So President Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Shakedown, and I have been frankly surprised at the extent and depth of the progressive meltdown over it. The reaction has been fervently religious, as though the president left a dead rat on the high altar or something. So many liberals have their hair on fire that one wonders about what kind of carbon footprint that will have.
And of course, I am delighted with the move. Some were arguing that the fact that we had joined an international agreement that had no enforcement teeth meant that the fuss over staying or going was all a bunch of nothing. But no, actually. The fact that it was “the law” meant that our administrative state could use it in their grasping and overweening attempts to cripple American productivity—which, of course, has been the entire point all along.
Stop for a moment to admire the regulatory genius (not to mention hubris) of the environmental totalitarians. They have successfully branded as a pollutant that which every mother’s son of you exhales through your nose, that mysterious substance which keeps green plants lush, leafy and green. Since you emit these troublesome materials, you must therefore submit to all their commands—because save the planet. If it turns plants brown, it is a pollutant and they must control everything to prevent further damage. If it turns plants green, it is a pollutant and they must control everything to prevent further damage.
So let us summarize what we don’t know about CO2. We don’t know if levels are rising. If they are rising, we don’t know if man is causing it. If they are rising, we don’t know if it having any impact on the climate. If it is rising, caused by man or not, we don’t know if we have any ability to stop it from doing whatever it is doing. And if it is rising and having an impact, we don’t know if that impact will be good or bad. Other than that, we pretty much have it dialed in.
But what we do know is that certain individuals want to rule the world. They want to control everything, including how many times a minute you get to breathe. If their lust for domination were poured into a cup, you could stand your spoon upright in it.
So I suggest we identify those individuals and flatly deny every last one of their demands. And if they continue to issue their demands, as a first step I would suggest buying a Hummer and leave it idling in your driveway.
It’s well known that cold-related deaths are ~10X those of heat-related ones (e.g., https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307524/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18952849, as well as other studies around the world which have found essentially the same thing). Changes in temperature, up or down, have a proportionate effect. (In other words, in aggregate, fewer people die when it warms up and many many more people die when it cools down — a fact borne out by archaeology as well.) As such, I think we can safely file this latest kerfuffle in the bulging manila envelope labelled “culture of death” right next to the John 3:19 folder.
Related to this fact, any increase in global temperature would expand the torrid and temperate zones into the frigid polar zones (which currently contain less than a tenth of one percent of the earth’s population). Because of the layout of the continents, this expansion into the polar regions would increase arable and habitable land. In contrast, a decrease in global temperature would decrease readily habitable land, and further concentrate population toward the equator. In other words, productive habitable land is constrained by overly cold climate, not by overly warm climate. Over 40% of the population, and 80% of the world’s… Read more »
*wild speculation*
What if the world is warming up slightly to accommodate population expansion to the previously uninhabitable parts of the planet?
#datpostmil #imnoscientisttho
It almost looks like the earth was designed for a population that wouldn’t die to be fruitful and multiply.
#neverthoughtofthatbefore #imnoscientisteither
BJ, can you elaborate on “wouldn’t die to be fruitful and multiply” please?
Earth was designed for “a population that wouldn’t die” which would “be fruitful and multiply.”
In the original creation, death entered by the sin of Adam, yet the command to be fruitful and multiply was given before that.
It may be time to factor in a new sea level and scoop up some northern Canadian beach front property.
#buyrealestateiniceland #politicalscienceisntscience
I miss fresh seafood.
#montanansforglobalwarming
“Rain follows the plow!”
Yes, if you ignore the fact that many serious infectious diseases spread much better in hot climates than in cold ones, and that major weather-related natural disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and extreme flooding events tend to be much more serious in tropical climates than in cooler ones. The statistic only works if you look solely at the tiny percentage of deaths that are related to temperature alone.
For the fervent followers of Big Green, please take a look:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/31/in-one-graph-why-the-parisclimate-accord-is-useless/
Exactly Mr. Steve. I’ve been following the posts there for years. Hugely informative.
Now that you mention it, breathing is kind of judeo-Christian, Patriarchal even!
Anyhoo, there is no need for the gas-libs to be so “breath centric”. They could always just hold their breath for “change”! That would even be a good match with their skill set and work ethic!????
The Reign of Drama Queens is often quite short! ; – )
Actually, we do know CO2 is rising.
Other than that, we don’t know why, or if it’s bad, or if it’s man-caused, etc.
You say we don’t know if CO2 levels are rising. We actually have a pretty good idea that atmospheric CO2 is on the rise. See:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
At minimum, correct this claim.
What were the CO2 levels in 1350 A.D.? What are the length of the cycles? Are there cycles? What lengths of time are we using to measure the rise?
Now I am not denying that CO2 has risen in the last 25 years, say. But that is hardly relevant.
It is somehow assumed that we have had instruments that measure as “accurately” as our contemporary instruments for hundreds of years when that is absolutely not the case so we are left with what amounts to guess work and best of all it is impossible to prove so we are left with simply taking these “scientists” at their word because after all none of them are influenced by politics or *gasp* self-interest.
Joel, one of the central arguments of the skeptics is that we don’t have a base line. Of course, in the next ten minutes, the temperatures are almost certain to go up or down, and it might as well be up. But that tells us virtually nothing.
The best resource for learning much, much more about this is Anthony Watt’s website: wattsupwiththat.com. Particularly an essayist there named Willis who has done a lot of research into the self-regulating aspects of the world’s climate, which show that the earth has a remarkably stable temperature over time. Things like the tropical afternoon thunderstorms, which take excess heat right up to the stratosphere and out to space. Cloud systems, water vapor heat transport systems (water vapor is far more powerful at capturing and conveying heat than all the Co2 in the world). All clearly God’s good design. Humanity’s effects are… Read more »
It isn’t a pollutant in the sense that sulphur dioxide is. But it can become a pollutant in the sense that, in excess, it can destabilize an ecosystem as the greenhouse effect increases temperatures. There are some benefits to this, but also some problems such as rising sea levels and melting glaciers. There is also the problem of excessive absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere causing acidification of the oceans, damaging marine ecosystems. I think there is some fairly solid evidence that the atmospheric temperatures have risen sharply in the last couple of centuries. And doesn’t the atmosphere on… Read more »
Excellent points, jellybean. CO2 is used to kill animals in the lab. It isn’t necessarily bad or good like any other chemical.
I’ll second Josh’s reading recommendation. Willis Eschenbach is a fellow Californian (though up north a good ways from you) whose writing style I think you would appreciate. Here’s an interesting, non-climate related blog post from a couple of weeks ago. He’s written a lot of very accessible pieces on number-crunching climate data and some fascinating accounts of emergent weather phenomena in the SouthPacific. In “Floating Islands” and “Why The Parrotfish Should Be The National Bird” he describes why waterproof flashlights are a much greater threat to the survival of coral atolls than any possible increase in CO2. His descriptions of… Read more »
This is a little simplistic and ignores air water vapour.
“Sharply” is a bit enthusiastic as well.
It’s understandable why climate change skeptics hold this view. It’s an intuitive argument that over a wide enough time scale current CO2 concentrations are of negligible importance. I don’t think the evidence supports this simplified explanation, but we’re all entitled to extract our own opinions from the evidence. What I take issue with is your willingness to post the assertion, “We don’t know if levels are rising”, when you say in the comments, “Now I am not denying that CO2 has risen in the last 25 years, say.” It’s not clear from these opposing statements whether or not you believe… Read more »
Doug, I pretty much only comment if I have been particularly blessed by some post, OR if you are commenting on the environment – ’cause you are so consistently wrong, and Creator-dishonoring on this subject.
Here’s a baseline.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
D.C., honest question. How would there be “air bubbles in ice” waiting to be measured for CO2, for the warm inter glacial period?
Good question IF the polar ice was wiped out. If not then I would presume it is valid. Not my field of study.
Considering the disputes and inexact nature of the “geological column”, any glacial column would presumably be more inexact. “Polar” ice perhaps more so.
Why is there never a time machine around when one is needed?
DCHammers may want to compare his linked graph to the one I linked above: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg
Aside from the “scientific consensus” geological timescale assumptions, notice how the temperature doesn’t correlate with CO₂ concentration. Also note that we are still very near an absolute all-time low in CO₂ concentration.
In your post you said, “We don’t know if levels are rising.”
It seems reasonable to expect your use of the active present participle to refer to the presently observed rate of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Obviously by your reply your views are more nuanced than that. I exhort you to express these nuances in the original post.
Do you handle data at all in your real life? I do, and I knew that he meant ‘rising consistently over significant time.’ because without talking about time scales, the magnitude and direction of instantaneous change is meaningless. Either you are busting his balls for no reason, or you are ignorant. Your sour response also underscores the joke in the post’s title.
I have no reason to believe that you don’t handle data with the utmost of integrity in your career and life. However, I don’t believe that those qualifications give you the ability to read the author’s mind. Without Wilson’s direct clarification, there’s no way to know what he actually meant. A plain reading of the sentence, “We don’t know if levels are rising” implies that he thinks there is no clear evidence that CO2 levels are currently rising (note that he specifies no time-scale). But, best measurements seem to indicate atmospheric CO2 has been consistently on the rise for at… Read more »
I’m guessing Pastor Wilson is saying, “We don’t know if levels are rising to any significant extent” or “We don’t know if the levels have risen for any significant amount of time.”
Your complaint ignores that Doug writes rhetorically for effect at times.
That’s not very helpful when one delves into matters of science. However it works wonders when ginning up the faithful.
So let us summarize what we don’t know about CO2. We don’t know if levels are rising. If they are rising, we don’t know if man is causing it. If they are rising, we don’t know if it having any impact on the climate. If it is rising, caused by man or not, we don’t know if we have any ability to stop it from doing whatever it is doing. And if it is rising and having an impact, we don’t know if that impact will be good or bad. Other than that, we pretty much have it dialed in… Read more »
Not that I’m endorsing the geological timescales of the “scientific consensus” movement, but here is an interesting chart: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg
Notice how we are still very near an absolute all-time low in CO₂ concentration. Also notice how CO₂ concentration does not correspond to global temperature over this alleged time frame.
