can actually absorb before the available ground becomes saturated and flooding starts, and increases the amount of water that is subsequently diverted into lakes and rivers. This in turn impacts local flora and fauna. How might all these changes impact the local weather? How might a very large area like this (e.g.,New York City, Los Angeles) even impact regional weather/climate? We do not know.
The point in writing this is to demonstrate that climate change does not have the simple explanation the Chicken Littles of the world would have us believe. There is more going on than we know and understand. less
Reply
Agree(7)
Disagree(9)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute3:05 PM on June 20, 2012
Nope, anybody who is scientifically literate through reading such periodicals such as National Geographic, Scientific America, New Scientist, will be well aware of the paleoclimate of the Earth during the past half a billion years. Those who never hear about it are those who never bother to educate themselves.
Reply
Agree(6)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Jim Spice
FollowMute5:13 PM on June 20, 2012
DataWumpet - You do realize that the magnetic poles were not always in their current locations, right?
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
kopher
14 FollowersMute11:17 AM on June 20, 2012
Just as with war, a lot of people are getting rich off of this...tsk...tsk..tsk
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(8)
Report abuse(0)
ChocolateQueen
8 FollowersMute9:08 AM on June 20, 2012
Climate change is a seasonal phemenon and not a world level extinction crisis as everyone believes.I know a lot of ways people are fighting it wrong and have done stuff already like forced sterilization in order to keep the population down.We need to find good ways of combating limate change because doing the wrong way will make things worse.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(10)
Report abuse(0)
Paul Merrifield
FollowMute7:43 AM on June 20, 2012
God will not find perceived competition to his immortal "planet melting powers" very amusing
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-and-climate-change-global-warming-activists-pt-2-75939/#24A9XBKXtJeZvTFd.99
Evangelicals and Climate Change: What Does the Future Hold? (Pt. 1)
118
Share2
Featured PostsDangerous Calling
How to Be Good and AngryTom and Jim are two angry men whose lives are radically different, and whose ...
U.S.
Christianity Today Writer Is Founder of a Company Fined for Deceptive Business Practices; With Child Porn Ties
The co-author of a recent Christianity Today article is one of the founders of ...
Column
Ask the 'Jewish God' to Enlighten You
The "Jewish God" is the one true God. He always has been, and always will be. ...
Column
Pat Robertson vs. the Spirit of Adoption
I had promised never to mention Pat Robertson here again. Every few months he ...
By Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter
June 12, 2012
7:08 am
When it comes to the issue of global warming, the label conservative and liberal won't necessarily help you determine if an evangelical Christian is a proponent or skeptic. Why? Because even within the inner core of conservative evangelical circles people are divided over the issue, with both sides asserting that science is clearly on their side. Take The Christian Post, for example: Dr. Richard Land, CP's executive editor, is among those who are skeptical that humans tip the scales toward global warming, while Dr. Joel C. Hunter, CP's senior editorial adviser, believes controlling human behavior may be in order.
Moreover, the prospects for a global decision to control carbon because of warming have dropped precipitously over the last three years because of a worldwide economic downturn, much to the consternation of evangelical and secular activists alike. Skeptics are delighted. But activists also point to a recent article in The New Yorker, which reports that President Barack Obama will make climate change a priority if he gets elected to a second term.
So which side is correct? And how should Christians view the future of the global warming debate, both inside the Christian community and out?
The Christian Post will publish a multi-part series on evangelicals and climate change to look at both sides of the argument, and, more importantly, to look at the science underlying the debate.
Causes of Global Warming
Before one can properly understand the dynamics of the debate, a proper understanding of what science can and cannot determine is essential. When fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are burned, they release carbon (mostly in the form of carbon dioxide, but also as carbon monoxide) into the air. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of the atmosphere. Plants need it to grow. Humans and animals release carbon dioxide every time they exhale or pass gas. Plants use the carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and return oxygen to the atmosphere for animals to breathe.
Follow us
With the burning of fossil fuels, however, humans are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere in this way is causing the Earth to get warmer. The debate is over whether this additional carbon is actually affecting climate negatively enough to warrant regulating carbon emissions.
