What Do I Stand For?
We all tend to align ourselves with some form of a political party. Usually we are Republican or Demacrate, or Conservative or Liberal. I consider myself to be more of a consevative. What I catch myself doing is allowing my opinions to be swayed with the party's opinion. Take for instance the issue of global waming. I find myself debating the issue from the more conservative stance, that this is a natural fluctuation in enviormental temperatures. Fact is I know very little about natural global fluctuations in the past. Yet, I spit back arguments that I have heard other conservatives make. This piticular issue should not be conservative nor liberal. It should be strictly scientific. I am not saying that global warming is the devistating catastrophy the liberals make it out to be. Nor am I saying that we can keep trashing our planet with no effect. Usually on divided issues like this, the truth is somewhere in the middle. the point of the post is not global warming, I still have much to learn on the issue. It is that we need to be careful how and why we form opinions on important matters. Kind of like the death penalty. Somehow the death penalty seems to be wanted by conservatives, even though it really goes against most religous beliefs. Somewhere along the line some consevative backed the death penalty and others followed suite. We must (especially myself) make up our minds one topic at a time. I know many liberals who make the statement "I believe abortion is wrong and would never have one, but I don't think I should force my opinion on others, and that everyone should be free to make their own choice". So what they are saying is that abortion is immoral, but that different people should be allowed different set of moral standards. They are not willing to hold others to their own moral standard. My guess is that this is just simply a case of aligning oneself with a political theology. I know may people who say they would never have (or let their spouse) an abortion, yet are prochoice.
I am trying to be more conceince of why I believe what I do. Its not easy sometimes, but it is something we all must do. So before you debate a subject with someone. Ask yourself why your taking the stance you are.
I am trying to be more conceince of why I believe what I do. Its not easy sometimes, but it is something we all must do. So before you debate a subject with someone. Ask yourself why your taking the stance you are.
posted by Jim Fisher at 3:21 PM
21 Comments:
1)"Fact is I know very little about natural global fluctuations in the past. Yet, I spit back arguments that I have heard other conservatives make."
Interesting Blog. Spitting back arguments may not necessarily be bad. It forces the other side to substantiate their views, which they have never done.
Global warming did not come from the scientific community. It comes from Leftists who hate American Captialism and American Ideals and freedom.
I know. You think I am parroting the Right. Perhaps I am. So what? If I am wrong then the burden of proof belongs to those that hate America first.
It should be no shock that Leftists have used Global Warming propaganda for decades now, since they had control of the Media and Education, ect... That is changing and the war of ideas is on, and they have no idea what to do.
2) "Somehow the death penalty seems to be wanted by conservatives, even though it really goes against most religous beliefs. Somewhere along the line some consevative backed the death penalty and others followed suite."
a) Where do you get this? You seem to think that everyone on the Right is in lock step. Nothing could be further from the truth.
b) Why is the death penalty inconsistent with religious beliefs? I see it as totally consistent with religious beliefs. In fact, it must be or religious beliefs have no basis at all.
3) "My guess is that this is just simply a case of aligning oneself with a political theology."
This may be the case. I agree we should think through issues. But doesn't the freedom of our democratic process and free press and First Amendment provide the basis for persuading our fellow man?
Sometimes I align myself with a particular position within an ideology when I haven't thought through a position, simply because smarter men who have gone before me already have. We all do that to some extent and have to.
Yet we are still to think through the issues on our own as well, and have to.
Interesting Blog. Spitting back arguments may not necessarily be bad. It forces the other side to substantiate their views, which they have never done.
Nothing wrong with forcing someone to substantiate their views, but spitting back someone else's argument is not the way to do it. Reason I say this is bacaise you may at heart agree with the persons view, but prevent yourself from seeing it because once you start using someone else's views you'll tend to stay differenciated.
Global warming did not come from the scientific community. It comes from Leftists who hate American Captialism and American Ideals and freedom.