It’s also important to be aware that the most recent increasing trend in atmospheric CO₂ started before the industrial revolution.
I’m a big believer in the pro-ad fontem fallacy in that, if there is a scream of anguish from the radical left, it must be a good thing.
But, to balance, let’s not let God-haters commandeer a topic that is one of the prime-directives of Christians, which is stewardship. We are neither on the side of totalitarian greenies nor earth-trashing orcs. Every hobbit who loves the soil should say so.
I was watching Brother Joel Salatin on this very topic last night, part of a series of videos he did with Covenant Theological Seminary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCon_Pk0qgs&index=5&list=PLW8ZE1EJgdIB8qmLLj5KTZZQMb9v3j8zy
He steers us away from the false dichotomy you refer to in your post.
Thanks for the link. I’ve read one of his books but never saw him interviewed. Love the little-piggy tie!
One thing I’m surprised you didn’t point out (though in fact almost nobody, right or left, has much mentioned it) is that the Paris accords were never actually ratified by the Senate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/). So President Trump is not “pulling out of” this deal any more than President Obama “committed us to” it – we’re talking about executive actions the legal importance of which is being massively overstated by all parties. Legally speaking (you know, if anybody cared about law), Trump actually has better standing here, or at least could, if he’d emphasize that he’s terminating something that was done previously… Read more »
Good point on the technical legal merits, and on Donald Trump’s failure to capitalize on any actual high ground argument concerning the statist power grab behind climate doom. Trump has a habit of posturing in irrelevant ways that just make it easy for the media to pin their narrative on to him. For example, the media has declared that Trump is removing the U.S. from global leadership, just pandering to his base, and that businesses are backing away from Trump so they can pursue their own eco-friendly efforts. Trump appears to just let all of that stand, which underscores the… Read more »
Actually if I understand correctly, the operative law is the so-called Treaty of Treaties–which basically states that any proposed treaty that a president (for example) says he is in favor of is then counted as if it had been ratified by the Senate and federal bureaucracy will treat it as such and regulate to the hilt. One of the many unconstitutional operations in government…
According to wikipedia, the US has not ratified that convention either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties). Wikipedia overstates the commitment implied by a State Department release (https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm) which states “many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties… constitute customary international law”. Legally that’s basically “we’ll follow it when we want and ignore it when we don’t”. President Obama’s administration I’m sure would have invoked it as “customary” as much as possible as many international agreements reflected his agenda; President Trump’s administration seems less amenable to fashionable European opinion.
There are scientists that say that CO2 is rising and that THAT is good for us and the planet: https://vimeo.com/147512776
To be honest I’m really disappointed that LA and Manhattan aren’t underwater yet.
You would miss me, ashv, if I were washed out to sea. Maybe not now but soon, and for the rest of your life.
Enough with the false modesty Jilly !
You are a rock and an island! ????
When I’m not counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike.
Or the headlights on the highway?
Well I doubt the shoreline would come up past Glendale.
And hey, Warren Zevon might have been right about the Hollywood Hawaiian Hotel… I hear it’s apartments now.
Well, that’s all well and good, but I am not as far east as Glendale. On the other hand, there is a bit of a mountain range between me and Malibu.
Be careful, now. Alabama might lose Mobile if that happens.
But having spent a month and a half in Montgomery this Spring, I can attest that the addition of a coastline would really improve the tourism.
+1 reference. Though I can’t quite make it out — is ashv Viktor to your Ilsa? :D
That is extremely difficult and will give me something to ponder the next time I am forced to listen to something that bores me. He certainly isn’t Rick. But then again I’m not Ilsa. I think I would kind of like to be Sam because I have always had this yearning to sit down at a piano and dazzle the world with my ivory-tickling genius. But then I would also like to be the chanteuse who belts out La Marseillaise. “Allons, citoyens!”
I have tried to imagine ashv as Ashley Wilkes, but failed dismally.
This is where I reveal that I’m an uncultured barbarian and tell you I’ve never actually seen Casablanca.
I, too, have not seen many important works. I have never seen a single Star Wars movie (please notice with appreciation that I don’t use the word “film”). Nor have I seen any movie based on Tolkien novels, which in any case I have not read. And, descending to the ordinary, I won’t see a Titanic movie until they give it a happy ending. But I know the entire script to “Airplane!” by heart, and I don’t know why my friends and loved ones tell me to shut up the minute I start saying “The white zone is for passenger… Read more »
Read the books, skip the movies. The Hobbit is short and fun.
When I read The Lord of the Rings as a kid I enjoyed it as an adventure yarn, and that’s all you’ll get from the movies. Re-reading it as an adult, I was struck by the deep melancholy for unrecoverable loss of good things, and hope set against that background. No way to capture that in a Hollywood movie.
I think you could capture it in a movie, but not if you’re Peter Jackson making an action-adventure movie with cool fantasy costumes.
Which is why I qualified it with “Hollywood”. Maybe someone will get it right eventually.
What about the princess bride?
No you wouldn’t. Their tax dollars keep the red states afloat. Red states run on tax dollars from blue states. Your economy would sink like the Titanic. And when blue staters talk about the areas of the country they would like to be without, the reason at the top of the list is that they would no longer be financially subsidizing people who whine about blue states.
Wow! The Federal government is out of debt and solvent!
When did that happen?
I would think that would be bigger news?
Trump must be better than I thought! ????????
“A” dad, I’m sure there must be a coherent point in there somewhere but I can’t seem to find it.
Well, I’ll help you up your coherence quotient!????
States don’t keep each other afloat. The keep themselves afloat with local revenue. Then they may or may not get federal revenue.
It’s just that the Federal government is not really “afloat”, due to their debt problem.
It’s more like they are sunk!????
Krychek, what constitutes a “red state” and a “blue state”?
It is really very simple. A blue state borders a blue ocean, hence its name. The gentle lapping of the waves, or alternatively, the pounding of the surf, keep the blue state denizens in nirvana-like tranquility. Blue state residents have legal weed, adding to our happy “whatever” vibes. But the backward views of red state natives do harsh our mellow when we see them parodied on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. They should rise up and reject the label that has been foisted upon them. How quickly they have forgotten “Better dead than red,”
It’s a bit of an overgeneralization, but in general red states vote Republican and blue states vote Democrat.
For which political offices, Krychek? President? Senators? Representatives for the House? Governors? State legislatures? Dog catcher?
Krychek_2 wrote: Red states run on tax dollars from blue states. This canard has been challenged on a number of levels. For example, when counting all the inputs and federal obligations, all states will eventually get back more in federal expenditures than they pay in as federal taxes (assuming the system of unfunded lies doesn’t blow up first). So it’s not the case that there are actually excess taxes left over from blue states. That’s an illusion of our deferred debt pyramid scheme. If there were actually left over taxes from blue states, we wouldn’t be adding trillions of dollars… Read more »
I generally avoid responding to katecho because I don’t consider his comments to be honest, but this one has too much material to let pass. With regard to federal infrastructure projects, those highways and bridges don’t build themselves. They provide many thousands of jobs. Shut down the federal infrastructure and you’ve added all those people to unemployment roles (or forced the states to raise their own taxes to pay for their own infrastructure.) Second, even if it were true — as it is not — that all states eventually get back more than they pay in, that does not change… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Now that the GOP has complete control of the federal government, I give the economy two years to completely tank. In general, Democrats leave us with good economies (Clinton and Obama) and Republicans run the economy into the ground (the 2 Bushes.) Apparently Krychek_2 thinks that $20 trillion in debt doesn’t already represent a completely tanked economy. Obama nearly doubled the debt load of all the presidents before him combined. You can throw quite a party for your crony Wall Street friends pulling that kind of stunt, but it takes a special kind of economic illiteracy for Krychek_2… Read more »
“Krychek is a star system in Klingon Empire space, located somewhere in the galaxy’s Alpha or Beta Quadrants.” Wow! How many humor soft balls can be packed into one sentence? ; – ) Let’s see how well the shoe of Krychek’s nom de blog fits: Klingons were swarthy humanoids characterized mainly by prideful ruthlessness and brutality. Totalitarian, and with a martial society relying on slave labor, they reflected analogies with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. “swarthy”? Unknown. “prideful”? Yup! “ruthlessness and brutality”? Unlikely. “Totalitarian”? Totally! “martial society”? Unlikely. “slave labor”? Possibly. “reflected analogies with both Nazi Germany and… Read more »
A significant chunk of that debt was caused by the GOP continuing to spend without raising the necessary revenue. Both parties spend, but the Democrats raise the revenue to pay for it whereas the GOP just throws it on a credit card. But in any event, $20 trillion in debt is not a sign of a tanked economy and here’s why: If you have a mortgage on a million dollar house, you may be in debt for a million dollars, but so long as you have the means to pay the debt — as we do — you’re fine. We… Read more »
Umm. No. http://chiefexecutive.net/the-10-top-states-by-gdp/
(Though state GDP does vary from year to year, more than Krycheck generalizations.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/learning/red-and-blue-map-2016.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/state-gross-domestic-product-map-2014-2015-6
For business climate right now, Kansas is 26, Oregon is 39.
Wisconsin is better than Minnesota at the moment, and they are all better than California. (50)
For some people, Krycheck is a more appropriate name than fact check. ; – )
‘check, lay off the general rules for a bit. OK?
You’ve chosen a couple of isolated data points, proving once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But you have to look at the big picture:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html?_r=0
‘Check, you and the New York times demonstrate that partisan liberal bias isn’t just dangerous, it’s also embarrassing. That junior Paul Krugmans at the NYT, can cob together “Jonathan Gruber like” alleged “proofs” of their opinions, is no proof of anything. (As Gruber so comically demonstrated.) The best big picture look on socioeconomic growth is to look at the American free market economy (red state) vs. The Soviet socialist controlled economy (blue state). There is simply no comparison. The free market economy (conservative) is superior compared to a socialist “controlled” (liberal) economy. And, as has been said before, to ignore… Read more »
Would you be willing to concede that all partisan bias is potentially dangerous?
