The Theological Ruminator
Glad you're all moved in! We've got to come up north into the cold to check things out soon.
Sorry that I continue to make you sick on the global warming issue. I'm a skeptic and will probably remain so. At least I will until it can be explained why it is humanity's fault (if it exists) when one volcano can spew out more junk than human beings have in history. Or, why we shouldn't see any type of increase or decrease as part of normal cyclical climactic change that has consistently taken place throughout history. And anyway, I don't know, but I'm guessing I've got a least a few prominent scientists on my side:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulat...n/
reg15n2g.html
Besides, don't you drive to school-- by yourself (five minutes away no less--got a bike?)? Do you buy milk in a plastic carton? Eggs in styrofoam? Should I go on? So, if I'm eventually convinced, what does taking the forefront mean?
Didn't we have this discussion when we shared an office?
On a
Oops! Truncated again! Anyway, the post got me thinking about what, to me, is a related issue and I was wondering if I told you that William Dembski goes to our church down here.
Roy,
Tell me: What does whether or not John Mark buys eggs in styrofoam have to do with your decision to care for God's creation. I for one walk to work 4 or 5 days a week and actually make ann effort to be earth friendly. I know I could do more though. I know it for a fact. I'm taking baby steps to do that though. I'm visiting Germany right now where everybody is forced to recycle. The government taxes the heck out of fuel and people are extremely earth conscious. I'm not sure what it means to come to the forefront on issues, but to sit back and not care or point the finger at people who dont recycle, because the church mostly thinks they're all supposed to be republican is not an excuse for not caring about the environment saying "hey show me more proof, because on this one issue, i found some scientists who think it doesn't exist".
My point is not that there isn't controversy on the issue (scientists on both sides) or that there's not the potential that the warming trend is mostly non-human in its causes (it's happening but we don't entirely know for sure why). My point is that it is a real possibility - even likely - that we as humans are significantly contributing to the problem. We can either say "ignorance is bliss" and do nothing with disastrous potential or we can act with caution toward our world. No, of course we don't know for sure what's going on, but the very possibility should give us pause and propel us towards restraint.
I have one body, so I take care of it. I don't smoke cigarettes because I believe that might POSSIBLY (but not certainly) give me lung cancer. Yet the possibility is enough to give me pause. We live in one world. I think we should act with similar restraint.
And by the way, I am TERRIBLY un-environmentally friendly. I have a long way to go on this personally.
Roy, who's William Dembsky? Also do come visit soon - I need another Settlers of Catan fix.
Brian - good points. You sure told Roy! 
Hope Europe's going well and you're feeling better!
I got a little worried that I was too scathing. I actually do believe we can look back and say that we're probably in just another one of the universe's climactic cycles. However, all the trash and polution we make isn't making the world better, it's making it worse. Anybody can look at the world and agree that. We dont live in a balance with nature. We exploit and destroy the world around us. Global warming or not.
Actually, Brian, you berated me for something I don't hold to. I am as environmentally consicious as I know how to be. Believe it or not, I take God's command of stewardship on this issue VERY seriously. And, believe it or not, plastic and styrofoam packaging would be contributors to the global warming problem because of how they are produced. (Hey, I knew more about this issue than anybody thought I did ). I actually think of environmental issues constantly. I just don't feel that I have to accept and act on whatever the environmentalist lobby dictates. I'll put the rest in the next post:
My points in my response were: 1) global warming is hardly a sure thing, though in some circles it is orthodoxy. But, THAT issue and our non-acknowledgement of it seemed to me to be primarily what makes John Mark sick(points 1 and 2 of JM's post, points he then uses to conclude point 3). No, I don't feel beholden to act because of the global warming scare. My motivation is other. I have more to say on this, but I’ll drop it. 2) those that call for leadership should take leadership. The last point was in reference to John Mark's emotive language when I know him too well
In light of the heightened rhetoric, I’ll stir the pot some more since that is my spiritual gift:
So, it seems to me that we’ve determined that everybody thinks its a good idea to protect the environment, none of us really do very much ourselves and all of us want “Christians” (apparently other Christians) to take leadership though none of us know what that means.
Thrash me some more!
John Mark, when is your spring break? I have a plan . . .
Oh, and to fill up my quota on this post, google William Dembski and you'll know. We've talked about him before.
BTW, Here's an example of leadership on this issue:
http://varifrank.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/192
Roy, the broad current consensus by the experts in meteorology is that global warming is a fact. Two of the warmest years on record are in the last five years. Possibly, this year will beat those two. Now, I'm no meteorologist so I do have to trust the experts here. I also agree with you and Brian that we don't know what is causing global warming and that much of it (or even all of it) might be natural in origin. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't act.
I agree I personally need to do much more. However, my leadership right now is really just limited to my house. My "beef" is that Christian leaders have totally ignored this issue as if it didn't exist. When they do speak up, all I've ever heard is dismissal of the issue. It's either global warming is a farce, or what you've said, "we just don't know." Either way the implication is we don't need to do anything. I think that attitude is irresponsible given the limited information we do have.
Okay. I've got boatloads of homework to do right now, so I'll check out the link and google Dembski tomorrow... night
OK. My broad consensus is that we'd just go in circles. I think we already are! I'm dizzy.
You're killing my paper that's due Wednesday. Post something that won't make me rise to be my controversy-starting self . But don't forget: I'll argue any side of any issue just to be provocative! Now you know why I drove Mike nuts. Look at it this way: Look what I've done to your comment count!!
Yes. You do make my comment count look good. That's nice. And you don't drive me crazy. I don't care if you disagree with me. Half the fun is the debate. (But it's even more fun when you finally admit defeat at the feet of my iron-clad arguments!)
By the way I see Dembski is a big intelligent design guy but I don't recall our discussion on him. His credentials look quite impresive.
Dembski is big time. He was forced out here by a combination of evolution orthodoxy (kind of like global warming orthodoxy!!) and some wrong-tempered comments on his part that gave the ammunition needed. He's been on Baylor's payroll for about 5 years and doesn't even have an office at the university. My understanding is that Southern created a department just for him starting next fall. Come to think of it, I've not seen him since Christmas!
Wow. So what do you think of his ideas?
Pretty impressed. He goes over my head in about 30 seconds. But he gets the "orthodox" in fits. I like him!
BTW, here's an example of why I'm a global warming skeptic, taken from the WSJ's BoTW from today:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/be...t/?
id=110006300
Scroll down to "Toodle-oo, Tuvalu"
What the critic ignored in that article is that it said water is NOW rising at whatever the rate was. If global warming is true and temperatures are up and going up, then that rate will NOT BE STATIC!!!! His calculations assume a static increase. That's simply not true. The rate of change is going to go up, way up. That's just poor thinking on that guy's part. And anyways, rising water isn't the only problem if global warming is true.
Again - I'm not saying global warming is true. But it might be and we are poor stewards of our planet if we ignore the possibilities here.
The response was a little more tongue-in-cheek than I think you thought! His on-going point (which you'd have no way of knowing on one read) is that it is way too easy to make fun of environmental extremism and then watch proponents work themselves into a frenzy once you do it.
One point on the specifics of your response: does not current global warming theory dictate that after a continued increase the greenhouse effect will introduce a pronounced cooling trend, a la the Little Ice Age of the 1800's? Tuvalu will freeze over before it disappears!
I still have a lot of problems with the way you're arguing to your conclusion but I think it's time to move on!
Move on? I was hoping to jack up the comment count to at least 50 on this site!
er...link
And if I keep doing little posts like this...
I'll be halfway there.
Commenting by HaloScan