Global warming did not come from the left or right, it came from the fact the globe is getting warmer. As far as giving the burden off proof to the left, this is kind of my point. Global warming should not be a left or right issue. Although it has become that way. Global surface temperatures are rising (FACT), what is causing that to happen should just be scientific, not political (left, right).
b) Why is the death penalty inconsistent with religious beliefs? I see it as totally consistent with religious beliefs. In fact, it must be or religious beliefs have no basis at all.
WWJD? In the event a killer was caught? I would summize that we should keep him locked up and let God cast his judgment on the day of his natural death. We are not to judge his penalty, only keep the rest of us safe until he dies. Perhaps I am wrong. I know the old testament gives examples of death penalty, but I though the new covenent changed that? Perhaps I am wrong? it is besides my point anyway.
Sometimes I align myself with a particular position within an ideology when I haven't thought through a position, simply because smarter men who have gone before me already have. We all do that to some extent and have to.
This is exactly what I mean. Anyone one the left could make the same statement. At one time slavery could have been considered to be favored by conservatives. Granted that was a differnet time with different meanings. I am afraid that someday when we look back at an issue like global warming, we'll say the same thing.
"Global warming did not come from the left or right, it came from the fact the globe is getting warmer."
And how do we know that fact? Was it due to science? You could argue yes.
Let me give an example. In the Dispensational Religious Right, there are many who claim that it is a scientific fact that earthquakes are on the rise. Guess what. They are right.
The problem with this argument is that the evidence gathering capabilities keep increasing, giving the false impression that science is showing earthquakes to be on the rise.
Notice however that many in Dispensationalism misinterpret Matthew chapter 24, then force their incorrect interpretation on the so-called scientific facts.
This is exactly what has happened on the Political Left. They hate captialism. They will use any so-called scientific facts to prove their anti-capitalistic beliefs.
There may in fact be evidence that appears the earth is getting warmer, but far more study needs to be done. But even still, the Left will ALWAYS blame America for this problem.
Notice they aren't blaming Mexico for drilling for more oil. Notice they don't give a hoot about China or any other country.
Perhaps we are in a Solar Warming cycle?
2) "Reason I say this is bacaise you may at heart agree with the persons view, but prevent yourself from seeing it because once you start using someone else's views you'll tend to stay differenciated."
I agree to some extent. Obviously we all need to think through the arguments we use eventually.
a) I simply meant that we all hold to particular views within larger frameworks. I don't have the ability to study every issue at once in every system.
For example, I am a Calvinist. There are some sub points in that system that some disagree on. I may tend to hold to a majority view until I have had the time to study a particular viewpoint, and then perhaps side with a minority view.
b) However to think that everyone does this simply isn't true. Remember Bush's Supreme Court nominee? Or how about the Immigration issue?
Are there a lot of dummies who just parrot the news, yes. Is that most people? Well I suppose getting your message out to people who may vote but dont pay close attention to sound arguments has always been a part of our system. Therefore popularizing arguments is a needed part of our politcal system.
3) "Perhaps I am wrong? it is besides my point anyway." [Capital punishment]
Yes, you are wrong on this particular point (you misunderstand the natures of the covenants), and yes it is besides the point.
;-)
There may in fact be evidence that appears the earth is getting warmer, but far more study needs to be done. But even still, the Left will ALWAYS blame America for this problem.
I don't think there is evidence the earth is getting warmer, it is getting warmer. Different from earth quakes. Average temperature is not a matter of our ability to observe. We have the hard data. Natual fluctuations or man made, I don't know. What worries me is a study I just read that shows our acceleration in temp is faster than past natural fluctuations. Is this just left propaganda, perhaps some influence, but the way the study was detailed made sense to me. I agree the left loves to blame America rather than the world. They ususally say something like "US must set the example" or some other crap. I believe US has already taken many of the nessisary steps to do our part and we have already led the way and now its time for other countries to follow suite. I know the left is an America hating political view. My point is not that we all need to become more left, just don't let our own political view blind us from acknowledging issues like global warming.
"Different from earth quakes. Average temperature is not a matter of our ability to observe. We have the hard data. Natual fluctuations or man made, I don't know."
