tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post7567946484400776464..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Southern Baptists Turn Green (or at least Go Green)Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33755129599638708622008-07-29T18:12:00.000-07:002008-07-29T18:12:00.000-07:0029 July 08. After the news first broke on many of ...29 July 08. After the news first broke on many of the SBC's leaders were following after Egore's 'the sky is falling' nightmare, I wrote my thoughts to the care takers of the green SBC site, three times, and let them know true facts to counter the worldly global warming scam. I had to walk away from the SBC. I could not see myself following a cult to aid in bringing about world socialism. I do know what I am talking about when I state that. I could not bring myself to contribute a nickle of the Lord's money to such a farce. As it is evident today, a lot of Egore's teachings have become false. Who and what are people going to fall for next? If you're curious to find the truth, it is out there, everywhere. Seek and you'll sure find it. Are true people of the Lord so ignorant today that we have lost faith on who controls every drop of rain that hits the earth, who counts the hairs on your head and knows our every thought? Seems to me that many are looking for a fad to follow instead of the Living God. Now I can imagine how people will blindly follow the beast after the rapture. This evidently hasn't happened yet but people are already so easily swayed and deceived today. I suppose it's part of the 'falling away' that is to take place before His return. <BR/>Mark Acts 10:31Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17598377983384931781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-510999669721202602008-03-19T12:05:00.000-07:002008-03-19T12:05:00.000-07:00To begin, I am not very passionate about this eith...To begin, I am not very passionate about this either way. I am more concerned with our "waste" than global warming. I have "pasted" a letter written to the Sec. General of the UN. Additionally, I am providing a link that adds to this letter. There, all of the Scientists agreeing with these comments are referenced. You will notice there are also links to peer reviewed articles on this as well. <BR/><BR/>Take care <BR/>http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360<BR/><BR/>I was hoping you may comment on this information I read back in December. I could very easily be missing something, but it appears there is quite a bit of dissent from prominent scientists regarding the cause(s) of global warming. <BR/><BR/>Open Letter to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:<BR/><BR/>Written by 100 Prominent Scientists<BR/>Friday, 14 December 2007, ScienceandPublicPolicy<BR/>Dear Mr. Secretary-General,<BR/><BR/>Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction<BR/>It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.<BR/><BR/>The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.<BR/><BR/>While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.<BR/><BR/>The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ¬government ¬representatives. The great ¬majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.<BR/><BR/>Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:<BR/>*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.<BR/>*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.<BR/><BR/>*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.<BR/><BR/>In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.<BR/><BR/>The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions.<BR/><BR/>Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.<BR/><BR/>The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699359486730675497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-7340869835862954052008-03-17T15:20:00.000-07:002008-03-17T15:20:00.000-07:00Ben...of course I'm joking..about you that is. I ...Ben...of course I'm joking..about you that is. I know you are a person of integrity. There is, however, this annoying "me-too" trend in conservative evangelical ranks. It's all pervasive. Maybe you're immune. I know I am ;) <BR/><BR/>Yeah, Iraq costs a lot - but that isn't the only reason why our economy is in the present condition. Might Congress have something to do with it? Could it be that no politicians have done anything to reduce our trade deficits with China, and cut back on imported oil from such humanitarian luminaries as the House of Saud, and the FARC coddling Chavez down south? <BR/><BR/>BTW where's all the oil we were supposed to get from Iraq? I thought it was all about the oil. Wasn't it? <BR/><BR/>Were do you stand on ending the Iraq war? Do you think Al-Qaeda will back off once we pull out. You think we'll all be singing Kumbaya a year from now? <BR/><BR/>Maybe if we're nice to them now they won't blow up anymore of our tall buildings and kill innocent American citizens.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507343142179819936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44102739499133131432008-03-17T13:38:00.000-07:002008-03-17T13:38:00.000-07:00Ralph I have to assuming you are joking. My admini...Ralph I have to assuming you are joking. My administration at ATS is composed of conservative Republicans. , some of whom are also quite concerned about the environment, and some less so. