God is Green

[Nightshade]

Yesterday I was watched a doc called God is Green it was quite what expected but basically there was this devout Catholic reporter/journalist whatever person who has decided that God wants us to be enviromentally friendly he then went wizzing all over the world ( yes in a plane creating a massive carbon foot print but he offset (http://www.climatecare.org/calculators/flights_calc.cfm) it and went see all these religous leaders and went about finding out that most religions have somthing to do with protecting the enviroment and that a cording to him God is 'Green'.
So yupp opions anyone...plus any quote like things form religous texts that I can mull over would be nice. If not great...

[Adudaewen]

Well, I don't have to verses right at hand, but I know that God asks us to be good stewards of what he gives us. And that definitly includes our environment. I mean, He only gave us one habitable planet to live on, so I doubt He's very happy about people destroying it for profit and greed. I'll see what I can dig up in verse. Good topic by the by.

[Virgil]

That God wants us to be good stewarts of the environment is one tradition, but there is also the concept that the earth is for human use. Profit and greed? I guess that's one way to look at it, but I think the nobler value is for people to have better standards of living. I think compassion requires that we ensure people live healthier, longer lives and provide more comfort for their families. I wonder how many people would prefer to do laundry without a washermachine, or travel to another city without a car or a train or a plane. Or I wonder if you would prefer your grandmother not have the medicine that keeps her living longer. I guess we could have remained cave men and then the environment would have been pristine. But then we would have lived short brutish lives, without time for literature and art (which are only possible in economicallyprosperous--or should I say greedy-- times), and without culture. We wouldn't even have these computers to trade ideas if it wasn't for these "greedy" companies and people who are working for a living. On my desk is a picture of the Manhattan skyline, a wonderful achievement of engineering and craft and human skill. The skyline is in its own way a work of art. There is probably not a tree to be seen, but look how far we've come from living in caves? I say that's a good thing. Is it green? No, but the lives being lived, the passions being expressed, the love of community and work and discipline that go on within the skyscrapers are also a reflection of God.

I love the environment, the outdoors, and the wilderness. Don't get me wrong. There's a place for the skyscapers and a place in the country that I like to go hike and get fresh air. But people have raised this environmentalism to a level of religion. And it is not religion, at least not one that I'm familiar with.

[Adudaewen]

I guess I wasn't very clear in my comment. When I was talking about profit and greed I was mostly talking about unnecessary development. For example, In my home town, WalMart wanted to become a Super WalMart, so they decided to buy land that was open, clear, clean farm and grazing land with a beautiful view and dug it up and put a huge building there. Well now there's talk of the Interstate coming through our town and Walmart is planning to move to be closer to it. To, you guessed it, another stretch of beautiful open country. To me that's unnecessary, and greedy to destroy land and then just uproot. You know nothing will go into the old SuperWalMart for years because its been about 10 years since they vacated the old building and nothing has moved into that one. (This is one example, but I could probably give more, and that's just in my tiny town of 13,000.)

I'm certainly not talking about going back to the Dark Ages just to save a few trees. Just being responsible with what you're given. The environment is definitly something God gave to us to use, not just to admire.

[AimusSage]

I recently saw this funny cartoon in the newspaper. It had mozes with the tablets scribing the commandments, saying: "There is only room for 10 commandments, I'll drop Take good care of the environment surely men can't be that stupid."

And now we see what happened, I found it to be quite funny... In a multitude of ways. :D

[ranzy]

I agree with you, Virgil. I don't want progress to stop or to go back to centuries ago but we don't have to hide ourselves that a lot of scientists are saying that global heating caused by greenhouse effect and pollution is destroying the environment, so I think we should find a way to mantain our standards of living and trying to be more eco-friendly. Developing less polluting fuels and sources of energy, trying not to waste energy and water are examples of what could be done without lowering our standards of living.

[Whifflingpin]

Zoroastrianism has recognized that God is Green for thousands of years.

Various of its religious taboos are (and have "always" been directly environmental. For example, Zoroastrians are, I believe, forbidden to wash in running water, and the traditional exposure of the dead on towers was to prevent pollution of the earth.

Moderation, in preference to excess, is a strong feature of the religion, and pervades all aspects of life, so Zoroastrian fanatics are as unlikely as Zoroastrian gluttons or misers.

[Orionsbelt]

I Guess I feel that the native american traditions have always viewed "colonial" attitudes as unfriendly to the environment. I would have to agree. I agree with Virgil that the comforst of modern living would be hard to give up. Our religious tradition by comparison to native americans is very oriented to what is good for people vs what is good for the living system (if you will) I feel like we don't try very hard. My experience tells me that we won't try very hard until something very bad happens that stops all the bickering. The quality of the outdoor experience have been greatly diminished even since 1950.

[Virgil]

I Guess I feel that the native american traditions have always viewed "colonial" attitudes as unfriendly to the environment. I would have to agree. I agree with Virgil that the comforst of modern living would be hard to give up. Our religious tradition by comparison to native americans is very oriented to what is good for people vs what is good for the living system (if you will) I feel like we don't try very hard. My experience tells me that we won't try very hard until something very bad happens that stops all the bickering. The quality of the outdoor experience have been greatly diminished even since 1950.


What makes you pick 1950? Frankly in the United States since the clean water and clean air laws of the early 1970s, our environment has greatly improved. On top of that we have more park land set aside for non-development than ever before. What evidence is there that it's gotten worst?

And what makes you think that something bad is going to happen. The eco-chondriacs lead you to think that some apocalypse is going to happen. Even taking this global warming at its worst estimate, the earth has supposedly warmed 3/4 of a single degree in a hundred years. That's it. Less than one degree. In its whole life span the earth has varied somewhere between 3-5 degrees. What makes people say that 3/4 of a degree change is severe or that it's not natural? Remember the earth before mankind varied as much as five degrees.

Like I said, environmentalism has become a religion to people mostly who don't have any religion. And they too predict an apocalypse.

[Nightshade]

Like I said, environmentalism has become a religion to people mostly who don't have any religion. And they too predict an apocalypse.

See thats the intresting point this documentry put through according to this guy's resarch almost all religions hold with being green in theory, problem is putting it into practice. And he said thats biggest problem of bring green ideas to the for in the States is that for a long time enviromentals have been precived as just that pagans, nature worshipers, and athesit-scientists.

