metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
CO2 in excess can be and is classified as a "pollutant". It's not the CO2 itself but the excess amount of it. Sorta like a plant growing in a location we don;t want it to grow is often called a "weed".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is climate change consistent with Abrahamic beliefs?
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
CO2 in excess can be and is classified as a "pollutant". It's not the CO2 itself but the excess amount of it. Sorta like a plant growing in a location we don;t want it to grow is often called a "weed".
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The great thing about an internet forum is that you can make an assertion and then refuse to discuss it. On the other hand, you could simply post links to the scientific papers that support your assertion and still avoid the discussion. We await the posting of the links........
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All one has to do is quite simple, namely go to Wikipedia, type in "global warming', and then there's plenty of scientific links one can find there. My experience is that the "deniers" are so steadfast in their denial that no amount of scientific links that we can provide is gonna get close to persuading them.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
What have you been smoking??? I will pay for a couple o' ounces.
(Sigh) I don't smoke, brother. The body is a Temple for the Holy Spirit.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Well. I did but don't. It was tongue in cheek. I have no idea what he heck you were trying to say.
arthra
Baha'i
Since this thread deals with climate change issues and ways of dealing with it I decided to post info. regarding the Alliance of Religions and Conservation. Each faith has a mission statement on how they deal with issues such as climate change...
ARC works with 12 faiths world wide. These faiths and their networks embrace 85% of the world's population: some 5 billion human beings.
Drawing on their traditions, faith communities are working in countless ways to care for the environment. Each faith has its own distinctive history and teachings, and its own unique relationship with the natural world.
This section outlines the basics of each faith's history, beliefs and teachings on ecology. At the end of each faith section are links for further information.
Around the world religious organisations have immense influence socially, educationally, politically and culturally both at national and local levels. This influence, combined with their spiritual insight and commitment makes them one of the most powerful agents for social change in civil society. For more on this aspect of working with religious organisations link here.
http://www.arcworld.org/arc_and_the_faiths.asp
ARC works with 12 faiths world wide. These faiths and their networks embrace 85% of the world's population: some 5 billion human beings.
Drawing on their traditions, faith communities are working in countless ways to care for the environment. Each faith has its own distinctive history and teachings, and its own unique relationship with the natural world.
This section outlines the basics of each faith's history, beliefs and teachings on ecology. At the end of each faith section are links for further information.
Around the world religious organisations have immense influence socially, educationally, politically and culturally both at national and local levels. This influence, combined with their spiritual insight and commitment makes them one of the most powerful agents for social change in civil society. For more on this aspect of working with religious organisations link here.
http://www.arcworld.org/arc_and_the_faiths.asp
Moishe3rd
Yehudi
As largely irrelevant.
G-d requires that we fight Evil; establish Justice; and battle our own faults and failings.
I see "Noah" brought up as something to do with "climate change."
The story of Noah is about a conflict between Evil and Good. As are many of the portions of the Torah...
"Climate Change" is more in line with pagan traditions. King Canute's response to his failed attempt to command the Tide from coming in was:
"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."
The current obsession with "Climate Change" is an attempt to fill in the void of a world that is largely abandoning G-d.
It combines Man's natural urge to "do something" about any given situation with the hubris to think that Man can change the Earth's Climate.
It is a silly, futile, and, in the long run, very self destructive, endeavor in arrogant snobbery.
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't think the Earth will be uniformly hot or uniformly cold, at least not until way after we are entirely dead.
But the earth is warming as of now, which is undoubtedly the major factor in the ice melting away from the poles, Especially Greenland and Western Antarctica. The rising sea level in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our kids (50-100 years) is going to be seriously problematic. That and drought and famine.
I heard a Muslim scientist said that " this global warming is just slow the new ice age , the earth is actualy entering ice age ."
dust1n
Zindīq
Unlikely. The Earth goes through cycles of ice ages. The earth just left an ice age 20,000 years ago. But no one knows what causes ice ages quite yet... there are many factors.
"An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Either way, an ice age or enough heating is going to problematic. A sudden ice age might arguably be even worse.
If you want to see Greenland melt very quickly, the first half of this video is about it... roughly 14 minutes.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's no reason why we can't try, and climate change is no more about "pagan traditions" than I am an George Clooney.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We're not-- at least in the short haul.
and
metis
I found many links said , Earth is facing "mini" ice age between 2030 to 2040
Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...n-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/
dust1n
Zindīq
Here you go:
"A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago.
Since climate change deniers have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles, this story has predictably been picked up by all manner of conservative news media, with a post in the Telegraph quickly gathering up tens of thousands of shares. The only problem is, it’s a wildly inaccurate reading of the research.
Sunspots have been observed on a regular basis for at least 400 years, and over that period, there’s a weak correlation between the number of sunspots and global temperature—most notably during a drastic downturn in the number of sunspots from about 1645 to 1715. Known as the Maunder minimum, this phenomenon happened about the same time as a decades-long European cold snap known as the Little Ice Age. That connection led to theory that this variability remains the dominant factor in Earth’s climate. Though that idea is still widely circulated, it’s been disproved. In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history.
If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.
The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html
It's a common and worrisome problem that journalists so routinely misinterpret and misrepresent someone else's scientific paper, but it happens every day.
I do not mean to debate by the way, just provide some accurate sources. I am more interested though about religious beliefs playing into climate change.
Moishe3rd
Yehudi
"We can't try" what?
Truly. I don't understand what you want "to try."
My whole point was that for Man to try and change the climate of planet Earth is not a rational endeavor.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that most of the CO2 and methane gas buildup is due to human activities, and it has been known for over 200 years now that both of these have heat retention effects. To not feel that this is rational I would suggest is terribly misplaced. It's not a question of what to do but whether there can be enough international support to do it instead of denying reality or just wringing our hands and sitting on out thumbs.