Russell Cook
Once again, the “Religious Moral Imperative to Stop Global Warming” popped up last week and achieved another 15 minutes of fame via multi-repeats of the news story of the National Association of Evangelicals putting out a major report detailing the “Biblical Basis for Christian Engagement” to stop man-caused global warming.
Sadly, their nearly 100 page report operates pretty much on what skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers would describe as a completely false premise, namely that the science is settled. The report declares it so, citing a NASA article:
The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is unequivocally the result of human activity.
Skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers dispute that at massive depth. What’s missing from the NAE report? Any semblance that such detailed science-based opposition exists. The report only mentions the basic “skeptic” word three times, all within three sentences, in between first setting up a logical fallacy of “appealing to consensus opinion” and then continuing on with its ‘settled science’ false premise where readers are subtly urged to acquire confidence via what is arguably “confirmation bias.”
To its credit, the NAE report never insinuates skeptic scientists are immoral operators paid by energy giants to lie about the issue. But one of the report’s citation sources sure did, the so-called “Christian climate scientist” Dr Katharine Hayhoe. As I implied in the longer criticism I sent to the NAE below, neither Dr Hayhoe or the people she cited could prove skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money if their reputations depended on it.
And that’s where the moral dilemma brick wall pops up for Christians in particular, since within the Bible’s 10 Commandments, there is one that forbids making false accusations about others.
Which is the bigger sin? Failing to act in stopping global warming, or prompting others to ignore skeptic climate scientists by telling them that those skeptics are immoral industry-paid ‘liars for hire’?
I wanted to point out this massive problem to the NAE directly. The have a contact page for doing so, eagerly appearing to ask for input. But their comment box only permits 300-characters or less. So I had to take what I originally wanted to send to them and put it into a PDF file link which would fit within their tiny comment window, along with a brief summary of what was within it. The short bit that follows is exactly what I sent them, and after that is the verbatim text out of my PDF file link, with the url website addresses made clickable:
——————
Very disappointed that your contact page only permits 300-character comments. I must instead respond with my PDF file link http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Global-warming-issue-moral-dilemma-1.pdf to my 645 words 4,334 characters criticism of your revised 2022 “Loving the Least of These” climate issue report. I suggest that you’ve put yourselves in a moral dilemma by failing to examine what skeptic climate scientists have to say.
——————
NAE staff,
I was just alerted to this Aug 31 article, “National Association of Evangelicals joins call for attention to climate change” ( https://baptistnews.com/article/national-association-of-evangelicals-joins-call-for-attention-to-climate-change/ ).
May I respectfully suggest, well-intended that this report of yours might be, when religious person or group asserts that the ‘science’ of man-caused global warming is settled and all of us are under a moral imperative to do all we can to stop global warming, the religious person or group inadvertently places themselves into a serious religious moral dilemma, when an elemental question is asked: “which is the bigger sin — failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the Commandment on Bearing False Witness against skeptic climate scientists by calling them ‘industry-corrupted’ as a tactic to ensure that the public dismisses skeptic scientists’ massively detailed science-based criticisms aren’t taken seriously?”
The global warming issue war is waged on two fronts: “settled science” and “crooked skeptics.” I submit that it is an elemental sin of failing to undertake basic due diligence to see if there is a viable science-based ‘second opinion’ on this entire matter, and I submit that it is an even bigger sin to accuse well-meaning skeptic climate scientists of being ‘industry-paid liars-for-hire’ without checking the veracity of the accusation. Within your report, on page 49, you cite alleged “Christian climate scientist” Katharine Hayhoe, who herself has apparently committed that sin when she accused skeptic climate scientists of that treachery, as seen in this screencapture ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Hayhoe-Nova2.jpg ) of her accusation elsewhere. Her citation sources are both massively suspect as I detail here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2728 and here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=5917. I submit that if the latter of Ms Hayhoe’s citation sources is placed under oath at either congressional hearings or in cross examinations within the current global warming damages lawsuits, the collapse of that person’s credibility could implode the entire “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation by exposing it as something that may have strayed into epic libel /slander territory on the part of its core promulgators.
I’m not a climate scientist, I am no more than a common citizen who (after a decade+ of doing due diligence to determine if the “crooked skeptics” accusation is true) now has an email contact list that reads like a Who’s Who of skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers who hold the same skepticism. From my own personal work researching the validity of the “crooked skeptics” accusation, I can point out at considerable depth how it has NO merit, and that the accusation has been promulgated by a core clique of enviro-activists, where some of their efforts have even infiltrated one particular church organization. I wrote an article on this topic years back at AmericanThinker (“The Case of the Curious Climate Covenant” https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/12/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html ), and have a current blog post category at my GelbspanFiles blog where two of my posts explore the HUGE faults of the people behind the so-called “Moral Imperative to Stop Global Warming” ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?cat=42 ).
I am certain the NAE staff meant well with this report, but the reason perhaps why you all were not aware of the other side of the issue is because news outlets such as the PBS NewsHour, for example, have EXCLUDED skeptic climate scientists’ detailed viewpoints from their program (I detail the NewsHour’s specific bias here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834 ).