But personally becasue I think it a moral as well just plain common sense to be green because if we keep going the way we are maybe you Virg we wont see it but with 1 generation, that is say if I have a child when Im 26 with that childs life, there will be mass extinions the weather will have so completly altered youll have lost quite alot of sealevel and cosstal lands becasue of rising seas and perhaps worst of all is that we will rum out of energy and if we dont really start taking it seriously everyone of the so called 'developed countries' are going to be up the creek without a paddle because no one will know how to survive with our glorious technology and luxury dependat life style. And when it comes to it countries have long memories I seriously doubt any of what are now the delevoping world are going to takes in and feed us. I mean why should they? In the end we did it and well suffer for it.

Or of course you could go ... weather goes mad, floods, syorms, earth quakes, mass extinion, changes in animal breeding patterns...:eek2: OMG its the Judgment day and we can stop worrying about the enviroment because no one is going to survive this anyway.

Me Im both I think it may very well be the start of the "last day" or "Judgment day" if you want to call it that but we cant be postive and we still have reponsibilty to look after things are gifted to us.

[botkin]

The desire to live well and comfortably, to provide abundance for one's own, and to explore nature for this purpose does not contradict the Biblical doctrine that humans are stewards of the earth rather than its owners. There is, however, a limit to how much we can explore the planet before we permanently damage it, and that's where the problem lies. We must realize that in over-exploiting the planet we challenge not only God's prerrogative as the only one entitled to destroy the whole damned thing, but our very chances of survival.

But, of course, the ecological movement, with its self righteousness and its goofy protest shennanigs, is begging not to be taken seriously. And though every preacher of approaching doom sounds ridiculous, and I'll take a wild-eyed prophet or holy man over Al Gore any day.

[Scheherazade]

I recently saw this funny cartoon in the newspaper. It had mozes with the tablets scribing the commandments, saying: "There is only room for 10 commandments, I'll drop Take good care of the environment surely men can't be that stupid." :D :thumbs_up

[papayahed]

This has nothing to do with anything but it cheeses me off. Near my mom's house they just keep building strip mall after strip mall, even when half of them are still empty, there are at least 2 huge stores that are closed yet there's still building going on. Urban sprawl annoys me.

[Thorwench]

What makes people say that 3/4 of a degree change is severe or that it's not natural?

Because it will be more than that, probably around 4 to 5 degrees (Celsius, mind) in the next 100 years? Because the pole caps are melting? Because the Alps loose vast amounts of ice? Because there are land slides and mud slides in a frequency never seen before (at least not since recording became common)? Because we had the warmest winters ever (where I live) recorded?
Because the polar bear is on the brink of extinction for not able to hunt anymore? Because there are malaria carrying species of mosqitoes popping up in central Europe where it should be too cold for them? Because there are continously growing deserts in one place and flood in abundance in another, taking peoples' livelihoods away?
The apocalypse will not be a big bang, but a sneaky little bastard. The results will still be quite difficult to deal with. Progress is fine. I like my insulated house with a nice fire burning and my medicine when I am ill. I also like disposable nappies and a drive with 150 miles per hour on the motorway. But perhaps I should dispense with these wonderful drives, buy a smaller car, take care to have an energy-efficient household, abstain from extensive packaging and wrapping and switch the light off when I am not in the room. Perhaps I should tell my government to cut down on fossile energy production and encourage alternatives instead.
I agree that environmentalists can be a nuisance. What's wrong with slow breeders, for instance? But because they are sometimes weird and fanatic shouldn't get in the way of seeing the real issues behind their ideology.
However, considering the big picture it won't make that much of a difference - when everything perished humankind will perish too. Thereafter, nature has still millions of years to recuperate and without us it will be easy sailing.

[Orionsbelt]

What makes you pick 1950? ...etc ...

Like I said, environmentalism has become a religion to people mostly who don't have any religion. And they too predict an apocalypse.

I don't know any statistics about global warming ... eco-initiatives or people who don't have religion. I know that when I walk in the woods, the chestnut trees are gone, as is the American elm tree. I know that the locust tress turn brown far sooner than they used to. I know that there are many more ATV trails than there has ever been. ... with the ruts in the forest that go along with it. I know that when I paddle down a creek that has just come down from a flood there is bottles and tires, tarps, and trash in great abundance stuck in the trees. I know that Japanese knot weed grows where it wasn't before. I know that I used to be able to walk in lake Erie without shoes. I know that carp don't belong in our rivers.. especially the one with tumors on them. I know that you used to not have to stock trout streams every spring. I know that oak trees used to have less gauls on them. I know that crown vetch should not be growing in hillside meadows. I know most poplars have died off. I know that Hemlocks used to be abundant as did sycamore trees. I know that elderberry trees where once very common. I know you can't find wild ginger any more. I know you have to look hard to find spice bush or 'sang. I know that you shouldn't see soap bubbles on rivers. I know that lake Erie has less than half of the species that used to live in it even when the phos levels were through the roof. I know that Turkeys used to be twice the size you see now. I know you used to be able to hike in places without treating water. I know that most people don't even know what these things are. Other than that I don't know a damn thing.

[Virgil]

This has nothing to do with anything but it cheeses me off. Near my mom's house they just keep building strip mall after strip mall, even when half of them are still empty, there are at least 2 huge stores that are closed yet there's still building going on. Urban sprawl annoys me.

Blame your politicians, not the companys that are looking to establish businesses. Your local politicians establish commercial zones, residential zones, and park land. And given that I assume you live in a free country ;) your politicians are a reflection of the people they represent.


I know that when I walk in the woods, the chestnut trees are gone, as is the American elm tree.
Those were from natural diseases, not pollution or human activity.


I know that the locust tress turn brown far sooner than they used to. I know that there are many more ATV trails than there has ever been. ... with the ruts in the forest that go along with it.
I can't answer the locust (I suspect it's also from nautral diseases) but as to the trails (I assume these are bike trails) I agree. I do think that dirt bike trails ruin the forest. But that's a legal matter that allows it. See my respoonse to Papaya above.


