Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning gasoline in vehicles. Scientists say the atmosphere can absorb a great deal of it, but many worry that people are adding more than nature can handle. They say the gases are building up around the Earth, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.
After reading it, I felt compelled to comment and mentioned that I felt that sinking a bunch of money into global warming right now might not be smart when we are in such financial trouble with war and debt. I also linked a copy of an article, "Christian reluctance to jump on global warming bandwagon attributed to skepticism of evolution" - by a guest commentary to Answers in Genesis (Michael Oard) which stated:
Most of the reason for the hype to act now is because scientists now lean toward the idea that the climate can change abruptly 10 to 25°F in a matter of decades. That is why Crouch is afraid of a “runaway gallop” in climatic warming. This paradigm change in climatology is because of abrupt changes in oxygen isotopes (generally correlated with temperature) and other variables discovered in ice cores on the Greenland Ice Sheet.3 But their belief in abrupt climate change is a consequence of their “uniformitarian” worldview that ignores the Bible and the post-Flood rapid Ice Age.
So why are there prominent skeptics of the significance of greenhouse warming? The main reason is observations. We have observed a 30% increase in carbon dioxide in about 120 years and another 30% increase in carbon dioxide equivalents from other greenhouse gases. This 60% rise in carbon dioxide and its equivalents has caused a slight global warming of only 1°F.
The same article also stated that the costs of fighting greenhouse warming are "grossly" underestimated, and would likely reach into the trillions (most of which resting on western nations). In a world full of nuclear threats, wars on terrorism, and national deficits... do we really have the extra greenbacks lying around to sink into an imperfect Science that may be grossly overestimated itself?
The day after my comment was posted, a response post appeared on the "Independent Christian Voice" entitled, "Reader: ‘Do you believe in evolution?’". The post included my name a few times. The writer asked a few questions and made a few assertions, which I believe deserve another post. I know I try and keep it light in here, but keeping it light doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on weightier matters.
Here below are statements made by the Independent Christian Voice with my comments:
In response to our post yesterday about American drivers accounting for nearly half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, reader sprittibee asked an interesting question: “Do you believe in evolution?”
The short answer: Yes, I do believe in evolution.
Evolution is one of the catalyst questions in Christianity. While your beliefs about it may not effect your salvation, it most certainly will affect your worldview... and your worldview is the window through which you evaluate all other thoughts. Even though I may not talk about it a lot here at Sprittibee's Blog, I most certainly have read up on the topic. I have been schooled (public school and college) to believe in Evolution - yet I have also read much and studied much on my own from both the Intelligent Design movement (which seems to be what our friend at "Independent Christian Voice" subscribes to) and Creationism. Being a Christian, as the Independent Christian Voice proclaims to be, I also draw truth from my Bible and pray for wisdom. I know what evolution means (and didn't need a definition of it given to me). Micro-evolution (gradual variations within a species - such as the breeding differences in dogs or the resistances in bacteria) is a well-known and documented fact. However, MACRO-evolution, which tries to sneak into the same definition (in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better life-form - like pond slime to monkeys) is a fairy-tale and there is absolutely NO proof for it.
Science has yet to produce a positive genetic mutation. Sure, a fruit fly may grow a set of extra wings, but what they don't tell you is that the fruit fly which grew the extra set of wings is STERILE and can't FLY.
There is too much scientific and historical evidence and documentation of evolution — as defined above — for me to disbelieve in evolution. But, don’t stop reading yet. The best examples of evolution are bacteria, viruses and diseases which have evolved dramatically during my lifetime, which is why we’re constantly looking for stronger and more effective antibiotics and medicines to combat the ever-changing — ever-evolving — threat. There’s sufficient scientific observation and documentation of evolution of animal and insect species to convince me of evolution and natural selection. As a matter of fact, my own dogs are products of evolution through selective breeding.I agree with you that variations within species can be quite amazing. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is scary and yet interesting. However, if you are trying to use this to convince me that my distant relatives evolved from a mass of protoplasm in some primordial sea, you will not succeed. The 'science' of Darwin is based on trumped up fabrications and funded by property taxes. Critics are silenced. Scientists who dissent are likely to be un-employed if they let their views become public knowledge. I hardly call this scientific. Adolf Hitler once stated, "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." His minister of propaganda stated it this way:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."That is just what MACRO-evolution is. The biggest lie of our time. There isn't an amount of time large enough to fit between the amoeba and the astrophysicist to make the story of evolution believable.
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Perhaps the intended question is whether I believe in secular science’s theory of the creation and/or evolution of our world as promoted in the “Big Bang” Theory and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution — or more specifically, am I a “young-earth” or an “old-earth” believer? The short answer: I don’t know — and, frankly, it doesn’t impact my faith in God and my life in Jesus either way.
I am glad that my brother at the Independent Christian Voice believes in God creating the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1) as he stated in his post. I'm glad he believes that Jesus (The Word) was with God and was God in the beginning (as it states in John 1:1). However, my joy stops short when I hear that he does not know what to believe about God's Creation. Truthfully, I think your beliefs regarding young or old creation make a big impact - not only on your faith, but your life in general. It is a lot harder to believe in a God who uses the tool of millions of years to shape his universe. It is a lot easier to imagine that he is remote and apathetic towards us. It is easy to dismiss the miracles of Jesus and the wonders shown to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt if we think our God is only a cosmic dice thrower. It is also a lot easier to allow the Bible to be "only a good book" or "a lot of nice, moral stories" if we allow ourselves to imagine that God can't work miracles or work in ways that nature currently doesn't display.
