The Bible And Global Warming
November 15th, 2007 by Joe CiccantiI came across an interesting article and perspective on the issue of global warming—”The Bible and ‘global warming’” from WorldNetDaily:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58513
It makes sense. Who is Al Gore, and who is man to think that we can somehow control the universe and future of this planet—apart from the one who created all things? Is there any reaction to this–or reaction from Christians who may preach, teach, or believe in global warming?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Cheney- Rumsfeld 08
November 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Joe,
You are a great news man, so please ignore the rantings in the World Nut Daily. The column you link to has a lie in the first sentence, the sixth world. The author proclaims that Al Gore is a neo-pagan.
Of course, he is not, the Gores are Southern Baptists and attend the New Salem Missionary Baptist Church.
Anytime an author lies in the first sentence, everything thereafter should be ignored. Why should we beleive anything the author says after that?
I personally have no respect for someone who lies to make others look bad. And I will bet that neither do you.
Have a great weekend Joe,
Mongo
November 16th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Lefty,
You are mistaken if you think neo-pagens don’t attend Christian Churches. Attending church does not make you a Christian.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Amen, Brother Gaffney, Amen….. In the new secular religion that is GLOBAL WARMING, is Al Gore a Patron Saint?
November 17th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Joe , great open minded post. Unfortunately many of the people who are falling for the lies that Mr. Gore and the left wing academics are telling, are the same people who lable faith in God as superstition, and the Bible as just “A” good book, not “THE GOOD BOOK”.
And we are told that the world will end , and how. Some believe that we are in end times now. But if we are, those of us who believe in Christ have nothing to fear.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Joe, a distinction must be made here between science and religion: Science is represented by theories based upon systematic research of observable reality, of which the theory of global warming is an example; Religion, in contrast, is represented by beliefs based upon articles of faith of which the Christian Bible is but one example of a number of “good books”.
Therefore, since the Bible is not a scientific document, like Scientific American is, for example, it cannot legitimately be used as a reference to refute scientific theories and findings.
If you do not agree with the theory of global warming, then you must cite scientific evidence to refute the claims of those who support it, like Al Gore, or like the recently published report of the UN IPCC (a worldwide consortium of prominent scientists). I suggest you read the Scientific American August 2007 issue in which the global warming theory is summarized in layman’s terms.
Let me cite several basics. I don’t think that anyone questions the fundamental properties of the greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide, that it transmits sunlight and entraps heat by reflection. Moreover, no one questions that the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has doubled over the last century. Finally, no one questions what we observe with our climate changing rapidly, especially what is happening at the poles.
When you put these basics together with the fact of the increase in our use of fossil fuels which upon combustion produce carbon dioxide, and the fact that the fossil fuels come from beneath the earth’s surface (compared to natural processes that produce carbon dioxide on or above the earth’s surface), it takes no stretch even for a non-scientist to hypothesize that the increasing use of fossil fuels may be the cause of increased global warming.
You know you won’t find this kind of a discussion in a religious tome like the Christian Bible, let alone the fact that it was written about twenty centuries ago. Instead, we must deal as best we can with the observable reality that we can see, hear, touch and test, from which we make predictions of future trends and make prudent adjustments accordingly.
In passing I have to say that I get very suspicious indeed when your author here, Joseph Farah, opens in the first sentence of his piece by calling Gore a neo-pagen. That’s a red flag indicating that we are about to read an ideological political polemic based on religious beliefs rather than on scientific inquiry, which is pretty much exactly what we got from him! The tone of the comments in this thread well demonstrates this red flag.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Enjoying the snow in November. Bring on the Global warming theories but snow in November sounds like the old days.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:57 am
See Joe , just like I said . Perry never fails me. If we listen to people like Perry then we must believe that we are here for no reason. We just showed up one day out of what Perry ? Primordil goo? well do tell us oh high preist of science who or what made the goo. Please tell me how many times science has created anything from a complete vacuum? No air or water, or any kind of substance at all. That would be magic, if a scientist just snapped his finger and a tree appeared.