“Dangerous” was ‘chek’s word.
Any kind of bias is unwanted, if fact and truth are the object.
A problem is that, the “softer” an issue under consideration is, the harder it is to eliminate analytical bias.
https://www.quirks.com/articles/9-types-of-research-bias-and-how-to-avoid-them
Hard science benefits from scientific methodology, which is intended to eliminate analytical bias.
On softer topics, like policy and economics, bias can be built into any issue under consideration.
Not sure why the NYT is a reliable source when you link to it but not when I link to it, but whatever: You cannot look at individual data points. You have to look at the big picture and see how everything works together. (This by the way is what’s wrong with climate science deniers; they, too, look at individual data points rather than the big picture, and that’s not how science works.) So the fact that you can point to an individual problem here or there in a blue state is irrelevant. Taken as a whole, the blue states… Read more »
The NYT is not a particularly reliable source, but even they are still capable of repeating empirical election results complied by others. Big picture? Is the globe getting warmer or colder? Compared to what? Climate fashion statements can be questioned because of the simple lack of reliable “big picture” climate data. The economic condition of US states has the most to do with their geography as it relates to the economy that their location (isolation) and resources can support. Political policy is simply not the prime factor in the economic determinism of the states, though it is “a” factor. I… Read more »
I dealt with the debt issue earlier in the thread and didn’t think I needed to repeat myself, but since you apparently missed it the first time, here’s what I said then: “If you have a mortgage on a million dollar house, you may be in debt for a million dollars, but so long as you have the means to pay the debt — as we do — you’re fine. You’re also better off since you have an asset — the house — that you wouldn’t have otherwise. We have the means to pay it; it just involves raising taxes,… Read more »
“you consistently seem to assume that the world is as your worldview insists it should be rather than how the data reveals that it actually is.” Whoops! Wrong again Krychek, the above is your position not mine. For instance: “so long as you (the government public sector) have the means to pay the debt — as we (the private sector) do — you’re fine.” See, this is the means by which you commonly lie Krycheck. The government is simply not the private sector, hence the government does not have the value to cover its’ debts. That’s why the government taxes… Read more »
The government does have the value to cover its debts, through taxation. You may not like taxes, but the Bible makes it crystal clear that the government does have the right to tax and Christians do have an obligation to pay. And that was written at a time when taxes went to far less worthy ventures than schools, infrastructure and aid to the poor. You might try reading your own texts some time. And there is a baseline; the frequently-claimed statement that there’s no baseline is simply wrong on the facts. Antarctica has ice cores going back 100,000 years —… Read more »
Krychek, you are a one man red herring fishery! The Government, aka, the public sector, is not the private sector. You continue to be dishonest about that. The public sector does have the right to tax the private sector, yet the value is in the private sector not the public sector, hence, the public sector does not “have” the value of the private sector. Then the private sector, to some degree, has to give consent to be taxed. I know for a fact, via my delivery of buildings to local municipalities, that they take potential tax increases on their residents… Read more »
I flatly disagree that I’m the one with the over-generalization problem; I think you’re projecting. I also continue to be far from convinced that you understand many topics that you comment on. And finally, I think this is a unhelpful conversation because when either of us makes a point, it stands or falls on its own, so I’ll be happy to stop making personal comments if you will. I never said the public sector and the private sector are the same or even that the same rules always apply. The line between them is often not as bright as you… Read more »
You know ‘chek, one of the minor benefits of our discussions is, that considering where they start and where they range, they are actually competitive with a Simpson’s episode! I do find some good humor in that! “I also continue to be far from convinced that you understand many topics that you comment on.” ‘chek that comment is more about your personal conclusions than any objective understanding of my comments, as my comments to you and others demonstrate that I have an adequate understanding of the “landscape” of scientific investigation, and in addition, an adequate understanding of the limits of… Read more »
Why are those the only two alternatives? Why can’t there be a free market economy co-existing with generous government-provided safety nets? According to the conservative (and American) Heritage Foundation, Canada ranks seventh on the Economic Freedom Index while the U.S. ranks seventeenth for the year 2017. New Zealand, which ranks third, offers government-paid health care. I don’t understand why the provision of services must be seen as inevitably accompanying governmental control of the economy. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.
Jilly, on planet “A” dad, there are far more than two alternatives. The “free” in Free Market, offers a multitude of options. Marxist socialism is not as free by comparison. Also, Governments always perform services, so if one agrees, as I do, that there should be government, this is an acceptance that the governments perform certain services. The tasks government should perform are those services best achieved by group effort, rather than individual effort. Military, infrastructure and justice etc. The tasks government should not perform are those best achieved by individual effort. Medical choices, what’s for dinner, family choices. After… Read more »
New Zealand doesn’t have our demographics, though, nor does it have a huge population who are content (even demanding) that the gov’t pay for everything.
Demographics are a complicating factor. And, it is true that the Canadian model is woefully underfunded.
I am not aware that the state provision of health care (or not) is relevant to the Economic Freedom index.
And I think that the Singapore model is preferable (and sustainable).
It isn’t. But it does suggest that economic freedom is not destroyed by a social safety net. Does the Singapore model provide for the poor while asking the unpoor to pay their own way? Are there any caps on expenses?
I wouldn’t say your conclusion is warranted. Rather just that health care is not part of the metric that they have chosen to use.
Singapore has flat tax of 18% (I think) and 20% compulsory savings which goes towards health and other things (? retirement). This is matched by the employer. All that money remains yours but you are constrained in how you spend it (you can’t squander it then become dependent on the government). When you die it passes along as an inheritance (I think).
Ask a Singaporean for further detail, there must be one who reads Mablog?
Much of that assessment seems to be based more on an evaluation of government efficiency and fiscal responsibility than on freedom to act. I won’t say the criteria used are entirely arbitrary, but I don’t know as they are entirely objective either.
You know, I’m willing to try doing without all of these “subsidies from Blue states”
You all go ahead and keep your tax dollars for your own states, we’ll keep our tax dollars for out state, and everyone can they’ll the Feds to pound sand.
Lacking a TV, I feel as though I’m missing the party. Thankfully, ‘Huffington Post’ is always there to help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-moore-posts-zingers-galore-on-trump-climate-pact-withdrawal_us_59316a50e4b02478cb9aa2de?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
If I understand the left’s reasoning correctly, Trump’s pulling out of the Paris Treaty will set the US and the world back 100 years to the time of blacksmiths and buggies at best and at worst to the time of hunter/gatherers, which ironically would save the planet.
You just can’t please some people.
You don’t get it, do you? We’re supposed to be hunter-gatherers (or at least live in tiny houses and drive tiny smart cars) while Arianna Huffington and Leo DioCaprio preach to us from their yachts and private jets about the evils of capitalism and global warming.
This is a comment from the above article. This is serious, mkt. Very very serious. “Many years ago Uncle Dick ran a very successful business making horse buggies, drays and carts, He employed 40 men, no women. His brother Uncle Joe bred draft horses nad made harnesses; he employed 30 men, no women. One day a new fangled, horseless carraige pulled into town, an Oldsmobile with a tiller to steer it. Dick and Joe marvelled at this stinking machine and saw it as the future. Within two years, they had joined forces, fired half their work force and made accessories… Read more »
Reducing CO2 levels could starve the rainforest.
That 4th Paragraph really hits it good. That and the cup. Better than horseshoe coffee.
The really interesting question is: what should we do if people are causing dangerous climate change? It seems like conservatives don’t have an answer to that question and so all their denials sound disingenuous, they have to deny it because it is exactly the kind of problem that there is not a conservative answer to.
We should plan to figure out how to cope. We know, or at least suspect, that the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now. That’s why we find dinosaur bones in North Dakota, after all, and glacial lakes in Indiana. And we also know that people in developing countries are not going to let their children die to avoid burning some coal.
So there will be more carbon dioxide in the air, and it may result in a different climate. Might as well figure out how to deal with it.
That’s the kind of changing the subject that I’m talking about: you are claiming it is less dangerous than the liberals say, you are not describing what we should do if it really was that dangerous.
For instance: if it really was dangerous, wealthy countries would have to support poor countries in the fight, but this is a very liberal idea so conservatives have to oppose it some way.
It’s not disingenuous, and it’s not changing the subject.
“Adapt or die” is the conservative answer to the question of “what if the climate changes?” It is the answer, regardless of the cause of the change, regardless of the severity of the change, and regardless of the danger of the change.
Quite frankly it’s the only answer that comports with reality, with human understanding of climate, and with human capability.
No, this is a simple statement of scientific fact. If I drive 500 miles to the west, I am in the Badlands and some of the greatest dinosaur hunting in the world. If I drive 500 miles southeast, I am at about the 40th parallel and am fishing on a beautiful glacial lake near Warsaw, Indiana.
Climate changes. Might as well figure out how to cope, especially since the people of developing countries are not going to let their kids die because the U.N. doesn’t like burning coal.
David Oman wrote: The really interesting question is: what should we do if people are causing dangerous climate change? It seems like conservatives don’t have an answer to that question and so all their denials sound disingenuous, they have to deny it because it is exactly the kind of problem that there is not a conservative answer to. Oman’s question assumes that CO₂ and temperature increase really are dangerous rather than beneficial. That was one of Doug’s points. I think the conservative answer is that increasing statist central control is a more historically proven threat to mankind than CO₂, but… Read more »
Statist control is really dangerous, but the climate change question makes us confront the more basic question: are there problems that can only be solved through worldwide cooperation? How can we achieve that broad cooperation without unleashing a dictator?
I’m not convinced that being a good steward requires worldwide cooperation, let alone a dictator.
But if humans are causing serious damage to the atmosphere it would require worldwide co-operation to be a good steward (otherwise one country will enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels and gain an unfair advantage over the others)
I’m not saying that man made dangerous global warming is real, I’m saying this: doubt all denials from people who don’t have a plan to deal with it if it did turn out to be real.