I know that when I paddle down a creek that has just come down from a flood there is bottles and tires, tarps, and trash in great abundance stuck in the trees.
Well, that's crimninal and anyone doing that is breaking the law in just about any place in the US. Frankly I haven't noticed it. I don't know how old you are, but when I was growing up, yeah, this was common. Not only have we clean water laws since the 1970s, there has also been a cultural change where most people don't pollute reflexively.


I know that Japanese knot weed grows where it wasn't before.
I don't know the specifics of this, but there has been an increased of non-native species transplanted. But that's because people in the world travel everywhere now. They wind up inadvertantly carrying seeds and insects getting into planes and getting transplanted. Should we halt travel? I think most people enjoy seeing other parts of the world.


I know that I used to be able to walk in lake Erie without shoes. I know that carp don't belong in our rivers.. especially the one with tumors on them. I know that you used to not have to stock trout streams every spring. I know that oak trees used to have less gauls on them. I know that crown vetch should not be growing in hillside meadows. I know most poplars have died off. I know that Hemlocks used to be abundant as did sycamore trees. I know that elderberry trees where once very common. I know you can't find wild ginger any more. I know you have to look hard to find spice bush or 'sang. I know that you shouldn't see soap bubbles on rivers. I know that lake Erie has less than half of the species that used to live in it even when the phos levels were through the roof. I know that Turkeys used to be twice the size you see now. I know you used to be able to hike in places without treating water. I know that most people don't even know what these things are. Other than that I don't know a damn thing.

I used the word eco-chondriacs above somewhere. I didn't invent it. There is this perception that the world is coming to an end over every little nuissance. I blame it on the media for constantly having to supply us with bad news. In reality, humanity has never had so good in the history of mankind. We are living longer healthier lives in more prosperous circumstances. We are able to travel and learn about all sorts of places when in the recent past most people never left a single village. We are able to learn with computers and meet wonderful people all over the earth. Life is good, lighten up. :)

As to the religious question that was brought up originally I cite this from Genesis. The underline is my emphasis.

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

That God has provided the earth for man's use is the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the earth.

[Orionsbelt]

An avalanche is made of lots of small stones rolling down the same hill. I think you made my point for me. Have all the dominion and domination that you want. I certainly can't stop it. When everyone has finished dominating, sub-doing, etc. there will not be the same quality creation to enjoy. Sort of like looking at a video of the Grand Canyon .. not the same.

[kilted exile]

Ok, a few quick points:

1) Climate change is definetely happening, this is evident in any number of ways - reduced glacial depth, increased summer temperatures/heat waves in places which never used to be effected by such problems, delayed winter, increased rainfall instead of snow etc

2) The only real question is how much of it is natural & to what extent it has been caused by the actions of people, there is unfortunately no complete definitive evidence which shows what the exact cause is. This imo is because there is no one cause; yes the world would possibly be increasing in temperature even if we were not here. However, the pollution caused by our actions on this planet, leading to the greenhouse effect (not to be confused with the depletion of the Ozone layer), have an effect as well. We may not be solely to blame but we still have had an impact.

3) We have a choice to make - We can say I'm not going to change, until it is proved my actions are what is causing this (and even then so what I like this, screw the future)? Or we can say what steps can I take that will still allow me to live a comfortable life, but act in a more eologically friendly manner?

4) There is no need to get rid of all of the things we enjoy about life, but there are ways to do them in a more responsible manner.

[papayahed]

Blame your politicians, not the companys that are looking to establish businesses. Your local politicians establish commercial zones, residential zones, and park land.


I blame both.


And given that I assume you live in a free country ;) your politicians are a reflection of the people they represent

uhhhh, yeah.

[Adudaewen]

That God has provided the earth for man's use is the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the earth.

It is true that God did give man dominion over the earth and all of its inhabitants. However, I certainly do not think that makes it okay for people to tear the earth apart simply because we can. We have to understand that our fates are intertwined with those of every other living being on this earth. Everything that we do has an impact, be it negative or positive, on everyone else, including plants and animals. With that dominion comes great responsibility to protect our environment even while we profit and live from it. It certainly doesn't diminish our capabilities to live a good, healthy life while also being environmentally efficient. Things like conserving energy and water take hardly any effort at all and very little inconvenience. God teaches us not to squander His gifts and I think that includes nature and our world.

[Thorwench]

Hi Orion, you list is mightily impressive and I cannot see how this wouldn't be enough for anyone.
In 1990 I went to Austria and spend my summer holidays hiking to glaciers up in the Alps. Those glaciers, the ones I went up to, are gone by now. They showed on telly how a bit of the Eiger mountain fell down and tumbled into the valley beneath. The ice that has been there for thousands of years is definitely melting and since it held the rocks together they fall once its gone. In my garden I had roses and sweet peas flowering in December, I could have picked summer flowers for my christmas tree. May beetles (cockchafers) used to be in abundance when I was a kid, now I have seen only one in the last 20 years. My children don't understand the old may beetle songs and poems anymore because they have NEVER seen one. Certain bird species have disappeared entirely. Two or three years ago when in France, I had the great pleasure of walking through oil slick where there used to be fields of shells and mussels, crabs, fishes, seals and sea birds. It almost breaks your heart when you know how it looked a decade ago.

[Orionsbelt]

It almost breaks your heart when you know how it looked a decade ago.

Thanks! I spend a lot of time outdoors and I see things that just aren't the way they should be. I can't really say it's this thing or that thing but I can't help but get the feeling that all is not well. Sometimes I feel as Virgil said light'n up. Then I notice some other thing. It is not a forgone conclusion that any of these changes are anything more than just changes. Induced by man or otherwise. I do know that we don't understand the system well enough. I guess my problem is that I'm not sure enough people are watching. I don't know..... I do hope I'm wrong. I guess we will all find out.

[Adudaewen]

The world has been dying since the day it was created. Just like us. We a living on a dying world, and as sad as that is, we cannot stop it. All we can hope to do is to slow it down a little bit. If you think that it has been bad this year with the bizzare winter we had, just wait. Its going to get so much worse!

