Global Warming, Is it the end of the world?

JOHN JOHN when have we disagreed....

please reread this part i had it in my original post

"....Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field...

we all agree we must take care of mother earth.... but me thinks al gore is suffering from the "Chicken Little" syndrom... and his own narcissistic view of his opinion... remember we wouldnt be able to even be able to discuss this if he hadnt invented the internet.

It's helpful to think of the planet as an enormous organism, though not, I believe, in quite the literal way as the Gaea people think if it. Stressors (not in the sense we think of as "stress," meaning stuff that aggravates the nerves, but concrete conditions that compromise good function and normal equilibrium) come naturally from all kinds of directions, and there's generally ebb and flow between stressful periods and periods of let-up that permit any organism to rebound and repair itself. If the cycles of stress and rest are disrupted so stress predominates, the organism can be permanently compromised. If it still doesn't let up, the organism is in danger of its systems failing altogether.

Now, I don't believe we can "kill" the earth, because if it got that desperately sick we would be killing ourselves first, and then it would bounce back without us, in that enormous geological and evolutionary time frame it has of functioning and changing. But I also don't believe we can do whatever we want in terms of things that affect the biosphere adversely, and then expect infinite rebound capacity in our own time frame. In fact, I think we've long since passed the point where permanent compromise is setting in, on a number of fronts, and that especially means compromised capacity to support the enormous variety of life forms in their natural, self-regulating numbers. And that means US, as well as any other life form.

Since we are in the Philosophy, Science and Religion forum, I think it's OK to bring this up, as gently and respectfully as possible. One of the "unspokens" that seem to be underlying some of this discussion: I expect some of us here, and probably some among the policy makers of the government, believe that the earth and the people of the earth are under divine protection against ecological worst-case scenarios.
I'm offering no opinion about it -- but I wonder if we see this affecting the way we view the problem of ecological damage, and how we see it?

Stormy, you raise some interesting issues. As a Christian, my theology naturally affects my world view. And I would not have it any other way.

Though I believe in Divine intervention and the hand of God in all things, it does not give man a "blank check," if you will, to do anything he wants. I think the willful (or ignorant, for that matter) mistreatment of earth's resources are wrong. God has created man as a free moral agent. Therefore, he can choose the course of his actions, for better or for worse. With this freedom to choose comes responsibility. And if man is irresponsible, there are consequences to deal with.

I guess I'm saying this in a nutshell. I do believe there is a God Who does not just sit by in idleness. He is active. My personal believe and faith in JEHOVAH requires me to act responsibly, rather than the old "Well, God will take care of it" mode of thinking.

In the study of the nation of Israel in Old Testament times, they were told by God through His prophets that obedience would bring blessing and disobedience would bring disaster. I do believe there will come a time when the world as we know it will be destroyed. Could Global Warming be a part of that? I would not be dogmatic in my answer to that question, but I see it as more divine judgment than human actions.

Please forgive me for this seeming Sunday School lesson ! I thought the question you asked, Stormy, was valid. If people are using their "faith" as an excuse for environmental irresponsibility, I think they have missed the high standard set by Scripture.

Enjoying the dialog! Have a great day!

Point #1: I just finished reading The Worst Hard Time, by Tim Egan. It's the story of the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains. I believe you can come real close to "killing" the earth. The Great Plains still have not recovered from the Dust Bowl.
Point #2: I myself am a Christian. Though a member of an evangelical church, I am not in lockstep with the rest of the congregation when it comes to political issues. I have often wondered if this is the reason Christians generally reject any type of environmental issue. Lately I understand that many Christians are getting on to the environmental bandwagon, finally seeing that what we do to the earth, affects all of us, and that we need to take care of God's creation.

my two cents...

The problem is that most of the "scientists" who dont believe global warming is real are scientists as their second job. Their first job is as fundamentalist preachers.

Can you name a fundamentalist preacher who is a scientist that has commented on global warming?

And, of course, every scientist who does not adhere to any kind of Biblical belief ethic is automatically without any preconceived prejudice? When you paint with a broad rush, it just doesn't work.

Have a great day!

This is a good example you are bringing, of the relative size of the perpective. It's true the Plains ecology was injured in the way that produced the dust bowl, but in terms of earth-scale time it was a very short time ago, just an eyeblink. However -- in terms of OUR human time-scale, it's a very troubling, lingering scar and should be more of a warning than it is. It's hard to keep both of those timescales in mind but I think we have to. I do think the earth can repair its biosystems over the very long haul -- aeons -- but will that have anything to do with us as a species, or will it in fact take "getting rid" of us, or our eliminating ourselves through bad ecological behavior, to accomplish it?

Irrespective of whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring or not, there are other human caused environmental effects we need to address to be sure. My argument for one is not that all environmental concerns are trivial, but it is to question the veracity of anthropogenic global warming in general and Gore's assertions in particular. Just wanted to get that out before the accusations fly.

Secondly, because we're polluting and poisoning the planet with seemingly little concern for the consequences doesn't mean that every assertion about the effects of human pollution is true either.

Here are some sites -

www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp?Pr

www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse

Stoirmeil - I'd value the input from your collegues who study this issue and look forward to you posting it. We (the public) need to get to the bottom of this issue...like yesterday. You might want to see An Inconvenient Truth Stoirmeil. You can rent the DVD at your favorite rental location. I'd be interested to know what you think about it.

Sorry JC, I'm missing your point. My past arguments about Iraq centered around what to do now, not the wisdom of initiating the war. I believe I made that point. But this is a discussion better held on that thread.

Sorry Antwn, but if you can’t see the similarities, between the anti global warming arguments, and the administrations pre–war arguments to go to Iraq. I’m afraid I can’t help you. Maybe if I had just said global warming, instead of “this subject”, you might not have missed it.

*looking for the kool-aide pitcher*.... naaa on second thought i am not thirsty......

What I don't see is the reason for the comparison. But if you're not going to elaborate, then I guess we can both just move on can't we.

I think the point here is that if the Shrub administration says something, you can pretty well count on it being a lie.

Now it seems that the majority of the Supreme court think the Shrub administration lies it's tail off.

Hi Antwn,
like I said the above two paragraphs of your post, on the subject of global worming, sounds an awful lot… like the BS… that got us into the Iraq debacle.

That is, cherry picking the evidence. Now I know that every one cherry picks to advance their agenda, but some agendas save lives, while others take them.
JC