PLEASE NOTE: the views expressed on this forum are those of individual contributors and not CiS as an organisation. As contributors may not be members of CiS, opinions expressed here are not even representative of the views of the majority of CiS members. Posts by CiS committee members represent the official view of the CiS committee only when this is specifically stated. Any complaints should be emailed to forum@cis.org.uk where they will be addressed by the moderation committee. The decision of the moderation committee is final.
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Did anyone else see these?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15400748
The study was set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair, with funding from organisations that do not agree with climate change. But it seemed to confirm the previous consensus, that global warming is a reality. -
Yep, saw those. Unfortunately despite the work being conducted by sceptical scientists who are now convinced of global warming I don't see it slowing let alone stopping the anti-GW movement in America sadly.
From what I've been able to understand about it from speaking to friends in the States and reading documents from anti-GW theologians and groups over there, there is a bit of a melting pot of theological/scientific/economic/political reasons for why some American Christians are so against GW.
If the scientific case has now decisively swung against them I can only see them swinging towards emphasising one of the other reasons to reject it. In much the same way as has been the case with the anti-evolution saga over the last few decades. -
I think you're probably right. Even if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is accepted on scientific grounds, people can still give reasons why there is no need to do much about it.
For example, if things are going to get progressively worse until the coming of Christ, as many believe, then presumably the faster things degenerate, the sooner Christ will return. So maybe we should try to accelerate global warming to hasten the coming of Christ?
Or if this world is destined to be burned up and destroyed, and all that will survive is the souls of people, then making radical changes to the way we live in relation to the natural world is definitely not top priority.
In other words, there is a gap between the "is" of AGW and the "ought" of sustainable ecologically-aware living. I think a proper understanding of the Christian hope for the future can bridge that gap, viz., that this earth will be renewed at the resurrection, and that the future renewal of all things in heaven and earth has begun in the present age through the resurrection of Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit. -
Wasn't that "Heaven's important, but it's not the end of the world" or something like that?
-
Bob White has an article in the church times this week responding to a somewhat ignorant letter the previous week by the Bishop of Chester:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=120127