Is it different from earthquakes? I once read a study on the "fact" that earthquakes are on the rise. Yet studys can say anyting you want depending on your stated and UNSTATED presuppositions and methods and ect..
I have since found out that earthquakes are not on the rise according to the Institute For Creation Research. Why? They evaluated the evidence more soundly.
However, does this mean that overall earthquakes are not on the rise? Certainly not! There is simply no way of knowing, just as there simply is no way of knowing the accurate history of earth's temperatures.
Even if the earth is getting warmer, everyone seems to agree it has happened in the past before man existed. Since man hasn't caused it in the past, man isn't doing it today. This earth is far more awesome and God's creative ability is so much farther beyond our ability to understand, that to think we did anything is just another form of "End of the World" scare tactics.
Instead of coming from Left Behinders on the religious right, it is coming from anti-capitalists on the Left.
Difference between earth quakes and temperature - earthquake must be witnessed to be recorded. There could be an overall decrease in witnessed and recoreded earthquakes, but if under the ocean somewhere out of reach of mans eye, there is an earthquake every 22 seconds, we could possible not know about it, so earthquakes could be increasing. We are curently expanding our recordable range of earthquakes which could make it look like we are getting more earthquakes, but they could have always been there. Also one cause of earthquakes is plate techtonic movement. Man could happen to habitate those perticular locations (which change)or not habitate them. Making earthquake frequency appear to rise or fall. There are many other issues that could complicate our detection of earth quakes.
As far as global surface temperatures, it is more simple. You could not say that where we are detecting temperatures are location dependant. Meaning If We measure rises in temperature in all mans hibital locations, chances are the average temperature is rising. It would not be practical to say - We are measuring increases in temperature where man lives but it is possible that there are decreases where man is not living, thus temperatures could really be falling.
Thus measuring global surface temps for average rise or fall is much more reliable than identifying earthquake frequency. If over the past 50 years (lets call 50 years the longest we can go back accurately) we measure an average increase in global surface temperatures, then it would be logical to say the average global surface temperature is rising even where we can't or don't measure it. We can not say the same thing about earthquakes. Now if I was just by myself measuring rises over the last 50 years, that would not be good enough, because the average temp could be going down, just not where I live. But we have been measuring enough different locations on the globe for over 50 years with a reasonble degree of accuracy.
Even if the earth is getting warmer, everyone seems to agree it has happened in the past before man existed. Since man hasn't caused it in the past, man isn't doing it today. This earth is far more awesome and God's creative ability is so much farther beyond our ability to understand, that to think we did anything is just another form of "End of the World" scare tactics.
You can't just say "man didn't do it in the past, so man isn't doing it today". Its not that simple. Thats like saying man did not create the forest fire 6000 years ago, so he didn't do it today. How the heck do you know if Joe the Pyro didn't light it up? From your statement it seems that you think that if humans can change global temperature then it is saying Gods creation isn't good enough. God creation can't be effected by mere humans. Our ability to ruin our planet is not anti biblical in any way. God gave man dominion over earth, if he chooses to screw it up so be it. The bible doesn't say God created the earth so that man cannot effect it in anyway. Believeing in global warming is not belittling God in any way.
Now saying all this does not mean I believe man is the cause of Global surface temp rises. It could be completely natural. There are ways of detecting how much the temps changed in the past by measuring CO2 amounts in ice and other scientific methoeds. Does this mean it can't be wrong, of course not. We may find out these currnet methoeds are not accurate. But we must keep exploring them. I amhere saying temp rises could be completely natural, but I am also saying there is sound evidence that it is not natural. I will be a critic of this evidence as is in my nature, but not because it is antibiblical, because its not (far as I know)
"We are curently expanding our recordable range of earthquakes which could make it look like we are getting more earthquakes"
Exactly!
" You could not say that where we are detecting temperatures are location dependant."
You are right in that temps are not affected by equipment being more sensitive.