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but I don't know any Evangelicals who have been co-opted by anyone's political agenda on these matters. Most of them are pretty independent minded folks. I do think the Kyoto accords are worth discussing as an important step forward, and of course you are right that China, India etc. also need to be part of the conversation.<BR/><BR/>If you want to know what's ruining our economy, that would be the war in Iraqi which costs about a billion a week. It would not be environmental concerns that are ruining our economy-- so rethink your position please, and look at where the actual dollar drain is happening to our U.S. budget, which is billions in the hole thanks to this war.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-79327153788692967302008-03-17T12:40:00.000-07:002008-03-17T12:40:00.000-07:00Ben, this is not about being environmentally conce...Ben, this is not about being environmentally concerned. Who isn't? This is about Evangelicals being co-opted by the left into a political agenda that will destroy our economy and pollute the earth more. The Chinese and Indians will not reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Environmentalists with their Kyoto-Like schemes seek only to disproportionally hurt our economy. <BR/><BR/>By the way, have you read the details on the "outflow" of the Kyoto accords? Spain, Japan, and for instance, signed the treaty, failed miserably to keep their "unkeepable" emissions commitments, were consequently slapped with 33 billion (that's in real money - Euro's) in fines by the UNFCCC which, if they ever pay, will be passed on to their taxpayers.<BR/><BR/>Come on Ben, why are you on this bandwagon? We know why large denominations are signing these accords. But why you? Fess up now. Are you being put up to this by the ATS "brass?" (Is this a ploy to draw a fresh crop of public school indoctrinated Gaia worshiping Gore clones?)Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507343142179819936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-74038931817738603752008-03-17T09:23:00.000-07:002008-03-17T09:23:00.000-07:00Hi Ralph:I refer you to the article in today's Lex...Hi Ralph:<BR/><BR/>I refer you to the article in today's Lexington Herald Leader, the Business section, about the Toyota Plant in Georgetown going green. Instead of costing jobs, its led to more blue collar hiring. You need to rethink this. Being environmentally concerned has nothing to do with being weird or liberal. It has to do with recognizing 'this is my Father's world' not ours, and we should be its caretakers, not its spoilers.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-12980917770702917022008-03-17T06:28:00.000-07:002008-03-17T06:28:00.000-07:00Are we jumping on this Global Warming thing becaus...Are we jumping on this Global Warming thing because we want to appear caring, cool, and hip? This “evangelical concern” appears to be mostly a young evangelical concern – people who haven’t been alive more than 35 years – long enough to have been exposed to a steady stream of ill-advised alarmism.<BR/><BR/>For example, The New York Times in 1895 predicted widespread global cooling. In 1924, the paper reported "Signs of New Ice Age." But in 1933, 1952, 1959, and 1969, the Times declared global warming. Then in 1974 and 1975, the Times decided that the new ice age was coming, with catastrophic consequences: "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade" leading to "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence."<BR/><BR/>The Washington Post announced a "New Ice Age" in 1970, and, in 1974, Fortune agreed, touting a scientist who predicted that a billion people would die from starvation caused by global cooling. Time magazine declared global warming in 1939, global cooling in 1974, and currently believes in global warming.<BR/><BR/>We remember Carson’s “Silent Spring” that never sprung and Erdman’s “Crash of ‘79” that never crashed. We 40 and 50 somethings have seen and hear it all. “There is nothing new under the sun.”<BR/><BR/>Although prediction of weather is extremely complicated and perhaps impossible. One thing the historical record does establish is that it's hard to go wrong by ignoring or the alarmism of journalists warning about extreme climate change. Anxiety sells.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the idea that there is a “consensus” on this issue is misguided. I keep hearing about the debate being over, but is it really? I think a lot of denominations are signing on with a “me too, look, I’m cool, come to our hip church” mentality. More prayer and revival is what we need – we’re well stocked on vacuous trendiness.<BR/><BR/>But here’s the main problem I have with this “Global Warming” fashion statement. It's really oppressive to the working class. Permit me to explain.<BR/><BR/>I worked in the Steel Industry for nearly two decades. More importantly, I visited many of the larger steel plants in the US, Mexico, and South America. What U.S. environmentalism has accomplished, in a nutshell, is a net increase in Global pollution. In the face of increased costs in labor and production (due to tighter legislation), more modern, more productive, and cleaner U.S. plants close and guess where the production goes? To Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile. These nations do not have the same tight pollution standards. I watched Venezuelan mills spew out tons of pollutants into the air and the rivers of that nation at levels that would have immediately closed the plant, and sent their U.S. counterparts to jail for 20 years.