Why Global Warming is not a Fact

[SpiritMeadow]

I am interested as to whether or not there is a biblical or religious component to those who hold the opinion that global warming is not a fact.

I am sincerely interested in your answer. I am not interested in dissuading you in any way. I am not interested in any rational for why you believe what you do.

My sole interest is is there some religious basis that causes you to favor no global warming over the alternative. I am talking about man-made.

My interest stems from the fact that I find an inordinate number of very conservative catholics and conservative protestants who take this position vis a vis more progressive and liberal factions of each. I’m wondering if there is is a religious belief that causes those who hold the position to favor it. (This is certainly true on the issue of evolution and creationists. Creationists almost always believe in a literal creation by God and find evolution an atheistic belief)

I’m hoping someone can explain to me what in the bible or in their tradition causes them to believe that the common belief is wrong, if indeed they believe it is. Again, I have no interest in a science discussion. This is theological only.

 

[grampben]

I am interested as to whether or not there is a biblical or religious component to those who hold the opinion that global warming is not a fact.

I am sincerely interested in your answer. I am not interested in dissuading you in any way. I am not interested in any rational for why you believe what you do.

My sole interest is is there some religious basis that causes you to favor no global warming over the alternative. I am talking about man-made.

My interest stems from the fact that I find an inordinate number of very conservative catholics and conservative protestants who take this position vis a vis more progressive and liberal factions of each. I’m wondering if there is is a religious belief that causes those who hold the position to favor it. (This is certainly true on the issue of evolution and creationists. Creationists almost always believe in a literal creation by God and find evolution an atheistic belief)

I’m hoping someone can explain to me what in the bible or in their tradition causes them to believe that the common belief is wrong, if indeed they believe it is. Again, I have no interest in a science discussion. This is theological only.

For the most part, it seems to be mostly an American conservative thing. A few paleoconservatives here in NI believe it to be natural also, but on the most part it seems to be an American conservative thing, and not a religious thing. As far as I’m aware there’s no church teaching on the existence of man made climate change.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For the most part, it seems to be mostly an American conservative thing. A few paleoconservatives here in NI believe it to be natural also, but on the most part it seems to be an American conservative thing, and not a religious thing. As far as I’m aware there’s no church teaching on the existence of man made climate change.

You may be right. I heard one partial answer. Namely that God made the earth as he saw fit, and if the climate is changing, it must be as he wishes it to be.

Other than that, I agree that Conservatives would take such a position, being of the mind of business interests. Conservatives generally are not interested in spending money on anything that does not generate money to business or their own pockets, but that perhaps is a personal observation or prejudice.

We shall see if anyone else has anything to say on the subject. I guess it begs another question. Are religious conservatives likely to be social and political conservatives as well? It seems so, at least from my readings on this forum. Somewhat unlike the radical views of a Man/God named Jesus who was so decidely radical in his social agenda.

 

[JimG]

You might read this book to get an idea as to where the environmental conservatives are coming from. I haven’t read it so can’t comment.

I have no doubt that global temperatures are cyclical and that there occurs both global cooling and global warming over the course of the centuries. As to whether global warming is caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity I have no idea. I’ve read comments lately that there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent global warming (or cooling.)

But the government grant money is generally available only to those who are on the global warming bandwagon.

Probably you will find conservatives skeptical of the whole thing mainly because the proposed solutions seem to comprise higher energy costs for everybody, population control, and more governmental control over everyone’s lives.

 

[JimG]

Somewhat unlike the radical views of a Man/God named Jesus who was so decidely radical in his social agenda.

I have to comment on this part. Remember Jesus lived most of his life in obscurity in a small town, being relatively unknown until he started public ministry at the age of 30.

And then he only traveled in a limited area, spoke mainly to Jews, started no political reform movements, had no political goals, and advocated no revolutions.

 

[Newbie2]

I think any scriptural defense would rest on general principles i.e that God is omnipotent, that if he chooses so there’s no way we could ever destroy our own planet, etc.

I happen to believe that “man-made global warming” is primarily a “man-made” fallicy as well, created with political ends in mind.

Are religious conservatives likely to be social and political conservatives as well?

Good question, but I think that social and political can be separted as well. For example, I consider myself to be:

Religiously conservative
Socially moderate
Politically conservative

Granted, in practice, it may be difficult to separate social from political.