[Nightshade]

In reality, humanity has never had so good in the history of mankind. We are living longer healthier lives in more prosperous circumstances.
BUt heres a question for you are we? I know people who would argue with that mostly old people in thier 90s who think its unnatural that they live this long and would rather be dead insttead of being pumped full of pills and being practically incapable of doing anything for themsleves. ANd another thing if we take religious writings as historical accouns there are several eferances to people living over three hundred years. Noah for one is said to have called his people for over a hundred years ( for some reason Im thinking its three hundred and somthing but I cant find exact refernce but I know it longer than ramses the secnd reign which was 202 years) before the flood Im pretty sure he didnt satar the calling till he was in his 40s and he survived the flood.

As to the religious question that was brought up originally I cite this from Genesis. The underline is my emphasis.
That God has provided the earth for man's use is the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the earth.


God teaches us not to squander His gifts and I think that includes nature and our world.

MOre or less what I wanted to say but also arent we supposed to protect and look after the gifts of God as respect and love of God, Im pretty sure thats one of the resaons we cant commit suiceeide becasue its squndering a gift of God, as well the wholeits a mark of desperation and lack of faith.

I might also add Daffodls are blooming and the JUNE Roses are already budding.

[Adudaewen]

MOre or less what I wanted to say but also arent we supposed to protect and look after the gifts of God as respect and love of God, Im pretty sure thats one of the resaons we cant commit suiceeide becasue its squndering a gift of God, as well the wholeits a mark of desperation and lack of faith..

exactly!

[Virgil]

Well, you guys can make up your own religiuos ideas, but I quoted what was in the Bible. Historically that has been the position of Judeo-Christian perspective. Now if certain church people are "evolving" with current pop ideas, then we might as well throw out the Bible. Now that you're creating your own theology, what may I ask is the name of this religion that your creating? :D

[Adudaewen]

I don't find it outrageous to claim that God wants us to protect our environment. Obviously He created this wonderful world for us to use, but does having dominion over something mean we can use it however we see fit? Doesn't having dominion carry a burden of responsibility? Responsibility to protect it, and to ensure it will carry on to our children. God created every living creature on this earth. Do you think he loves them less than He loves u? Are they not his creations also?
Matthew 6:26-29"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? "So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." God cares for these, so "lowly" compared to His greatest creation, man.

Deuteronomy 20:19 "When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destryo its trees by putting and ax to them, because you can eat thier fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?" God is saying that wanton destruction is unnecessary.
Deuteronomy 22:1-4 "If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to him. If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it. Then give it back to him. Do the same if you find your brother's donkey or his cloak or anything that he loses. Do not ignore it. If you see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help him get it to its feet." Here His concern is for the weak and helpless and extends to the animal kingdome for thes laws protect animals as well as humans.
Luke 16:10 states "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." verse 12 says " And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?"
I think all of these verses tell us how important it is to God that we use our gifts responsibly. I'll keep digging because I'm sure that I can find more.

[Virgil]

Adudaewen, most of those quotes you listed are how to be a good neighbor or putting trust in God to be fed. I interpret "Are you not of more value than they [the birds]?" as man being of more value than nature.

In addition check out this:

Pslam 8:
: O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3: When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5: For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6: Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8: The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9: O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Dominion and all things under his feet.

[Adudaewen]

I am not arguing that man has dominion over the earth. All I am trying to say is responsibility goes along with that dominion. For example, it says in Ephesians 4:22-24 "Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." This is a much misunderstood verse because people sometimes choose to stop here. NOw in this paragraph, God is giving the head of the family to the man. In a sense he is given dominion over his wife. However if we read on, it continues in verse 25 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the churche and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. he who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. this is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Chrisht and the church. However each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
So God gives man the head of the household, but he also charges him with the responsibility of caring for his wife as though his own body. God never gives control, power, dominion lightly. We are always responsible for everything we are charged with, be that our conduct with our neighbors, our families, our environment.
Matthew 6:26"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them" Why would he feed them if they didn't matter to Him? If they weren't dear to Him?
Deuteronomy 22:1-4 "If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to him. If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it." Why would he care about a stray sheep or ox if the environment didn't matter to Him?
"When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting and ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down" Why not cut them down, if we've been given dominion over the earth with no responsibility, why would we give a rip about a fruit tree???
Intriguing questions, no?

[Virgil]

I am not arguing that man has dominion over the earth. All I am trying to say is responsibility goes along with that dominion. For example, it says in Ephesians 4:22-24 "Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." This is a much misunderstood verse because people sometimes choose to stop here. NOw in this paragraph, God is giving the head of the family to the man. In a sense he is given dominion over his wife. However if we read on, it continues in verse 25 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the churche and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. he who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. this is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Chrisht and the church. However each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
So God gives man the head of the household, but he also charges him with the responsibility of caring for his wife as though his own body. God never gives control, power, dominion lightly. We are always responsible for everything we are charged with, be that our conduct with our neighbors, our families, our environment.
Matthew 6:26"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them" Why would he feed them if they didn't matter to Him? If they weren't dear to Him?
Deuteronomy 22:1-4 "If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to him. If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it." Why would he care about a stray sheep or ox if the environment didn't matter to Him?
"When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting and ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down" Why not cut them down, if we've been given dominion over the earth with no responsibility, why would we give a rip about a fruit tree???
Intriguing questions, no?

Perhaps. I will give half way and say that I don't think God would like us destroying the earth. :) We should be good stewarts. However, clearly it is here for our use. In fact, farming and planting is one of the most unnatural acts to the environment. No where in nature do fields of lettuce grow or farms of tomatos or crops of anything or vineyards of grapes. Nor is herding and breeding of sheep or cows or horses a natural act. These are all acts of man using his intelligence to manipulate nature for his betterment. You live in Nebraska, Adudaewen. Surely you can see the difference between the wilderness and the farms.

