Jump to content


Photo

How Is Global Warming A Controversial Issue?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 12 April 2011 - 11:02 AM

I like warm ^_^

I'm referring to the bill they passed in Texas. Are they only given one side of the story on global warming?

#2 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 12 April 2011 - 12:57 PM

As I understand it the "controversy" is twofold.

One, some people disagree on whether Global Warming or Climate Change is occurring at all.

The second point of controversy is, if GW or Climate Change IS occurring, how much is due to human activity and how much is the result of natural cycles.

Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other. I think it makes good economic sense to encourage innovation and seek out alternative sources of energy that are renewable, regardless of whether we're damaging the biosphere or not.

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2011 - 01:23 PM

As I understand it the "controversy" is twofold.

One, some people disagree on whether Global Warming or Climate Change is occurring at all.

The second point of controversy is, if GW or Climate Change IS occurring, how much is due to human activity and how much is the result of natural cycles.

Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other. I think it makes good economic sense to encourage innovation and seek out alternative sources of energy that are renewable, regardless of whether we're damaging the biosphere or not.

View Post


Well stated, especially the last paragraph. Although I think it was dishonest of the proponents of GW to push what they knew was only hypothesis at best, as fact, in order to force "change as they see it".

Having said that, I would add that as Christians, it is incumbent upon us to be good stewards of the Earth. So, it is important to follow through on (or support ethically) alternative sources of power/energy.

#4 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 12 April 2011 - 03:30 PM

Well stated, especially the last paragraph. Although I think it was dishonest of the proponents of GW to push what they knew was only hypothesis at best, as fact, in order to force "change as they see it".

View Post


I think the push stemmed from the idea that, if the hypothesis is correct, time is of the essence. If the models and predictions were borne out, then action was immediately necessary and the verification that comes from longer-term study wouldn't arrive soon enough.

It would be akin to smelling smoke and waiting until you could see the flames before going to get the fire extinguisher.

Granted, the economic and political consequences of pushing for things like stiffer environmental regulations and subsidies for biofuel companies are of a different magnitude than having to run back upstairs for the fire-extinguisher. But I think the analogy fits.

Also, It's nice to meet a Christian who feels that earth-stewardship is an important part of their Faith. I've seen a lot of the "Global Warming is to Revelations as Evolution is to Genesis" Christians running around the interwebs.

I'm not Christian, but I hear a strong implication of responsibility in Genesis 1:28!

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2011 - 04:10 PM

I think the push stemmed from the idea that, if the hypothesis is correct, time is of the essence. If the models and predictions were borne out, then action was immediately necessary and the verification that comes from longer-term study wouldn't arrive soon enough.

It would be akin to smelling smoke and waiting until you could see the flames before going to get the fire extinguisher.

Granted, the economic and political consequences of pushing for things like stiffer environmental regulations and subsidies for biofuel companies are of a different magnitude than having to run back upstairs for the fire-extinguisher. But I think the analogy fits.

Also, It's nice to meet a Christian who feels that earth-stewardship is an important part of their Faith. I've seen a lot of the "Global Warming is to Revelations as Evolution is to Genesis" Christians running around the interwebs.

I'm not Christian, but I hear a strong implication of responsibility in Genesis 1:28!

View Post


I wasn't referring to you as a Christian, I was speaking in general terms of the Christians responsibilities. :blink: But, I don't think you took it as an offense. ;)

The "where there's smoke, there's fire" analogy really doesn't fit, as a fire is easily distinguishable in reality, whereas the "Global Warming initiative" is based wholly on hypothesis. And I don't mind environmental constraints, but the radical proselytes pushing hypothesis as fact today are WAY TOO religious and militant in their fight.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if someone wants to hug a tree, just let go of the one I am cutting down for my winter fire... Someone might get crushed, and it won't be me! :lol:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)