For example, “conservatives” might say to an unwed teenage mother, "You had sex. Nobody forced you. Now you want me to subsidize your bad choice by using my tax money to support your baby?? Go get a job and work yourself up the ladder.

“Liberals” might say, “She needs help, let’s give her free food and housing through a governement program and increase taxes to pay for it”.

I would say that yes, she made a bad choice, and we should give her help in a responsible manner, so as not to discourage her or making it impossible for her to improve her situation. This means not just giving her money, food, etc. without her participation in the process, whether or not that means getting some job training or going to school part time.

There is way more tax money available that we would ever need if we cleaned up the corruption and waste in our federal, state and local governments.

 

[Arclight]

I am interested as to whether or not there is a biblical or religious component to those who hold the opinion that global warming is not a fact. …

For me, there is none. Keep in mind the rule that correlation does not imply causation, so be careful about drawing conclusions here. Keep in mind that Global Warmin’ ™ was as much of a political tool of the Left to use against the Bush administration and that many conservatives still see it as a tool.

 

[vz71]

I am interested as to whether or not there is a biblical or religious component to those who hold the opinion that global warming is not a fact.

In my particular instance, there is no religious component at all.

My interest stems from the fact that I find an inordinate number of very conservative catholics and conservative protestants who take this position vis a vis more progressive and liberal factions of each. I’m wondering if there is is a religious belief that causes those who hold the position to favor it. (This is certainly true on the issue of evolution and creationists. Creationists almost always believe in a literal creation by God and find evolution an atheistic belief)

I am curious too.
My personal opinion is that the same mechanisms in place that cause the religious conservitive view are the same ones that cause the doubt of global warming.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think any scriptural defense would rest on general principles i.e that God is omnipotent, that if he chooses so there’s no way we could ever destroy our own planet, etc.

I happen to believe that “man-made global warming” is primarily a “man-made” fallicy as well, created with political ends in mind.

Good question, but I think that social and political can be separted as well. For example, I consider myself to be:

Religiously conservative
Socially moderate
Politically conservative

Granted, in practice, it may be difficult to separate social from political.

For example, “conservatives” might say to an unwed teenage mother, "You had sex. Nobody forced you. Now you want me to subsidize your bad choice by using my tax money to support your baby?? Go get a job and work yourself up the ladder.

“Liberals” might say, “She needs help, let’s give her free food and housing through a governement program and increase taxes to pay for it”.

I would say that yes, she made a bad choice, and we should give her help in a responsible manner, so as not to discourage her or making it impossible for her to improve her situation. This means not just giving her money, food, etc. without her participation in the process, whether or not that means getting some job training or going to school part time.

There is way more tax money available that we would ever need if we cleaned up the corruption and waste in our federal, state and local governments.

You say that you think global warming is started by people with political ends in mind. But don’t those that say there is no such thing also have political ends in mind? The oil industry certainly has a reason to claim there is no such thing. They make their money off oil.

I’m a bit puzzled by what you mean in the scriptural statement at the beginning. Did not God ask us to be custodians of the earth? Is it not our duty to keep in functional? Do you think God will step in and stop our destruction of it? Or if not, then it is his desire that we be allowed to destroy it? I’m not in any way being critical, I’m just not sure what you mean.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For me, there is none. Keep in mind the rule that correlation does not imply causation, so be careful about drawing conclusions here. Keep in mind that Global Warmin’ ™ was as much of a political tool of the Left to use against the Bush administration and that many conservatives still see it as a tool.

But surely you admit that the business interests have every reason to use the “no global warming” as a political tool to help their agenda to keep in business and continue to garner unprecedented profit from fossil fuel?

 

[Arclight]

But surely you admit that the business interests have every reason to use the “no global warming” as a political tool to help their agenda to keep in business and continue to garner unprecedented profit from fossil fuel?

The way you phrase the question betrays your own political agenda.

Business interests with an agenda “to keep in business”? Imagine that. My partners and I, one of whom is a liberal atheist, have an agenda to keep in business, even if that means we rely on fossil fuels to power the container ships we use to import from overseas manufacturers and fossil fuels to power the trucks distribute our imports.

 

[vz71]

I am interested as to whether or not there is a biblical or religious component to those who hold the opinion that global warming is not a fact.