Ask yourselves how big of a sin it is for such an influential body of people to deceive their viewing audiences to that extent.
Then ask yourselves whether you should retract your entire 95 page report until after you’ve thoroughly examined and given fair treatment to skeptic scientists, e.g. the now 1200 behind this declaration https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ , along with all the skeptic scientists and other experts behind these reports: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said “They know we know they’re lying yet they still lie.
Or in other words, they don’t care.
The other side doesn’t play by the Queensbury rules, they don’t have to, they don’t need to. They don’t got to follow no stinking rules.
They own the media and get to say what they damn well please.
And they are making the rules. Rule 20:16? They don’t have to follow their own rules. Trying to make them follow their own rules is a fool’s errand.
I could go on
Solzhenitsyn- To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good.
In both cases, they’re blind to their own arrogance & their behavior won’t
change until they see it for what it is & choose to change it. That’s harder to
do the longer you’ve done it & she’s been doing it for quite a while.
I believe “the good” revolves around the necessity of paying one’s bills and increasing one’s fortune. Who argue against their own benefit? “Christian climate scientist” Katharine Hayhoe benefits from being on the government approved list of scientists.
The National Association of Evangelicals is apparently not imune to the bain of large groups of sinners (humans). Whether the group is governmental or private, the bigger the organization, the more opportunity for corruption, cronyism, incompetance, and nepotism.
I’m not sure what benefits the NAE are positioning themselves for but, they must see some advantage for being on the government’s “good” side or they would not have made this report.
“Alexander Solzhenitsyn said “They know we know they’re lying yet they still lie. Or in other words, they don’t care.”
Most people believe in a coming climate crisis, and some are paid to believe in a coming climate crisis — the government bureaucrat scientists. Many people believe whatever government scientists predict, fooled by the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. They have no idea predictions have been wrong for 50+ years. Global warming was predicted, and global warming happened — that’s all they know.
“Most people believe in a coming climate crisis…”
________________________________________
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. But they aren’t attempting that, they’re aiming at most of the people. That’s all they need to get themselves installed in positions of power. And as you say, they’ve got most of the people believing the climate crisis. Those of us who aren’t fooled are in the minority, and that’s the problem.
“Those of us who aren’t fooled are in the minority, and that’s the problem.”
You’ve also just described the whole problem with democracy in general, but that’s another subject.
I think the majority are ignorant of the whole issue.
Climate change consistantly is one of the lowest on the priority list in polling because it doesn’t effect daily lives.
That will change when large masses of people are broke, cold, and hungry.
Climate change … doesn’t effect daily lives.
That will change when large masses of people are broke, cold, and hungry.
___________________________________
It’s Climate Change Policy that’s going to make them broke and hungry.
Based upon the much-balleyhooed “settled science”.
…and dead.
“”the National Association of Evangelicals””
Is merely complying with the narrative. They’ll get brownie points for it
Some good news, following Rees-Mogg’s appointment as Energy Secretary…
“”New environment minister Ranil Jayawardena ‘consistently’ voted against climate measures””
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/liz-truss-cabinet-environment-ranil-jayawardena-uk-b2162783.html
But the new PM has also appointed a net zero fanatic , Skidmore, as chair of a committee to determine how net zero can be achieved without the destruction of British society, industry , and businesses. He is unlikely to permit a rethink , still less a cancellation of the net zero nonsense.
During the recent leadership campaign, Skidmore joined with COP26 chair, Alok Sharma, and then environment minister Zac Goldsmith, to organise a climate hustings in which they got most of the candidates to sign a pledge to honour net zero.
At the moment, Skidmore is undertaking a ‘Net Zero’ tour across the country, telling the Guardian on his first day yesterday: “As the former energy and climate minister who signed net zero by 2050 into law, I’ve been determined to show that net zero isn’t just about going green; it is essential for future economic growth.
“One of the reasons why I’m out on tour with the all-party environment group which I chair is to demonstrate how net zero is going to benefit the lives of people across every region.”
From: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1798444/economic-review-net-zero-target-carried-mp-chris-skidmore
mikewaite quoted: “But the new PM has also appointed a net zero fanatic, Skidmore, as chair of a committee to determine how net zero can be achieved without the destruction of British society, industry, and businesses.
–
–
That should keep Skidmore busy ’til doomsday. Skidmore is a in for a well-deserved attaboy if he actually can figure out how net zero can be achieved without destroying British society, industry, and business.
–
Pro tip: Give it up, Skidmore. It can’t be done. Go fishing or something.
Years ago I worked with a chap called Skidmore: his nickname was Gripless.
It’s a clever move – Skidmore has been tasked with investigating and compiling a report into the timetable, costings and implementation of Net Zero as per the High Court ruling on Deben’s empty Net Zero pledge. While he ties himself in knots trying to achieve the impossible, Truss can keep fracking and extracting North Sea gas. The government is under no real obligation to act on Net Zero and, in fact, if the report contains a realistic cost, it could provide a perfect excuse to drop Net Zero.