<BR/><BR/>The outflow of this “greening” of Evangelicals will be more misery for the US worker – more plant closings, fewer high paying jobs, more lost U.S. production, and in the end more pollution for the world. <BR/><BR/>Ben, please, leave this stuff to the guys with the dyed spiked hair, tattoos, thick frames, and Priuses.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507343142179819936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62101303285580379042008-03-16T21:18:00.000-07:002008-03-16T21:18:00.000-07:00In all honesty, I'm incredibly shocked. A part of...In all honesty, I'm incredibly shocked. A part of me wants to say, "It's about time." But a part of me can't believe I lived to see it (and being only 26, that's quite a statement). As a Quaker, I can't believe I'm saying this, but go Baptists! ;)<BR/><BR/>And I do not understand the radical Christian view that global warming is a myth. I'm young and still I can see a great difference in climate from when I was a child to now.Krissihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05251832311405963636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-68827181197172879152008-03-15T11:31:00.000-07:002008-03-15T11:31:00.000-07:00Although CNN is not unbiased, this is an interesti...Although CNN is not unbiased, this is an interesting short on the Heartland Institute. The IPCC numbers are also good scientific analysis to look at.<BR/><BR/>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/03/04/obrien.global.warming.cnn?iref=videosearchMichael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-8508234434730318962008-03-15T10:32:00.000-07:002008-03-15T10:32:00.000-07:00Let me apologize for referring to an ice 'footprin...Let me apologize for referring to an ice 'footprint' as it is probably not an accurate way of describing it, but rather the quickest way I tucked it into my own mind - I heard it in a passing interview and have since went and found the facts for myself. All in all, I am not a scientist. . .but according to one particular climatologist who has specifically been studying Antarctica:<BR/><BR/>"The ice in Antarctica, this is the sea ice surrounding Antarctica, floating on the sea, is currently at a greater extent, it is the largest area that it has been since observations began about 30 years ago. Now, that's not to say it's the greatest it's ever been in the past. Here in the last it was much greater still but in terms of modern, recent climate history, Antarctica at the moment is cooling and the apron of sea ice around it is wider than it's ever been in the last 30 years or so." (Bob Carter, 2008)<BR/><BR/>Again, I must confess that I take this research over your own particular observations on a visit to the region. Sorry. However, I hope you would employ the same perspective in your research methodology.Michael Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17535833766942754590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-83606494962303965972008-03-14T18:34:00.000-07:002008-03-14T18:34:00.000-07:00Dear ALLIn regard to Fox, I have first hand and in...Dear ALL<BR/><BR/>In regard to Fox, I have first hand and inside evidence of exactly how they work. And boy have they duped conservative Christians--- repeatedly. Consider the following story---<BR/><BR/>I was scheduled to appear on the O'Reilly Factor at Easter a couple of years ago. On the way to the local affiliate where the taping was to take place I received a long lecture from the producer of the show--- "Don't say any thing theological, and don't quote any Bible verses" The show was to be about Easter and the resurrection. "Don't do anything but answer directly and briefly Mr. O' Reilly's question." This went on for a long time. I asked him "Aren't you afraid of offending your conservative Christian audience by muzzling people who speak for them?" His answer was stunning---<BR/><BR/>" Oh no, we know we have them. They have nowhere else to go for news that suits their conservative bias. We are more concerned with offending our secular conservative audience." Do you know what this was really about? O'Reilly was worried I might show him up on some theological or Biblical issue-- so I was muzzled, as was the other guest John Dominic Crossan, who got the very same lecture before the show. Instead O'Reilly comes on and asks "Have either of you seen the Shroud of Turin"? We both said no. He replied "Well I have....." So he could show he had one up on his religion experts. Pathetic and pure egotism.<BR/><BR/>So much for free and open inquiry. The show, like the News network is controlled from the top down to suit its ideology and it does not allow free and open inquiry. Instead, if it is afraid some guest will alienate some part of its most loyal audience, it tells them what to say!!! <BR/><BR/>Now I have never, ever had this treatment by the major news networks, or their specialty shows like Dateline etc. Never. They always allow me to share my views, uncensored--- indeed they encourage me to do so. Not Fox. Its all about control. <BR/><BR/>So, there is good reason to ignore that network. They are not interested in the truth, only what promotes their point of view.