What I find curious is how my belief (or lack thereof) in evolution should impact how I view the emissions report.Climatology, just like Cryptozoology and Radiometric Dating all gain clarity when you allow ALL of the evidence to be presented - not just the well-funded, narrow-minded FLUFF. That is what is lacking in our public schools and that is why Darwinists are all in such a rage lately about Creation Science being presented equally in public schools. Again, I think it makes a BIG difference in how you view EVERYTHING.
Does sprittibee discount the report? She doesn’t say, although a reasonable person might infer that she does in fact discount the conclusions of the report with her citation of a Answers in Genesis article. I read the article and nothing in it would change my response to the emissions report.The emissions report may be fact, or it may be fluff. I don't know. I don't know much about the Environmental Defense Agency (which supplied the charts for the Washington Post article and are seeing a "record" increase in giving due to the prolific media attentions to 'global warming').... but it seems to me that problems that are here now like Aids, Cancer, Hunger, Poverty and Missions should be foremost on the mind of a Christian - because they were foremost on the mind of Christ.
Whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, it’s hard to deny the existence and effects of pollution. And no one will convince me that our vehicles’ emissions are not harmful to our environment. Based on that premise, Americans are contributing nearly half of all these emissions; yet, we only account for 5% of the population.
In our wanton consumerism, we have placed our pleasures and conveniences (big, inefficient cars with little effort toward conservation — “no one’s gonna tell us what to do with our lives”) above the rights and needs of our world neighbors as well as any negative impact on God’s creation. That doesn’t sound very Christ-like.
Here's where the Independent Christian Voice and I agree. I do agree with trying to find ways to curb pollution, making sure that the cars on the roads are up to standards, finding clean ways to deal with toxic waste, and being smart about recycling. I applaud the scientists who are working on bio-fuels and will be happy to drive a sludge-burning cellulosic ethanol car when they come available. Just because I believe the planet may not last forever doesn't mean I approve of poor stewardship.
Proclaiming that global warming isn’t a real threat or that climate change has little to do with man’s behavior (as unreasonable as that may sound) doesn’t mitigate the fact that as Christians we have a responsibility to be wise stewards of God’s resources and His creation. Can sprittibee or the people at Answers in Genesis honestly say that we have indeed been good stewards?I can say that we haven't been. We haven't been much good at anything by Jesus' standards. I don't disagree with you that some of us have a blatant disregard for all things green, either. Amidst jokes of "tree hugging" and "environmentalist wackos", there lies a truth about stewardship that is being grossly overlooked. I think that we could all use a LOT of preaching and teaching about how we can use our resources more wisely. What I don't believe, however, is that our use of resources is going to be the cause of some "global warming nightmare comparable to the extinction of the dinosaurs". I also don't believe that resources are really all that important in the scheme of things. People are what are important. Jesus didn't come to save the fossil fuels.
If we are, in fact, good stewards of our environment and all that God has blessed us with, and we press our government(s) toward policies that reflect good stewardship, the global warming debate would be a moot one because we would minimize any possible impact (whether real or imagined) on this earth. The controversy would be moot. But rather than own up to our own behavior, waste and contribution to the problem of pollution (especially an excessively disproportionate contribution), Christians are attacking the science and ignoring the simple principles of stewardship above and beyond any scientific arguments or evidence. In my mind, it’s simply common sense.
In the end, we as Christians must ask: What would Jesus do?
In the end, after asking what would Jesus do.... I think we should write a check out to Christian Aid, Compassion International, Mercy Ships, EEM, International Christian Concern or your favorite charity of choice that is reaching out to the persecuted and suffering with the hope of Christ and the bounty of His provision.
In the end, after asking what Jesus would do.... I think that we should request that our government continue to develop alternative fuels that use waste and burn clean... and continue to recycle... and re-think wasteful packaging.
I'm not the enemy of the "greenie". I believe in good stewardship. I just believe that there are more important things than our atmosphere. God is big enough to handle the ozone. We were not called to be fishers of environmentally safe ideas. We were called to be fishers of MEN.
For some alternative viewpoints to those expressed by Answers in Genesis, check out Hugh Ross’ website Reasons To Believe. Skeptics should give Ross and the site’s perspective the same consideration that they would expect others to afford them.I've already checked out Reasons to Believe. I believe they are divisive and are sadly leading Christians astray. I was one of the first people they canvassed with mail-outs the year they started up, and I used to get their newsletter. After careful consideration and much research into all of the available information about 'young' and 'old' Earth Creationist viewpoints, I have sided with the Young Earth. It is the side the Bible takes. After all, aren't we asking ourselves what Jesus would do?
Buzz Words: Ecology, America, Greenhouse, Media, Current Events, Christian, Worldview, Causes, Charity, Climate, Science, Christianity, Global Warming, Environment, Evolution, Stewardship, Politics, Creationism, Intelligent Design