OK I better repost so the question doesn’t get lost, excuse the inconvenience everybody:
Sorry to bust in, but I’ve asked a few times now, by PM and on thread, about why this thread isn’t in the ‘Dead Horses’ board and haven’t had any response.
So I’m just giving the question another little nudge along. As far as I can work out, the only difference between this thread and the ones currently in ‘Dead Horses’ is that this one was started by a moderator. But I may have missed a nuance.
Sorry to bust in, but I’ve asked a few times now, by PM and on thread, about why this thread isn’t in the ‘Dead Horses’ board and haven’t had any response.
So I’m just giving the question another little nudge along. As far as I can work out, the only difference between this thread and the ones currently in ‘Dead Horses’ is that this one was started by a moderator. But I may have missed a nuance.
Gordon, why are you threatened by our discussing climate change? I’m prepared to discuss the issues that make you skeptical about it if it’s actually a discussion.
If you don’t like the climate change thread, I can’t help but wonder why you keep activating it again with skeptical comments — and then acting all offended that the thread has new life breathed into it?
I’m not threatened or offended, Dave, or I wouldn’t be here asking questions and contributing.
However, climate change discussions have taken up an inordinate amount of space for the last few years, and the Dead Horses board was very sensibly started to make room for the discussions to continue without dominating elsewhere.
Now we have the odd situation where discussions of Protestant and Catholic theology and practice have been placed in Dead Horses, whilst ‘climate change’ continues to predominate in general discussion. That seems a misplaced, even inverted, priority for a Sydney Anglican discussion board.
I see 11 threads under “Latest Discussions” and only 1 relates to climate, how is that “dominating”?
or I wouldn’t be here asking questions
Some might not call your ‘hit and run’ style asking questions — but that’s for moderators to decide. I might be a bit to “emotionally involved” in the subject to make an impartial decision. ;-)
BTW — your last query on fuddled data entry problems makes me glad that there are a bunch of skeptics out there, asking questions. It’s what science is all about. However, when those same people refuse to hear the answers from the legitimate science disciplines involved, that pushes them beyond the parameters of normal skeptical scientific enquiry and makes them “deniers” not “skeptics”. There is a big difference in both the scientific rigour and moral implications.
I see 11 threads under “Latest Discussions” and only 1 relates to climate, how is that “dominating”?
Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
I see 11 threads under “Latest Discussions” and only 1 relates to climate, how is that “dominating”?
Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
But Gordon,
I demand answers. Have not some thinking folk expressed skepticism about such ‘alleged’ warmening fogs ? Where is the science ? Where is your proof ?
I have yet to see the truth about this matter - but then again, despite me wanting to have the truth, I am told that I can’t handle the truth. Ironic isn’t it ?
Professor Don Easterbrook from the Department of Geology, Western Washington University, recently published an article which documented the current cooling of the earth. He wrote: “IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of ca 0.5° C per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.”
Professor Easterbrook said that over the past decade, since 1998, temperatures had not increased by 0.5° C , as predicted by the IPCC. Rather, they had remained roughly stationary until 2007, “when global temperatures turned sharply downward”.
Professor Easterbrook concluded, “In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly sug¬gests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.”
I must say I like the way the Centre for Research on Globalization prefaced Easterbrook’s paper when they posted it on their website:
Global Research Editor’s note
The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus.
Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of “Global Cooling”, nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.
Hi Kevin,
Spectrometers + RFE not good enough? What about 12 of the last 13 years being the hottest on record, decreasing multiyear ice in the Arctic, decreasing ice in Antarctica, melting permafrost, the events from “Deep history” as explained in movies like the ABC’s Crude (a hotter earth during more volcanic & Co2 rich times)…
... and the fact that there is no peer reviewed serious scientific organization that questions the science any more?
Hi David,
has this “geologist” published any climate papers? Does he understand that he’s contributing to the “Exact Correlation Strawman”? Does he even know what a spectrometer or the RFE is? What about big words like “La Nina”? How about yourself, can you google “climatologist” and “geologist” to help figure out who to quote on this one?
To answer Dave’s question about the definition of Green Theology - (Note, this is totally ungoogled, and is totally my non-peer reviewed work.....)