I am sincerely interested in your answer. I am not interested in dissuading you in any way. I am not interested in any rational for why you believe what you do.

But surely you admit that the business interests have every reason to use the “no global warming” as a political tool to help their agenda to keep in business and continue to garner unprecedented profit from fossil fuel?

Do I sense argument of the viewpoint rather then an interest in why?

 

[manualman]

No religious issues here. My skepticism on the matter is similar to Michael Crichton’s. Mine is further formed by the fact that I USE a simple climate model every day in my line of work. Mine is the NRCS TR-20 hydrology model and it is several orders of magnitude simpler than the IPCC models (and focuses only on conversion rates of rainfall to surface water runoff).

Even with such a simple model, an interesting thing happens. Upright, respectable engineers attempting to model the same watershed with the same (name removed by moderator)ut data will almost ALWAYS come to different results depending on who is paying their bills. The developer’s engineer will show less runoff than the government’s. There are really only TWO (name removed by moderator)ut parameters that involve any sort of judgement and the results are clearly affected by unintentional bias. I cannot believe that bias doesn’t creep into the HUNDREDS of subjective decisions that have to be made by researchers who already believe in a certain outcome.

The IPCC is FAR unlike any sort of medical scientific research. There is NO attempt to double blind results, researchers are quite aware of who is funding their work and of the likely consequences of negative findings.

The work the IPCC does is SO politically charged that there is no excuse for the lack of attempt to build in impartiality.

As a political conservative on many topics, I also HAVE developed an innate mistrust of anything that smacks of a setup for massive government intervention and regulation of the private lives of citizens. These two factors inform my skepticism more than any religious principles.

Clearly man CAN have a massive impact on the environment. Seen a passenger pigeon lately? Stopped the car to let a massive herd of bison migrate across your path? Nothing in Scripture or Tradition contradicts these observations, nor would they prevent more widespread changes.

Personally, I think we ARE having major negative environmental effects due to reliance on “cheap” oil (though I think other factors are larger than the CO2 issue). I use the quotes because oil costs FAR more than we pay for it at the pump. We just pay for all the wars and such that it requires under separate taxes so we never connect the true cost with the cause. Wanna wean people from fossil fuels? Start making the price of gas cover ALL of the costs it creates. That would be FAAAR more effective than the limp attempts at CO2 restrictions like Kyoto.

As to the title of the thread, it is a scientific observation that global average temperatures have been trending upwards. It is also a scientific observation that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have increased from infantessimal to miniscule in recent decads. That is really where the FACTS end. It is not an unreasonable theory to wonder if the two are related. There is even a decent theory as to how it could happen. What has yet to occur is the corroboration that CO2 IS why the temps are higher. That’s a hard FACT to PROVE (using both terms loosely, since neither strictly applies to global phenomenon that can’t be proven via theorum, nor in controlled lab experiments). There are, quite simply BILLIONS of reasons why the global average temperatures could be rising. To say that it is a FACT that only CO2 plays a significant role is silliness.

 

[manualman]

Ah! Perhaps there IS a religious element underneath it all.

As you noted, leftists tend to be the most enthusiastic believers and AGW doubters tend to be more conservative. Many conservatives still hold to the traditional catholic teaching on the nature of man (Good, but fallen). Leftists, on the other hand often seem to have a view of evil rather different. Their worldviews seem shaped by the idea that evil is caused by those with wealth and power and that the solution is to wrest control away from that elite class and replace them with ‘good people’ (i.e. government). They never seem to recognize that such a solution is doomed to fail when every candidate for positions in such a powerful government has the SAME character flaws present in the CURRENT rich and power class.

In short, the left doesn’t seem to account for original sin very well in their reasoning. Since original sin is a peculiarly christian idea, poof! Christianity IS the reason some people doubt AGW.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have to comment on this part. Remember Jesus lived most of his life in obscurity in a small town, being relatively unknown until he started public ministry at the age of 30.

And then he only traveled in a limited area, spoke mainly to Jews, started no political reform movements, had no political goals, and advocated no revolutions.

I guess I’m not seeing your point. Are you saying that Jesus was not radical in his teaching? I think he was most assuredly and I appears so did the Jewish leadership of his time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The way you phrase the question betrays your own political agenda.