<BR/><BR/>Enough said,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-11997375925630485222008-03-14T17:15:00.000-07:002008-03-14T17:15:00.000-07:00Michael, thanks for your response. I guess this is...Michael, thanks for your response. I guess this issue basically comes down to where we think the 'bear' is. Using your example I would say the bear is a few miles away and really the little boy (with apparently superhero like sight according to my take on the analogy :) can't tell whether its a bear with killer intentions or a cute little puppy. <BR/><BR/>As silly as that sounds, I think that probably gets to the heart of our difference. If I saw global warming as an imminent and certain threat, I would take it much more seriously. <BR/><BR/>And beyond that, I am not against individuals who have convictions different from my own on this matter. Individual convictions are between an individual and God for it is God that everyone must answer to not me or anyone else on this board. Being a southern baptist however, I am concerned that we have many issues to work on and I just don't think this one is important enough to warrant any of the convention's time (again due to my understanding of the 'bear').<BR/><BR/>Ben, I must say that I am surprised by your responses on this board. In my opinion the types of arguments you are using just don't match up with your published works. First you attack a news station (quite unfairly I might add; those remarks revealed much more about you than fox news) rather than consider the actual information in their reports, then you attack the scientists rather than dealing with their data and their conclusions (which by the way you gave absolutely no evidence for their supposed bias, simply your opinion). <BR/><BR/>And before I leave this point about 'biased' scientists alone, let me remind you that every scientist has someone paying them, it is simply irresponsible to assume that just because someone is paid, they are fudging the numbers for there employers. Furthermore, a spokeswoman for Al Gore accused 25 or 30 of the 400 scientists of being employed by exxon mobil (link below this paragraph). Even if they were paid to ignore the facts and take this position (again, something which you are assuming) that hardly constitutes 'a lot' of them. I simply can't understand why you are trying to belittle those who disagree with you so much (go back and read through your comments, that is exactly what you are doing)<BR/><BR/>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1001 <BR/><BR/>Why is it so hard to believe that there might be credible scientists who disagree with global warming? I simply don't understand. I readily admit that there are men smarter than me who believe in man made global warming, however there are also those who do not. Why are we as Christians arguing about something that is not scientifically a settled issue?<BR/><BR/>I hope that in future debates opinions of those who disagree are not just pushed aside and belittled. If that is all that will happen, why even have a blog like this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16412407201295109439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-41885086226154542372008-03-14T16:54:00.000-07:002008-03-14T16:54:00.000-07:00Actually, Moses did, remember, which is why they w...Actually, Moses did, remember, which is why they wandered around a lot longer :)<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-27793341027294111272008-03-14T16:52:00.000-07:002008-03-14T16:52:00.000-07:00I keep wondering what might have happened if Moses...I keep wondering what might have happened if Moses had accepted the conclusions of "the vast majority" of the members of the advance team he sent to spy out the Promised Land.James Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08020891895617539526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23994957903079465962008-03-14T16:31:00.000-07:002008-03-14T16:31:00.000-07:00Well Israel, your puffiness seems to also be showi...Well Israel, your puffiness seems to also be showing and it doesn't become you.<BR/><BR/>Blessings on you anyway,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61099953467585705492008-03-14T15:02:00.000-07:002008-03-14T15:02:00.000-07:00Upon reading some of your further comment BW, I ne...Upon reading some of your further comment BW, I need to say goodbye. <BR/><BR/>"Secondly, I am sorry but on an issue as significant and important as global warming, you need to look at the actual data, not listen to propaganda or anecdotal evidence, whether it's propaganda from the right or the left. "<BR/><BR/>Ben, YOU are the one ignoring the actual data. Data like this:<BR/><BR/>Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.<BR/>No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.<BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm<BR/><BR/>And THESE scientists do NOT work for oil companies: http://friendsofscience.org/<BR/><BR/>Watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271&q=climate+change+cancelled&total=45&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1<BR/><BR/>There has now been several things you have said that have caused you to simply lose any and all credibility in my eyes.<BR/><BR/>You are promoting fear and intimidation. And there's only one source of such things.