I think what Oman is describing is the Tragedy of the Commons. It’s a problem worth considering, but, with respect to CO₂ emissions, how do we ban volcanic eruptions from countries that have more than their fair share of volcanoes? One of the things we have to keep in mind is that we, as Christians, do not belong to the worldview that sees mankind hurtling through a purposeless void, on spaceship earth, to fend for ourselves in a zero-sum contest with nature. In other words, we have a God who is writing this story. He has called us to be… Read more »
Saving human souls from sin was absolutly beyond us, taking care of the atmosphere seems right up our ally. We will reign with Christ for a thousand years, this kind of thing is good practice for that.
Taking care not to pollute is a fine and worthy goal, but I was speaking against the idea that man can be his own savior. In other words, if the planet really needs saving from CO₂, in a doomsday-like scenario, what makes us think that man is capable of doing the saving?
Remember that it was not just our human souls that were cursed, it was all of creation. And so all of creation is what Christ came to redeem, not just our human souls.
But we are the head of creation, and if you read Wilson you should know how huge headship is, God is saving the world by saving humans and making them the right sort of heads
I have appreciated your point of view of this, but I keep asking myself, how many other problems that we don’t know are problems, but hypothetically could be, do we have solutions for?
The list seems endless, and the greater the imagined problem, the greater the need for outrageous solutions.
Let’s not get the cart before the horse.
This problem though does have significant evidence for it.
And if we do come down against it we will be much more convincing if we say “If I was convinced that this was a problem I would do ____ about it, but I’m not convinced”
So here is where you are being confusing.
Is there significant evidence for it? Or are you “not saying that man made dangerous global warming is real”?
I’m not saying that it is proven, but there is enough evidence that we should have a plan and take it seriously.
Indeed. Dying from CO₂ seems to be down the list from a viral plague epidemic, a global-extinction meteor strike, a volcanic eruption, a nuclear Armageddon, or an alien invasion, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I’d say the order is : global pandemic, nuclear holocaust, solar flare emp burst, then climate change, the others are negligible.
How could I forget the solar ejection of global devastation?
It’s a real concern now that everything in life is electronic.
Forget electronics. A solar mass ejection could blow out the earth’s atmosphere like a candle. We must do something, this instant.
That would violate God’s promise to Noah, but knocking out most of the electrical grid would not and it could happen with the sort of flares we have seen before, it might be God’s plan that we go through that, or that we are saved from it through humans deciding to shield the electrical grid.
Katecho, I have domes available for a very reasonable price. For just a pittance, you can own your own dome over your own house and mini-kingdom so that when the solar mass ejection blows out the earth’s atmosphere you and your loved ones will live comfortably under this special dome. It really doesn’t cost much.
When the guy comes knocking at my door collecting for the CO₂ abatement campaign to save the planet, I’m going to tell him that I already donated to save the planet from coronal mass ejections that might somehow pierce through God’s narrative of human history to wipe us all out.
Well, maybe not. But in the meantime, I plan to be a good steward and not pollute.
I want to follow up on the idea that mass calamity can’t happen because it would violate God’s narrative.
There are biblical limits to the size of a potential calamity (mainly God’s promise to Noah) but these limits leave room for some massive calamities (the world wars, the black death, smallpox, the third world in general) further, these God given limits are sometimes kept through human actions (the fact the cold war didn’t go hot was God’s providence acting through human choices)
Oman wrote:
Next Oman is going to tell me that climate doom is actually not an existential crisis that calls for a new savior. That sounds dangerously close to climate blasphemy.
The only certainty is that “worldwide cooperation” would be a massive time and money waster, just like the U.N., World Bank, NATO, etc. And we know who would be asked to fund most of it…
The rich and the good (i.e. US) do fund almost everything of value.
But if you are sure that worldwide co-operation can’t work then how do you plan to deal with a problem like climate change if one was to turn up?
And yes you do need a plan, you are a steward of the earth.
Oman wrote:
Being a steward is not the same as being a savior. The statists are setting themselves up to save us from doom. We already have a Savior.
The world has been saved from nuclear holocaust through specific human actions about seven times. And through cultural actions to end the cold war peacefully None of these are examples of humans stealing God’s role as savior.
Humans working to slow climate change would not be either.
Oman wrote:
Unfortunately, this is not a given.
I think Oman and I are in agreement that there is nothing wrong with stewardship. There is even room for some state regulations and fines for dumping pollution. But I hope that Oman can acknowledge that what we have in the case of climate doom is a full blown globalist power grab. They want to centrally regulate production and growth regardless of stewardship. They want to do it in the name of saving us all.
This is a very interesting comment:
“The rich and the good (i.e. US) do fund almost everything of value.”
Do you believe that truly long lasting good results can come from non-Christians?
Yes, if they are doing what a Christian would do in their place.
God acts through non-Christians all the time.
Thanks. That was the difference. God acts through as opposed to the US being good in and of itself.
No, I don’t think the US is good in and of it self, but it’s much better than China or Russia and it has a special duty to the rest of the earth because of that.
Hmm.
Do you see an problem with how Christians steward the planet?
If climate change is real, then it is a big problem with how Christians steward the planet.
Even if it is not real, Christians are still being irresponsible if they don’t carefully examine the evidence.
Oman wrote:
Extinction level meteor impacts are not in doubt, in principle. Are Christians irresponsible if they aren’t contributing to a planetary defense system? If not, why not?
Why? Why does the US have any duty to do anything outside its own borders?
Are the other nation so weak, incompetent, and helpless that they can’t take care of their own affairs?
Would you concede that some emergencies, such as an outbreak of plague or SARS in an age of global travel, require international cooperation to minimize harm? Or that one nation’s irresponsible handing of potentially hazardous technology, as in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, can have far reaching consequences beyond its own borders? If an oil spill can wreak havoc on the coastlines of neighboring nations, isn’t there a case to be made for international involvement? I think a good case can be made for the argument that the US is sometimes protecting its own interests when it works with other nations… Read more »
Multinational is not international
bethyada wrote:
Nor is a “cap and trade” carbon tax to be confused with “worldwide co-operation”.
Disease outbreaks require quarantines of the affected populations. Air drop supplies in? Sure. But you stop travel. You do not let people from the afflicted areas leave to spread the disease.
As for the others, case by case basis. A sovereign nation can offer all the help it wants to other sovereign nations. If the offer of help is rejected, then there’s nothing the offerer can do except monitor things and try to stop the effects before those effects reach their own territory. …or clean them up as they do.
Absolutely. Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of children worldwide until Jonas Salk, a Jew, created a vaccine. Tuberculosis was a killer until Zalman Waxman, a Jew, synthesized streptomycin. Oskar Minkowsky’s research on the pancreas led to the discovery of insulin as treatment for diabetes. A lot of people with heart problems are alive today because of the Jewish researcher Ludwig Traube’s discovery of digitalis. Paul Zoll pioneered the pacemaker and defibrillator. Without the work of these non-Christians, a lot of us would not have survived childhood.
Thanks, Jilly.
I was trying to understand how David felt about the ability of non-Christians to do good works of their own accord as opposed to God using them to accomplish His will.
I believe that we are incapable of good works apart from Christ, and it is only by God’s sovereign desire that Christians and non-Christians alike perform good works. What do you think?
Hi JL. Well, as you know, I’m not from the Reformed tradition, which means I don’t take quite so gloomy a view. Taking medicine as an example, my faith teaches that being created in God’s image means that humans have been blessed with intelligence, creativity, an unquenchable desire to understand the natural world, and an ability to use all those traits to find cures for diseases. Catholics are also taught that, while we definitely have a strong tendency toward sin, we are also capable of noble deeds based on love for our fellow man. A non-believing scientist who, feeling pity… Read more »
Thank you so much, Jillybean. I really appreciate the conversation. Put simply I think the question boils down to this: does a non-Christian feel the same love for a stranger that a Christian does? Reformers teach that all areas of our life are tainted by the Fall including our ability to love, and I have to say that my experience agrees with this. Although my experience is not a proof by any means, I am grateful that it does align with that particular doctrine. I’m not saying that a pagan can’t love. I’m saying that there is more, much more,… Read more »
I can’t answer that on a personal level because there has never been a time when I was not a believer, thanks to Providence which gave me a believing mother. I would argue, though, that when a Jewish or atheist firefighter runs into a burning building to rescue a child, he is impelled by the love of Christ without realizing it. As my darling poet Gerard Manley Hopkins said: “for Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his To the Father through the features of men’s faces.” But, in my soul-searching moments, I… Read more »
Ha! So true.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy’
It occurred to me that you may have an underlying belief in the goodness of humankind whereas I have an underlying belief in the depravity of humankind. What do you think?
Yes, I think that is probably true. Human depravity is not a Catholic doctrine. However, we do believe firmly in the human tendency to sin. This is called concupiscence, defined as a sinful desire that is contrary to reason. Natural reason tells me that I must not do unto others that which would be hateful to myself, while concupiscence whispers in my ear “Just this one time would be okay.” This sinful tendency explains why virtue is a lifelong struggle for most of us, and why we must always ask God for the grace to overcome nature.
I came to my understanding of depravity before I started studying Reformed doctrine.
I guess when Paul said we were slaves to sin, I accepted the plain meaning of it. That too was my experience in the dark days.
As to your firefighter example, I don’t know how to answer that. You have given me some good things to ask Him about! Thanks, Jilly.
I was reading Ecclesiastes this morning and saw this:
3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
That pretty much says it all.
deal with a problem like climate change
Don’t assume it’s a problem. Assuming something is a problem will inevitably blind you to the opportunities it may afford you.
There is too much variability over the whole earth for any “universal” human solution to be effective.
If climate change is man-made and as dangerous as you think, then we should do nothing, absolutely nothing.
According to your belief in evolution, this is what will happen: If men are messing up the atmosphere, at some point the earth won’t be able to sustain us, and we will all die off. Eventually, new life will appear and prosper. It just won’t be us.
What’s the big deal?