Molecules in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, trap some of the heat from the sun while the rest escapes back into space. If the amount of heat-trapping molecules is increased, then the Earth's natural "greenhouse effect" will increase, thus trapping more heat than usual. There are also some "multiplier effects" that further contribute to the greenhouse effect, such as additional water vapor in the air caused by warmer temperatures and less heat reflected into the atmosphere because there is less white (snow and ice) on the Earth's surface.
Cyclical Change to the Earth's Temperature
But there is debate over whether humans are taking the earth out of balance. The Earth's temperature has not been steady, even before industrialization. The 10th-14th centuries, for instance, are known as the "Medieval Warm Period." Temperatures in Europe were about one degree Celsius warmer than they are today. This led to greater harvests, which contributed to a flourishing of art, literature and science.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the "Little Ice Age" from about 1300 to 1870. Average temperatures during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age were about one degree Celsius colder than they are today. (For more information, see the website of Dr. Jan Oosthoek, an environmental historian at the University of Newcastle in England.)
Part of the debate over global warming has to do with whether the current warming period is mostly due to another warming period in Earth's natural warming/cooling cycles, or if the changes that humans have made to the Earth's atmosphere are pushing the planet beyond its ability to regulate itself. Those who believe the latter argue that the amount of warming taking place warrants considerable action to reduce the amount of carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere. For this series, this will be called the "global warming activist" position. Those who disagree will be called "global warming skeptics." Not because they are skeptical of global warming caused by atmospheric carbon, but because they are skeptical of the need for significant action to reduce atmospheric carbon. This will be discussed in more detail in part 3.
Global Warming Activists
A 2009 survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that white evangelical protestants were less likely than any other major religious group to say that the Earth is warming because of human activity (34 percent), followed closely by black protestants (39 percent). By comparison, 58 percent of the unaffiliated, 48 percent of white mainline protestants and 44 percent of white non-Hispanic Catholics said that the Earth is warming because of human activity.
Among evangelicals, there have been two main groups representing either side of this debate. The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) represents global warming activists while Cornwall Alliance represents global warming skeptics.
The ECI issued a statement, "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action," in 2006 expressing the view that global warming will have significant consequences warranting immediate action to greatly reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere. It called for legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions.
"In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program," the ECI statement reads.
Many evangelical leaders have signed the statement, including Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (he was not with NAE at the time he signed) and senior pastor of Wooddale Church, Eden Prairie, Minn.; Rob Bell, former senior pastor of Mars Hill, Grandville, Mich.; Andy Crouch, editorial director of The Christian Vision Project for Christianity Today; David Gushee, professor of ethics, Mercer University, Atlanta, Ga.; Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, Longwood, Fla. and a senior editorial adviser for The Christian Post; Brian McLaren, Emergent leader; Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action; Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners; and Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, Calif.
Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) also represents the global warming activist position. Founded in 1993, EEN publishes Creation Care magazine and speaks broadly on environmental issues. Its executive vice president, Jim Ball, has written a book on climate change called Global Warming and the Risen Lord: Christian Discipleship and Climate Change.
Some politically liberal evangelical organizations, such as Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action, can also be counted among the global warming activists.
Global Warming Skeptics
On the global-warming-skeptic side of the debate, The Cornwall Alliance began in 2005 as The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. The name was changed in 2007 to reflect its founding document, The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. The Cornwall Declaration was first drafted by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, the current spokesperson for the organization, in the fall of 1999 and was initially signed by 35 scholars who met in Cornwall, Conn.
Cornwall Alliance agrees that atmospheric carbon is warming the planet, but does not believe that the warming will be significant enough to warrant efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Further, it argues that those efforts would be harmful to the poor and vulnerable.
In 2010, Cornwall Alliance published its own statement, "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming," which was initially signed by over 450 evangelical scholars, pastors, theologians and ministry leaders. The signers include David Barton, president of Wallbuilders; Joel Belz, founder of World Magazine; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and executive editor of The Christian Post; Tom Minnery, executive vice president of Focus on the Family; Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council; and R. C. Sproul, Jr., president of Highlands Ministries.