<BR/><BR/>The DATA IS IN, and global warming has stopped, and is now rapidly reversing. THAT is the data BW. By ignoring it you become the perfect hypocrite. Promoting only the data that supports your a priori. You not only adopt, but propagate the propaganda.<BR/><BR/>This is the last time I expect to be commenting on your blog. THough I will refresh this page to see if you have the guts to post it.<BR/><BR/>Knowledge truly does puff up.<BR/><BR/>Good bye.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05801898044394292148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-41113686756501676332008-03-14T14:37:00.000-07:002008-03-14T14:37:00.000-07:00"Honestly the evidence for global warming, in part..."Honestly the evidence for global warming, in part caused by human pollution is so overwhelming it really isn't even a point of debate any longer for the vast majority of the scientific community, including my wife the biologist and botanist. <BR/>You don't have to take Al Gore's word for it, but most of what he says is reasonably on target and accurate."<BR/><BR/>Sorry Ben, but this is the 2nd time I've heard you say things that make my jaw drop. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest there is ANY evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming. With all due respect, you sir, are gullible.<BR/><BR/>I'm betting money that next you'll be telling us that the evidence for neo-Darwinian Evolution is also overwhelming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05801898044394292148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-81772741263874384482008-03-14T12:29:00.000-07:002008-03-14T12:29:00.000-07:00Yikes, an anti-global warming lecture at my alma m...Yikes, an anti-global warming lecture at my alma mater UNC. But then again, I am proud of my school for doing their best to present all sides of a healthy debate, which is part of what this blog tries to do. One of the functions of having a lively discussion is to see how far certain arguments can be pushed, and where their weaknesses, so thanks for all of your posts. And in closing--- God is an ecologist, and he commissioned all of us to tend the garden not trash it. We need to get on with it.<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-27224215568803131772008-03-14T11:22:00.000-07:002008-03-14T11:22:00.000-07:00Benwith all due respect, sir, the lack of debate i...Ben<BR/>with all due respect, sir, the lack of debate is certainly not owing to the unanimity of agreement regarding the hard science. I would strongly recommend junkscience.com <BR/><BR/>Also, since you mentioned Australia, you may be interested in this quote from the Sydney Herald of Oct 14, 2007"<BR/><BR/>"Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.<BR/><BR/>His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.<BR/><BR/>"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."<BR/><BR/>This is not unlike the Intelligent Design controversy - wherein the freedom to articulate the failings of Darwinian theory is sorely lacking, and that not due to a unanimous scientific understanding. Interestingly, Francis Collins is wrong in this area where he does indeed have scientific credentials, fully embracing theistic evolution in direct violation of the scripture.<BR/><BR/>All that said, I need to express my great appreciation for your theological concern with this. I have such respect for your profundity in other areas that it almost pains me to argue against you here. But argue I must!<BR/><BR/>By the way, I recycle, drive a car that gets 35MPG, empty my wood stove burnings in the garden to nourish the soil, and let most spiders live! So like you, I have a great concern that we treat the earth and all of God's creatures with that amount of respect due their natures.<BR/><BR/>PeaceHollands Opushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07934064700542652027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-12113518429879315562008-03-14T11:20:00.000-07:002008-03-14T11:20:00.000-07:00Sorry but this is not a matter of speculation, it ...Sorry but this is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of facts plus interpretation. We may interpret the data differently, but the satellite photos of the two polar caps absolutely do not lie-- and they show the grim picture of them decreasing at rapid rates, especially the North Pole. <BR/><BR/>This evidence must count against the supposed evidence that we are entering a new ice age, something which is highly unlikely considering the greenhouse gas issue, which is only worsening. <BR/><BR/>Hmm, I wonder why exactly melonoma rates keep going up? Has suntan lotion suddenly become less effective? Probably not. <BR/><BR/> BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22559576704640310062008-03-14T11:10:00.000-07:002008-03-14T11:10:00.000-07:00With all respect Ben, there is hard scientific evi...With all respect Ben, there is hard scientific evidence about climatic conditions in Greenland and Europe during the periods stated. Forests grew where they don't grow today. Iceland turned to fishing as cereal crop production failed because of global cooling. Sea Ice increased. The oxygen isotope composition in the tooth enamel of Norse skeletons in Greenland indicate rapid cooling during the little Ice Age. There is a whole lot more.