I’m a solid young earth creationist, I believe that God created Adam and Eve and gave them (and all of us) the duty to care for the earth in part so the earth can provide for humans. Adam and Eve disobeyed and soon this led to rapid climate change (to put it mildly)
I am not sure (though the evidence seems strong) that humans are causing dangerous climate change through co2 emissions today, but we should spend time asking how to solve the problem if it turns out we are.
Thanks. I didn’t know that you were a Christian.
Why are you trusting the narrative from people who hate God? Do they ever tell the truth without first warping it to serve their interest? By that I mean, should we look for solutions for every false narrative presented just in case?
I don’t think that all those who are concerned about climate change are anti-Christians, but I don’t trust them either, they have to convince me.
On the other hand, I also don’t trust the sceptics, I see the shadow of the fossil fuel industry behind them.
So both sides have to convince me, but neither seems all good or all bad.
And what would we, as conservatives who rightly fear government overreach do about a problem like climate change if one did exist?
I think the difficulty comes from asking a question that is based on a wrong supposition.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be: What does being a good steward mean, and how can we promote that in today’s world?
I think the answer might actually be in line with what a lot of ‘green’ folks want and would probably surprise them.
Coming back to this post because I just saw this:
“And what would we, as conservatives”
There are three perspectives here, but I’ve only seen you speak of two: liberal and conservative.
Christians are a third perspective, and I hate seeing us align with liberal or conservative. We should be separate. Right?
I definitely agree that Christians shouldn’t be liberal or conservative, I think I used conservative in another comment here somewhere in a way that implied I wasn’t one, but then I go and call myself one… Old habits die hard
JL, I don’t think the issue can be divided neatly into God-haters who worry about climate change and Christians who don’t believe a word of it. A lot of good Christians accept–at least provisionally–research that indicates there is a problem. I think it is important not to let bias against the scientific community reach the point that we think everything they say is wrong. For example, many religious people rejected the idea that pollution in the Thames was causing frequent outbreaks of cholera. They thought it was outrageous that scientists were telling people to stop dumping human waste into the… Read more »
Hey Jillybean, I take your point that we as Christians shouldn’t ignore real science, and I certainly agree. The issue of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement however is not based on science but on politics. This is what I am talking about when I speak of people who hate God. If the people in charge of negotiating the Paris agreement were truly interested in saving the planet, they would be willing to negotiate. They have simply walked away, which means either they don’t care about the impending disaster of man-made climate change or there is no such thing and… Read more »
If the Europeans in charge of negotiating the Paris agreement were truly interested in saving the planet, they would be willing to negotiate. They have simply walked away, which means either they don’t care about the impending disaster of man-made climate change or there is no such thing and their motives are impure. Can you explain how negotiating with Trump would help to “save the planet”, as you say? I can’t imagine a scenario where Trump would be willing to agree to any hard limits on pollution production under any circumstances, and I can’t see a reason the Europeans or… Read more »
“I agree with you that no one is fully acting like the world is in danger.” This is my point. No one is acting like the world is in danger. Not Trump. Not the Europeans. Certainly not China. This whole climate change political construct will fall apart in the next year or two. The US was crucial to their plan, which had a lot more to do with wealth transfer than with saving the planet. Here’s where I think our understandings are fundamentally different. I am focusing on the motivations of the heart of the political establishment. Scripture says that… Read more »
I was responding to someone else a minute ago when I pointed out that we already cooperate with non-Christians to handle problems that go beyond national borders. When there is an outbreak of a deadly flu virus, we depend on international epidemiologists to help contain the threat. For an example close to my heart, the international cooperation of biologists and foresters has brought the panda back from the edge of extinction. We defend our national security by cooperating with the intelligence agencies of other nations which may not be Christian. I don’t actually care about anyone’s motives if the results… Read more »
It’s rarely that simple though, Jilly. In the pagan world there are always negotiations at the government level. We’ve seen it time and again in Africa where humanitarian organizations have wanted to help the people but were stopped by the local government for reasons of greed.
This is my point. No one is acting like the world is in danger. Not Trump. Not the Europeans. Certainly not China. What % of Christians in America really act like they believe that everyone who doesn’t know Jesus is going to hell? That abortion is murder? etc. John Chrysostom (or maybe it was Basil the Great…I’ll have to look later) has an incredible quote where he berates the Christians of his day for claiming that this world is only temporary and eternity is much more important, but not acting like it at all. The truth is, that is at… Read more »
When Christ returns will he find faith in the earth? I suspect if we knew the thoughts of men’s hearts we would weep continually.
As to countries pulling out of the Paris agreement, you might find this interesting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5931c4f004d3010e2771c95a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Psalm 2 lays out what has been happening and how it will turn out for them.
An interesting article from yesterday on China investing in coal plants in Pakistan. I would love to know what deal they made. For example where will Pakistan get the coal to run these plants?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-energy-coal-idUSKBN17Z019
I was hoping that D would join the discussion. What really troubles me is that too many people are deciding what they want to believe based on their perceptions of the motives of those they consider their enemies. While a belief in bad motives should make us skeptical, belief in good motives shouldn’t make us willing to believe statements which are patently untrue.
The point about protecting the coal industry is not the coal or the industry; it’s the people employed.
I can believe that coal has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, and perhaps for good reason, but Elon Musk’s sanctimony might be more meaningful and genuine if he worked to shut down the coal industry not by government regulation but by stealing its employees away for his own Appalachian factories. Until then, Trump will just have to keep digging coal.
The coal industry employs 0.0005% of American workers and that number is dropping every year and will keep dropping. It employs fewer Americans than Arby’s does. If Trump really cared about coal workers, he wouldn’t, say, ease regulations of fracking like he has threatened to, which will cause coal to decline and be outcompeted even faster. And the only way the coal industry is going to compete with oil and natural gas is by turning to automation…which it already has, and which is causing employment in the coal industry to drop much faster than production has dropped. Which also points… Read more »
You may absolutely be correct, but from what I understand, though the coal industry may only employ a small fraction of the US population, that population seems to be concentrated in areas that are already economically disadvantaged.
I believe neither the Chicken Little alarmism nor the need for draconian “solutions” implemented by those who use the alarmism for gaining power or funding. However, that we have an impact on the environment, and perhaps even through CO2 levels, is as plain as the problem of smog. We know human industry produces smog, that smog is bad, and that human effort can mitigate that particular problem. And if I was told that there may be other problems that are caused or related to air pollution that are not yet known to us, I’d say that such is probably a… Read more »
Somewhat tangential – but is your objection to Monsanto’s products the process of GMOs themselves, or these specific variants of GMOs?
My objection is that they have moved outside of what should be ordained by God and have raised themselves above it for greed. God has given food to humans to nourish us and to sustain us. Just like the sun, he has showered all people with good food, including wheat. What Monsanto has done is create wheat that only they can replenish. They have taken the rightful role of the Creator in establishing the increase of the seed. There are many outcomes of this. One is damage to the human body and biome. Another is the damage done to the… Read more »
I do object to Monsanto’s business practices. That’s not what you said, though – you said that the seed itself is bad for human consumption.
Good evening, Ian,
See my reply to Jillybean above. I’ll try to fund the studies tomorrow. It was on GMO corn and liver (kidney?) damage if I recall correctly.
The reason I’m curious is because I’ve been reading some posts here: https://abbyhummel.com/tag/gmo-series/
Hey Ian, I replied to Jilly above. I found some studies but there is so much ‘is not’ ‘is too’ going on I can’t find anything I trust! As to your link, they are exactly right. There is so much opposing data by people with agendas, the truth is hard to find among them. I do remember back over 10 years ago (as a pagan) looking at the GMO research and being convinced that GMO was bad for body and earth. I still think that’s true but for different reasons. I remember a while back getting in a tizzy because… Read more »
I think Doug said it wisely here: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/eating-the-bag-itself.html Eating the way God wants us to eat is a question of liberty. I am deeply concerned about the line you draw – though I appreciate that you are phrasing it in such a way as it applies only to yourself and those who agree, rather than to all “good “people – because how do you distinguish between food that God has given us in the wilderness and food given to use by man exercising dominion over it with science? Why is the level of science of GMOs so much more unacceptable… Read more »
Hi Ian,
Yes, of course GMO is lawful to eat. This is what I do based on my understanding. That’s all. I didn’t recognize this was a loaded subject. I will be more careful in the future.
Tell me, are you all right with genetically altering chicken to so it doesn’t have feathers by inserting, say, lizard DNA? Shall we create whole new species because we have God given science?
While I would agree that a featherless chicken would be bizzare, and would be uncomfortable thinking about it, I’m not entirely certain why it would be logically different from a mule, if it were a successful experiment. I would also be a bit concerned about the happiness of a creature that didn’t have feathers that was supposed to – or how a scaley chicken skin would taste. So I guess I would say I’m emotionally uncomfortable with the idea, but other than animal cruelty issues (which I’m against with normal meat animals as well), but I don’t see a logical… Read more »
Have you ever raised chickens? They aren’t exactly forthcoming with regards to their level of happiness. Then again I never asked them. :) I most certainly did not say or mean to say “what occurs in nature unaided by man”. This is pretty far off from my understanding. What I said was I avoid foods engineered by man instead of God. God designed the universe and the laws of nature. Man’s duty is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. God made plants so that they cross pollinate. When we desire to know him through working with plants, he gives… Read more »
I do understand your concerns, and I speak as one who wrote her thesis on the novel Frankenstein. I do think that we have embraced technologies, like IVF, that are morally problematic, and I think we can expect more, not fewer, of these technologies in the future. But I think I agree with Ian that food is perhaps not one of the problem areas. In an earlier post, I wrote about how Mexicans four thousand years ago modified the precursor of corn to make it edible. Do you see that as illicitly improving on God’s design? If not, I am… Read more »
Thanks, Jilly.
I am not against technology as you seem to be inferring. I am talking about something very narrow, and that is mingling/mixing of different species through genetic manipulation.
I don’t have a problem with the Mexican corn either, although if I remember correctly it was not edible as a staple unless first soaked in lye. They were still working with in the same ‘kind’, grass to grass. Had they ended up with a pine tree, I would be concerned!
