U.N. Climate Change Report is "CODE RED" For HUMANITY!

[Reba1]

I believe our climate has always changed. I believe some politicians and scientist have figured out a way to gain both funds and control..over the sheeple

Scientist namely Darwin ,placed doubt about the God's Word so called christians choosing to believe science over the Word grabbed hold of the 'gap theory' . An effort that displaced God's Word in too many minds with a scientific theory.

One of the places i have lived there is a big rock balanced on a thin needle of a rock most likely left by the little ice age. There are petrified red wood log pieces in Nevada's high desert. These i have seen with my eyes, held a piece of them. The recovery of Mount St Helen surprised many scientist. You stated "God gave put us i control" I do not believe God gave up His control Should we take care of the earth He created for us YES. We should keep learning how to take better care.

Another example is the science controlled lands of northern Nevada ... The private own land out there where the owners run cattle has more life in it the BLM 'protected' lands . There is a antelope reserve out there that has no antelope , WHY because God gave the antelope more knowledge about their habitat then the scientist of BLM. The antelope go to the range where the cattle are for the protection the larger cattle offer against the predators. BLM will not lese the land to the ranchers .

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

I believe our climate has always changed. I believe some politicians and scientist have figured out a way to gain both funds and control..over the sheeple

Scientist namely Darwin ,placed doubt about the God's Word so called christians choosing to believe science over the Word grabbed hold of the 'gap theory' . An effort that displaced God's Word in too many minds with a scientific theory.

One of the places i have lived there is a big rock balanced on a thin needle of a rock most likely left by the little ice age. There are petrified red wood log pieces in Nevada's high desert. These i have seen with my eyes, held a piece of them. The recovery of Mount St Helen surprised many scientist. You stated "God gave put us i control" I do not believe God gave up His control Should we take care of the earth He created for us YES. We should keep learning how to take better care.

Another example is the science controlled lands of northern Nevada ... The private own land out there where the owners run cattle has more life in it the BLM 'protected' lands . There is a antelope reserve out there that has no antelope , WHY because God gave the antelope more knowledge about their habitat then the scientist of BLM. The antelope go to the range where the cattle are for the protection the larger cattle offer against the predators. BLM will not lese the land to the ranchers .

Thanks for sharing.

So more questions to better understand your position.

(1) Should we recycle?
(2) Should we reduce carbon emissions, even if they do not contribute to climate change.
Meaning, that assuming that climate change was naturally caused, do you still see the benefits
of reducing carbon emissions. --- Example, hurricanes we see as natural but people still build
flood walls, and tornado are natural, but we still have underground shelters in certain areas.
-- The unasked implied question is that are we assuming that because something is occurring
naturally that is means that it must be "good" and thus we should not try to change it?

(3) If climate change is natural, is it possible that God could be the cause and doing it to punish us, since God is sovereign over everything? Is that a possibility?

 

[Rad]

“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLON
For those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.
There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
• David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
• Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

• Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23

Most folks will pick and choose Scripture .. so my guess is most folks will pick and choose science papers the same way,,
“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLON
For those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.
There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
• David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
• Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

• Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23

Do you really want to run with this, ? what you have to remember is that the Oil Company Scientists first flagged up the problem of Global warming 40 years ago, but since then the Oil Companies have done their best to obscure, lie, buy out politicians and generally belittle the science so they can continue to make Billions of $ out of selling their products, but that litany of corruption and lies has come to an end, well almost, while all now pay lip service to the science of global warming, some continued to fund front organisations like the US Chamber of Commerce, to continue to try to lie and cheat to prolong the time when effective action would be taken to curb Greenhouse gases. Yep, even if it means trashing the entire planet, if theres a buck to be made theyre going to try to make it.
So given that background, do you not think that if there was the slightest doubt or possibility that anything these "Scientists" say has any credence, then the Oil companies would pounce on it as another reason to question the overwhelming Scientific concensus on Global warming, and it is overwhelming, heres a reference, and there are many more should you want them, Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia , and heres an extract from the introduction to that article you may find interesting
"There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[4][5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]", so it seems the consensus is now 100% amongst PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. And that brings me to another point, looking at your list of "Scientists" that disagree with the current consensus on Climate Change, very few of them are Climate Scientists, there are Geologists, Environmental Scientists, Physicists, Geophysics, Optics and Spectroscopy, but very few specialists in Climate science, now thats a little bit like asking an opinion about your heart condition from a neuro surgeon, Climate Science is a very specific and specialised branch of science and needs to be treated as such, anyway lets have a look at some of these so called Climate scientists.
First one even remotely connected to climate science is David Dilley who made this prediction in 2012, "