Green Theology (GT) is a modern view of Christianity as it pertains to how individuals connect with, and works within the environment and natural resources of the world. It is generally characterised by:
- a love of creation
- a concern for the well being of creation
- a commitment to protect further generations
- a strong link to scripture in the protection of the environment
- a strong belief that industrialisation has harmed creation (acceptance of the ‘consensus view’)
- a strong commitment to cutting back industrialisation in order to better protect or preserve the environment
- a commitment to see human population decrease
In considering Christianity, it is characterised by:
- linking the church to address environmental issues of society
- developing liturgical aspects in order to ‘honour’ the creation
- leaning heavily on the Genesis verses regarding stewardship (as opposed to the Genesis verses on using the earth’s resources for man’s benefit)
- building inter-faith relationships in attempts to address global environmental issues
In considering this from a secular perspective -
- the environment is as valuable as humans
- humans have no more value than animals
- it is “ok’ if humans are wiped out for the sake of the environment
- the earth/nature is all-inviting, all-loving, and has the capacity to reconcile the world (in other words, new-age)
- strong environmentalism is essentially driven by secularists
- environmentalism acts as a valuable trigger for socialism (the needs of the collective are put before individual needs etc)
In consideration some potential negative aspects of GT -
- it detracts from the core message of the bible - saving the lost
- it puts doctrinal truths between different faiths aside in order to be ‘united’ on an environmental issue
- it potentially comes very close to the pagan side of worshipping the earth
- it potentially limits our trust and faith in God that he is sovereign over creation
- it is more often associated with liberal theology such as women ordination and homosexuality (in other words, if people are weak in these areas, then it is likely that they will be weak in their understanding of the ecology and the bible)
- it essentially ignores the biblical view that God will one day replace this world with a new one
- it promotes a certain aggressive stance/militancy by staunch environmentalists who are also Christians
In reviewing this definition with Bishop R Forsyth today - he suggests:
- we need to keep in check the balance. It is not a questin of this camp, or this camp.
- we need to be responsible about our resources - eg dependance on oil. We need to be innovative.
- we need to acknowledge that responsible concerns don’t necessarily require militancy.
- Sometimes ‘green theology’ can replace ‘classic doctrine’.
- we should not be overwrought, or over theologising this question.
- Green theology can become a distraction.
we need to be responsible about our resources - eg dependance on oil. We need to be innovative.
I’m not surprised Robert said that — say hi to him for me if you see him again today. We had a great chat about peak oil at a recent CASE event and he “got” the main concerns with oil dependence. He had a realistic and informed view of where we are in quite a bit more trouble if peak oil is any time soon. (Trucking and airlines being particular concerns of his).
Andrew, just to be clear, can you please explain if this article by the ethics lecturer at Moore College has been influenced by “green theology”? Because generally speaking that pretty much sums it up for me (as I’ve told you repeatedly before). So I reject any implication in your post above that “Green theology” is necessary to have a normal Christian ethical concern for global warming or peak oil.
Hi David,
has this “geologist” published any climate papers? Does he understand that he’s contributing to the “Exact Correlation Strawman”? Does he even know what a spectrometer or the RFE is? What about big words like “La Nina”? How about yourself, can you google “climatologist” and “geologist” to help figure out who to quote on this one?
Dave,
It is a funny thing with you, that those who question CO2 induced global warming are not real scientists whilst those that support CO2 induced global warming are real scientists.
There is actually an argument out there that, just may be, will roll over the top of the CO2 induced global warmongerers. So just a little caution, a little flicker of doubt might be wise.
Thanks Dave...Andrew Cameron’s article is a good balance of looking at the stewardship issue. I concur with his views.
To try and specifically answer your question - and given my definition of Green Theology - I would say that the article has not been unduly influenced. Andrew is putting forward biblical references about stewardship. This is appropriate. When I use the term Green Theology, I infer that people have stepped over a line, and are now wishing to use the bible as a mandate to alter the focus of the church (our primary mission to evangelise), and to generally ‘elevate’ creation higher than what God intended. As I said...it’s a question of balance.
I note that the article is silent on the question of man-induced climate change. This is significant...because this question appears to cause the most debate. You know my position on this. Should the ethics group push this line very heavily, I believe there would be some push back from certain folk in the diocese. But that’s just my opinion…
I’d also like to comment on the position of the earth’s resources. You’ve linked climate change with renewable energies etc, which I understand, but I also feel are two separate matters. To clarify (and this might surprise you), I believe it is entirely appropriate to address issues such as an alternate energy source from oil. This is more than just the possible depletion issue...it relates to things such as dependence on the Middle East, the impetus for a nation to continue to be innovative etc. And while we can attest to certain fossil fuels causing harm to humans (smog, respiratory factors etc), we cannot make the same conclusion about such energy use altering the actual climate. That is the difference you and I (plus others on the forum) share. I argue for adaptation over mitigation…