Among evangelical denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention has passed resolutions on climate change that reflect a view similar to the Cornwall Alliance. The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest evangelical denomination but is not a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Part two of this series will take a closer look at the activist position and discuss a debate among some of the activists on the best way to present their views. Part three will explain the skeptic's position.
READ: FIVE REASONS CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE EARTH ON EARTH DAY (AND EVERY OTHER DAY TOO)
Read more at
http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-and-climate-change-what-does-the-future-hold-pt-1-75935/#86RMLB3wjtJvju3u.99
Evangelicals and Climate Change: Global Warming Skeptics (Pt. 3)
32
Share3
(Photo: The Christian Post)Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, speaks at The Heritage Foundation-hosted event on Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: AP / Tina Fineberg)Signs are raised by participants in an International Day of Climate Action rally Saturday Oct. 24, 2009 in New York's Times Square. The event, organized by 350.org, was one of thousands expected to take place around the world to draw attention to the number 350, representing what some scientists say is the most carbon dioxide in parts per million we can safely have in the atmosphere.
1/3Featured PostsDangerous Calling
How to Be Good and AngryTom and Jim are two angry men whose lives are radically different, and whose ...
U.S.
Christianity Today Writer Is Founder of a Company Fined for Deceptive Business Practices; With Child Porn Ties
The co-author of a recent Christianity Today article is one of the founders of ...
Column
Ask the 'Jewish God' to Enlighten You
The "Jewish God" is the one true God. He always has been, and always will be. ...
Column
Pat Robertson vs. the Spirit of Adoption
I had promised never to mention Pat Robertson here again. Every few months he ...
By Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter
June 27, 2012
7:45 am
Editor's note: In part three, the final installment of CP's series on evangelicals and climate change, the focus is on an argument by skeptics that opportunities are being lost to help the poor because of a focus on global warming.
Global warming skeptics argue that while global warming activists say that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to protect the poor and vulnerable, the science is so iffy and the cost of control so high that money would be better spent on direct aid to the poor.
The Cornwall Alliance is the primary organization representing this view. In 2006, Cornwall Alliance published a document, "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming," that was a direct response to the Evangelical Climate Initiative's "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action," discussed in part two of this series. In an interview with The Christian Post, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner explained his belief that the global warming caused by burning fossil fuels will be small and may have more benefits than harms to the environment. Beisner, a former theology professor and economics professor, is the founder and national spokesperson for Cornwall Alliance.
Multiplier Effects
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has gone from about 270 parts per million in pre-industrial times to about 393 parts per million today. That sounds like a lot, Beisner agreed, but when looked at as a proportion of the overall atmosphere, he argues it is "minuscule." It means the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went from 0.027% to 0.039%. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Beisner said, would increase the Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius, he says.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), an organization formed by the United Nations to assess the impact of climate change, predicts that the Earth will warm much more than one degree Celsius because of "multiplier effects." This means that the warming caused by additional carbon in the atmosphere will lead to other events that will cause additional warming. Higher temperatures, for instance, will cause more evaporation and, thus, more water vapor in the atmosphere. Also, higher temperatures will cause more snow and ice to melt, which means there will be less white on the Earth's surface to reflect heat.
Follow us
Beisner believes that the IPPC is overstating the impact of multiplier effects. The IPPC acknowledges, Beisner said, that scientists understand little about the multiplier effects. The water vapor could even have a cooling, rather that warming effect. To predict a three degree temperature increase, which is the midpoint of the IPPC model's prediction, it had to assume a high positive warming effect from the additional water vapor.
Additionally, global warming activists ignore the fact that some warming of the Earth and additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will likely have some benefits, Beisner argued. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. With every doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, he said, there is a 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. As a result, according to some agricultural economists, the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 50 years has contributed to 15 percent greater crop yield.
The Poor and Vulnerable
Both Beisner and Richard Cizik, who represented the global warming activist position in part two of this series, based their positions, in part, on what they believe is best for the world's poor and vulnerable. The poor and vulnerable are also a central concern in the National Association of Evangelicals most recent document on climate change, "Loving the Least of These."