Perhaps since everyone is battling against me (which I don't mind, BTW ;) ) I think I'm getting misinterpreted. I'm not advocating not trying to be cleaner with the environment or preserving wilderness. I just feel that the environmentalist have gone too far, especially with this global warming thing. But that's what makes us different. ;)

[Nightshade]

humm well Im not going to argue about what the bible says but the Koran is quite vocal about 'Fasad fee el ard" which quite literally translates as corruptioon of the earth, and we are told right at the end of the same verse that gives us dominion of the aerth , 'and do not corrupt ?pollute the earth for God does not love the corrupters. somthing like that Ill get the details of it later

[Virgil]

humm well Im not going to argue about what the bible says but the Koran is quite vocal about 'Fasad fee el ard" which quite literally translates as corruptioon of the earth, and we are told right at the end of the same verse that gives us dominion of the aerth , 'and do not corrupt ?pollute the earth for God does not love the corrupters. somthing like that Ill get the details of it later

I would like to see the details. I actually would be a little surprised. Most cultures going back in time did not have an environmental consciousness. That is something we currently read into it, a modern value being projected back. Like I said farming and herding are not natural acts and by their inherent nature alter the environment. Would you be against channelling water through a canal so farmers can water their crops? That is altering the environment. But what are desert people supposed to do? Starve? Across Europe one can see farm after farm as one travels. That used to be wilderness at one time. That environment has been radically changed. Modern European countries wouldn't be able to eat if they had not altered the environment. But are you looking at the entire Koran? Or just one passage?

[botkin]

I think one could distinguish between different forms of altering or tampering with nature. Does all manipulation of natural circumstance (such as channeling water for farms, or even the construction of farms where in the past were wild plants) amount to corruption or destruction of nature? Surely there is a point to which man can tamper or clear out the natural environment in which he finds himself without permanently damaging (or "corrupting") the whole.

[Virgil]

I think one could distinguish between different forms of altering or tampering with nature. Does all manipulation of natural circumstance (such as channeling water for farms, or even the construction of farms where in the past were wild plants) amount to corruption or destruction of nature? Surely there is a point to which man can tamper or clear out the natural environment in which he finds himself without permanently damaging (or "corrupting") the whole.

You mean like destroying whole miles and miles of forest for farmland? That is Europe today.

[Jetxa]

Scripture and science both affirm that plants and animals preceded man as tenants of earth. Science affirms that man showed up millions of years after plants and animals. Did something occur in this time frame that created a need for man and his “dominion” over the earth?

I am curious to the significance that man was fashioned out of the dust of the earth, yet all the rest of creation came to be by the "spoken word" of God . Does this somehow play into man's supposed “dominion”?

[Nightshade]

I would like to see the details. I actually would be a little surprised. Most cultures going back in time did not have an environmental consciousness. That is something we currently read into it, a modern value being projected back. Like I said farming and herding are not natural acts and by their inherent nature alter the environment. Would you be against channelling water through a canal so farmers can water their crops? That is altering the environment. But what are desert people supposed to do? Starve? Across Europe one can see farm after farm as one travels. That used to be wilderness at one time. That environment has been radically changed. Modern European countries wouldn't be able to eat if they had not altered the environment. But are you looking at the entire Koran? Or just one passage?

Well as I understand it the koran doesnt quite work the same way as the Bible but it is a theme that is repeated all over the place. From the verse of the creation of Adam to verse about the day of judgment , to just the general rules on how to live your life over and over again God created the heavnes and earth, all knowing all powerful, He created everything on earth for you to use so that you might think and acknowledge His Wonder and worship him. Do not corrupt or destroy His gifts for such is a regection of His love and Gifts and to reject the gifts of God is to reject God.
Thats the basic reccurring theme, and actually the same rule applies to why we caan not drink alchol or gamble, because their faults and dangerous and potetional harms to your self your body and others is greater then their potentional benfits.

[Adudaewen]

Nightshade, you solved a mystery for me!!! All this time, I had thought I read that verse in the Bible when it was in fact in the Qur'an. Thanx!

I'm not sure if I would classify farming and hearding quite the same as say, strip mining. After land is farmed and hearded, it can be "healed" in a sense. You mentioned Virgil that I was from Nebraska, and I have seen effect that irresponsible farming has on the land. However when its's done right, you can actually improve the land by farming on it. Herding can be rough, but grazing is probably one of the best ways to grow prairie grasses.

[Virgil]

[I'm not sure if I would classify farming and hearding quite the same as say, strip mining. After land is farmed and hearded, it can be "healed" in a sense. You mentioned Virgil that I was from Nebraska, and I have seen effect that irresponsible farming has on the land. However when its's done right, you can actually improve the land by farming on it. Herding can be rough, but grazing is probably one of the best ways to grow prairie grasses.

Oh, I didn't say ruin the land, I meant change it from what is natural. Farming alters the habitat for the native species, and look there aren't any wolves or bears except in remote areas of europe. And certainly the bird species change with terrain, and I'm sure insect and even micro-biology. Some of which prosper and some of which become extinct. Anyone that thinks we can keep something "natural" is wrong. Human activity changes the environment. I've seen environmentalist advocate eliminating humans off the earth. :lol:


Well as I understand it the koran doesnt quite work the same way as the Bible but it is a theme that is repeated all over the place. From the verse of the creation of Adam to verse about the day of judgment , to just the general rules on how to live your life over and over again God created the heavnes and earth, all knowing all powerful, He created everything on earth for you to use so that you might think and acknowledge His Wonder and worship him. Do not corrupt or destroy His gifts for such is a regection of His love and Gifts and to reject the gifts of God is to reject God.
Thats the basic reccurring theme, and actually the same rule applies to why we caan not drink alchol or gamble, because their faults and dangerous and potetional harms to your self your body and others is greater then their potentional benfits.

OK, I'll take your word for it. But in practice, what have Islamic nations done to preserve the environment? They have cities (how large and spread out is Cairo?) and build canals and create unnatural farmland out of natural desert and drive cars and drill for oil (oh my! naughty, naughty ;)) and sell lots of oil so the world can run and keep warm and have electricity. We, people of all faiths, all want to lead more comfortable, prosperous lives.

(Night please don't interpret that as an attack, I'm making my point with a little humor :p )

[one_raven]

As to the religious question that was brought up originally I cite this from Genesis. The underline is my emphasis.


That God has provided the earth for man's use is the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the earth.

Genesis also mandates that man be vegetarian.

And, of ocurse, Leviticus requires man to be Kosher - how many Kosher Christinas do you know?

What Jesus preached and what the Old Testament stated were often two different things, were they not?
Otherwise, is it also OK for a man to beat his wife?
Should someone be stoned to death for uttering the name of God?