The ebook, which Dilley provides for free online, ends with the following “climate prediction”: [9]“Natural cycles of global cooling are potentially more dangerous than global warming. These natural cycles are a natural regulatory rhythm which is required by nature. Humans need sleep after a period of activity, and earth likewise requires active and rest periods.“In 2008, earth entered phase I global cooling. Phase II cooling will begin around the year 2020, this will usher in very dramatic global cooling, hurling temperatures quickly back to where they were in the cold 1950s and 1960s, and then further back to the climate seen in the 1800s. Coldest temperatures will be from about the year 2024 to 2050. There will be rapid ice pack regeneration until the peak of the next global warming cycle in the year 2140. Due to the Lunisolar gravitation stress on the outer liquid core and floating plates beneath the earth’s crust, there will be a historically strong climate changing volcano around 2020 to 2030. There will also be increased earthquake activity from 2008 through 2024.", so according to mr Dilley we are now in a cycle of "Global Cooling", and last year,which should have been Phase 2 of Global Cooling , was the hottest on record!!, need i say more about mr dilley?
Right one more, but i think you get the picture, OK , lets try David Legates, Director of the Centre for Climatic research, and one of Trumps appointees to the NOAA, looks promising, no, its not, because guess what, heres the reference Trump officials ousted after papers which downplay climate crisis , looks like he was fired from his position for faking approval of very dodgy climate change reports.
Fact is wherever you look in the deniers camp you will find corruption and lies, the debate is over, it has been for a long, long time, and only those with vested interests seek to prolong it, so what is your interest, why can you not accept the facts?. You remind me of someone whos told they have terminal cancer, you consult 49 top specialists in the field who confirm the diagnosis and prescribe the same treatment, then you go to a GP, general Practitioner, and they say, NO, all those specialists are wrong, nothing to worry about, just carry on as you are,. and you choose to go with the GPs decision, why would you do that?
And to finish think on this, every Government in the World has now signed up to the Paris Agreement agreeing to cut Greenhouses gases in an attempt to keep Global Warming to less than 1.5 degrees C. That includes ALL of the big OIl, Gas and Coal producing countries who will lose Trillions of $ in lost revenue from fossil fuels they can no longer sell. Do you really think they would forgo all of that money if this rag tag bag of individuals had any credibility, i dont think they would, and thats really the biggest Nail in the Coffin of Climate Change deniers, and may they RIP and let the world get on with trying to deal with the flood of suffering and Catastrophes yet to come, for be in no doubt , what we are seeing at the moment is just the first trickle of the flood to come, and those that have advocated on behalf of denial, will i believe, have to answer to God for the suffering and destruction they have caused

 

[Reba1]

Do you really want to run with this, ? what you have to remember is that the Oil Company Scientists first flagged up the problem of Global warming 40 years ago, but since then the Oil Companies have done their best to obscure, lie, buy out politicians and generally belittle the science so they can continue to make Billions of $ out of selling their products, but that litany of corruption and lies has come to an end, well almost, while all now pay lip service to the science of global warming, some continued to fund front organisations like the US Chamber of Commerce, to continue to try to lie and cheat to prolong the time when effective action would be taken to curb Greenhouse gases. Yep, even if it means trashing the entire planet, if theres a buck to be made theyre going to try to make it.
So given that background, do you not think that if there was the slightest doubt or possibility that anything these "Scientists" say has any credence, then the Oil companies would pounce on it as another reason to question the overwhelming Scientific concensus on Global warming, and it is overwhelming, heres a reference, and there are many more should you want them, Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia , and heres an extract from the introduction to that article you may find interesting
"There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[4][5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]", so it seems the consensus is now 100% amongst PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. And that brings me to another point, looking at your list of "Scientists" that disagree with the current consensus on Climate Change, very few of them are Climate Scientists, there are Geologists, Environmental Scientists, Physicists, Geophysics, Optics and Spectroscopy, but very few specialists in Climate science, now thats a little bit like asking an opinion about your heart condition from a neuro surgeon, Climate Science is a very specific and specialised branch of science and needs to be treated as such, anyway lets have a look at some of these so called Climate scientists.
First one even remotely connected to climate science is David Dilley who made this prediction in 2012, "