The greater crop yield, for instance, will help keep food prices low for the poor, which will help alleviate malnutrition and starvation around the world, Beisner argued.
While Beisner believes that the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles have a greater influence on the Earth's warming than adding carbon to the atmosphere, he worries that efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon by restricting energy production will be most harmful to the poor and vulnerable.
The resources used to reduce the Earth's temperature are resources that could be used to directly help the global poor. Even using the IPPC's estimates, efforts proposed to reduce global warming would only decrease the Earth's temperature by 0.07 degrees Celsius, Beisner claimed. The trillions of dollars that it would take to have a minimal impact could be better spent, Beisner suggested, on water sanitation and purification, nutrition supplements and electrification for the poor.
"If we spend the money trying to mitigate climate change instead, we won't have that money available for those things, which would have a far more beneficial effect," Beisner said.
Climate Change and the Media
While Beisner believes the media in general tend to favor the global warming activist position, as a former journalist himself, he understands why the tendency exists.
"Bad news is good news, good news is no news. That's a fundamental precept of journalism. Bad news sells," Beisner explained.
Cizik, on the other hand, believes that the media gives the global warming skeptics too much attention in the interest of equal time.
"The mainstream press for the better part of 20 years has given them equal time when they didn't deserve it. When the arguments weren't really compelling, the press has always been willing to say, 'well the other side of the argument is ...' as if that side has equal weight to it."
What's an Evangelical to Do?
Though on opposite sides of the issue, Beisner and Cizik made similar claims. They both agreed that atmospheric carbon causes the Earth to get warmer. They both appealed to scientific evidence and believe the evidence is on their side. And, they both displayed concern for the poor and vulnerable. Perhaps the biggest difference between them has to do with how they view the Earth – fragile or robust. Beisner views the Earth as robust, able to handle the human-caused changes to the atmosphere. Cizik believes the Earth is fragile and too much human tinkering will have catastrophic effects.
Many evangelicals, therefore, may feel stuck in the middle of this debate and unsure about what to do. "Loving the Least of These" recommends four steps that Christians can take to evaluate the differing claims about climate change.
First, dig deeper into the facts and scientific evidence. Second, avoid polarizing voices of "angry people who call others names or refer to conspiracy theories." Third, look at joint statements from professional societies that represent the collective wisdom of a large number of experts. And fourth, get to know a Christian scientist that can help you understand the scientific information.
And remember that skeptics and activists alike can be brothers in Christ.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/hold-evangelicals-and-climate-change-global-warming-skeptics-part3-75941/#iSDtjMFVy3Ct6MMe.99
ort by
Highlighted
Newest
Oldest
Most agreed
Most disagreed
Page 1 of 1 Ι See all (32 comments)
kamala
11 FollowersMute11:57 PM on July 04, 2012
Climate change isn't a religious issue, but leave it to CP to make it one.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
keentv
2 FollowersMute9:34 AM on July 01, 2012
Can God send angelics of vengence THAT IN 'ONE NUCLEAR HOUR' (not even the SON know of it's suddeness, it's actual time) these 'heavens will SUDDENLY BE entirely 'on fire' upon this now tiny BLUE marble ???