Business interests with an agenda “to keep in business”? Imagine that. My partners and I, one of whom is a liberal atheist, have an agenda to keep in business, even if that means we rely on fossil fuels to power the container ships we use to import from overseas manufacturers and fossil fuels to power the trucks distribute our imports.

You find nothing immoral in maintaining a business when it does direct harm to the planet and to the economic position of your country? I would think I might be trying to reinvent my business to achieve a better result. If that is an agenda, then I am guilty.

I guess I understand the need on some level to continue in business by using energy that is harmful. Do you look at alternatives and ways of changing your practices to ones that are less invasive and in the end protect the economy and planet? I can understand the problem if the costs of change are too high, and that would be a good reason to perhaps reject it for th time being, but surely that cannot be the long range view, since fossil fuels will run out, and fairly shortly we are told.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Do I sense argument of the viewpoint rather then an interest in why?

I believe only one person gave any answer to the question. I appears that most don’t think there is a biblical or religious objection to global warming. That is what I said I would not argue about. I just wanted to hear the reasoning, since I cannot formulate one.

I will debate whether it is only one sided that an agenda is present. Obviously each can easily make that claim. The left for the money located in non-fossil fuel energy development, and the traditional fossil fuel companies for maintaining the status quo. I merely point out the obvious, that there is monetary agenda on both sides quite clearly. The average person, I assume by and large has no such agenda at all, and only wants to know the truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ah! Perhaps there IS a religious element underneath it all.

As you noted, leftists tend to be the most enthusiastic believers and AGW doubters tend to be more conservative. Many conservatives still hold to the traditional catholic teaching on the nature of man (Good, but fallen). Leftists, on the other hand often seem to have a view of evil rather different. Their worldviews seem shaped by the idea that evil is caused by those with wealth and power and that the solution is to wrest control away from that elite class and replace them with ‘good people’ (i.e. government). They never seem to recognize that such a solution is doomed to fail when every candidate for positions in such a powerful government has the SAME character flaws present in the CURRENT rich and power class.

In short, the left doesn’t seem to account for original sin very well in their reasoning. Since original sin is a peculiarly christian idea, poof! Christianity IS the reason some people doubt AGW.

I’m not at all sure I see that those on the left see evil differently than conservatives. I have never head anyone from the left suggest that evil is reserved for the wealthy. I would find that argument hard to sustain. I see humanity as good, but subject to ego driven “me first” mentalities that lead to evil acts. That is something every human is subject to, and is certainly not limited to those with wealth or power. They but have the means which MAY allow their baser tendencies to have a greater range of harm than the rest of us.

 

[Arclight]

You find nothing immoral in maintaining a business when it does direct harm to the planet and to the economic position of your country? I would think I might be trying to reinvent my business to achieve a better result. If that is an agenda, then I am guilty.

I guess I understand the need on some level to continue in business by using energy that is harmful. Do you look at alternatives and ways of changing your practices to ones that are less invasive and in the end protect the economy and planet? I can understand the problem if the costs of change are too high, and that would be a good reason to perhaps reject it for th time being, but surely that cannot be the long range view, since fossil fuels will run out, and fairly shortly we are told.

We import solar panels from China. Absent the discovery of teleportation or some other method of shipping what we’re unaware of, we hire ocean transport to get them here. There are no longer any wind-jamming, cutty sark-style china clippers, the container ships use marine diesel fuel. Once the panels are here we ship to them to contractors throughout the southwestern US. Because no one uses mule trains, we’ve got to hire truckers. So, what is it exactly that you want me to re-invent?

I don’t find anything immoral about this.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

We import solar panels from China. Absent the discovery of teleportation or some other method of shipping what we’re unaware of, we hire ocean transport to get them here. There are no longer any wind-jamming, cutty sark-style china clippers, the container ships use marine diesel fuel. Once the panels are here we ship to them to contractors throughout the southwestern US. Because no one uses mule trains, we’ve got to hire truckers. So, what is it exactly that you want me to re-invent?

I don’t find anything immoral about this.

I don’t either. Certainly you cannot invent new techology. I was referring more to businesses who are in the fossil fuel business. However, that doesn’t mean that all business cannot go “green” to the extent that that is practical. People stop using styrofoam cups, recycle paper waste, etc. There are endless ways that companies who care about the environment can help to reduce their “carbon footprint.”