<BR/><BR/>But then you have your evidence and I have mine. <BR/><BR/>On another note--John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel and opponent of man-made global is considering a law suit against Al Gore and companies that sell carbon credits for fraud. Should be interesting. There is also a growing group of climatologists predicting that we are entering a cooling period. We'll see??FrankDGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11807726337144710245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-10394327504455974592008-03-14T10:23:00.000-07:002008-03-14T10:23:00.000-07:00The only thing more fun than scientific speculatio...The only thing more fun than scientific speculation (or pontification from some!!) from a bunch of theologians is theologic speculation from a bunch of scientists!<BR/><BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-52013886778412854222008-03-14T10:17:00.000-07:002008-03-14T10:17:00.000-07:00O.K. Friends we're getting a little touchy here. M...O.K. Friends we're getting a little touchy here. My wife teaches both environmental science and ecology as well as biology and botany. We've made the trip to Kangaroo Island south of Australia and we've personally seen the damage both in Antarctica and in Alaska with its glaciers as well. It is absolutely false to say that the ice footprint in Antarctica is growing-- not true. <BR/><BR/>I am suggesting that popular news media, which I work with all the time (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and yes Fox) are not very reliable sources on this issue, and Fox is the worst offender. That is what I am saying. <BR/><BR/>I do not want anyone to ignore the scientific debate, just the opposite. The problem is there is not much debate. Why not? Because the vast majority of scientists worldwide are utterly convinced by the hard evidence. And unfortunately I wish I could tell you that it was not the case that many of those who reject these conclusions have a dog in this fight, but most of them do. An oil sniffing dog at that in many cases.<BR/>This is not a mere academic debate because millions of dollars of profits are at stake if we become more ecologically responsible as a country. <BR/><BR/>I would suggest you listen to some Christians who are leading scientists on this matter. One that comes to mind, though he is not a climate scientist is Francis Collins.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-72453922782804591402008-03-14T09:30:00.000-07:002008-03-14T09:30:00.000-07:00Benthe debate has not really been allowed yet. Eac...Ben<BR/>the debate has not really been allowed yet. Each time I find an article on the web, I save the link. Among the more important notable ones of late is the founder of the weather channel's disgust with the claims of Gore et al. North America has received more snow than any other year since 1966. Today an item came out by the NOAA (hardly a big oil lackey) noting the coolest climate since 2001, globally. <BR/><BR/>Also, to group together all those against the argument as being supported by or representing big oil is unfair unless you can demonstrate a necessary correlation, and you must demonstrate that, even if they do represent oil, that the commitment thereto has prejudiced them against the evidence that speaks clearly of a different reality.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I have come to be quite disappointed in Pres. Bush, whom I voted for twice. But to speak of his administration as a "regime" (if indeed you are alluding to him, forgive me if not) seems deliberately inflammatory and emotion laden, and detracts from the quality of the debate.<BR/><BR/>I presently reject the findings of man made global climate change interlocutors, and find their claims specious in light of those that disagree, especially those with a witch hunt modus operandi. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I invite you to take a look at Pres. Bush's ranch for a fine example of good stewardship - then compare it to AL Gore - regardless of the climate - a tree is known by its fruit!Hollands Opushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07934064700542652027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-36826582784153545172008-03-14T07:23:00.000-07:002008-03-14T07:23:00.000-07:00Several years ago, I taught an environmental scien...Several years ago, I taught an environmental science course that examined global climate change (among other things). We estimated the amount of carbon that one major state power company put into the atmosphere in one year. It was equivalent to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Now, put that in perspective - equivalent carbon to a major volcanic eruption in every state *each year*! We did not even consider China, Russia, and the rest of the world. Proper levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is part of the Earth's regulatory mechanism, and there is no doubt that we have greatly altered this mechanism (and continue to alter it further still). In this light, warnings of environmental disasters hardly seem alarmist.<BR/><BR/>PS. The Noahic covenant included animals as equal parties in the contract (as I read it). If God can covenant with the rest of his creation, then surely we should care for them. Dr. Witherington, based on some of your previous posts on covenants, could you discuss how you think this covenant relates to a proper Christian environmentalism?<BR/><BR/>Sam RiffellSam Riffellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330829691471669028noreply@blogger.com