As for science being fact , that is not exactly true . Science is conjector and theory at best. The theory of relativity is widely accepted but is still just a theory.
I believe that some who put their ” faith ” in science are afraid to admit that their are things that are out of their control. So if they can explain them through math they feel they can then change or control them.
Just look how Perry disputes the Christian Bible, by the way the only Bible,
but then references his bible, Scientific American.
Perry the question is not global warming, it is what is the cause. As for what is happening at the poles, while the North Pole is losing some mass, the Southern Pole is actually getting thicker. What’s happening there , is all the water running down hill? LOL
The planet may be going through a warming trend, so what? It has been doing this for millions of years. The planet is not as hot today as it was millions of years ago. Even if this is some sort of sustained trend it is nothing but a correction back to when the planet was tropical before the meteor hit and caused the ice age.
To link this trend to mans out put of co2 is a leap of “faith” also. Science finds a trend in temperature , do to better measuring and records in the last 80 to 100 years, not very long in the life of the planet, but they find this trend and start searching for a correlation. They find a number that matches up to what they believe and say they have found the Holy Grail.
The fact is that co2 is a natural accuring gas, which is produce by natural means in far greater numbers then by anything man does. If we were to remove all of the co2 that man creates we would only be taking maybe 10 to 15 % out of the atmosphere. And let us not forget that the largest greenhouse gas is water, but since they can’t blame man for water in the atmosphere , at least not yet, they are not suggesting we remove water from the atmosphere, at least not yet.
As for the atmospheric co2 doubling over the last century , again how good was our measuring back in the late 1800’s? And also there are people who dare to ask the question, is the tempature rising because of the increase in co2, or is co2 rising because of the tempature rise?
Why should we expect an understanding between science and religion on this when we don’t have one between science and science.
Global Warming has been politicized by activist to move an agenda .
Some will say so has religion. I would agree. That is why I put my “FAITH” in God , not religion. I need not fear anything as long as God is with me through his son Jesus Christ.
The global warming crowd fear that they are going to die and turn to nothing . Well they will turn to methane and co2, ironic isn’t it?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Frank, you are taking the easy/lazy way out here. How easy it is to postulate a god in order to explain anything. Simply put, if we do not understand some things/many things about our universe, this does not postulate the existence of a god or creator. It merely confirms the fact that we have to continue using the scientific method in order to further our understanding.
And please note, I am not saying whether there is or is not a god/creator. All I am saying is that I don’t know, and you, Frank, don’t know either! If you choose to believe by faith that there is one, that is your choice, but you have no proof (data) to convince me or others of your belief, only your ability to persuade or to hypothesize without being able to even test your hypothesis with any kind of a measurement that can be replicated. Think about that, Frank.
PS: And Frank, you ask about the historic measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide content, please refer to this reference, which indicates using ice core samples we can obtain data going back 400,000 years, including global temperatures as well. Instead of asking these questions, try to find some answers. I’d like your comment on these data and claims:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
November 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
And Frank, please supply evidence that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I am not aware of this, as I’ve never seen it on lists of greenhouse gases.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I’m getting ready to crank up my 1982 full sized FORD Bronco with no catalytic converter and take it to the mountains in Pa. for deer hunting. Does anyone know where i can purchase those Carbon footprint Offsets? and how do they work? I here al goron has a big stake in one of those companies- how much energy does he use?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Perry: You need to read more widely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
“Greenhouse gases include in the order of relative abundance water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. The majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by human activity.”
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
“Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.”
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/carbon/ghg/
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/wco2.htm
How does that saying go? “The greatest impediment to the truth is the belief that we already have it”?
Here was my Google search: “water vapor greenhouse gas”
November 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Macb, thanks for stepping in for Frank. I’ve seen web sites on GW that do not list water vapor, even a NOAA website. I wonder why.
Water in all it’s physical forms, solid, liquid, vapor and gas, may be in a closed loop such that it’s total is unchanging, in contrast to the anthropogenic (produced by human activity) greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and fluorocarbons. This is probably the reason water vapor has not been included in the lists that I have seen.