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Almagor
FollowMute
3:48 AM on June 29, 2012
First it isn't that the facts about climate change are iffy, there are absolutely no facts to support that there has been any climate change at all and certainly no facts to indicate that any climate change is due to human beings being on Earth. I'll just mention 1 thing about global warming. Scientists say that the ...more
First it isn't that the facts about climate change are iffy, there are absolutely no facts to support that there has been any climate change at all and certainly no facts to indicate that any climate change is due to human beings being on Earth. I'll just mention 1 thing about global warming. Scientists say that the total average temperature of the Earth increased 3/4 of 1 degree for the 100 years up to about 4 years ago. since the they say the total average temperature went down for some reason so that now it is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. Oops! Does anyone know about logic? The big thing is that no one has any idea of what the total average temperature of the Earth is!. You can not find out by any computer model, you have to actually measure it. How many temperature sensing stations do you think they have covering the huge Pacific Ocean? Not more than 10! No, the whole thing is a scam to increase government control over us citizens! less
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(0)
Mortimersnerd
4 FollowersMute2:25 PM on June 29, 2012
Almagor - you couldn't be less informed. There is ample data that the globe is warming, visit NASA.gov and NOAA.gov. They have quite accurate records of what the global mean temperature is, satellites have tracked it for years. Decades. As far as the pacific there are thousands and thousand of sensors measuring ...more
Almagor - you couldn't be less informed. There is ample data that the globe is warming, visit NASA.gov and NOAA.gov. They have quite accurate records of what the global mean temperature is, satellites have tracked it for years. Decades. As far as the pacific there are thousands and thousand of sensors measuring atmospheric pressure, temp, wave data, etc. Fishing and ocean based shipping are huge industries and need to know about storms, tsunamis, etc. as far as temperature, satellites can take temperature data from anywhere they like, every square foot, so think of it like there are an infinite amount of temperature sensors in the pacific. less
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
bibichapman
FollowMute8:03 AM on June 28, 2012
The only visible climate change I have notice is in the hearts of God's people. Many who have claimed to be children of the God of Israel hearts have waxed cold; thus, the earth travails, awaiting for the TRUE sons (children) of God to arise up out of the rumble of compromised faith and take a STAND for RIGHTEOUSNESS in CHRIST! GOD is HOLY and as HE is HOLY so shall HIS children be HOLY! Then, shall the earth be healed!
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(2)
Report abuse(0)
Luciano Miceli
FollowMute2:30 AM on June 28, 2012
Research the records of the Mounder minimum and you'll get an idea of what me may be facing in the next 20 or 30 years.
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Luciano Miceli
FollowMute2:23 AM on June 28, 2012
Climate change is a canard their agenda is much more devious. Secretly they know and won't admit that we're entering a cool cycle where untold millions of poor will be at risk of dying thus expediting their population control plan which is behind everything they propose. The reason they have fully embraced the gay ...more
Climate change is a canard their agenda is much more devious. Secretly they know and won't admit that we're entering a cool cycle where untold millions of poor will be at risk of dying thus expediting their population control plan which is behind everything they propose. The reason they have fully embraced the gay agenda is to both trivialize the the natural family, the primordial institution ordained by God as the source of stability of society and without it we slide into moral chaos where selfishness and corruption rules and where the begetting of children becomes a bother and hindrance in the pursuit of pleasure at any cost. The willful bringing about of a worldwide of Sodom and Gomorra. less
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
chicaree
FollowMute11:51 PM on June 27, 2012
From the San Franciso Chronicle today: Heat wave: 1,000+ records fall in US in a week. New Mexico has just experienced a record breaking heat wave and forest fire, Colorado has several record breaking forest fires going right now and Colorado Springs is burning to the ground. And you guys don't think climate change ...more
From the San Franciso Chronicle today: Heat wave: 1,000+ records fall in US in a week. New Mexico has just experienced a record breaking heat wave and forest fire, Colorado has several record breaking forest fires going right now and Colorado Springs is burning to the ground. And you guys don't think climate change is a fact and ignore the 97% of climate scientists in the US who says global warming is real and is going to cause huge problems. The Arctic is melting and the billions of tons of methane that is stored there is being released.http://tinyurl.com/6ssxn63 Methane is 30 times more effective at trapping heat than C02. If you are sweltering in a heat wave whereever you live, just wait, this summer is just starting. Did you ever stop to think that farmers loose crop production during heat waves, droughts, floods and fires?? less
Reply
Agree(6)
Disagree(2)
Report abuse(0)
kopher
14 FollowersMute7:19 PM on June 27, 2012
Just another Ponzi scheme...
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Russell
21 FollowersMute3:15 PM on June 27, 2012
And why should Evangelicals know more about AGW than others? It seems more like counter cultural evangelicals push back against it while go with the flow evnagelicals go with it.
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Russell
21 FollowersMute
3:13 PM on June 27, 2012
Idon't know if AGW theory is right or wrong. I do know that the idea of stopping it with windmills, solar cells and curlie cue light bulbs is unserious. If one believed in AGW theory one would push nuclear power, yet instead, most AGW al Gore types oppose it.