What distinguishes man from the rest of the animals is his ability to drastically alter his environment intentionally on a rapid and wide scale. In the selfish this power instills a sense of arrogance and ownership of the world - in the wise, it instills a sense of awed humility and custodianship of the world.

[Jetxa]

Anyone who has read Ishmael, The Tales of Adam or The Story of B by Daniel Quinn will recognize where I am coming from with the following.

IMO the Bible is a record of the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry; the power to decide who lives and dies in the world. Before agriculture, man was at the mercy of "the gods" for his sustenance. The gods decided who lived and who died. After argriculture, man was in control of his own food source and no longer at the mercy of the gods. If coyotes attack my heard of sheep, I launch a campaign to kill said coyotes. If I think I need more cows, I breed more cows. Anything I eat can live and anything that threatens what I eat must die. I am no longer a plaything of the gods (or God) but have "eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Agriculture did not come to be because of a response to famine. People who are starving do not have time to wait for crops to grow anymore than a drowning person has time to build a raft. Crops are grown by people who already have enough food. Growing food is a very inefficient way to live and actually creates famine in that more food produces more people and more people create a need for more food . . . and so it goes.

I hope I didn't go too far off topic with this.

Edited to add: Modern humans have been around for two hundred thousand years, but it has only been the past 10,000 years that agriculture has become part of lives. Yet our "history" according to the Bible begins and coincides with the Mesopotamian cultures or "the birthplace of civilization".

[Thorwench]

I don't know, Virgil, global warming is a fact and not a fiction and farming can be done responsibly and we still have a hell of a lot of forests in Europe. All the green movement here started because the forests died and something needed to be done about it. God gave earth to man but he also gave him reason. Nature should be altered but with reason. if you are so much in favour of a comfortable life what will you say to all those people who loose their homes and perhaps even their lives because their countries or cities or farms will cease to exist when see levels rise? It is not man who has lived comfortably then but only a few generations. We should protect the world for US and OUR decendants. No one in his or her right mind asks you to not drive a car or to not heat your home. But couldn't this all be done with a little less fuel? Is it such a hassle to put a filter in your diesel exhaust. Is it so difficult to perfer agricultural products that grow nearby? Is it reasonable to buy a tomato that travelled to you all from Holland if you can buy one from your neighbouring farm? Is it reasonable for factories to blow their wastes into the air or lead them into rivers if they could install a closed cycle?
Not all environmentalists are fanatics, they are even not all vegetarian. Do you think that the bible is a bad thing because they are a few bible bashers ringing every Tuesday on your door?

[Adudaewen]

I've seen environmentalist advocate eliminating humans off the earth. :lol:


I just wanted to go on record and say that I understand your view point, and I agree with you that in a lot of ways, some environmentalists become so fanatic that they go WAY off the mark. So on a whole, I think we see eye to eye, and we can always agree to disagree on the fine print. ;)
Of course, I belive that small things that we can do will protect and preserve the earth, and I'm a believer in a lot of environmentalist ideals.

[Orionsbelt]

Just a side note. Another tumbling stone....

New York Times
February 27, 2007
Honeybees Vanish, Leaving Keepers in Peril
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

VISALIA, Calif., Feb. 23 — David Bradshaw has endured countless stings during his life as a beekeeper, but he got the shock of his career when he opened his boxes last month and found half of his 100 million bees missing.

In 24 states throughout the country, beekeepers have gone through similar shocks as their bees have been disappearing inexplicably at an alarming rate, threatening not only their livelihoods but also the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation’s most profitable........

Beekeepers have fought regional bee crises before, but this is the first national affliction.

I didn't copy the whole thing. If you search the NY times I'm sure you will find it.

[Jetxa]

To futher what I was trying to get across in my previous post . . .

With the rise and practice of agriculture, man came to the conclusion that the world was made for him, as he was living as if the world was made for him. The idea grew out of the lifestyle. According to this idea, God seems to only care about people and not the earth itself. After all, God will "fix" things with a new heaven and a new earth. No worries!

Ask someone to look for God, nine times out of ten they will look skyward. Yes, we're down her mucking it up; but don't worry, God will "save" us and our planet.

Before "revealed" relgion, our world was a sacred place where God (or the gods) dwelt continuously. God was what animated the world. God could no more be separated from the earth and creation as could man be separated from it.

Tear down any building and haul the debris away, in a very short time new growth will appear. In one of the creation stories in the Bible, on the sixth day creation did not end nor was it finished. This left the door open for God's continued presence on earth and in his creation. God is here now. The earth is in process.

As many of you have said, man is killing the earth and himself along with it. I for one refuse to bet my money on a "saviour".

[Wintermute]

. . .then we might as well throw out the Bible.

Now you're talking!

Common sense and science would be a much more reliable indicator of how we should treat our environment. After all, when the [orginal] Biblical texts were created, the earth was still flat and and the world's human population was less than 200 million. Today, the earth is spherical and has a population approaching 8 billion. And dang near every one of those 8 billion drives a car and consumes large quantities of hydrocarbon based electricity -- even more so now that the third-world folks are coming on line.

I'm as big an energy glutton as anyone, so I feel a bit hypocritical in these statements, but come on! Use your [God given?] common sense! We need to treat our environment like it was a part of us -- in a way it is.

Just a side thought: Would your all's God be pro/anti nuclear [fission] energy? As an agnostic, I'm as uncertain about this as anything else. But, I'd like to believe that if a god exists it would encourage the use of cleaner forms of energy.

[Redzeppelin]

In general, we are to be good stewards of the blessings/gifts God gives us - this includes the earth. According to Genesis, we were given the earth to "fill" and "subdue." I think we've been given the latitude to make decisions as to how we should use our resources, but I believe we're supposed to make those decisions based on Biblical principles - i.e. how does my use of the environment serve the community, serve God? I don't think we're free to "rape" the earth down to the bones for our own selfish purposes; but, neither do I think it's biblical to preserve the environment at the cost of human life and reasonable survival. Environmentalists are capable of being very PETA-like in their zeal, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Virgil]

1) Climate change is definetely happening, this is evident in any number of ways - reduced glacial depth, increased summer temperatures/heat waves in places which never used to be effected by such problems, delayed winter, increased rainfall instead of snow etc

2) The only real question is how much of it is natural & to what extent it has been caused by the actions of people, there is unfortunately no complete definitive evidence which shows what the exact cause is.