I have not. I have heard, though, that if you show them television of other chickens, they are happier. Which implies to me that someone, somewhere, has not only made television about chickens, but also devised a method they think is helpful in determining the happiness of chickens. :) I am serious when I asked the question about glasses – because I really don’t see a significant philosophical difference in the attempting to exercise dominion over creation through aiding my eyesight – that I was born with – and attempting to exercise dominion over creation by providing food in many… Read more »
One of my favorite photos shows a trio of male pandas sitting in a row, solemnly watching something called “panda porn” on a giant TV set. Because female pandas are fertile for only two days a year, it is essential that boy pandas know exactly what to do when the time comes. The Chinese biologists at the breeding project thought instructional videos would be helpful! But, they’re not. Unlike chimps, pandas don’t seem to pick things up through observation.
I have heard of this practice.
I have to admit – even though they are pretty creatures, pandas seem to me incredibly stupid animals, since they refuse to even participate in trying to reproduce.
Well, perhaps, but in this sex-obsessed world there is something refreshing about creatures that would rather sit around placidly gnawing on bamboo.
Mmmm. I guess my degenerate Protestant brain just isn’t super impressed by celibacy in the face of extinction. But I do agree with the principle of resisting the disgusting idolatry of God’s good gifts.
Thank you, Ian. Those are some really excellent points. The difference between glasses and GMO is that you are still human when you put on glasses. There is not a change to your genetic makeup. Although I sometimes feel like a bat without mine, my husband assures me I’m still human. :) “and attempting to exercise dominion over creation by providing food in many measurably better ways than the seeds as they have evolved/adapted/passed down to us “naturally.” This was very helpful. I am not against exploring and exercising dominion over God’s kingdom at all. That is our mandate, after… Read more »
Right, but I think that our attitudes towards things like GMOs in our communities really are important. For a couple of reasons. 1) What if we were able to identify something like diabetes early enough that GMO technology could be used to “fix” the insulin production genes in the womb? Would that be wrong? How would Christians react? 2) Obviously, that doesn’t take into account the more ethically wrong things that such technology would also be used for – blonde hair, blue eyes, large secondary sexual characteristics, skin tone – genetic plastic surgery, in other words. Those I would be… Read more »
Hey Ian, These are such great questions. I’ve never heard or seen any conversations among Christian philosophers about this. I did find this interesting article: http://www.equip.org/article/the-christian-and-genetic-engineering/ I think he listed some interesting starting points at the bottom that address points 1 and 2. Love of neighbor puts many things in perspective. One trap is abstract versus specific. Saying GMO is wrong because it mixes kinds is all well and good until somebody comes up with an in vitro gene therapy that cures Down Syndrome with bits of giraffe DNA. Then what? What if the cure for Down Syndrome is from… Read more »
Interesting article – I have only skimmed it, but it seems pretty wise. I mean, I think the giraffe thing is much less problematic than aborted babies. Because, obviously, it doesn’t involve killing people. But I would generally be okay with curing Down Syndrome with giraffe or ape or whatever DNA, just as I would be okay with curing diabetes with pig insulin production genes. Obviously, though, I would want a lot of testing done to make sure that it isn’t, in fact, creating a chimera – but if the research is carefully done, and it does not produce serious… Read more »
A very good article. I tend to doubt that stem cells could fix Down Syndrome because I imagine it has been tried before now. They are currently working on a way to “silence” the extra chromosome, but it is years away from being ready to test on humans. But, it is a good example of a problem, so let’s go with it. I think I read recently that 90% of mothers who are aware they are carrying a child with Downs will abort. But would they if stem cells from the vast number of babies we abort every year could… Read more »
“I think I read recently that 90% of mothers who are aware they are carrying a child with Downs will abort. But would they if stem cells from the vast number of babies we abort every year could cure their child? It is conceivable that there might be net savings of lives.” I hate saying this, but I don’t think we can offer solutions based on the possibility it might keep people from sinning. Nor can we give life by taking life. Only God can bring life from death. That’s my take anyway. “Some of the vaccine phobia comes, I… Read more »
I absolutely agree with you that we can’t abort some children in order to use their stem cells, even if it produced a slight reduction in the sis of another group!
You raised a point that I have struggled with. When is it wrong to use plastic surgery to alter a child’s appearance to make its life easier? We all agree that cleft palates and crooked teeth should be fixed. But I was reading a debate about using plastic surgery to “normalize” some of the facial features that characterize children with Down’s Syndrome. It made me feel vaguely queasy. But is there a solid reason not to in an affluent society that pins back malformed ears and straightens a deviated septum?
That is an excellent point. I am also not comfortable with “fixing” a Down Syndrome child’s face – but the line that is crossed is, from my stated philosophy, not an easy one to find.
Ian,
Can we backtrack to the Christian liberty point you made? Was what I wrote an abuse of Christian liberty? I thought I understood what that meant, but now I’m wondering if I’m missing something. Thanks.
I think, the way you phrased it, you did not mean it to be a denial of Christian liberty, but by stating that you are attempting to follow God’s statements about eating His good bounty rather than eating man’s engineered bounty, you imply a standard that, at least at heart, you believe should apply to all Christians. At least, that’s how I read it (and, to be honest, how I read most statements about how people are restricting their diets out of anything except a desire to curb gluttony).
Thanks so much for that. I went back and read 1 Corinthians 8, and I recognize and appreciate your point. The truth is I really don’t care what others eat, particularly in the Body. I can’t imagine eating with someone and judging them on what they’re eating, unless they took the last helping and I wanted more. :) God placed so much emphasis on ‘kinds’ and not mixing things in Scripture. I took it maybe too far. I know there are spiritual principles being conveyed in these texts, but I can’t help but think they apply to science as well.… Read more »
Thank you for you graciousness as well. :)
I’m sorry if I sounded know-it-ally, JL. After all, I did have to make use of the ten pages of research I memorized when I helped that kid with his essay!
No way, Jilly. The challenges are what I love about this forum. I know what I think, but I get bored with agreeing with myself all the time! There are still so many ways that my mind and thinking patterns are not conformed to Christ, and Pastor Wilson and the folks here have been very great in helping me see where I may be headed in the wrong direction. Please, please, don’t be sorry in the least. I would be very sorry indeed if you held yourself back because of this.
What do you do with your chickens? Are they for eggs or something else?
We had chickens. They were a lot of fun. General rule for raising chickens you plan to eat: don’t name them. We ate a few of the nameless ones, and gave the rest away. :)
Hi JL. Can you point me to some evidence that GM products are harmful to the human body? There has been pretty wide agreement from the UN, the WHO, and the scientific academies that GM is safe. I’m puzzled too about damage to the biome. GM seeds and tech reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing tillage, use of pesticides, and dependence on fuel. The potential risk of contamination is contained by the use of mandatory buffer zones. I’m also puzzled by your point about the increase of the seed. My understanding of GM is that it does quickly what cross-breeding… Read more »
Monsanto has been known to sue farmers for having Monsanto genetic stock in their fields, despite never having purchased Monsanto seed.
It seems that Monsanto’s lawyers are ignorant of the fact that plant pollen can travel great distances on the wind.
Personally, I think those farmers should counter sue Monsanto for “unwanted genetic contamination of heirloom stock.”
They also, IIRC forbid farmers from saving seed from one year to plant the next. (This may actually be a problem with our patent office, which for some insane reason allows the patenting of genetic sequences.)
You bet, Jilly.
It’s been several years since I looked at that, but I’ll do some digging tomorrow to see if I can find something that isn’t too biased.
If you feel like digging yourself, do a search on Monsanto GRUT. I first heard about the seeds that wouldn’t germinate back in the early 2000’s from an Indian guru who was supporting farmers in southern India. This was before I heard about ‘terminator’ seeds from organic advocates.
I was tutoring a kid who had a research paper to write on the safety of GM products. I wouldn’t want to give you a false impression that I knew anything about reduced till/no till practices off my own bat! Before we did the project, I had never given GM a thought.
I don’t know that much about GM, but my impression is that it does something that cross-breeding could never achieve given any amount of time.
Hey Jillybean, What Monsanto and friends are doing is not speeding up natural selection. For example their Roundup ready sugar beets are genetically modified so that when the Roundup herbicide is sprayed on the field, the beets are immune to the herbicide. Since they create the herbicide in the lab, there is no way that beets would naturally become resistant to it without directly altering them genetically. Here’s an article from Harvard that addresses the biome part. It’s important to notice that they say they don’t see strong evidence for disruption of the soil “if Roundup is used at recommended… Read more »
Hi JL, thanks for the information. I want to re-emphasize, first of all, that I have no academic background in biology or soil science, and I rely entirely on information that I trust. I expect that I am less skeptical of scientists in general than many people are. I have spent a lot of my life around them, and many of the ones I know are as frustrated as you or I that research is used to push a social or political agenda. Too, I may have been very lucky in the ones I have known. I think you are… Read more »
Hey Jilly,
Please see my response to Ian below.
GM seeds and tech reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing tillage, use of pesticides, and dependence on fuel. The potential risk of contamination is contained by the use of mandatory buffer zones Like you asked A Dad, are those our only two options: tillage, pesticides, heavy fuel consumption or use GMOs? There’s actually a well established movement(?) of people who do those things through natural means and an admittedly more management intensive practices. Of course, the problem is is that there’s plenty of people with the “you have to do it my way or you’re siding with the Other Great… Read more »
I understand your frustration. I am not doctrinaire about climate change, but neither do I automatically discount the views of people who tell me it is serious and real. What frustrates me about the American “conservative” position on this is that it tends to be all over the map. I have read every variation on the following points, which can’t logically all be correct: (1) there is no such thing as global warming, and the 98% of climate scientists who accept it are Godless liberals. (2) but, even if there is such a thing, it is nothing to worry about,… Read more »
Yes, there is plenty of inconsistency to go around, and people have become quite polarized. I am fighting it myself, thanks to your challenging and excellent posts. I asked down below if you believe in the basic goodness of people. I believe in the basic depravity of people (which I will have to meditate on more to see if that’s in alignment with Scripture). I think our thoughts on big organizations will be dictated by this, and it is certainly something to keep in mind when we talk to others. But to your point, yes, I am equally skeptical of… Read more »
Jilly, Below is the bottom line of this link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ “This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – there is great uncertainty about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.” This article seems to say that an increase in free CO2 is part of a mechanism that would keep more water vapor in the atmosphere. But then says to the effect that cloud… Read more »
I’m a solid young earth creationist
Contemplate the antediluvian and immediate postdiluvian world. And where that coal was before the flood.