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(2)
Report abuse(0)
chicaree
FollowMute11:56 PM on June 27, 2012
Russell - There is a lot of research on much safer nuclear and it should be ready for installation in 2013. All the nuclear accidents were caused by pump failures, chernobyl, Fukushima and three mile island. The newer ones do not use pumps but convection currents to cool the rods. I doubt you would hear much talk ...more
Russell -
There is a lot of research on much safer nuclear and it should be ready for installation in 2013. All the nuclear accidents were caused by pump failures, chernobyl, Fukushima and three mile island. The newer ones do not use pumps but convection currents to cool the rods. I doubt you would hear much talk about nuclear after the horror of Japan but you will be hearing about it once again. Solar and Wind are just not energy intensive to produce the power we need but nuclear can. We have hit the tipping point where warming will continue even if we stop burning fossil fuels, the forest fires and methane release from melting arctic tundra and sea beds will keep the warming going. We are in deep trouble and most folks on here don't even realize it. less
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Joseph Austin
5 FollowersMute1:33 PM on June 29, 2012
Russell - I agree. People are scared of nuclear power but you can't get much cleaner and more efficient if you do it right. Its certainly deadly if mishandled, but we're just not going to replace gas with anything else... at least not yet.
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
E. Calvin Beisner
1 FollowerMute12:53 PM on June 27, 2012
As my last two comments imply, the problem isn't just that "the IPPC is overstating the impact of multiplier effects." It is that the IPCC gets them backward--gets their "sign" (+ or -) wrong, to put it more technically. IPCC not only assumes the feedback effects multiply the direct warming effect of doubled CO2 GREATLY, but also assumes that they MULTIPLY rather than DIVIDE the direct warming effect.
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(6)
Report abuse(0)
E. Calvin Beisner
1 FollowerMute12:48 PM on June 27, 2012
Predictions of dangerous warming from doubled CO2 all depend on assuming that overall feedbacks do precisely the opposite to the new increment of CO2 from what they do to the previous greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere: instead of reducing the greenhouse warming effect by 58 percent, they must multiply it ...more
Predictions of dangerous warming from doubled CO2 all depend on assuming that overall feedbacks do precisely the opposite to the new increment of CO2 from what they do to the previous greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere: instead of reducing the greenhouse warming effect by 58 percent, they must multiply it by 250 percent to get IPCC's mid-range estimate of 3 degrees C of post-doubling/post-feedbacks warming. No empirical observations support such an assumption. Many empirical observations support the opposite. less
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(5)
Report abuse(0)
E. Calvin Beisner
1 FollowerMute
12:45 PM on June 27, 2012
I'm quoted as saying "Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... would increase the Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius." However, what I actually said (and this is relevant to Steve Pond's 12:31 comment) was that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would increase global temperature by about 1 to ...more
I'm quoted as saying "Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ... would increase the Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius." However, what I actually said (and this is relevant to Steve Pond's 12:31 comment) was that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would increase global temperature by about 1 to 1.2 degrees C BEFORE FEEDBACKS, and that although our knowledge of most feedbacks taken individually is very weak (according to the IPCC), our knowledge of the overall feedbacks is good: namely, that they reduce greenhouse warming by about 58 percent. (With no greenhouse effect, Earth's average surface temperature would be about 0.0 degree F; with the greenhouse effect but no feedbacks, it would be about 140 degrees F; but after the feedbacks, it's actually about 59 degrees F; 59 is 42 percent of 140, so the feedbacks reduced the warming by 58 percent.) Applied to the 1 to 1.2 degrees C pre-feedback warming from doubled CO2, this yields about 0.42 to 0.504 degree C of post-feedback warming from doubled CO2--an amount that no one considers dangerous and most consider generally beneficial, especially because it occurs more at higher latitudes than toward the equator, meaning lengthened growing seasons in colder regions but no significant warming of warmer regions. For documentation and further discussion see http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf. less
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(4)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute1:34 PM on June 27, 2012
E. Calvin Beisner - thanks for the comment. In your feedback mechanisms where have you entered in methane emissions from a possible melting of the Tundra with the methane emissions that may result from it? Regards.