Nevertheless, this oversight has no consequence regarding the arguments I have made above about the reality of global warming due at least in part by man’s contribution due to his combustion of fossil fuels producing carbon dioxide.
The idea of pushing this under the rug and relying on faith in God to take care of it and us is one that I cannot accept, because it is not based on scienctific understanding from research.
And by the way, only a fool, scientist or philosopher or preacher alike, would ever make the statement that he/she knows the absolute truth, and, can prove it. Note the word absolute, which is the concept in your quote, macb.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
macb,
One thing is for sure, the hotter it gets the more water will enter the atmosphere.
Frank,
I’ve reviewed the research and I can’t find one scientifically tested peer reviewed article that refutes the case for human activity as being the primary cause of global warming. Apparently, virtually everyone agrees that the data showing the earth is warming is correct. Specifically, President Bush has stated that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels (increased CO2 output) has directly caused the earth to warm over the last century. The single glacier that has thickened while the other thousands continue to melt, well let’s just say your on thin ice with that one.
Dan,
I guess, sadly we are not a christian nation then.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
First , thanks macb, I am a reader of many things but not a very good researcher. What I mean is I read a wide range of material and then form my own opinions. While others may form their opinions and then seek only that which backs it up , and then deny all other input.
Perry my dear friend, I do not force or even attempt to convince anyone of the existance of God. I do not however hide my belief out of fear of being called lazy .
But the people who choose to believe in science are forever forcing their beliefs on the world cloked in it being for the good of all. Well in my belief sytem I feel the same way , that God in for the good of all, and please do not confuse God with religion at least not in my case.
Even with science you can only go so far back in explaining anything. At some point such as where did we come from, it begins to make more sence that we were created by a higher being than that we magically appeared from nothing, if we did, how is science going to explain that one. I am one who believes that science and faith can co-exist. But I also believe that there are things that we are not ment to understand until our day of judgement.
As for your ice core evidence of tempatures and carbon measuremnets. I believe that they also show that the planet has gone through several warming and cooling trends long before man and his machines. I believe some have shown that there once were tropical plants near the poles, this would have to mean that the planet was once warmer than it is now or warmer than it has been in a very long time. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere once that science had proven that the planet was formed out of molten rock that took millions of years to cool. So I must ass u me that there were no ice caps in the beginning of the world.So how far back do you wish to take us in our climate history? Just until we have snow every Christmas, or until your Nikes melt? But I’m sure that was just junk science I read somewhere sence it won’t mold to the agenda of taxing people to solve a problem that can’t be solved by man.
Is the planet warming ? Ok what if it is ? Will we lose coastal area? So what ? As the ice melts we will gain regions that are un-ihabitable now.Will some areas be lost ? Maybe, but are we so arrogant to believe that things must stay as they were when we were born , or our fathers , or their fathers. This planet has been in a constant state of change since it was created , no matter what you believe about how it was created , why do we suddenly think it must stop just for our generation? Will animals become exstinct? Could be , but that too has been happing since the dawn of time, Perry if you had your way we would be dodging dinosaurs on our way to the beach on Rt. 1.
Meatball, even I wouldn’t quote a politician on a scientific issue. And while I don’t have anthing written down to give you I would suggest you look deeper , there are studies going the other way. I find that to give out links and references only turns the debate to arguing about the bias of the source. In fact that is exactly how Joe got this started. We should be able to look at all sides of an issue and then argue based on our own understanding or not at all. If all we intend to do is quote other peoples reasons for something then we are nothing more than mouth pieces . The same as we may not all understand the 10101010101010101010101010 of the binary coded decimal sytem of programming these computers we are using, we do understand how to turn them on. I believe that we have the capsity to understand the larger skeem of things without being able to disect the atom.
Now Perry fell free to belittle my opinions because I choose not to rely on making myself feel smarter by telling you who agrees with me. I am one of those people who is confident in what I say and feel, without the need for confirmation.