"Now if I was just by myself measuring rises over the last 50 years, that would not be good enough, because the average temp could be going down, just not where I live. But we have been measuring enough different locations on the globe for over 50 years with a reasonble degree of accuracy"
This is the rub. I think it is rubbish. Accuracy? Says who? It is not the facts themselves that is the problem. It is how we interpret them...the methodology and presuppositions. Acting like we are some how morally neutral and philosophically neutral is just modernists-man-is-smarter-enough-to-figure-it-all-out so we are able to accomplish whatever we think we can.
I am not saying the planet isn't warming up. I am saying man didn't do it. We think we are capable of destroying God's creation. I think that is quite pompus of man. But then, men don't really think God created anyway.
I have even heard Leftists like Gore say it is too late. We cannot undo what we have done. This is a silly logical error. If we can't save it, we can't destroy it. It is far bigger than man.
Remember the Ozone hole crisis? Nasa reports the biggest ozone hole ever recorded one year. Funny how that same year was also recorded the smallest, but the smallest was not touted by the SAME scientists.
Remember St. Helens? How every field of science predicted the end of life for a thousand years there? Then all of a sudden, every scientist had to admit that every prediction and everything he had learned from his atheistic/naturalistic education was wrong.
It is precisely because this whole thing isn't scientifically driven AT ALL.
God Bless
You are touting the science as being presuppositional, perhaps that is true, but no more than your own presuppositional thinking that man can't change the earth. The scientific presupposition can at least allow for more than one result. Meaning, the presupposition your talking about is "End oF the Earth", this could be led by the globe becomming colder as well, or lack of Oxygen or a million other things. Point being that if the scientist wanted the "End of Earth" result, there is a million ways he could go about it.
I guess before debating this any further, let me ask this, and it will simplify what I think your belief is.
If all men on earth agreed that it would be best to destroy the planet, would we be capable of doing it?
"If all men on earth agreed that it would be best to destroy the planet, would we be capable of doing it?"
Good way to put it. I suppose in what way? The sun has far more affect than anything else combined as far as temperature.
I suppose we could blow up a crap load of nukes and radiate the ground as to give ourselves radiation poisoning. Will that destroy the planet. Probably not. Life (as has been demonstrated by St. Helens) is more resiliant than we think.
But we could just as easily go back to the days when men simply went to war and killed each other to get the same effect.
I am not arguing that the planet may be getting warmer. In fact, my wife's geology teacher at UNH argued we want global warming since the radiation of the rocks is eventually going to cool off. I am simply arguing that it is sheer nonsense that we can destroy it.
Lets guideline what exactly it is you are saying. I believe it is that we as a humans do not have the capability to cause global warming?
Or another way to look at is I think you are saying that we do not have the ability to change the habibility of the planet since it is of Gods creation.
"Or another way to look at is I think you are saying that we do not have the ability to change the habibility of the planet since it is of Gods creation."
To some degree. Obviously, we could nuke ourselves on some level and wipe ourselves out. In other words, if we all committed suicide, then yes, we could make our planet inhospitable just by being evil.
As for affecting the creation, I think we are just beginning to understand how pathetically small we really are. Yet, we boast of being able to do more than we can.
In other words, it is not that simply because God created it, therefore we can't destroy it. It is because God created it with a purpose and complexity that is beyond our imagination. To think we have the ability to outdo God I think is silly.
Again, that is my presupposition.
God Bless
So then its a question of was Gods purpose for our planet to be an indestructable habitat for humans to dwell. Is that biblically implied? I don't think so. Global warming should not conflict with your presuppositions. Back to my origional point. I Don't think you disagree with global warming becasue its biblically accurate to do so, God has created many things to sustain humans that we have already ruined. I think perhaps it is more of your political allignment.
"God has created many things to sustain humans that we have already ruined."
Really? Like what?
If I remember correctly, it was God that destroyed the antediluvian world and caused the life spans of men to wane greatly.
And No,...man didn't contribute to the flood either or cause his own demise and blame it on God.
"Is that biblically implied? I don't think so. Global warming should not conflict with your presuppositions."