The ebook, which Dilley provides for free online, ends with the following “climate prediction”: [9]“Natural cycles of global cooling are potentially more dangerous than global warming. These natural cycles are a natural regulatory rhythm which is required by nature. Humans need sleep after a period of activity, and earth likewise requires active and rest periods.“In 2008, earth entered phase I global cooling. Phase II cooling will begin around the year 2020, this will usher in very dramatic global cooling, hurling temperatures quickly back to where they were in the cold 1950s and 1960s, and then further back to the climate seen in the 1800s. Coldest temperatures will be from about the year 2024 to 2050. There will be rapid ice pack regeneration until the peak of the next global warming cycle in the year 2140. Due to the Lunisolar gravitation stress on the outer liquid core and floating plates beneath the earth’s crust, there will be a historically strong climate changing volcano around 2020 to 2030. There will also be increased earthquake activity from 2008 through 2024.", so according to mr Dilley we are now in a cycle of "Global Cooling", and last year,which should have been Phase 2 of Global Cooling , was the hottest on record!!, need i say more about mr dilley?
Right one more, but i think you get the picture, OK , lets try David Legates, Director of the Centre for Climatic research, and one of Trumps appointees to the NOAA, looks promising, no, its not, because guess what, heres the reference Trump officials ousted after papers which downplay climate crisis , looks like he was fired from his position for faking approval of very dodgy climate change reports.
Fact is wherever you look in the deniers camp you will find corruption and lies, the debate is over, it has been for a long, long time, and only those with vested interests seek to prolong it, so what is your interest, why can you not accept the facts?. You remind me of someone whos told they have terminal cancer, you consult 49 top specialists in the field who confirm the diagnosis and prescribe the same treatment, then you go to a GP, general Practitioner, and they say, NO, all those specialists are wrong, nothing to worry about, just carry on as you are,. and you choose to go with the GPs decision, why would you do that?
And to finish think on this, every Government in the World has now signed up to the Paris Agreement agreeing to cut Greenhouses gases in an attempt to keep Global Warming to less than 1.5 degrees C. That includes ALL of the big OIl, Gas and Coal producing countries who will lose Trillions of $ in lost revenue from fossil fuels they can no longer sell. Do you really think they would forgo all of that money if this rag tag bag of individuals had any credibility, i dont think they would, and thats really the biggest Nail in the Coffin of Climate Change deniers, and may they RIP and let the world get on with trying to deal with the flood of suffering and Catastrophes yet to come, for be in no doubt , what we are seeing at the moment is just the first trickle of the flood to come, and those that have advocated on behalf of denial, will i believe, have to answer to God for the suffering and destruction they have caused

 

[Reba1]

Why are you using electricity? Dont you care about the damage you cause? Much of the electricity used in the USA is from coal . Coal and oil are things God has given us to use wisely among other things like the rivers.
Sadly your posts show trust of mankind overs powers your trust in tbe Lord God.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Why are you using electricity? Dont you care about the damage you cause? Much of the electricity used in the USA is from coal . Coal and oil are things God has given us to use wisely among other things like the rivers.
Sadly your posts show trust of mankind overs powers your trust in tbe Lord God.

Very interesting discussion.

Would you look at electricity as "man-made" or is electricity natural to you?

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

My understanding of electricity first starts with understanding the electromagnetic spectrum.

Perpendicular waves of electricity and magnetism. At different frequencies the properties of the wave changes and thus the expression of it.
We are most familiar with the visible light spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Other aspects includes Gamma rays, X-rays, Ultra-violet rays, visible light, infra-red, micro-waves, radio waves.

