My Climate Change Theory

[Coelacanth]

On a previous thread, one of many where I’ve asked about the causes of the ice ages, Roy Batty directed me to a blog discussion of a paper published by D.G. Martinson and W.C. Pitman III. The premise of their paper was that the world’s climate could change abruptly from ice ages to inter-glacial warm periods due to the build-up of glaciers, which in turn blocks fresh water currents into the arctic. Or, as the blog puts it…

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[FondrenRoad]

Why is there strong Christian opposition to AGW? This is one thing I've noticed but never understood. I don't see how AGW counters anything in the Bible. If anything, I would think the opposite would be true as man is the steward of the Earth, so the Bible certainly acknowledges that we are capable of steering the Earth post-creation. The opposition to evolution is obvious, but AGW, I just don't see why. Honest question.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

So, because climate to too complex for MOP to understand the climate scientists must be wrong.

Look up argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[mop]

no need to GT, however, you should look up strawman argument.

every year we make some radical discoveries about the climate which call into question other presuppositions. we are still extremely infantile in our understanding of the climate....this is painfully evident every time another dire prediction by alarmists doesn't come about. i do like that as the predictions get more extreme, we have shorter term predictions to disprove.

 

[Coelacanth]

By even responding to Fondren, you grant the terms of his argument, which is that climate change alternativists are biased to begin with. I'm not willing to grant those terms.

 

[mop]

hmmm, i know what you are saying, but we are all biased somehow...i am just pointing out, that contrary to GT's silly caricatures, i am biased towards believing something like Global Warming theory.......

of course, i am assuming you are responding to me Coelacanth....

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

No one, so far, has really addressed the basic idea, put forth in the theory, of how and why global climate shifts might happen. And it's not even that I'm necessarily saying it's got to be those particular catalysts that initiate the changes. But merely that, in some way, by some mechanism, global warming will lead to global cooling; and that global cooling will lead to global warming. It offers a possible framework for the "big picture" of climate dynamics, a model within which we can explain both the causes of the ice ages and the ultimate effects of global warming.

Does it sound plausible? And if not, why not?

 

[mop]

looking back at the history of geological epics, i say it not only sounds plausible but likely. it seems that the earth has some built in mechanisms for correcting in either direction and what you are describing seems very possible to me.

 

[Bob in Houston]

It's something along the lines of why markets eventually rally when they are down -- there is no one left to whom one can sell.

The globe will begin to warm when it can't get any cooler, and vice versa...

 

[HornCyclist]

Mop, your ellipses bother me. You only need to use ... three dots. Thank you and carry on.

 

[FondrenRoad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornCyclist]

Fondren, I'll take a stab.

I think it has to do with the fundamentalist christian world view. It is one where God is omnipotent and man is a servant. Man is powerless to the divine wisdom of God. Fundamentalist Christians also tend to be very traditional people who are frightened by change. Put the two together and it's in the interest maintaining their world view to minimize the effect of man on his world.

This is a bit of a stretch, but I see the resistance to AGW as similar to the church's resistance to Copernican astronomy. In both cases the status quo worldview is challenged by science. If man doesn't exist at the center of the Universe, then how can his creator be the center of the universe? If man has the power to impact his environment so directly, then where does God fit in? It's interesting because the two scientific advances seem to push the worldview in opposite directions, vis a vis man's importance to the world. But linking the two is the minimization of God in the picture.

 

[Coelacanth]

There's a difference between a thread going off on a tangent and an outright hijacking.

I've recalled the Faith and Climate Change thread from a little while back. That seems an appropriate place for the discussion you want to have. Please take your box-cutters over there.

 

[mop]

Fondren, that is simply a bogus claim. I am not a fundamentalist Christian (although I am a conservative Evangelical), and i think AGW is probably silliness. Beyond that, I think you are full of it and can't possibly make the claim you are making about AGW deniers in general or even about those of us on this board. There are many around here who think it is overblown, how do you "know" they are all "fundamentalists?"

and Horncyclist, your post just makes me feel rather embarrassed for you. There is no good reason for a Christian to believe they are unable to change the world, particularly when the 3rd chapter in the Bible is the story of how many turned peaceful Eden into a sinful mess. do you really believe this stuff or are you just trying to sound clueless?

 

[FondrenRoad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Coelacanth, to honor your wish that we get back on the track of the original post (though MOP's fundamentalism is fascinating) let me ask about your 'theory'.

A theory in science is a statement supported by all the available data and contradicted by none. The only data I can see in support of your 'theory' is that in the past every temperature rise has been followed by a decline and every temperature decline has been followed by a rise. That seems rather simplistic unless you posit some cause such as 'God keeps us in safe limits' or the Gaia hypothesis. The first cause isn't a matter for science to debate and the second doesn't presuppose that man can't do things that will over-power earth's homeostatic mechanisms.

Nothing in your 'theory' suggests man can't pour so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the earth's climate won't change in ways our descents will think are 'bad'.

 

[HornCyclist]

mop, spare your embarrassment and condescension -- and your ellipses. I grew up in a Christian home in West Texas, which while it doesn't make me an expert on fundamentalist christian theology does lend me some insight into the associated worldview. Within that worldview, there is a general deference to God, which creates a sense of helplessness.

You can use the Bible to argue almost any point, so don't bring up the Bible. We're talking about your average head in the sand fundamentalist christian AGW denier. They typically don't have an advanced understanding of biblical theology anyway -- not saying this applies to you. You've spent a great portion of your life following fairy tales, congratulations.

Respecting the OPs wishes, I'll continue this in the Faith and Global Warming thread.

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

from a CURRENT thread on hornfans.....this is from a hornfans poster:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[general35]

I believe that less extreme Christians (and Muslims et al.) are open to anthropogenic climate change, evolution, and all the other lessons of science. God help us all if that isn't the case.
__________________________________________________

All Christians believe in the laws of science and evolution. Only fringe religious groups believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. But unfortunately, most christians are conservatives (not republicans) and prefer to debate an issue prior to changing tax laws and government policy.

the media will not provide a debate on the issue. if al gore is interviewed, he is never asked questions regarding flaws in his theories and if he is thrown a softball, he is allowed to give a unrelated response and not be called back on it.

whether you want to admit it or not, there are respected scientists on the other side of the issue.

i have not seen anything indicating that cap and trade policies will reverse climate change or that capping car emissions (at this country's current standards) or increasing taxes or controlling the temperature in your house will change anything.

until there is an honest debate with actual solutions, you will see continued opposition. those for all these regulations and tax changes are the same people that have pushed through 1.5 trillion in spending for stimulus that fails to address the root cause of the financial crisis...

the spending of government is so wasteful that they have lost any and all credibility on any issue that they want more money for..

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---