Reply
Agree(4)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute1:35 PM on June 27, 2012
Apologies for mentioning methane twice, can't edit as on iPhone .
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Craig A. Cunningham
1 FollowerMute1:59 PM on June 27, 2012
E. Calvin Beisner - Dr. Beisner, I believe there is an error in your calculation of a 58% negative feedback, due to your use of the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which has an arbitrary 0 point (and thus overestimates the relative difference between the CO2 doubling effect without and with those feedbacks. I think a ...more
E. Calvin Beisner - Dr. Beisner, I believe there is an error in your calculation of a 58% negative feedback, due to your use of the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which has an arbitrary 0 point (and thus overestimates the relative difference between the CO2 doubling effect without and with those feedbacks.
I think a much more accurate calculation would use the Kelvin scale, which places 0 at the non-arbitrary point at which matter has no molecular movement (heat). Using that, we would convert 140 F to 333K and 59F to 288K. So the percentage of negative feedback would be 13.5%.
Of course, this calculation isn't consistent in any case with the way scientists usually calculate the feedbacks (since some of them actually vary by temperature, due to phase changes and other factors), but you should at least use a more defensible approach to your own calculation. less
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
E. Calvin Beisner
1 FollowerMute1:35 PM on July 10, 2012
Craig A. Cunningham - Thanks for the contribution, but the percentage of net negative feedback is calculated on the reduction of gross warming from no GHG to historic GHG (140 degrees F) to net warming after feedbacks (59 degrees F). If we state those temperatures in Kelvin instead of Fahrenheit, then Earth's average ...more
Craig A. Cunningham - Thanks for the contribution, but the percentage of net negative feedback is calculated on the reduction of gross warming from no GHG to historic GHG (140 degrees F) to net warming after feedbacks (59 degrees F). If we state those temperatures in Kelvin instead of Fahrenheit, then Earth's average surface temperature with no GHGs would be about 255 degrees Kelvin; with historic GHGs but no feedbacks, about 333 K; with GHGs and all combined feedbacks, 288 K. 333 - 255 = 78; 288 - 255 = 33. 33/78=0.42, i.e., 33 is 42 percent of 78, which means the post-feedback warming is still 58 percent less than the pre-feedback warming. I.e., you calculated as if I were taking 59 and 140 degrees F as absolute temperatures. I wasn't. I was taking them as relative. The key is to recognize that I'm calculating for the reduction in the INCREMENT between no-GHG temperature and GHG-without-feedbacks temperature. In F, that INCREMENT is 140 degrees, and the reduction is to 59 degrees, which is 58 percent; in K, that INCREMENT is 78 degrees, and the reduction is to a remaining increment of 33 degrees, which is again 58 percent of 78 degrees. less
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute12:36 PM on June 27, 2012
The greater crop yield, for instance, will help keep food prices low for the poor, which will help alleviate malnutrition and starvation around the world, Beisner argued......Does he also argue where the crops will be grown in this situation he foretells ,because obviously in this scenario there may be new weather systems to contend with such as drought, increased rain fall etc..Dangerous to just take things in isolation.
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute12:31 PM on June 27, 2012
The real problem that results from climate change no matter how small (up or down) the rise, is the matter of positive and negative feedback systems being possibly instigated in the atmosphere and oceans..
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
Bob Wierdsma (Moderator)
29 FollowersMute
10:13 AM on June 27, 2012
Recently the scientist who started all this global warming scare changed his mind and that he was perhaps being just a little to alarmist about the issue.
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(5)
Report abuse(0)
Bob Wierdsma (Moderator)
29 FollowersMute11:31 AM on June 27, 2012
mikehowe - Your right. I don't worry about it too much since all things are in God's hands anyway, although he may have a different plan than our own. P.S. Don't panic too much since I still recycle what I can and then leave it up to the experts to process it and I get my car e-tested every other year with flying colours!