He’s been assigned to a committe. Here in the states the Government sets up committees to bury something. And his charge is “how net zero can be achieved without the destruction of British society, industry , and businesses”. I look forward to seeing how that can be done.
The problem is that Evangelicals, at least a certain part of them, can’t accept timeseries longer than 6k years.
Young Earth Creationists certainly see dramatic changes in climate. Flood, ice age, warm and cold periods up to today. All without our modern large scale fossil fuel burning. Probably some of the least likely people to think man can control the climate by building a bunch of windmills.
I believe that the 6k year theologies are more correctly described as “Fundamentalist” rather than “Evangelical”.
That’s why I wrote “..at least a certain part of them”… 😀
Even fundamentalist is not really a good description. The problems lie with a very small segment who read and interpret the Bible in a very narrow, wooden sense and prominently operate an “educational” platform. They give the word “creationist” a bad name. If you read and believe the Bible “literally,” that is, as literature, then Genesis and other books of the Bible leave much room for congruence between modern science and the Bible. One can cite many scriptures that, if taken in a wooden sense, would seem insane (in fact they would be). There is a whole cult who believe in poison snake handling based on misinterpretation of one or two verses. Another problem is that the secular media run to these sources and quote and denigrate them and attempt to claim with a broad brush that these views represent mainstream evangelical, Bible-believing Christians. There is an art and principles of Biblical interpretation, and one must use these principles in attempting to understand scriptural passages.
Pop culture, big tech and the media are under major scrutiny today for their dishonesty. So don’t be quick to take their narratives regarding evangelicals or fundamentalists at face value.
The main issue for believing the Creationism idea is that the alternative is Evolution.
How is it that we have such animals as the octopus and the platypus?
If you accept “Evolution,” you can HARK explanations for apparently every unlikely fact of nature. We humans have about 3 billion base pairs.
The organism with the fewest base pairs is 150,000.
Per Evolution, it is quite a “Just-So Story” to say a bunch of molecules got together (prevailing theory is that RNA somehow chanced to happen, before DNA) and began staying together, while also coding for proteins, and using those proteins purposefully, and also replicating itself.
Somehow, we have to buy this story to get from a few molecules to the 150,000 base pairs, or [dive by 3 to get number of genes] 50,000 genes.
Fast-forward, let’s assume the most sparse organism from which we all evolved may have been an organism with 150,000 base pairs.
Across time, Evolution Theory requires that, one by one or n more extensive sets, we had to have yet another 3 billion base pairs get added to arrive at our genome.
They say we have had life on earth for 4 billion years. Humans are supposed to have “evolved” from whatever preceded us about 300,000 years ago. This means that, against all odds, the line from which we have evolved has acquired one new gene every 1 and a third years.
Along with having the fabled spontaneous mutation that happens to give relative survival benefit, we also by logic have to get the full complement of genes to get mutated. We have to go from 150,000 base pairs to 3 billion base pairs.
At a rate of about one per year.
And this unlikely phenomena has to have been happening for our 300,000 genuses – including both plant and animal; our 7 million-plus species.
That means: there are 7 million cases of organisms acquiring a base pair each year for the past 4 billion years.
The more I take a cynical look at this just-so story, the more incredible it seems.
In the Lenski E. coli experiment, it took 30,000 generations for those bacteria to acquire the well-recognized ability to “digest” or use citrate as an energy source.
That is our best observational science data on how long it takes for a trait to be acquired.
This Evolution idea gets more unlikely the more you ponder it this way.
A final thought is this: an organism requires the knowledge and will to perform any survival-enhancing act when it is hit with a favorable mutation.
There was once the day when a spider first had silk coming out of his ass.
How long did it take him to decide he could catch insects by weaving a web? This motivation to build the web, and the actual knowledge to build the web, either come from brain power, from thought, or from instinct: built in by other genes!
Did spiders first evolve the ability to have silk come out their azz, or first have the knowledge of how to spin a web get built into their genetic code, and so be ready 100,000 years later when the fortuitous mutation happened that caused silk to come out his azz? And, the motivational drive to build a web. We can assume he already had the motivational drive to eat, drink, and reproduce. But he also needs the psychological “drive” to build a web.
This is quite a feat. I have helped Boy Scouts learn knots, and it takes quite a lot to merely learn the bowline knot. It takes a fair amount to learn to knit.The genes for the instinct to weave a web must be quite complex.
And, these all have to arise in the genetic code at some point.
Hard to believe when we look at it this way.
Beyond that, the DNA has to somehow acquire the ability to “express” all of this so that everything happens when it is supposed to happen. And, also to police itself for errors and repair the errors.
Hard to believe when we look at it this way – consider that you only get on average one base pair per year additional to work with.
The most interesting explanation that I have read and I have read quite a few. To me you can’t expect order to come out of confusion.
Wow. I wrote this comment, including the one-gene aspect, not knowing a study had just been published hypothesizing that it was merely one gene error that allowed for modern humans to arise from “Neandertals.” By promoting more neocortex raw material to work with.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6422
The error in this approach is the Darwinian assumption that evolution is an internal mechanism that is gradual. Many species (now) are two or more animals that were incorporated into one. Lamarkism has been demonstrated in mice in 1983. Elements of that concept are true and dramatically speed up changes.
