Comments on: What to Make of Global Warming http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:30:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-8024 Jonathan Sarfati Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:06:15 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-8024 Arghh, the Christian Democrats have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I expected more sense from Fred Nile. :@:@ See a more sensible approach, <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4817/" rel="nofollow">Global warming: what is ‘the creationist view’?</a>. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Arghh, the Christian Democrats have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I expected more sense from Fred Nile. :@:@ See a more sensible approach, Global warming: what is ‘the creationist view’?.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: jonathan lickliter http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-1724 jonathan lickliter Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:56:16 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-1724 The global warming true believers seem to be at least in part quasi-religious fanatics as their ideology is a doomsday senario in the tradition of the Christian apocalypse brought on by modern man and our sin of overconsumption - a sort of greenie penance that owes at least as much to faith as it does to hard science. Like Freudian psychology this doomsday weather science can incorporate any eventuality - if it doesn't rain this is because global warming leads to drought; on the other hand if there are storms and a cold snap, the theory can "explain" this eventuality as well, but always of course after the fact. Thanks Bill M. for an alternate if heritical interpretation of the facts. Jonathan Lickliter The global warming true believers seem to be at least in part quasi-religious fanatics as their ideology is a doomsday senario in the tradition of the Christian apocalypse brought on by modern man and our sin of overconsumption – a sort of greenie penance that owes at least as much to faith as it does to hard science. Like Freudian psychology this doomsday weather science can incorporate any eventuality – if it doesn’t rain this is because global warming leads to drought; on the other hand if there are storms and a cold snap, the theory can “explain” this eventuality as well, but always of course after the fact. Thanks Bill M. for an alternate if heritical interpretation of the facts.

Jonathan Lickliter

]]> By: Jeremy Peet http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-882 Jeremy Peet Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:04:18 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-882 Good to hear some sense amidst the paranoia. Regarding 'biased' scientists, aren't all scientists in need of earning a living? Hasn't the whole global warming hype created larger research grants these so-called 'unbiased' scientists rely upon? It takes little speculation to see the effect on research grants were there no public concern over climate. Perhaps that's whay so many of the learned sceptics are retired? Jeremy Peet Good to hear some sense amidst the paranoia.

Regarding ‘biased’ scientists, aren’t all scientists in need of earning a living? Hasn’t the whole global warming hype created larger research grants these so-called ‘unbiased’ scientists rely upon?

It takes little speculation to see the effect on research grants were there no public concern over climate.

Perhaps that’s whay so many of the learned sceptics are retired?

Jeremy Peet

]]> By: Julien Peter Benney http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-840 Julien Peter Benney Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:59:37 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-840 Mary beth is very right that only those scientists largely funded by the fossil fuel and car corporations have any real doubts about global warming. All the warmest years in southern Australia have occurred since 1997, and Melbourne has not exceeded its 1885 to 1996 average rainfall in that period. Whilst it <em>is</em> true that eastern Australia was wetter in the second half of the twentieth century that the first, this is largely due to an exceptionally wet decade in the 1950s, when Melbourne's average rainfall from 1949 to 1956 was 780 millimetres as against 520 for the last ten. Julien Peter Benney Mary beth is very right that only those scientists largely funded by the fossil fuel and car corporations have any real doubts about global warming. All the warmest years in southern Australia have occurred since 1997, and Melbourne has not exceeded its 1885 to 1996 average rainfall in that period.

Whilst it is true that eastern Australia was wetter in the second half of the twentieth century that the first, this is largely due to an exceptionally wet decade in the 1950s, when Melbourne’s average rainfall from 1949 to 1956 was 780 millimetres as against 520 for the last ten.

Julien Peter Benney

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-740 Bill Muehlenberg Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:54:55 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-740 Thanks Mary Beth Of course my article, at least, did not mention the Bible or religion. As to the relationship between science and religion, that is another whole discussion - stay tuned. My piece merely mentioned that there is not unanimity on this issue. Many of these same scientists were warning of global cooling just several decades ago. So the science can and does change, and disagreements are normal. Also, there can be as many scientists motivated by anti-capitalism and big business agendas as there are those working with the same. And yes, believers are to be good stewards of the earth which God has entrusted to us. But that means clear thinking on what are the actual causes of our environmental problems, and what are the best solutions as well. Contrary to your black and white claims, there is room to move here it seems. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Mary Beth
Of course my article, at least, did not mention the Bible or religion. As to the relationship between science and religion, that is another whole discussion – stay tuned.

My piece merely mentioned that there is not unanimity on this issue. Many of these same scientists were warning of global cooling just several decades ago. So the science can and does change, and disagreements are normal.

Also, there can be as many scientists motivated by anti-capitalism and big business agendas as there are those working with the same.

And yes, believers are to be good stewards of the earth which God has entrusted to us. But that means clear thinking on what are the actual causes of our environmental problems, and what are the best solutions as well.

Contrary to your black and white claims, there is room to move here it seems.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Mary Beth Bryant http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-738 Mary Beth Bryant Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:05:48 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-738 How can science be built on biblical theory? It doesn't compute. Science is not religon. Religon is not science. When only 15 out of 3000 scientist dispute the fact that global warming is caused by human activity I don't feel there is much to argue with. Jesus, from my understanding taught respect of the earth and all her people. Raping the land, over consumption, chemical creatons, taking from others, their land, their livelyhood, these are not Christian values nor are they sane. You can't apply the Bible convieniently to foster an agenda. Nor can you believe scientist that are paid by agenda based corperations aimed at discrediting the preciousness of the Earth to foster their own financial gain. Mary Beth Bryant How can science be built on biblical theory? It doesn’t compute. Science is not religon. Religon is not science.
When only 15 out of 3000 scientist dispute the fact that global warming is caused by human activity I don’t feel there is much to argue with.
Jesus, from my understanding taught respect of the earth and all her people. Raping the land, over consumption, chemical creatons, taking from others, their land, their livelyhood, these are not Christian values nor are they sane.
You can’t apply the Bible convieniently to foster an agenda.
Nor can you believe scientist that are paid by agenda based corperations aimed at discrediting the preciousness of the Earth to foster their own financial gain.

Mary Beth Bryant

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-689 Ewan Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:19:01 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/12/what-to-make-of-global-warming/#comment-689 I agree totally with your cautious approach to this global-warming hype. I also strongly agreed with Andrew Bolt's article 'Bulled by a Gore' that you refer to in your other article. Christians have every reason to be sceptical. Many of the scientists who tell us that evolution and the big-bang are facts and who also like to tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old are also the ones telling us about the 'fact' of man-made global-warming. Even the sceptic you mention above has wrong presuppositions in that he refers to a million year period of earth history. How can scientists who have a fictional view of earth history (based upon philosophical naturalism) ever be trusted to make accurate predictions of future climate conditions? Only when science is built upon a biblical understanding of earth history could we even begin to trust its' predictions of the future. Ewan McDonald, Victoria I agree totally with your cautious approach to this global-warming hype. I also strongly agreed with Andrew Bolt’s article ‘Bulled by a Gore’ that you refer to in your other article.

Christians have every reason to be sceptical. Many of the scientists who tell us that evolution and the big-bang are facts and who also like to tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old are also the ones telling us about the ‘fact’ of man-made global-warming. Even the sceptic you mention above has wrong presuppositions in that he refers to a million year period of earth history.

How can scientists who have a fictional view of earth history (based upon philosophical naturalism) ever be trusted to make accurate predictions of future climate conditions? Only when science is built upon a biblical understanding of earth history could we even begin to trust its’ predictions of the future.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]>