That is probably true, although I'm not completely convinced yet. But let us assume it is true that climate change is occuring. Where we differ then is how much is man made and how much is not.

Here's an interesting note and is roughly in line with what I think:


Global warming skeptic simply man of reason
Originally posted on February 28, 2007

Michael Crichton, whom most people probably know as the author of "Jurassic Park" and the creator of the television series "ER," is no dummy or hack writer, although he's used the theme of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" a number of times (good-intentioned science produces a monster).

He's probably one of the smartest guys in America today, and he's been raising issues that are far more important than the legal circus surrounding the death of a glamorous tramp or the problems of Britney Spears.

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University. He received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. His books have been translated into 36 languages. Thirteen films have been made from them. He has also received a Technical Achievement Academy Award for his pioneering work in using computer programs in film production. His knowledge of computers is extensive.

BOGUS SCIENCE

His recent book about global warming, emphasizing the pseudoscience involved and the hype, riled the world, although his conclusions often have been misstated. He thinks global warming is occurring, and he predicts a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius during the next century. In other words, he doesn't buy all the catastrophic predictions that have even filtered down to my 7-year-old grandson, who casually informed me that New York would soon be under water. Crichton scoffs at computer modeling, which he says is not supported by the data.

Charlie Rose, the best interviewer on television, recently showed dismay that Crichton would stand alone against the great consensus. Thinkers have been doing that for millennia. There was once a great consensus that scurvy was an infectious disease, despite years of reports by sea captains that crew members recovered as soon as they were able to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. The history of science and medicine in particular is a history of the consensus being shattered by individual thinkers. Doctors, for example, no longer bleed patients, a practice that probably killed many of those in their care.

At any rate, Crichton is concerned about two problems. One is the politicizing of science. Another is the commercialization of university research. The old idea that new scientific knowledge should be shared with the world is giving way to a desire to patent it and make money from it. In fact, as the old gangsters knew so well, the world is all about money.

CRISIS SELLS

As anyone familiar with fundraising can tell you, pending catastrophes and crises sell; reason doesn't. Climatologists who said, "There is some gradual warming, but we don't know for sure what will happen in the future, so we'd like some money for further study" would get few grants. I've heard people talk about Hillary Clinton's fundraising ability, but I guarantee you that Republicans will raise tons of money to "stop Hillary" as if she were the Medusa or a female version of the Antichrist. Hype and exaggeration seem to have infected every aspect of American life.

In this atmosphere, Crichton is like Ayn Rand's fictional ideal man of reason. Look at the data. Apply reason. Make sure the data is correct. Even I, a techno semi-illiterate, know that computer modeling is simply a fancy straight-line projection. Unfortunately, life is more about circles and cycles than straight lines. Global warming is taking on the aspect of a religious belief rather than science. No matter what happens — hot or cold, wet or dry — it's blamed on global warming. And, like the Darwinians, the global-warming folks treat dissenters as if they were evil heretics.

May I suggest that you go to Crichton's official Web site and read the text of several of his speeches? I think you will find the intelligent conversation refreshing.
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/OPINION/702280330/1015

[Orionsbelt]

In the Judaeo-Christian tradition God is portrayed as a loving father who is mostly concerned with the way people treat one – another. There is all sorts of subdue the earth, use the earth and animals as you like talk in the Old Testament. Buddhist, Hindu, traditions are similarly concerned with men and our interaction with the universe (not other species) as a being.

The underlying assumption is that the earth will take care of itself or somehow God will sustain us. While assumption may be a matter of trust for some people, for others it is becoming clear that the human burden on the planet is extracted at the cost of other forms of life. It is also possible that we are beginning to exceed its capacity. I have to agree that there is not enough evidence to suggest that man is solely responsible for the current warming trend. The fact of the matter is that man has contributed something. More of a concern is the sum of man’s impacts. As has been pointed out the great forest of Europe and the Eastern USA have been severely diminished. The equatorial belt is currently being trashed. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that had those forests remained somewhat intact, the trees would have consumed some of the CO2 emissions. Large areas of habitat have been destroyed many species of trees, fish, and animal are in peril or very unhealthy. The fish catch both in size and quantity are getting poorer every year. The population of deer and hunted species is solely under regulation. Instead of being balance by nature it grows and is trimmed based on the decision of men. There are literally thousands of cases like these worldwide.

Mankind as a whole seem unable or unwilling to concede that we just cannot continue to do whatever we want whenever we want. We have already done ourselves harm in such ways as pointed out by Harold Robbins, Rachel Carson, Arne Naess, Warwick Fox and others. Even if you think these folks are somewhat alarmists you have to concede that the argument they are making is worth consideration. I believe religious beliefs support our attitude and system of sentiments with regard to the world as well as other people. The only religious tradition that I am aware that regard other natural things with any respect at all are disregarded as pagan and dismissed out of hand.

There is a story about a rabbit eating the bark off of an oak tree. When it was pointed out that the rabbit was damaging the tree he replied “Who care as long as I have all of these acorns.”

If you believe that all life is sacred in some sense; If you believe that you have a moral obligation to support life in it’s many forms, then ecology is in some sense religious. If you beleive that these things are just tools, Don't worry there are plenty of acorns.

[kilted exile]

Yeah, I know crichtons argument. dont want to completely hijack this thread with discussion of it but suffice to say his has flaws also.

[Virgil]

I read National Geographic and they are way pro environment on everything and they supported the global warming "myth." So this is quite remarkable that they are printing this.


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say"
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[Il Penseroso]

Even if that is true, an overabundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can't be good. Why take the chance and dismiss the theory? Why not just clean up our act, or do the best we can?

[Thorwench]

Even if human influence would be small, it is still some. The more we can reduce our impact, however small, the less worse it may become. The greenhouse-effect is not the only reason to cut down on energy consumption and gaseous waste. Fossile energy resources won't be there forever, in fact, they have diminished quite dramatically. This has not only an effect on petrol prices or general availability of energy but also on manufacturing. Some beloved and very much needed products like aluminium require vast amounts of energy for production. We should not only take care of the environment and our resources in case of clear and present danger but because we are endowed with reason and should be able and willing to think ahead beyound the time frames provided by election terms.
Just to give you an example how far human impact goes: before the wall came down we all heated our houses by burning brown and quite salty coal. The air in our town smelled of sulphur all through the winter. Lots of children had respiratory problems. After 1990 most heating changed to gas or oil with cleaner and different gaseous waste. You actually can breath again and smell a few flowers now. So much for human impact.