The idea that “everything is random” doesn’t hold water. Years ago there evolved a frog that only lives in Vietnamese bomb crater pools. An incomplete understanding of evolution does not require us to invent magical in-fills. Similarly, the invention of “inflation” in the early universe to cover the logical gap between a Big Bang and the reality of what we see is an unnecessary contrivance.
Sometimes the correct answer to difficult questions is, “I don’t know.”
No. To read 6,000 years in Genesis is to read Genesis as it was meant to be understood by the author. Modern geology was specifically created “to free geology from the chains of Moses”, regardless of what the evidence actually shows.
warmists openly targeted the religious sects and churches as they “already have a faith” ie used to following
Everyone has a faith. It may or may not be an “organized religion” but we all have a belief structure which is built on faith in something relevant to each person. Therefore the religion of climate change is build on faith.
Mr. Cook: Could you please edit the second sentence of the third paragraph, and the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, changing “NEA” to “NAE”?
Thnx,
Vlad
Good eye! Just sent an email to Charles the Moderator on this, I actually had a third typo of that. Either I’m a victim of auto-correct when I typed it out, or else I had the acronym stuck in my mind for the leftist National Education Association. Thanks! Fixed the typos at my original GelbspanFiles post that this guest post comes from.
I am a strong evangelical. I attend an evangelical church. Of the entire congregation of my evangelical church there is only two individuals that believe in the 6K length of the universe.
So what is wrong twitch the rest of you that you read Genesis through an atheist lens?
Earth is slightly below normal -0.3°C Sept 8th 9am GMT.
Total solar irradiance is between 1407w-m² (Jan) and 1316w-m²(July).
Earth’s tilt means 1407w-m² is July and 1316w-m² is Jan.
This year March was as low as 1292w-m²(323w-m2) and July as high as 1403.5w-m2 (350.97w-m2).
No warming.
I have measurements that prove this.
Summed positives above the average 889w-m2
Summed negatives below the average 670w-m2
889w-m2 minus outgoing 670w-m2 equals 219w-m2.
1.4 multiplied by weight of air 1.28kg multiplied by velocity of molecules 333 meters squared per second equals 198,570 joules.
Divide by 906.71 joules per watt. = 219 w-m2.
Add 219 w-m2 to 670 wm2 equals 889w-m2.
As 219w-m2 is internal source of energy it does not escape to space.
This amount is the average of both polar regions.
Kinetic energy is produced when 101325 units of force on 44 moles (0.02896g) of molecules. This also produces watts of energy (work done when a kg is held constant for 1 meter for 1 second equals 1 watt).
Any matter above absolute zero emits heat to the surroundings.
This is the science that explains the atmospheres energy balance.
Measurements that prove this to be true.
Our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium
There is no balance in the long run
Always a long term warming or cooling temperature trend.
In the short run, all climate change variables could have a net zero effect on the global average temperature, as in the past seven years.
There is an average thermal energy for the planet.
343.85w-m2 Sept 8th.
North of 60N is below the average.
North of 50S is below the average.
Sum all that is above the average 860.11
Sum all that is below the average -654.11
Minus internal thermal energy (when you increase the pressure of a gas this then increases in temperature). kg/ (+/-) 1000 joules per meter per second equals 1 watt.
The only increase in the global temperature is when the sun tilts towards the northern hemisphere. When the sun tilts back towards the southern hemisphere the global temperature decreases. Each week can be worked out via the total solar irradiance. The amount of energy from the sun. But worked out in reverse. Sun peak is earth’s minimum and vis versa.
Global network stations coverage is screwed. You have thousands in mid latitudes and 10s to 100’s elsewhere. The smaller more scattered stations make’s little change to the larger pool of closer station average. Result is higher average.
The current balance is negative -0.3C. Not 1.2°C. Thermal energy went below TSI minimum but failed to go above TSI maximum.
Anything you say in disagreement is based on you accepting the establishment political interference and data adjustments. All it does is show the past being further less thermal energy than the TSI range(reversed) 1407w-m (July) to 1316w-m2(Jan). Example June 7th, 1979, 1372w-m² and not 1401w-m2 expected.
I take a snapshot at 9am every week and yes it changes each time. Only a watt or two.
Why are you not accepting my comments.
Figures that “religious nuts” would become climate nuts.
An atheist like me appreciates that joke
People seem to want to have beliefs based on faith.
Universal — I am a rare exception.
Conventional religious beliefs and secular climate religion beliefs seem similar to this long time atheist. But at least the religious beliefs have good intentions.
‘...have good intentions.‘
I believe the road to Hell is lined therewith.
Faith allows one to believe whaterver one wants without having to offer evidence or proof. It’s no wonder people fight so hard against anyone that would threaten that faith with questions.
As a religious nut myself, I am highly resistant to climate nuthood. The majority of us rns view the anthroglobwarm thing as typical human hubris rather than a real thing.
