Originally Posted by Mike in Kentucky
Yes, there are "philosophers" on both sides of the aisle that have politicized this, but the fact remains. Jesus died for your sins. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The majority of qualified Christian theologians agree that whosoever shall deny Christ before men, him will Christ also deny before the Father which is in heaven.
A better explanation to my argument....
Why did Jesus have to die? | Bibleinfo.com
Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Two parallels that have nothing to do with the other. I would offer that the bible has faith and faith alone to substantiate it's claim while climate change can offer up measurable, quantifiable, empirical data.
Like I've said before, I don't believe the bible is the word of God. If you told me that the bible is the word of God through his having endowed us with the gift of reason then I can agree but to say that the words in the bible came directly from God? Sorry......
The way I look at it, it's very difficult to nail down what's "going to happen" because the models are all based on very limited sets of data. We don't have the knowledge of how big the ice caps were 150 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. There is currently a "cold blob" in the Atlantic that they say will affect the climate in "many" ways (meaning, we don't exactly know) for the foreseeable future.
What we need to do is stop politicizing climate change, stop the fear mongering, and just be responsible. This means, keep things clean, don't dump oil in the ocean, don't dump garbage in the ocean, don't throw a ton of chemicals into the air. We don't need to drastically change the way everyone lives by doing such stupid and overblown things like carbon credits, wasting food crops on Ethanol based fuels that do not actually do what was intended, and force the taxpayers to pay for every "green energy" concept that can be thought up. Do research, come up with actual, applicable things that can work (fuel cells anyone) and go from there.
Don't panic, don't overreact, don't use computer models as crystal balls.
I agree with you on the part of us being responsible stewards. Perhaps where you and I are divergent is in what the definition of "clean" is. You may feel that a particular level of clean is good enough while I may disagree and say that it needs to be a higher standard. I think this is where a lot of people disagree.
I've been on the receiving end of having to deal with the EPA and clean air standards since I live in one of the most stringent states in the nation so I know what that's like and, honestly, once I incorporated it into the business it really didn't affect it in any appreciable way. Did it suck that I had to spend money twice? Yes but, again, it didn't hurt the business.
You and I are probably much closer in how we feel about climate change. What may divide us is your belief seems to be that we just need to keep it at a tolerable level whereas from all the research I've done I feel we've blown past that level and we need to start reacting now rather than wait and see if further damage to the environment is going to affect us.