As certain frequencies and at certain duration of exposure it can be damaging to human tissue. However if humans
are under water for too long that is damaging to their lungs due to lack of air and we die.

Not really making a point here but just trying to better understand what you are saying. I think you are getting
at something and I wish to help you better clarify so if we can gleam some nuggets of truth out of what you are saying.

So help me understand your point about electricity again, please?

 

[Reba1]

The electricity we use is produced in a number of ways . Hydro . Coal. Oil. Natural gas. Solar. We use God's provisions to produce ankut every thing i can think of.... wevshould use His provisions wisely.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

The electricity we use is produced in a number of ways . Hydro . Coal. Oil. Natural gas. Solar. We use God's provisions to produce ankut every thing i can think of.... wevshould use His provisions wisely.

So you feel that electricity is a wasteful way to produce energy and it harms the planet. Is that correct?

 

[Reba1]

As direct as i can be ..

Folks who complain about

So you feel that electricity is a wasteful way to produce energy and it harms the planet. Is that correct?

No that is not my point. Folks who complain about use of oil etc. And yet use electricity are hipicritical .
I am on my phone there for i can not copy paizt etc

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

As direct as i can be ..

Folks who complain about

No that is not my point. Folks who complain about use of oil etc. And yet use electricity are hipicritical .
I am on my phone there for i can not copy paizt etc

Ok thanks for clarifying.

 

[Br. Bear]

I will trust in the Lord and His word.

amen

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

what was the climate in the Garden?

Man had it good... perfect environment, no need for adultery or theft, etc.

Even with climate spot on, sin entered.
Perhaps there is a link here?


Bless you all ....><>

 

[Hekuran]

Ok thanks for clarifying.

As direct as i can be ..

Folks who complain about

No that is not my point. Folks who complain about use of oil etc. And yet use electricity are hipicritical .
I am on my phone there for i can not copy paizt etc

Every time we breathe in and out we exhale carbon dioxide, so there's no totally zero carbon option. God created the natural world to be flexible and adaptable. The problem is that on a global scale we are producing so much pollution that the environment can't absorb it - and it's causing devastation.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Greetings,

what was the climate in the Garden?

Man had it good... perfect environment, no need for adultery or theft, etc.

Even with climate spot on, sin entered.
Perhaps there is a link here?


Bless you all ....><>

I believe so, yes.

 

[Dave M]

I Always wonder why they changed the name from global warming to climate change??

 

[Reba1]

Every time we breathe in and out we exhale carbon dioxide, so there's no totally zero carbon option. God created the natural world to be flexible and adaptable. The problem is that on a global scale we are producing so much pollution that the environment can't absorb it - and it's causing devastation.

We will disagree on this point big time... I trust God knew what He was creating. He knew there would be a population of "ZILLIONS " He created the grass and trees etc. . I do not believe nor will i believe God created a place for us that is inefficient. YES we Christians are duty bound to take proper care of what our God created.

 

[Reba1]

I Always wonder why they changed the name from global warming to climate change??

Climate change is a one size fits all marketing phrase.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Every time we breathe in and out we exhale carbon dioxide, so there's no totally zero carbon option. God created the natural world to be flexible and adaptable. The problem is that on a global scale we are producing so much pollution that the environment can't absorb it - and it's causing devastation.

Great point.

 

[Hekuran]

We will disagree on this point big time... I trust God knew what He was creating. He knew there would be a population of "ZILLIONS " He created the grass and trees etc. . I do not believe nor will i believe God created a place for us that is inefficient. YES we Christians are duty bound to take proper care of what our God created.

God's good earth is abundant and can sustain the 8 billion people alive today comfortably, even the 11 billion predicted for 100 years time -- but human greed and recklessness is pushing the environment beyond what is sustainable.

We've all seen landscapes that have been destroyed by careless and neglectful human action. The danger of climate change is that the impact of pollution is on a global, not local scale.

The richest and most polluting countries will probably be able to adapt. The poorest nations are already bearing the brunt of the changes.

@Reba1 can I ask what evidence you would need to see to be convinced that the global climate is warming dangerously fast due to human action? Or would no amount of evidence convince you there is a problem?