[Virgil]

Even if that is true, an overabundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can't be good.
How do you know that? Who says that it's all man made or even mostly man made?


Why take the chance and dismiss the theory? Why not just clean up our act, or do the best we can?


Even if human influence would be small, it is still some. The more we can reduce our impact, however small, the less worse it may become.
I'll answer both of you here. Because it would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars. We're not talking about going to clean up your room. We're talkiing about spending an incredible amount of money world wide, especially in countries that are not wealthy, on something that is either completely false or natural. Did you ever think that since it may be natural, by changing it you might be doing more harm than good?


The greenhouse-effect is not the only reason to cut down on energy consumption and gaseous waste. Fossile energy resources won't be there forever, in fact, they have diminished quite dramatically.
Actually it hasn't diminished. I posted an article somewhere else that estimated that since the world has been using oil (must be a good 150 years now) we have only consumed 18% of what is available. When it runs out, we'll switch to something else. In the US we are supplementing oil with synthetic oil made from vegetable products. It's just not as efficient. When oil runs out, we'll switch to something else. What's the big deal?


This has not only an effect on petrol prices or general availability of energy but also on manufacturing. Some beloved and very much needed products like aluminium require vast amounts of energy for production. We should not only take care of the environment and our resources in case of clear and present danger but because we are endowed with reason and should be able and willing to think ahead beyound the time frames provided by election terms.
Just to give you an example how far human impact goes: before the wall came down we all heated our houses by burning brown and quite salty coal. The air in our town smelled of sulphur all through the winter. Lots of children had respiratory problems. After 1990 most heating changed to gas or oil with cleaner and different gaseous waste. You actually can breath again and smell a few flowers now. So much for human impact.
Absolutely agree with this. It is stuff like this we should be focusing on, not wasting money on something fictitious as global warming. May I speculate and say the reason your area was burning coal was because it was cheaper and that was what was affordable. When your economies improved after the wall fell, the influx of money (and I'm sure this took a little time, not instantaneous) allowed your town to switch to a cleaner way to heat. That is what I mean by improving one's standard of living. By wasting trillions of dollars on something that is erroneous then you are taking money away from where it can bbe best put to use.

As to applying reason, it seems unreasonable to waste money on something that is either natural or of no importance. People who disagree with global warming are applying as much reason as those who don't. Frankly I think we're applying more. It's the global warming people who seem to be reacting emotionally.

[Thorwench]

Actually it hasn't diminished. I posted an article somewhere else that estimated that since the world has been using oil (must be a good 150 years now) we have only consumed 18% of what is available. When it runs out, we'll switch to something else. In the US we are supplementing oil with synthetic oil made from vegetable products. It's just not as efficient. When oil runs out, we'll switch to something else. What's the big deal?

I don't know, the estimates I have seen say that we have enough oil for another 50 to 100 years (depending on the rate of consumption). This is not much really. I also think that "available" is not the same as "being there". There may be lots there but is isn't available because there are restrictions on exploitation either for nature protection or for technological reasons. There is, for instance, a lot of methane on the bottom of the sea but it cannot be exploited because it is difficult to get to (they are trying) and difficult to get it out without causing uncontrollable problems. Frank Schaetzing's novel "The Swarm" describes these issues in an, admittedly, apocalypse-mongering manner but it is well researched and I found it quite an exciting read.
Resources are a big deal indeed. There are wars fought over them.
Regarding the temperature rise I think it is not the fact THAT temperature is rising which is worrying but the SPEED by which this happens. Of course the pole caps would have melted anyway but this would have needed a long long time. Now you can really visibly perceive how fast the ice is going. Humans have not caused the process but they certainly SPEEDED IT UP. Hence the difficulties to adjust. For any risk management you always have to assume the worst case scenario in order to get the most results. Our knowledge of Mars is very incomplete and we therefore cannot rest our case on a very small number of contrary or sceptic opinions. If they should turn out to have been right, we all will be very happy and pin the Nobel Prize on them. But this is not something we can rely on. If Titanic hadn't relied on the conviction that it is unsinkable she would have had more lifeboats. They would have been superfluous if there hadn't been an iceberg but they would not have hurt anyone or damaged anything. However, there weren't enough lifeboats and many people drowned or froze to death. Mainly 3rd class passengers (but who cares about them anyway?).

[Virgil]

OK, we have both made our points. :) It was a nice discussion. :)

[Virgil]

Hey i wonder how many have seen this film:


Debunking global warming myths

By LICIA CORBELLA

The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is, well ... great.

The program, which aired last Thursday in the U.K. to much buzz, has since been watched by hundreds of thousands of others around the world via the Internet. It exposes numerous lies and myths presented as fact by those who believe in the unproven hypothesis that human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of the Earth's warming climate.

The same broadcaster -- Channel 4 in the U.K. -- that recently exposed the extremist ideology being preached in Britain's supposedly "moderate" mosques has now similarly helped to tear away the veil of lies and religious zeal surrounding the global warming industry.

The film features an impressive group of experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, biogeography, meteorology, and paleoclimatology from reputable institutions such as NASA, MIT, The International Arctic Research Centre, the Pasteur Institut in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Jerusalem, Alabama and Virginia.

That should help top the claims there is a consensus of scientists who believe in man-made global warming.

Expert after expert in this film blasts craters into the theory that CO2 -- which only makes up 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere -- has ever driven climate. Ice core records, in fact, prove the opposite, that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years.

The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.

What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place.

Then, when carbon dioxide emissions rose markedly in the post-war economic boom period, temperatures fell for the next three decades, again, in direct contravention of the theory being espoused and believed by so many.

Ironically, in the 1970s, just as scientists started predicting another climate catastrophe -- an impending ice age -- the planet started warming again.

The documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia.

"There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious," he says with a chuckle.

"It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."

See the film at:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/03/14/3748254.html