Evangelicals & Climate Change

There are 6 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

From the Cornwall Alliance folks...

"… we challenge them, or other evangelicals of their choice, to a formal public debate—with a scientist, an economist, and a theologian on each side—at an evangelical college of their choice. Up for debate would be the magnitude, causes, and consequences of recent and foreseeable global warming and whether fighting it by reducing CO2 emissions would cause more good than harm to the poor."

To date neither Dr. Hayhoe nor any other evangelical who agrees with her position has ever responded to this challenge—which still stands.

Bert Perry's picture

One possibility that could be a huge blessing to all participants in this ball of rock we're riding would be to change the nature of the debate.  It simply needs to be repeated again and again that Asia is not going to live as developing countries forever so Donald Trump and others can enjoy his estate in Florida without worrying about global warming.  If they need to burn coal to keep their children alive, they are going to do exactly that.  Increasing carbon dioxide in the air is virtually guaranteed.

So our goal cannot be to outright reduce carbon emissions worldwide, but must rather be to do what we can to incentivize using these fuels efficiently, and so that people will be able to cope with whatever climate changes do, or do not, occur.  And on that ground, the socialistic policies pushed by the IPCC fail miserably.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Before "climate change" hijacked it, the focus was on tech. that increases production using less energy and yielding less waste. ... efficiency helps everyone, and the environment as well.
So... cart needs to get back behind horse.

Joeb's picture

We should only do what we can and move toward a more efficient way of life.  Technology has been growing by leaps and bounds. Already their is an MIT couple who are working on a new Salt Nuclear Reactor which is proven technology. It is being funded by Google and others.  If developed it would burn all the nuclear waste we  have and leave waste which is only radioactive for 100 years.  This is one of many examples including the new Musk battery factory being built in NV and the new Musk solar panel factory being built in up state NY.  Our country is now energy independent with more to come. So moving in the right direction is already happening and most of it is being done without Uncle Sam and this has blown Obama's plans right out the door. ie fracking.  So as believers we can support a green trend  but just doing so at the right pace.  Also  Bert's right India and China are going to do what they have to do for their people. If that includes burning coal so be it.  P

Jim's picture

Consider that where Chicago is, there was once 1 mile thick of ice!

Also:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-overheated-climate-alarm-1459984226

The Lancet researchers found that about 0.5%—half a percent—of all deaths are associated with heat, not only from acute problems like heat stroke, but also increased mortality from cardiac events and dehydration. But more than 7% of deaths are related to cold—counting hypothermia, as well as increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack that results when the body restricts blood flow in response to frigid temperatures. In the U.S. about 9,000 people die from heat each year but 144,000 die from cold.