Is someone suggesting that all of that fossil fuel is actually carbon neutral? Who defined neutral? Postdiluvians?
Coal and oil were likely created in the flood from plants and animals living at the time, so you might think burning all the fossil fuels will only bring us back to the pre-flood level of carbon in the atmosphere, but that misses some points: The world before the flood was likely brimming with life in a way that our world is not, (God created the world good, fossils are everywhere) therefore much of the carbon was in living things from the beginning and is only now being put in the atmosphere. If we are returning the atmosphere to pre-flood… Read more »
Oman wrote:
Or, we could be returning the atmosphere to a condition that can support more life. Almost like….say…. a greenhouse effect.
Quite possibly! but it seems strange that the way to take care of the world is to just keep doing what we are doing already, in my experience that almost never works.
Coal and oil were likely created during the first week. The Russian deep wells prove the abiotic origins of petroleum.
Oil yes. Coal has evidence that it comes from organic precursors.
I love how little we know!
This is probably a moronic question, but does coal continue to be formed into the present day?
I am not aware of this. I think that coal was predominantly laid down during the Flood.
Coal can be formed quickly though. Wood, heat and pressure. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014663808490069X
Many animals that survive the cold can tolerate a warmer environment. I suspect that habitats will be expanded.
It’s about as interesting as the question of whether we’re on the verge of famine due to neglect of the rites of Ceres.
The fundamental problem is that all of the concern about climate change has come from an establishment that isn’t engaged in the objective pursuit of knowledge but instead a politicised pantomime of actual scientific work. The incentive structure doesn’t allow for anything else.
That the whole scientific establishment is crooked is a idea I used to believe pretty firmly, especially since I’m YEC. But every alternative way of knowing what is going on in the world seemed so much more crooked, and the establishment explanations seemed so coherent, that I reluctantly conceded that they might be on to something.
Even if the wildest alarmism was true, what basis do we have for thinking a solution that is not worse than the problem is possible?
Because God made us stewards of the earth, gave us His Spirit, built His Church and called Her His Bride and Body, promised Her that She would reign with Him and that He would work through Her… we can handle this.
I think you are crossing some necessary distinctions here.
Quite possibly, do elaborate
What God is doing on earth regarding salvation and His role in doing that is a fundamentally different thing than what we are able to accomplish in our roles as faithful stewards. As Katecho said, we stewards not saviors.
Just because my wife can do something as amazing as birth a child and nurse it to health for years, doesn’t mean we can use that impressive feat as proof that she can do other impressive feats.
God’s role and ours are fundamentally different, but we have stewardship of the whole earth, eventually we will judge angels, “trivial” matters like the atmosphere seem like they fall squarely on our side of the line.
We don’t judge angels today though. Nor do we set ourselves up as saviors of the planet.
As Oman says, our role of stewardship is fundamentally different than the high altar that is being set up by the global statists, as our would-be saviors.
No, deciding not to pollute the environment is not anything like setting our selves up as counterfeit saviors.
Oman wrote:
Never? If Oman can’t acknowledge that environmental doom is an ideal catalyst for counterfeit saviors, then we may be at an impasse.
That’s probably what King Canute’s nobles said too.
One king can not order the seas to retreat, but massive human activity across the planet can change the makeup of the atmosphere.
Look: clean air is good. We have that. Clean water is good. We have that too, as long as the EPA is not permitted access to the mine tailing retention ponds. Clean soil is good, for a given value of clean – there are places in Idaho that were declared to be superfund sites based on the naturally-occurring level of lead in the soil. Good is not going to be perfect, for a government-defined level of perfect. Any thing you do is going to require trade offs. If you want electricity, you need some way to generate it. Hydroelectric dams… Read more »
If we really are causing dangerous climate change, then I suspect the response of reasonable humans will be to start growing vineyards in Iceland, and set up tropical beach resorts in Siberia.
Unless the dangerous climate change goes the other way and we’re all eaten by rabid glaciers.
You are implying in your answer that climate change is not really dangerous, but what if it was? That’s the hard question.
David, life isn’t a movie. Climate change is a scam and should be recognized as such. If it were real — which it isn’t — there isn’t much that puny humanity could do. I watched a volcano boil the Pacific Ocean south of Iwo Jima for several days and the saw the cinder cone when it grew tall enough to breach the surface. The sight was spectacular but there wasn’t anything to be done. Remember when the Icelandic volcano blew and shut down European air travel; or, when Mt Saint Helens blew and caused problems in the PNW and western… Read more »
It’s not whether climate change is dangerous or not. It’s that – according to the ice cores and other scientific records – climate change is inevitable. To say that we as humans can stop or reverse something that is inevitable shows more hubris than Xerxes did when he scourged and chained the Bosporus! Since it is inevitable, the only question is “How do we adapt to the change that comes?” Traditionally, the answers have been “Stay and grow different crops” or “Move somewhere more hospitable”. The second option tends to cause wars, because “somewhere more hospitable” usually already has people… Read more »
Sterilize liberals.
The USofA was never in the Paris agreement. The treaty was never agreed upon by the Senate. The current church of global warming — now climate change — is to scam money from every single person on the earth. If there really were a problem with the atmosphere, the conferences wouldn’t be held in resort areas such as South Sea islands, Rio and other wonderful places. If it were serious the conferences would be in NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo and so on. This is another scam and it is working as such wonderfully well. Ashv is waiting for flooding. Well,… Read more »
Mm. It’s almost as though those doing all of this fear-mongering are false prophets….
Yes, that’s a fact. False prophets fleecing the sheep.
One volcano eruption puts out more CO2 than all of mankind since Adam started his first fire. Um, that’s completely and utterly false. “Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. The burning of fossil fuels… Read more »
Jonathan, you are incorrect. You are drawn to the alter of the Goreical and his priests just as you are drawn to the false alter of incorrect use of wealth. I have watched volcanoes that cooked off for over 20 years. You confuse the global carbon cycle with CO2. Yes, volcanoes put out billions of tons of CO2 every year. Please don’t forget that the important, irrefutable, settled science studies were exposed as deliberately making up the answer rather than actually reporting reliably. Please remember that this is to steal money from each and every person on this earth and… Read more »
I cited the correct numbers on the volcanoes, for which you are still making completely unsourced claims. And yes, the Arctic ice cap has been reduced at a fantastic rate, to the point where new sea routes and drilling locales have been opened up. Can you cite some of these claims you’re making rather than just asserting them? I gave you a direct quote about the volcanic contribution to CO2 levels – where is your counterevidence? And yes, predictions have panned out, for example the 15-year temperature rise that matched to 80% accuracy what had been predicted in the 1990s.… Read more »
Some predictions may have panned out, but just as clearly, many have not. If getting something subtle mostly right adds credibility, then surely it is fair that getting something major completely wrong subtracts it. Besides, given that there is a huge diversity of models employing ridiculously complex statistical analysis techniques, how do we know that the success of a given prediction is due to really understanding the mechanics of climate, as opposed to simply being the one piece of spaghetti that stuck to the wall?
I think the biggest problem with the current obsession with carbon as currency from a stewardship perspective is that it is mechanistic and can lead us to forget about more clearly black and white issues such as clean air and clean water and biodiversity. We cannot steward forests and watersheds and salmon or tuna well if our bottom line for land management or industry decision making is ppm of an incredibly common, biologically and physically important chemical.
Amen – we are talking far too much about carbon when there are terrible problems that are visible to anyone with two eyes.
And we are far too focused on technological solutions that often create even more problems when overconsumption, greed, and the abandonment of rural communities and traditional lifestyles are much more fundamental issues.
Amen and amen, something we can all agree on. The problem is that the socialists discovered a long time ago that it is much easier to control and tax populations by focusing on a simple measurable data point like CO2 ppm. So we are stuck in the cycle of endless propaganda about something that is really insignificant.
I’m curious why “we don’t know” is acceptable defense for carrying on with current practices, while a cautionary approach (e.g., “since we don’t know, let’s reduce in case…”) is mocked. True, the Empire wants to demolish us, but that does not eliminate our calling as stewards of God’s creation. Let’s not defeat ourselves out of fear of a half-truth (i.e., creation without a Creator). We still have a calling regardless of what myths are currently circulating in the atmosphere. Furthermore, do we really equate the Empire with only one strategy? After all, we’ve also seen the Empire compel us through… Read more »
Ok, you may reduce. Just don’t force others to.
The crux is that climatist dogma is being used to push things we do know are harmful (ever-expanding managerialism, for instance) as necessary because of this other imagined danger.
In the general case I agree with you, though. Conservation and stewardship of natural resources is something Christians should be concerned with — which is why I’m opposed to both democracy and immigration.
Temperature is being used to bait us into a one world system. The US cuts down on emissions (i.e. progress) while other countries catch up. Egalitarianism at a global scale is all this is. It must be rejected.
I find it hilarious that Christian were so against this man and supported his “Christian” globalist opponents
Another perspective I saw recently — how many of the people upset about this Paris thing are also upset that Trump is reducing the number of Third World peasants moving to the USA, thus keeping their carbon footprint and waste output much lower than it would be if they were here?
We can fix that. They can come here but they have to ride bicycles.