I agree that Global warming is not denied by my position. Peter teaches in his second letter:
"2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
"2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."
So Global warming will take place. Just not in the fashion men describe.
Is it Biblically implied? I think it is all over the place. At times, quite explicitly. But that's my presuppositions again. I am one of those silly Christians that actually believes God Word is inerrant. Many Christians today would disagree with me there. So......I guess I am an odd duck.
:-)
God Bless
Genesis 8, 21/22 "God said to himself: never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start, nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done. As long as the earth lasts, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Jim, I admire your fairess and rationalality -- that's something I don't see much on the internet. I think you're on the right track of probing deeper than superficial party-line politics.
You left a comment recently on my blog about science experiments and learning (what you mentioned, though not by name, was Sir Arthur Eddington's famous solar eclipse photographs that finally gave evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity).
You are most certainly correct when you suggest that the issue of Global Warming shouldn't be a left/right issue, but rather a scientific one. Howard's knee-jerk response that Global Warming "comes from Leftists who hate American Capitalism and American Ideals and freedom" is baseless. I myself am convinced of the anthropogenic cause of global warming, yet my supposed anti-capitalist/anti-american credentials are betrayed by my ownership of stock in several major corporations. I embrace the free market while at the same time recognizing its points of excess. That does not make me any less American, and even if it does, it's irrelevant.
When Howard claims that "Leftists have used Global Warming propaganda for decades now, since they had control of the Media and Education," I have to chuckle, and here's why: for every article in a newspaper he can find in support of the anthropogenic cause of global warming, I can find another article in another newspaper that reaches the exact opposite conclusion. However, what I cannot do is find one peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejects the anthropogenic cause of global warming for every peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports it. So much for liberal control of the media.
I suspect Howard might respond with, "Very well, that still proves scientists have a liberal bias," which would miss the point entirely. Scientists are not politicians. Most of them don't even care about philosophy (most just take some kind of philosophy for granted and work from there). What scientists do care about is figuring things out, and in the case of climatologists, that means figuring out the weather and other various aspects of our fascinating planet.
Here's an interesting website that gives all sorts of details, without any apparent liberal bias (I defy you to find a single instance!): The Discovery of Global Warming
However, judging by his non-critical reference to the Institue for Creation Research a few comments earlier, I'll bet Howard is likely to dismiss most of the science found on that link, specifically what Carbon-14 dating can tell us (which, interestingly enough, is more than just when something happened).
Cody,
Thanks for chiming in. You are absolutly correct, It was not Einstein, but Sir Arthur Eddington, that was chasing solar eclipses. I think it may of been him also that I read about going to Russia with his assistant only to find a cloudy day(not sure). But good experiment anyway. I will try and find that website for you.
Jen found a verse in the bible that settles the biblical aspec anyway.
"God has created many things to sustain humans that we have already ruined."
Really? Like what?
I am talking about things like contaminated lakes and such, although these things can repair themselves after a time. If man is causing global warming the earth could perhaps recover in time as well, as long as we stop the root causes. I agree that the left goes to far sometimes on enviormental issues. I am not some tree hugging hippy thats thinks we shouldn't step on ants. God made us a home, we should look to it.
Cody,
Good link. I find the site very impartial to left or right thinking. They don't trying and dismiss the cooling trend in the mid 20th century as I have seen other sites quickly dismiss as unimportant. I also like how it frequently acknowledges the random and unknown side of climate change. It is a subject that has so many influencial factors that give it a variablilty that can never be fully understood - NO MATTER WHAT! That being said, we must still chip away at trying to learn more about it.
Jim,
One of the key features of all natural sciences is to acknowledge uncertainty. Unfortunately, pundits can take statements of uncertainty and extend them far beyond that to which they apply. Take, for example, Pat Michaels's misleading rebuttal of James Hansen's predictions.
