Organic Chemist Dr. Alan White asks “Is It Time to Panic About Climate Change?” as he addresses Creation Museum audience. He says:
The science of climatology is in an early stage of development, so it is difficult to be certain how serious the risk of climate change is. Many politicians and climatologists say that it is time to take immediate, radical actions, with little regard for the consequences of those actions. However, when the small amount of data that we do have is put into a longer-term perspective, panic does not seem warranted. Two things are certain: the global temperature has been rising slowly for about 400 years, and we must take God’s command to care for the earth seriously.
As one might have anticipated, this speaker repeats the popular myth that scientists abandoned the term “global warming” in favor of “climate change” after 2005 (because the world’s climate allegedly dropped for a few years.)
I tend to ignore online Climate debates because they are identical in form to the YEC/ID arguments about evolution. I don’t need to be an expert on climate science to recognize the same pattern of bad arguments on a new topic.
Maybe shouldn’t ignore them, but my plate is already full.
i find global warming things boring too. Obviously its a humbug. To affect this great globe by mans minor puffs of smoke is absurd. there is no warming from mankind. They have been saying this for decades and it never warmed. The alligators have not made it to philadelphia.
Its like evolutionism. its conclusions made on non/trivial evidences relative to such great conclusions.
i think however its a growing industry for people , especially academic upper class types, to make money in.
Cleary mercury, affected by sin, is expanding to a greater degree since all the laws of physics changed during The Flood. It’s not getting warmer, it’s just mercury reacting to The Fall. Silly rabbit…
I have a dear old friend for whom Climate Change is entirely a political issue, and he is not religious at all that I know. His politics are Randian Libertarianism, which is simply obnoxious. I have argued him into a corner on several occasions, pointing out where he is wrong, but he still repeats the same old PRATT as if our discussion never occurred. For him it’s all about the argument, and the substance of the issue is irrelevant.
Thank you for adding some light-hearted laughter to my day.
I could see how Libertarians would be concerned about climate change because it points to the one big flaw in their system: there’s no way to hold polluters accountable in libertarianism.
Climate change is one of those topics where you can start with first principles and build up from there. I have found that the science can be accessible to regular Joe’s if you present it right. Once you understand what the greenhouse effect is, how it works, why carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the direct measurements of how CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere then the conclusion is academic. There are also times where you are reminded of the saying, “You can lead a horse to water . . .”.
One of the problems I’ve run into in climate change discussions is that the opposition seems to have been lured into the belief that to deal effectively with climate change, we have to install Marxist communism and abolish all forms of private property and ownership. So to them, it’s all part of some giant leftist conspiracy to destroy capitalism and western civilization. It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion with this faction who’ve become convinced we have to overthrow all economic and political structures.
I tried to show one person Potholer54’s videos on Conservative solutions to climate change and the response I got back was that I make “The chinese state happy” or something to that effect. Nevertheless, the videos are still very good and worth watching:
There are some common sense things we could be doing about Climate Change that we ought to be doing anyway, like moving away from fossils fuels and dependence on foreign suppliers.
I will say this much for my friend - when you poke a big hole in his argument of the day, he will at least shut up for a while. He isn’t stupid.
What really gets me is that he HATES the free market approach and carbon tax and credits, calling it a money give-away to Al Gore’s friends (or something like that). Libertarians ought to be all over this, but no …