Make it rickshaws and we might can negotiate
Pastor Wilson, sometimes I’m just flabbergasted by your attempt to educate people on science issues that you know nothing about. So let us summarize what we don’t know about CO2. We don’t know if levels are rising. Where do you get that from? It is very clearly demonstrated that CO2 levels are rising. I don’t even know any climate skeptics who dispute that. Can you please show me where you get your claim that there’s any serious doubt that CO2 levels are rising right now? If they are rising, we don’t know if man is causing it. We put 36,000,000,000… Read more »
Maybe read a few other comments in this thread before you write one. :-)
Hmm, looks like a log meets mote moment.
You should probably read the comments before making a comment like that. ;)
Exactly. You’re engaging in exactly the behaviour you’re accusing Pastor Wilson of.
” Most of the Global poor live in climates that are already hot, and when it gets hotter, their crops die.” Seriously?
Pastor Wilson summarizes what he claims “we all don’t know about CO2”. He then claims that “what we all do know is that certain individuals want to rule the world”. Jonathan gives a reasoned response, which you evidently have failed to do. Since it appears that you live either in Canada, the UK, New Zealand, or Australia, one would think that you would be most sensitive to either melting ice caps and glaciers, or rising sea levels.
You would think that, but then you would be fooled by his anglicized spelling! Or, as he writes (and as I used to write ) anglicised.
Really? So he is a natural born citizen of the US?
I don’t know if I can answer that exactly as ashv would, but I believe he was born in one of the 48 contiguous states! I am teasing him, but I will leave it to him to reply. I was not born in the US, naturally or unnaturally, and it took me a long time to learn new spelling. The only one I can’t give up is theatre.
I do like frequenting shoppes.
But my children will not be doing maths, and cops don’t go on drugs busts. Quit pluralizing stuff.
Nor will your children ride on bendy-buses or have their furniture taken away by pantechnicons. And your daughters won’t refer to their bikinis as bathing costumes.
Bathing costumes is a very long way of saying togs.
I am.
If I’m prying, just ignore me. Why do you prefer the anglicized spelling? Where you educated in England?
Noah Webster was a Yankee, and I am not. Celebrate diversity. ;-)
I read online that southerners retain strong ties to the original Anglo-Celts who settled their states and view Yankee spelling as corrupt. According to Dixienet.org: For cultural distinctiveness the LS [League of the South] eschews the use of Webster’s so-called “American” English orthography which actually is nothing more than a bastardisation of the proper and correct English language by New England busybodies. Whenever possible, we prefer to use the more traditional, antebellum Southern English orthography; widely known to many as the Oxford standard which once saw widespread usage in Dixie prior to the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction and… Read more »
Thanks for providing that explanation. In other words, it’s unreconstructed rebels sticking out their tongues at the rest of us. Oddly, I find that part of me doesn’t want that to go away, at least so long as that’s all they do.
I agree that it is a harmless outlet and should be encouraged!
I was actually about to mention Zed.
Southron has a Tolkienesque intrigue about it.
Stan Schmuck. Joe Blow. At Jonathan’s cheerleaders (multiple aliases?) could be a little more creative with these names.
Blowhard, Jonathan’s response is the typical fearful Goreical response that is preached on TV, in schools and elsewhere. We now know that the settled science was faked to produce a particular outcome.
Hi Joe. We in New Zealand have begun to implement our plan to combat rising sea levels.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11753372
I think this is true, ashv, although Jonathan and I would disagree about the solution. I think seeds engineered to tolerate drought and higher temperatures are the obvious answer.
Why do you think it’s true, though?
Last winter I was tutoring a student who had to write a science paper on the efficacy and safety of GM seeds in the developing world. I helped him understand a ton of research, and where I had any trouble interpreting data, I asked my biologist ex-husband to help me. It seemed very clear to me–and we used only pretty reputable sources–that drought is one of the major issues causing crop loss, and that higher temperatures–even sightly higher–will result in widespread famine. Because, of course, third world farmers don’t always have enough water for adequate irrigation. One problem I had… Read more »
Drought has always been a major cause of famine. The most effective solution is always to build better water management infrastructure.
Billions of dollars are slated to be spent on wind turbines and solar panels in the first world in the hope of reducing temperature in the future by a fraction of a degree. That money would be much better used instead to almost totally eliminate the impact of drought in the third world by financing local water upgrades.
I’ve read and watched videos that say that global temperature increase does not happen evenly everywhere, i.e. the temperatures do not raise significantly at the equator.
Hi ashv. I just read an article that I thought was very interesting about who is likely to deny the existence of climate change, and I wondered what you thought. The researcher, Dan Kahan, does assume that climate change is real and serious, but I don’t think that is the important point. As you know, 98% of climate scientists do accept climate change as a real thing. Kahan found that denial of climate change does not correlate with low scientific literacy at all. In fact, he found that high scientific literacy among the Americans he polled correlates with less concern… Read more »
It doesn’t surprise me that communism and climate alarmism go together.
I think it’s rather disingenuous to talk about “denial of climate change” though. Nobody who’s actually trying to engage with the facts actually denies the idea that the climate changes. That’s not what’s at issue.
(As for the last bit, I’ve long appreciated http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/ :-)
I realize that the issue is not that climates–although I have met people who deny that they do. I was using it as a kind of shorthand to save time. I have no problem with nuclear power, as long as they keep people like Homer Simpson from working in it.
The article made me realize that being an egalitarian-communitarian was drilled into me from earliest childhood, and the kind of Canadian who did not conform to that was the likeliest to emigrate to the United States (as opposed to those of us who came for love).
I reckon I’m a Hierarchical-Communitarian.
Dear ashv, you are positively feudal. Which has a certain charm of its own.
The paragraph you critique might make more sense if we assume that Pastor Wilson forgot to type “temperature” before “levels”.
No, he’s made clear elsewhere that he indeed meant CO2 levels.
“Temperature” would already be nonsensical by the third statement anyway.
Continuing to edit the original blog post, does this sound more reasonable:
“I don’t think you really need a scientist to even tell you this one, right? It’s common sense that if humans start cutting down all the things that absorb carbon, and burn incredible amounts of carbon all over the world, that we’re probably the ones who have caused the difference?” Actually, yes, I would require empirical evidence, and not a “what else could it be?” argument, which no one has an obligation to answer. By the way, I see here even you said ” …*probably* the ones who have caused the difference..”. I’m pleasantly surprised, as it is unusual for… Read more »
Jonathan, I am disgusted at your ignorance and inability to rightly divide the Word or to apply it to our daily lives. I don’t have AC and enjoy all types of weather. Crops die in hot weather. Obviously, you never gardened in the South or the Western states. The huge arguments presented in massive amounts of type don’t stand up. Have you been to Africa or Asia? Guess what, the water problems and food problems are caused by bad government. Look at Zimbabwe. Mao killed millions of Chinese with bad agricultural and cultural programs. What you suggest will only make… Read more »
Speaking of Gore, in January 2006 he said we’d have “a true planetary emergency” within 10 years. I’m not sure why anyone is still listening to him.
The American people in general remember something about a story for 90 days. After that the story can be run again as a new story.
Do you remember when the evil gas was methane and we had to save the world because cows were putting out too much methane via flatulence? It’s all a scam.
This is still an issue, CA is still trying to regulate cow farts, because, you know, it is melting the arctic ice cap.
You speak the leftist talking points real good son. CO2 is less than 0.04 % of the atmosphere, and human activity has contributed less than 10% of that minuscule part of that atmosphere. And you call this “fundamentally changing the composition of the air”. It is laughable. Elephant farts from Africa (where all the poor with no AC live) probably change the “composition of the atmosphere” ten times more than the exhaust from Al Gores’ private jetliner. Your publick school teachers must be very proud.
Here is a bit of Flotsam that has stayed in the net of my brain through the years. Can anyone name the author? “But all fossil fuels are death. Their deposits are the massive graves of millions of acres of living materials that were entrusted to us for our stewardship. We do not know what it was like before that great deluge that destroyed our Garden, but we do know what it is like now. There is a lot of dead stuff. A lot of stuff that we killed. The truth is that we goofed. We goofed and the Flood… Read more »
Is it Doug Wilson?
Nope.
Give me one tiny hint. Is it a religious leader or is it a politician?
Neither. Hint is Credenda Agenda 2000.
It is an author, is it not? ;-)
I read through a whole bunch of back issues online (if they are dated, I could not find it) and the closest thing I found was Ecoguilt by Ben Merkle. The prose style sounded similar, but the quoted words are not in it. I also fed huge chunks in to a search engine and came up dry. Your turn to look!
Nate.
Here
Good for you!!
Yes indeed. Good job :). Vol 12 No. 3, Flotsam, “Burning Oil.” Printed in fall of 2000. There are 3 articles from Credenda that have stayed with me (the mind moves in a mysterious way): this one, a crazy piece by Doug Jones about his war on dandelions, and a short story by DW about God’s sovereignty where a man is transported at random times to a hill with coveralls and a shovel.
That’s a fun hypothesis. Wright?
I looked him up and it is certainly possible. But he has written too much for me to read quickly. But, then, I just remembered that Wright is a bishop and Ginny said that the person is not a religious leader. So back to work!
This is theology?
Climatism is a false religion, so yes.
Hullo Daveme7. Give us a break. It is Sunday, after all. The heavy hitting theologian types are asleep in their LA-Z boys, leaving us more frivolous souls to hold the fort.
It should be noted that President Trump did in the same breath promise to negotiate our way back into the Paris Accord (and he didn’t repudiate the premise of the Accord he just pulled us out of, so he’ll negotiate based on the same false premise).
We as reformed believers need to engage in the science as well (not suggesting that we shouldn’t point out problems with the use of scientific projections to leverage policy power, especially when they are founded on theories lacking significant empirical evidence). As jillybean pointed out, ocean acidification is real. So are rising sea levels in certain parts of the world such as the Chesapeake Bay (Tangier island which is populated is losing acres of land every year). Ocean acidification is still being studied, but it is already known to cause the breakdown of calcifying organisms as well as others. Through… Read more »
Here is a graph of global temps in the last 100 years. http://econbrowser.com/archives/2009/11/the_global_surf
Here is a graph of global temps over the last 10,000 years.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And then there was this. (trigger warning: science)
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511