Michaels argued that Hansen's prediction for average rise in global tempurate was widely off the mark, citing this graph from Hansen's testimony in Congress from 1988. link a
However, Hansen's full graph actually looked like this: link b. Michaels used only the upper bound, worst-case-scenario portion of Hansen's paper, neglecting the lower and middle bounds, to which global temperature change did indeed rise.
More can be found here: warning, liberal link ahead!
Another case of uncertainty being equated with doubt or outright rejection can be found at that same blogger's previous blog, but don't worry about any possible liberal bias filtering through; you can read the misused abstracts yourself and form your own conclusions (which I advise you to do): Link.
Jen, good passage. I guess we may discount Peter's prediction of a future destruction of the wicked that I quoted.
Cody stated:
"I myself am convinced of the anthropogenic cause of global warming, yet my supposed anti-capitalist/anti-american credentials are betrayed by my ownership of stock in several major corporations. I embrace the free market while at the same time recognizing its points of excess."
I apologize for giving the impression that every person that believes in global warming is some kind of communist. I think the issue obviously goes deeper than that and I was only speaking in generalities.
"Scientists are not politicians. Most of them don't even care about philosophy (most just take some kind of philosophy for granted and work from there)."
This I find absurd. You state this to an objection that I would raise. Scientific naturalism pervades most of our thinking. To act as if scientists are morally or philosophically or religiously neutral is an assumption that is patently false.
The rise of Darwinism did not come about because the evidence was overwhelming. It arose because because man is sinful.
You will deny this of course, but that is what men do and it is at that point we will have to disagree.
As for your peer review argument, that is interesting. I have actually watched a french scientist challenge to public debate thhose who hold to certain positions like global warming on C-Span.
They probably don't count anyway.
Like your suggesting that I accept anything that ICR would say. Yet wasn't it painfully obvious that I was using their research (something you may discount as biased since they start with God's Word) to refute the majority of my Christian friends.
Again, I am not saying the planet isn't warming up. It may very well be. The sun has a billion times more effect upon this ball than anythng else. To think we may outdo it is silly to me.
One other thing, can we polute the environment? Of course. We have water problems in western KS precisely because of what man is doing. But because of atheistic assumptions several friends of mine are coming to serious errors abut the nature of the problem and its solution. Does this mean they are commies. Nope! But they are influenced in their thinking without even realizing it.
"The man who thinks he has no Traditions is the man who is most influenced by them."
God Bless
Howard
I apologize for giving the impression that every person that believes in global warming is some kind of communist. I think the issue obviously goes deeper than that and I was only speaking in generalities.
I would argue that you were speaking in slogans, not mere generalities. I'd wager that "Anti-American" and "Anti-Capitalists" are two words that can and do elicit powerful emotional responses from some people. Moreover, you stopped at the labeling. To boot: "Global Warming is leftist, anti-american, and communist; therefore it's wrong." Granting for the sake of argument that those attributes do indeed accurately describe proponents of Global Warming, that still does not address the veracity of their claims.
I think part of what Jim was originally trying to say was that we should move beyond that level of discourse. Ditch the leftist/rightist labels that rightists/leftists sling at each other and address the issues.
This I find absurd. You state this to an objection that I would raise. Scientific naturalism pervades most of our thinking.
Again, all you've done here is label something. The unstated implication is that scientific naturalism pervading most of our thinking is a bad thing. Tell me, what methodology would you instead propose for scientists to use to understand climate? Scientific supernaturalism? What would that entail?
To act as if scientists are morally or philosophically or religiously neutral is an assumption that is patently false.
I didn't say that scientists have no philosophies or fundamental assumptions; what I said is that many of them take their assumptions as given and go from there (how's that for a redundant statement?). The scientists I know (which are mainly professors at Baylor) don't dwell on matters philosophical. They're paid to do science, and as near as I can tell they do it pretty well.
The rise of Darwinism did not come about because the evidence was overwhelming. It arose because because man is sinful.
You will deny this of course, but that is what men do and it is at that point we will have to disagree.
I feel furthur pursuit of this particular topic would indeed lead to much unconstructive disagreement.