Faith (i.e. trust) in God, gods, mortal gods, experts, or just oneself.
Religion or behavioral protocol advised by the former or nominally self-conceived in part of whole, morality in a universal frame, ethics its relativistic sibling, and law their nominally consensual cousin… competing interests to mitigate the progress of others running amuck.
The conflation of logical domains has been indulged by theists and atheists alike. God advises a separation of logical domains. The latter entities have traditionally been prone to conflation for diverse special, peculiar, and secular causes.
Of course, it was a “religious moral imperative” to jail Galileo for the rest of his life because of his teachings that sun did not orbit the earth, even though that was the ‘consensus’ among the elites of that time, as well.
He wasn’t jailed. He was confined to his home, which he rarely left anyway.
He also insisted that orbits were perfectly circular and viciously attacked Kepler for believing that the planetary orbits were elliptical. Thus, in the Galilean system, epicycles were still required to explain the fine movements of the planets. It wasn’t until Foucault’s work in 1851 that experimental observations were made that supported a rotating earth.
He was loud, obnoxious, and, in part, wrong. A pride parade before the fall.
He was placed under house arrest for insulting the pope in his publication. Basically called him an ignoramous in veiled disguise, but no one doubted that the character was supposed to be the pope. The rest was just an excuse.
Just another sad confirmation of Antonio Gramsci’s ‘cultural marxism’ and Rudi Dutschke’s ‘long march through the institutions’. I’d be curious to know what the NAE’s leadership had to say about government-mandated shut downs of religious services during the plandemic.
“long march through the institutions’.”
In the UK is now complete, Charles is King
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/11/queen-elizabeth-and-the-end-of-history/
Yes, there is reason for concern. For one thing (not pointed out in the spiked piece), culling to solve “over” population is creeping into the narrative and is being promoted as a good thing.
I have been banned from several comment systems for pointing that fact out.
“The global warming issue war is waged on two fronts: “settled science” and “crooked skeptics.””
NOT TRUE
The science is not settled. Every year there are new predictions of doom and “worse than we thought” predictions. CMIP6 climate computer games have a higher range than CMIP5 climate computer games. Every bad weather event is called a climate change emergency. That’s new — in the past few years. Heatwaves in Western Europe get attention while the cold weather in Eastern Europe is ignored:
Regions of Russia And Belarus Suffer Earliest Frosts On Record; Cold Benchmarks Fall In New Zealand; September Snow Forecast For NW U.S.; + USDA Crop Estimates Revised Lower – Electroverse
Modern climate science CAGW propaganda may be unsettling, but it is not settled. Climate propaganda requires escalating threats and predictions of doom to keep people scared.
That is especially true with a flat global average temperature trend in the past 7 years.
Every bad weather event has to be publicized as evidence the climate emergency is here now, because the global average temperature is not doing that.
Nut Zero policy failures have to be blamed on climate change, or Putrin.
Bad weather, floods and droughts have to be claimed to be unprecedented, by “forgetting” the last similar bad weather. floods or droughts in the past.
The non-consensus scientists get almost no publicity. If they manage to get noticed by the mass media, they are character attacked as science deniers. A few of them are science deniers — denying the greenhouse effect and AGW.
They get called many names — such as uninformed scientists — bur they are not called “crooked skeptics” when they have a science education or are retired professors. That will probably happen next year, when the average temperature refuses to rise, making the Climate Howlers more desperate.
She’s a witch. He’ a warlock. They were once babies of “burden”. Abort, cannibalize, sequester their carbon pollutants in the modern model.
Richard, the author was not suggesting that the science is settled. He was pointing out that those who argue for “climate emergency” work from the false premise of “settled science.”
Yes. The “global warming issue war is waged on two fronts: ‘settled science’ and ‘crooked skeptics’ ” line applies entirely to how Al Gore and his loyal followers are fighting this battle. I posit that their battle front against skeptic scientists is the most vulnerable to collapse because it is totally devoid of viable evidence to support it.
Shouldn’t you mention the First Commandment also?
The climate fanatics behave for more outrageous than any religious fanatics have over the last 50 years. They constantly cry about Mother Earth, as if such a person exists, and is a deity. Half of the Old Testament is the constant struggle against other gods and their worshipers. They feel they must sacrifice everything to their cause, and constantly attack any ‘unbelievers’ .There were times in the past when people all over the world worshiped and sacrificed to elemental and nature gods. We moved past this when we begin understanding how weather events occur.
I haven’t read the NEA report like you have, but anytime someone says mentions ‘settled science’, then that says to me that their belief that humans can control the worlds climate is more over-riding than their belief in God. In another setting, I wouldn’t bring this up, but as a religious institution , this should be mentioned.
Francis has two gods and two faiths – heavenly and earthly
Francis is heading to the event linked below later this week. “The main goal of the forum participants is to promote the consolidation of society in a peaceful and safe world.” (freedom be damned)
https://el.kz/en/news/news/nur-sultan_to_host_7th_congress_of_leaders_of_world_and_traditional_religions/
The climate change religion is an alternate religion.