Reply
Agree(3)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
cmaglaughlin
6 FollowersMute
10:02 AM on June 27, 2012
Global warming..."it's the SUN, stupid."
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(7)
Report abuse(0)
Phillip Noe
FollowMute10:10 AM on June 27, 2012
cmaglaughlin - Sorry, that big hot ball of gas we rotate around wasn't overlooked. It is well established that humans are warming the earth and that the consequences are not good. Read up. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/epa-emissions-rules-backed-by-court.html The judges unanimously dismissed ...more
cmaglaughlin - Sorry, that big hot ball of gas we rotate around wasn't overlooked. It is well established that humans are warming the earth and that the consequences are not good. Read up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/epa-emissions-rules-backed-by-court.html
The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” less
Reply
Agree(7)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute12:27 PM on June 27, 2012
Its not just the Sun that heats the Earth, if it was just the Sun the GMST would be approximately -15. Who's the stupid one?
Reply
Agree(0)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
cmaglaughlin
6 FollowersMute6:08 PM on June 27, 2012
Phillip Noe - Sorry, I'm not going to bore you with borrowed quotes from websites, but I've read how during the Middle Ages(no cars)it heated up quite nicely. There has been a study done over in Europe which was done by both pro and con man contributed global warming. THE conclusion...It's the Sun. You won't find it in US media.
Reply
Agree(1)
Disagree(1)
Report abuse(0)
Steve Pond
25 FollowersMute1:06 AM on June 29, 2012
cmaglaughlin, then you are reading the wrong material because that only occurred in Europe which is not the whole globe. It was a local affect, so lets look for local causes such as the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions etc...
Reply
Agree(2)
Disagree(0)
Report abuse(0)
rfong
12 FollowersMute9:30 AM on June 27, 2012
It's not like reducing human produced co2 and helping the poor are mutually exclusive endeavors, especially in a society where church and state operate more or less independently of one another. Moreover, to argue that global warming may increase crop yields ignore the possibility that currently arable land may not ...more
It's not like reducing human produced co2 and helping the poor are mutually exclusive endeavors, especially in a society where church and state operate more or less independently of one another.
Moreover, to argue that global warming may increase crop yields ignore the possibility that currently arable land may not be arable under changed climate conditions. If arable land gets more scarce in poor parts of the world, global warming will then exacerbate the poverty problem.
Not that evangelicals care about this anyway. They have all kinds of feeding programs to make themselves feel good, but do NOTHING to actually improve prospects for the poor. They don't take on lenders who charge exhorbitant interest despite clear bibilical prohibitions. They would rather embroil public school systems in useless creationist and prayer in school lawsuits than focus on improving the system for the poorest districts. They focus on abortion and sexuality simultaneously stigmatizing poor single mothers and blaming them for their plight. Not talking about government as a solution here, but what church goers are actually doing to address the problems of the world. In the global scheme of things, it amounts to little but using economic leverage to convert the poor while doing nothing to improve their economic situation.
This whole display of caring about issues is nothing but self-aggrandizing piety. less
Reply
Agree(6)
Disagree(3)
Report abuse(1)
obeythefist
1 FollowerMute
8:40 AM on June 27, 2012
What's an evangelical to do? For one, divorce yourself from the religion of the Republican Party. I've never understood how this is anything but a political issue. "Global Climate Change is 'A Faith Issue,' Christian Leaders Say" proclaims the CP. Yes, if your faith is in the Republican Party and your covenants are the GOP talking points as preached from the pulpit of Sunday morning talk shows from Washington D.C.
Reply
Agree(10)
Disagree(5)
Report abuse(1)
ChocolateQueen
8 FollowersMute10:12 AM on June 27, 2012
obeythefist - You know not every skeptic is apart of the Republican Party so don't assume that.Its also good to hear from the other side as well because what if we are wasting money and it doesn't do any good in the long run but cause more suffering.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/hold-evangelicals-and-climate-change-global-warming-skeptics-part3-75941/#iSDtjMFVy3Ct6MMe.99
Read more at
http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-and-climate-change-global-warming-activists-pt-2-75939/#24A9XBKXtJeZvTFd.99 ========================