As for your peer review argument, that is interesting. I have actually watched a french scientist challenge to public debate thhose who hold to certain positions like global warming on C-Span.
They probably don't count anyway.
They don't and here's why: oral, public debates aren't as exhaustive and carefully considered as written debates; and written debates aren't nearly as vigorous as peer-reviewed scientific literature. Peer-review is a process established to make sure conclusions actually follow from experiment and observation, whereas public debate is an exercise in showmanship, with maybe the occasional constructive exchange of different opinions and theories every now and then on less contentious issues.
Like your suggesting that I accept anything that ICR would say. Yet wasn't it painfully obvious that I was using their research (something you may discount as biased since they start with God's Word) to refute the majority of my Christian friends.
I don't necessarily reject something if it happens to follow from God's Word; I reject it if it fails to match with experience. The Institute for Creation Research has been shown demonstrably wrong on so many occasions as to be almost completely worthless.
Again, I am not saying the planet isn't warming up. It may very well be. The sun has a billion times more effect upon this ball than anythng else. To think we may outdo it is silly to me.
This to me reflects a confusion regarding what scientists actually theorize about global warming. The heat received from the sun is orders of magnitude more than heat generated from the Earth's core. That part's given -- everybody accepts that. The problem comes when the heat absorbed from the sun exceeds that which is reflected by the Earth. There is no way we humans can have any effect on the amount of heat the sun radiates towards our planet, so the only conceivable impact we can have is on the amount of heat the Earth releases. One way to do that is to alter the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which we've accomplished:
"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally."
It seems quite reasonable to me that combusting unfathomably large quantities of carbon-rich substances that once dwelled beneath the Earth's surface and releasing them into the atmosphere would have an effect on the concentration of those products in the atmosphere. Knowing certain other properties of those products can lead to further conclusions.
Where, Howard, are your points of contention? What evidence do you have that supports a conclusion different from the anthropogenic cause? And saying "Prestigious Scientist X said this on television once" doesn't count if said scientist has no credible data to back up his claims.
One other thing, can we polute the environment? Of course. We have water problems in western KS precisely because of what man is doing. But because of atheistic assumptions several friends of mine are coming to serious errors abut the nature of the problem and its solution. Does this mean they are commies. Nope! But they are influenced in their thinking without even realizing it.
Please pardon my apparent evasiveness, but I believe this particular passage is too vague for me to reasonably address. Could you elaborate a bit more Howard?
"The man who thinks he has no Traditions is the man who is most influenced by them."
That's pretty witty, but for me to believe it I need more than someone simply saying it.
Cody,
You said some things worthy of response and have challenged me in how I have presented arguments on a Blog format. However I think the substance of the response was when you stated:
"Please pardon my apparent evasiveness, but I believe this particular passage is too vague for me to reasonably address. Could you elaborate a bit more Howard?"
and prior to that
"The Institute for Creation Research has been shown demonstrably wrong on so many occasions as to be almost completely worthless."
I hear this all the time. ICR and others of similar organizations are completely worthless. Why? You say you would like me to elaborate. I don't think you do. I thought my statement was obvious enough. There is a clash of worldviews. Most people look down at conservative Christians (who openly admit their bias) as backwards and behind the times.
There is simply no way to compete because presuppositions are not addressed nor challenged.
I do not accept that experience as you stated is our guiding light into all things. I am not saying Christianity and experience oppose each other. I simply believe God's Word explains our experience and not the other way around.
"That's pretty witty, but for me to believe it I need more than someone simply saying it."
Again, I do not know how to respond to this. This is just what I have always experienced with my much smarter scientific friends who do not believe in the Christian worldview. They simply believe in the scientific method or something similar as a given and see everything religious as backwards and stupid. Therefore, there is usually no discussion for I am seen as archaic from the start.
That's ok. I accept that. It's just the way things are.
So I'll concede. You are right. I am wrong. Man is causing the planet to warm up. Al Gore (the most brilliant man to ever live) is right. We are all going to perish if.....
Post a Comment
<< Home