The IPCC reports are their bible
Government climate scientists are their disciples
Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Joe Biden and Kohn Kerry are their popes
(and their dopes)
The First Commandment doesn’t matter when you have faith in consensus science. That amendment also doesn’t matter to me, but I am an atheist.
I consider most religious teachings to be nonsense.
The current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and especially plants, in the past 5000 years, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended. Whether you attribute that good fortune to God, or not, doesn’t matter to me. It is the reality that Climate Howlers refuse to admit. We are extremely lucky to be living during an interglacial period, during a mild, harmless warming trend.
But the Climate Howlers will not allow us to enjoy the pleasant climate.
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE.
U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s.
MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s.
US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s.
THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
Socialists are convinced that they can’t be wrong, therefore the only reason why anyone would disagree with them, is because they are evil.
That’s all the proof they have ever needed.
If they believe so much in God then they don’t need science: God will provide. No?
No, God advised a religion (i.e. [moral] behavioral protocol) including a separation of logical domains: science, philosophy, faith, fantasy And encouragement to be fruitful and multiply (i.e. fitness) and make the Earth yours. People who place their faith (i.e. trust) in God, not gods, not mortal gods, and not experts, are constitutionally oriented to be independent scientists and skeptics.
I really would like to know where in the Bible it says that God has commanded man to stop the climate from changing. And if there really is such a Biblical injunction for man to do that, why didn’t Christ or any of the other Biblical prophets mention it in any of their expositions?
God advised adaption and responsibility, not the performance of human rites (e.g. wicked solution) for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather (e.g. climate stasis) causes. The point is that if you follow God’s religion (e.g. moral philosophy) or behavior protocol, and learn to discern Nature’s law, that you will be fit to survive and prosper in a diverse (i.e. numeric, not color) community of people, animals, plants, and dynamic phenomena.
Why have these Evangelicals ignored the oft repeated key Biblical teachings?
Isaiah 40:28 (circa 700 BC)
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
Zechariah 10:1 (circa 520 BC)
Ask the Lord for rain in the springtime;
it is the Lord who sends the thunderstorms.
He gives showers of rain to all people,
and plants of the field to everyone.
Which is ludicrous?
To believe:
that mere mortals can control and engineer the weather or
that there is a sovereign and all powerful Creator God who is in ultimate control.
God is in Ultimate Control because of what he is. God is Omnipotent, and the myth is that he works by a calender and clock.
Silly.
Why would the Creator of the Universe not just run every thing that needs His attention while the universe goes on the merry way He set. It is mind boggling, but God does not “go along” with his creation. It is a small sliver of the real Universe whose structure and function we are just beginning to get slight whiffs of.
Either God has revealed himself, how he is working and what his concerns are about our world – according to the record of the Scriptures – or he cannot be known at all.
The Scriptures speak of God as actively and providentially involved in his creation – hence my quote. You appear to be trying to set up an alternative without a familiarity with the Scriptures and based solely on your reasoning.
The people you are critiquing do not care about their souls. They are not truly religious. They are just religious leaders. They are not in it for God, they are in it for themselves.
Ah, finally got the idea I was looking for…
They are not in it to be used for God’s purpose, but to use God for their purpose.
I would not be quick to assign wrong intentions to the authors, or that they do not care. Read the document. The problems lie elsewhere, as I have noted in another comment here, and as the author of this article has stated.
The Ministry of Truth has taken a new form. Big Brother pushes his lies and the people get in line.
I note that in the early-to-mid Twentieth Century, mainline American churches tended to embrace and issue supportive documents favoring the science of “eugenics”. Eugenics itself was a consensus of related fields, such as evolutionary biology, animal husbandry (selecitive breeding of dogs in particular) and the idea that “better” or “worse” behavioral traits were predictable by individual and group phenotypes — even phrenologically via the shape of human skulls.
After 1945 or so, the idea of perfecting humanity via culling “inferior” sub-groups somehow became seen as both un-scientific AND un-Christian.
The universe is TOO COMPLEX for people to fully understand. At least not until we get a LOT smarter. People born with genetic problems still have to bear the burden and do as well as they can, with help if it can be found.
Eugenics by itself is “scientific”. LIke Breeding cattle or dogs, or whatever, the species can be improved through breeding, or eugenics. That does not make it moral for people to excercise on other people by force.
“Sadly, their nearly 100 page report operates pretty much on what skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers would describe as a completely false premise, namely that the science is settled. The report declares it so, citing a NASA article:
”
The science is settled, we are living in an Ice Age.
A problem is nobody seems to know what global warming is.
And since we are in coldest period of millions of years, why don’t we want
global warming?
Where to start? How about 15 C or 59 F is cold.
Only the crazy would want their house temperature at 15 C – it’s too cold.
And what what we don’t want is rising sea levels.
A warmer world, would have higher sea levels.
For two reasons, we have a lot ice on land {we in an Ice Age} and
a warmer ocean cause sea level rise. Our average ocean temperature is
3.5 C. This cold ocean is why we are in an Ice Age.
If our ocean was .5 C warmer, it would cause ocean expansive and cause
sea level rise.
