'Cool on climate change' ??

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/010/8.26.html

See The Day After Tomorrow

& An Inconvenient Truth

Later, 'Gators... :wink:

Ian :-D

 

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 707#292707

 

[moniker]

Activities that produce carbon dioxideâ€â€such as "breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, driving a car or tractor, or burning coal to produce electricity … [are] morally good and necessary activities that God intended for us," said Wayne Grudem, research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary. "It seems very unlikely to me that God would have set up the earth to work in such a way that these good and necessary activities would actually destroy the earth."

...wow. So the massive increase in emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution due to manufacturing, and manufacturing more than we need more often than not, are now equated with breathing and cooking. Well, I have to ask you this, then; for simplicities sake, let us assume that Mr. Gore and the various climatologists are indeed wrong. The increase in temperature is not impacted at all by man and we are simply stuck between a rock and a hard place. Could you or anyone please explain to me what there is to gain by not having a more efficient industry, not becoming less dependent upon foreign countries for fuel, and overall being less polluted in comparison to today? Why sustainability shouldn't be something that is automatically tied in to new designs and the thought processes designers use in their approach to new products? What is there to gain by continuing business as usual and risk the chance that Gore and all those scientists are right rather than work towards an ecologically improved busuiness model? Why the government should not be supporting changes in industrial paradigms that will ensure competitiveness with foreign companies who are already taking sustainability seriously?

 

[Solo]

Man just likes to think that he is in control of his environment, when in fact, he is only allowed to survive a brief 70 or so years to walk uprightly or amiss. The creator is actually in control of the entire creation, and through him all things consist, regardless of how much bovine flatulence there is.

 

[moniker]

The concept of somehow controlling the environment has never been mentioned in relation to climate change in any capacity.

 

[Solo]

The concept of somehow controlling the environment has never been mentioned in relation to climate change in any capacity.

From the OP article:

• In its point-by-point retort, "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming," the ISA argues, "Claims of dangerous or catastrophic global warming are … based on grossly unrealistic assumptions about future energy use, dominant energy types, pollution levels, economic development, and other factors that do not reflect current facts or likely future situations."
  
  "It's not so much that we have evidence that there won't be global warming; it's that the theories that support catastrophic global warming are so uncertain," said climatologist Roy Spencer, an atmospheric scientist who consults for NASA and co-authored the ISA report. "The public is being misled by those who claim we can greatly reduce global warming by conserving energy, reducing emissions, and buying hybrid cars."

 

[moniker]

I'm still failing to see where the concept of controlling the environment is being broached.

Also: the points of my first post.

 

[Solo]

I'm still failing to see where the concept of controlling the environment is being broached.

Also: the points of my first post.

You might want to look closer.

 

[moniker]

All I see is talk on the influence that humans produce. Nothing about controlling the weather.

And, again, any response to my first post?