THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY

[Tom Eckstein]

Tom,

I've encountered Koonin's book and been tempted to use bits of it in an undergraduate course I teach. The problem with him is again that he's not a climate expert. If you look at his dissertation, he's trained in quantum mechanics. He also had a high-profile position at BP. He's not an atmospheric scientist and his graduate students have called him out on his narrative in Unsettled.

My impression is that if you look at atmospheric scientists and cyrologists and oceanographers, there is a really strong consensus that global warming is real and problematic for our ability to maintain our ways of life as we know them right now.

The dissent tends to come from physicists and geologists who have worked for the oil industry, or parts of the government like DOE that have traditionally been sympathetic to the industry. Again me claiming to be a reformation expert.

This dynamic helps illuminate the "rage" against dissent. There isn't really significant dissent among climate experts. The the dissenters are folks on the fringe of the discipline or not even on the fringe who claim expertise. Maybe the analogy is the pastor down the street with no MDiv but with a congregation twice the size of one of our Lutheran parishes that siphons off members because "they're so spirit filled." You can't have a doctrinal discussion with that pastor because he'll move the goalposts over and over again, all the while claiming to be rooted in biblical truth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Koonin did Climate Science Research under the Obama administration.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Kirchner:
It must be a frightening world for one who thinks that God is not in control, manifested by:…

Me:
You don’t believe we have the capability to destroy the world, and that our sins might be leading us to do so? And do you believe that we are guaranteed that our species will continue forever and ever? I don’t. We might be a failed experiment. And perhaps God created a more perfect earth somewhere far beyond the range of our telescopes.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Kirchner:
It must be a frightening world for one who thinks that God is not in control, manifested by:…

Me:
You don’t believe we have the capability to destroy the world, and that our sins might be leading us to do so? And do you believe that we are guaranteed that our species will continue forever and ever? I don’t. We might be a failed experiment. And perhaps God created a more perfect earth somewhere far beyond the range of our telescopes.

The Apostles’ Creed seems to guarantee that this species, that is, humans, will indeed go on.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Pastor Kirchner:
It must be a frightening world for one who thinks that God is not in control, manifested by:…

Me:
You don’t believe we have the capability to destroy the world, and that our sins might be leading us to do so? And do you believe that we are guaranteed that our species will continue forever and ever? I don’t. We might be a failed experiment. And perhaps God created a more perfect earth somewhere far beyond the range of our telescopes.

What I believe is that God is ultimately in control. We certainly can impact the environment, and we do, but we are not the “be-all and end-all” of what happens here on earth. God is, and his plan will triumph.

Yes, we have a responsibility. We are called to be good stewards of His creation.  We don't shrug our shoulders and say it doesn’t matter what we do to earth because God is in control. That would be similar to Brian theology. But, the world will end exactly when God intends. You err in your "could be" speculation that denies that certainty.

"Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,  though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling...

'Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!' The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress."

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
The Apostles’ Creed seems to guarantee that this species, that is, humans, will indeed go on.

I comment:
Huh?

[Terry W Culler]

Peter writes:
The Apostles’ Creed seems to guarantee that this species, that is, humans, will indeed go on.

I comment:
Huh?

The resurrection of the body and life everlasting

[Donald_Kirchner]

This is all Lutheranism 101, Charles. It seems that you've gotten so caught up riding your woke hobby horses that you've lost focus.

[Charles Austin]

Ok, life everlasting. With a gracious God in eternity.
Life on this earth? Not so everlasting, for us as individuals or for humans as a species.

[peter_speckhard]

Ok, life everlasting. With a gracious God in eternity.
Life on this earth? Not so everlasting, for us as individuals or for humans as a species.

That has always been true and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Some might argue that the locale in which we resurrected ones will live forever is "this world" made new. But either way, Christianity has never put forward the goal of achieving some sort of static equilibrium in which the population and environment remain stable and symbiotic perpetually.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Ok, life everlasting. With a gracious God in eternity.
Life on this earth? Not so everlasting, for us as individuals or for humans as a species.

What makes you think that a new earth will not be here? What makes you think that we'll be some sort of a new "species"?

[Charles Austin]

We are a species, at least in the taxonomy we currently use.. Maybe we will be a new one. Maybe we will be just like we are now. Maybe we won’t be at all.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Maybe we won’t be at all.

So much for The Creed! 

So, now God is not only  not in control. God is a liar?   

[RDPreus]

Tom,

I've encountered Koonin's book and been tempted to use bits of it in an undergraduate course I teach. The problem with him is again that he's not a climate expert. If you look at his dissertation, he's trained in quantum mechanics. He also had a high-profile position at BP. He's not an atmospheric scientist and his graduate students have called him out on his narrative in Unsettled.

My impression is that if you look at atmospheric scientists and cyrologists and oceanographers, there is a really strong consensus that global warming is real and problematic for our ability to maintain our ways of life as we know them right now.

The dissent tends to come from physicists and geologists who have worked for the oil industry, or parts of the government like DOE that have traditionally been sympathetic to the industry. Again me claiming to be a reformation expert.

This dynamic helps illuminate the "rage" against dissent. There isn't really significant dissent among climate experts. The the dissenters are folks on the fringe of the discipline or not even on the fringe who claim expertise. Maybe the analogy is the pastor down the street with no MDiv but with a congregation twice the size of one of our Lutheran parishes that siphons off members because "they're so spirit filled." You can't have a doctrinal discussion with that pastor because he'll move the goalposts over and over again, all the while claiming to be rooted in biblical truth.

Or the analogy is the liberal UCC or ELCA pastor who assures you that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles because the consensus of scholarship says he didn't.  Holding to the received opinion in academia is critical to ones' acceptance.  Just as a theologian seeking acceptance will think twice before breaking with the received wisdom, so will a climatologist.  No one wants to be ostracized.  Is it possible that the scientists who are regarded as "climate experts" must submit to a certain ideology that is unprovable scientifically as a precondition for such acceptance?  Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change? 

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Preus:
Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?
Me:
Possible? It’s not only possible it’s required. Scientists who work for oil companies are likely to report that their findings support the oil companies’ actions aimed at bringing the oil companies greater profit.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Preus:
Is it possible that scientists who work for oil companies may have more leeway to question the established opinion on climate change?
Me:
Possible? It’s not only possible it’s required. Scientists who work for oil companies are likely to report that their findings support the oil companies’ actions aimed at bringing the oil companies greater profit.

And you don't think politicians seek power with the same zeal that oil companies seek profits?