Why would not be better if our ocean was 4 C, rather than 3.5 C?
Because there would be sea level rise??
Has our ocean ever been 4 C or warmer?
Yes, lots of times AND most of time.
During last couple million years, Earth has been the coldest.
Which means Earth ocean has been the coldest.
But during these millions of years, at times called interglacial periods
and periods of thousands of years, the ocean has been 4 C or warmer.
And warmer, could be say, 4.5 C and not as warm as 5 C.
Has our ocean warmed recently, probably and amount is about .1 C which is
about 2″ to 3″ inches of sea level, we had total of 8″ of sea level rises.
And earlier in our interglacial period {called the Holocene] sea level was higher
by 1 to 2 meters then current sea level. And Earth has cooling in last 5000 years.
In past interglacial the ocean was 4 C or warmer, and in our Holocene, it has been
not warmer than 4 C. Or our interglacial period has been colder than past interglacial
periods.
Generally it takes a long time for ocean to warm by .1 C, and within couple centuries
we are not likely to have ocean which is about 4 C.
But would be problem is if ocean warmed up as much as being 4 C.
Well you do get about 1 foot of sea level rise.
Which get back to what is global warming?
Generally it means rapid sea level rise, a foot or meter per century.
And we had this, when we once in coldest known global temperature,
and we rapid warming which was the start of the Holocene period.
This happens at the start of all interglacial period.
Or when it’s really cold and one gets rapid rise in sea levels, that
is global warming. Or we had a lot global warming over 10,000 year
ago.
And few centuries ago, we had cooler period called Little Ice Age,
and had some “global warming since then, sea level has risen by
about 8 inches. For low point of Little Ice Age sea level, it could been about
1 foot. But the time we been accurately measuring it, about 8”.
How old are you? Or is American English a second language?
And another thing, look at the people calling for carbon cuts, they use fossil fuels every day.
Isn’t it settled science that there is no God, Heaven or Hell?
That’s an opinion from a song.
Whether or not you choose to believe that there is a greater, eternal reality or not, to say that “The Science is Settled” is saying that Man knows and understands everything there is know about everything (or, at least, something).
Who believes that?
There is also a universe beyond the near-domain (i.e. deduction whose fitness is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from the observer), inferred from signals (i.e. images) of unknown and unknowable fidelity but assumed/asserted as objective (e.g. patterns in clouds, in the sand), whose origins are obfuscated through dark matter and energy, perhaps of a brown hue. And the modern model of human life that is delivered by Stork at the age of convenience, profit, and generally eligible as sacrifice in human rites under ethical religions. As for God, an entity that exists outside of sensory perception, let alone contact through conventional means, thus faith (i.e. trust or logical domain) in God, gods, mortal gods, government, experts, and ego needed to follow a religion (i.e. behavioral protocol).
‘Isn’t it settled science that there is no God, Heaven or Hell?’
Only in delusional worlds of make-believe.
Well stated. To add validity to the argument for an evangelical organization, one should hasten to add a list of the many evangelical Christian scientists who are among the prominent skeptics. I read the NAE’s document, and noted that in one place the authors list Christian climate experts, yet not even a single Christian scientist who is a CAGW skeptic is listed, though the list of those is quite long (I am one of those, though not particularly prominent).
A few other issues struck me as I read the document. First, it is an interwoven narrative with a litany of alleged climate and climate-induced problems, including many anecdotal stories. All are completely one-sided and biased, always viewing the world from a “glass is half empty” perspective and completely ignoring the benefits of warmth, the thriving of human civilization due to available, inexpensive and reliable energy and extraordinary advances in science, engineering and technology over the last 1.5 centuries. Human well-being by many measures is at its highest level in all of history. This is a common activist ploy, to inundate the reader in a carefully woven tale, with too many falsehoods or misrepresentations to allow a point-by-point refutation. One would have to write a dissertation to cover the multitude of errors and half-truths.
Second, there is very little mention of plausible, substantial means to transition our energy systems that will eventually be needed over coming decades to centuries, completely without regard to the climate question. The word “nuclear” does not appear anywhere in the document. Further, spaceship earth and human endeavor on this globe turn slowly. Preemptive actions on not-fit-for-purpose “solutions” waste available resources better spent on more productive change, resulting in greater short-term and long-term harm rather than help. To gradually turn this ship in a reasoned, rational manner will take many decades, but from an energy standpoint, we have plenty of time.
By taking the tone of “climate emergency” or “climate crisis,” the document falsely leads the reader to believe we must act, and we must act NOW. However, there IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. That false urgency further leads the authors to implore actions that actually harm the poor and the oppressed rather than help them.
The principal author is a university biology professor who, though I am sure is well-intentioned, is supported by a team of other contributors, none of whom are from the camp of honest Christian skeptical scientists.
Finally, I would add that the NAE has had a climate alarm activist in the camp for many years (Richard Cizik), and his actions and those of NAE have been called out before. An important voice and counterpoint to this NAE document is the valuable work of Dr. Calvin Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (visit their website).
https://cornwallalliance.org
Great summary!
Enviro/religious controversy about “man-made” climate change is nothing new. For an overview, see Cornwall Alliance:
https://cornwallalliance.org/2021/08/a-brief-history-of-the-cornwall-alliance-part-4-we-come-of-age/
It looks like we’re not heading for a Gaia versus God smackdown. If so, I choose God’s side because God is firmly on the side of bettering the human condition. Biblical scripture provides guidance :
Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and replenish it.
Note: Other synonyms are used for replenish. The include subdue and subjugate. I like replenish because (to me at least) it relates to the following passage.
Leviticus 25:3
Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; 4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
I think God ‘s expertise includes soil science. What Leviticus 25:3 calls for is letting the soil rest (fallow) so it can regenerate. Why? To increase soil carbon content. Around the world, intensive and/or industrialized agriculture has severely depleted carbon soil nutrients, flora, and fauna. Healthy plants require healthy soil. So why we debate the possible ill effects of excess atmospheric carbon, the severe depletion of carbon in agriculture soils is largely ignored. God’s processes for moving (and storing) carbon (a.k.a. carbon capture & storage: CCS) from the atmosphere are photosynthesis in conjunction with composting. However, a recent National Academies of Science study (a scientific priesthood aligned with the UN) titled “Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration” claim such affordable forms of CCS are “moral hazards” that will encourage continued use of fossil fuels. Afterall, you can’t get lucrative research grants and patents for natural photosynthesis and composting.
(http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25259&_ga=2.44599716.1287560175.1540405389-618903723.1540405389)
How much “excess” atmospheric carbon can be moved to spoils through these natural means? Estimates vary, but perhaps most of it. Regardless, we should be doing it anyway for nutritional needs of a growing population.
Another relevant scripture (Hosea 4:6) says
My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge
In context: “Because you have rejected [Biblical] knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.
It is unfortunate that this NAE report does not rely on solid Christian values and definitive investigation, like an alternative evangelical site, the Cornwall Alliance. https://cornwallalliance.org/
While it is not a good thing to lie, the “false witness” commandment is not a command to not lie.
Contracts, legal agreements, in the old days were memorialized by having “two or more witnesses.”
If you and I make a deal, I can fail to do my part, and claim we never had a deal.
If I get another liar to lie with me, then I can act like the agreement never was made.
To avoid this, two parties to an agreement can each bring their own witness. Thus you have 2.
Even easier: pronounce your deal in front of a bunch of people. Where would you find them? At the town gate. This is why in the Old Testament you hear about people hanging around the town gate. That was a common place to hear the news, and find people who might want to buy or sell something. Or, where to ask who might want to buy or sell something. Social networking.
So, you could just head over to the town gate and make your deal in front of a ready crowd.
Alternatively, get 2 witnesses.
but you can still monkey around with the 2 witnesses. It is all based on trust and honor. To allow us to be able to make deals and contracts, we have to have earnest witnesses.
One thing this tells us is that contracts, and honor / abiding by a contract, are important to God.
We Christians actually believe that God has a contract, or “covenant,” with us. In fact, Adam broke a contract with God, and the terms of that contract was: death. However, there is some additional parts of the entire deal – Adam died, but was able to live on, through his offspring.
And, as is not uncommon in some contracts, especially about land / real estate, there was also a way for a kinsman redeemer to redeem us back into the contract.
The contract is this: accept God as Lord (savior, benefactor, etc.), and live by his guidance, and you get to live forever, and in a close, loving relationship with God. Or, not if you decide to decline the offer of redemption into that original deal Adam had with God.
I have accepted the terms of that offer. And, have had witnesses for this.
If we are going to talk about morality, I suggest everyone watch the video from Professor Simon Michaux on how much of the world’s mineral supply to it will take to convert off fossil fuels. Spoiler alert its basically all of them in a single generation. So how does one generation get to build a bunch of batteries and leave no minerals for the next. A bit of a morale dilemma that one?
Since Exodous has been invoked, did Climate Change cause Noah’s Flood?
I don’t care what these people think. They show no proof, they show no research or findings at all, they lean on an appeal to authority, their authority allows no other views and worst of all use the church as a crutch. It is disgusting. They have no closer connection to the Almighty than me or anyone else. I will pay them no heed and no one else should either.
from the foreward: ‘for too many in this world, the beach isn’t about sunscreen and bodysurfing but is a daily reminder of rising tides and failed fishing.’
That’s me: a failure at fishing and at high or low tide (so much for my dominion over the fish of the sea) though I could bodysurf a bit back in the day.
The dominion thing.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
What is “God’s image”?
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: …
What did Adam and Eve lose (died) that day of the Fall? Spirit and with it authority, dominion.
The ground cursed and stuff that follows is not “punishment” but rather a consequence of losing spirit and authority.
All of their offspring are born in Adam’s image, flesh and blood, no spirit, no “image of God”. Dead. No spiritual life.
That’s why in John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. {again: or, from above}
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (Amniotic fluid, natural birth) and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. {again: or, from above}
Unfortunately, we have here an example of those who co-opt religion for their own ends. They are selling indulgences.