[ross hamilton hill]

Many cities have heavy air pollution, that is climate change, the air we breathe has changed. In the poorer suburbs of Sydney, 1 in 4 children suffer from asthma. Asthma kills.
Added to air pollution, is light and noise pollution, you can split hairs and say that is not the climate that is just living conditions but the effect is the same.
And water pollution is also a major problem in many countries.
So we are fouling our own nests at an alarming level even if it doesn't produce hurricanes or presage a new ice age.
We all know the answer is cleaner energy sources, whether it will happen in time is any one's guess.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

I don't understand why such reliance on Wikipedia. Why do such intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned people whom I like and admire personally, keep sourcing with an unreliable information vehicle?

Charlie,

Wiki is crowd-sourced, and therefore much more reliable than articles in traditional encyclopedias, which were often done by single authors. Take any serious subject. Let's just randomly pick Cicero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

Nice page. Longer than any article a paper encyclopedia could possibly include. References, citations, footnotes, everything.

And there's a whole group of people who care deeply about Cicero. If there's any vandalism to the page, it gets noticed and fixed with incredible rapidity. You can check this for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

I've been a part of creating encyclopedias. We would have given our eye teeth for a process like that. We'd be lucky to have two or three people checking our work. Right now that Cicero page has 380 watchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...einfo-watchers

You can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of them have Ph.D.s in Rhetoric. Not that I would know anyone like that...

Pick any serious subject. Let's try Martial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial

Obscure, perhaps, but a personal favorite. Should there be more there? Yes, but that page give me links, further reading, context, etc. It's at least a clear path into the woods.

And speaking of paths into the woods, have you seen the page for the Battle of Teutoburg Forest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...utoburg_Forest

Oh, my goodness. Those military historians are thorough! I bet they sit around arguing about every line.

In short, if you're researching serious subjects, and you're not using wiki, you're doing yourself a disservice. The more serious your subject, the better it gets. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

One could lose oneself for days just going through the information and links.

Sorry to go on so long, but I use wiki constantly. It's the greatest repository of human knowledge the world has ever produced.

Best,

Bill

(PS. For an example of non-western subjects, try the Chinese history portal. Here's one way in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

I and 2.5 billion Christians basically agree with scripture

Charlie, I must respectfully contest your implication that all 2.5 billion Christians "basically agree" that the idea of anthropogenic climate change is contrary to Scripture.

Quite a few of those 2.5 billion Christians you mentioned are Catholic...



...and the Catholic Church has been expressing concern about manmade climate change for decades now. Way back in 1990, Pope John Paul II--generally considered a conservative--said in his World Day of Peace Message:

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related ‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

[...]The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. [...] Respect for life, and above all for the dignity of the human person, is the ultimate guiding norm for any sound economic, industrial or scientific progress.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have continued to emphasize the moral imperative of concern for the environment. In fact, Francis took the occasion of his inaugural homily to say:

The vocation of being a “protector” [...] is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us [. . .] In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God’s gifts!

Whenever human beings fail to live up to this responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened. [...]

Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be “protectors” of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment.

Leaders in a wide range of other Christian denominations have made similar statements. The United Methodist Church's 2008 Resolution on Global Warning said that "as a global church community, we call on our members to reduce human-related outputs of greenhouse gases." The Presbyterian Church (USA) produced this guide in response to the "General Assembly 2006 Resolution Calling on all Presbyterians to go Carbon Neutral as a Bold Christian Witness to Help Combat the Effects of Climate Change." In January 2013, 200 self-identified evangelical scientists and academics signed a letter urging the U.S. Congress "to pass meaningful legislation during this Congress to reduce carbon emissions and protect our environment":

The Bible tells us that "love does no harm to its neighbor" (Romans 13:10), yet the way we live now harms our neighbors, both locally and globally. For the world's poorest people, climate change means dried-up wells in Africa, floods in Asia that wash away crops and homes, wildfires in the U.S. and Russia, loss of villages and food species in the Arctic, environmental refugees, and disease. Our changing climate threatens the health, security, and well-being of millions of people who are made in God's image. The threat to future generations and global prosperity means we can no longer afford complacency and endless debate. We as a society risk being counted among "those who destroy the earth" (Revelation 11:18).

Yes, I'm aware that the conservative political pundit Pat Robertson, although Catholic, is vehemently opposed to the ideas that climate change is a.) happening, b.) manmade, and c.) not just a fictional crisis that the godless lefties have made up so they can take over manufacturing. But in view of the above examples and many others, it's definitely misleading to suggest that 2.5 billion Christians are standing united with you against environmentalists, and that only atheists think that climate change is affected by human activity.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Julie, I thought Pat Robertson was a Southern Baptist?

[Michael Cantor]

Excellent presentations, Julie and Bill. Well researched, well presented, well argued. There have been any number of good and detailed posts in this thread (Janice has been another steady contributor), and what is particularly important is how they utilize the internet and the huge resources available. There are about thirty or more links in various threads to internet sources. It's become one of the basic ways we communicate.

Setting up a link is not very complicated. If you're going to have a detailed discussion it's a great facilitator. What I find interesting is that there are only two participants in this thread who don't appear capable of doing this. Charley and John. John has indicated for quite some time and in many threads that he can't be bothered to put up an actual link - he just waves you in the proper direction. And it seems Charley has the exact same problem (see his most recent post, above.)

There's a message there.

[Charlie Southerland]

Julie, You misunderstood me.

I wasn't saying that all Christians and Catholics agree with me about GW/CC. I was saying that they all have the Bible in common, and for the most part, believe it.{the Bible} Even so, the scripture says that God created, not man, and that God will destroy, not man. Man will not destroy mankind, that is reserved for Him. Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation comes to mind. Other prophets in scripture reference this also.

Ross, I beg to differ. Climate change is the direct involvement and consequence of man to change earth's temperature, either by cooling or warming the planet. Pollution is different. Pollution affects the way we breathe, our health. It's a different thing. Men do cause lots of that, no denial here, but so do volcanic eruptions and prevailing winds. Climate, temperature, affects pollution, not the other way around.

[Brian Allgar]

Pollution doesn't cause global warming? Phew, that's a relief, Charlie. I learn a new, scientifically proven, and utterly irrefutable fact from you every day. And there was I, foolishly thinking that all those megatonnes of CO2 with which we pollute the planet might have had a hand in global warming. Now I can sleep easy.

In all seriousness, I think we all agree that there are two schools of thought. The first (an overwhelming majority) believes that global warming on the current scale is man-made, and if unchecked, will lead to irreversible damage. The second (the "Dubbya" school of science) denies it. Now, if the second group is right, cutting emissions and taking other action to counteract global warming may not be necessary, but certainly won't do the planet any harm. However, if the first group is correct, then we are heading for disaster on a massive scale in just a few decades. Do you really want to gamble the lives of future generations on the cynical, get-rich-quick assertions of the Dubbyists and their paid "scientists"?

[John Whitworth]

But Brian, even if you are right, nothing we can do will stop it. The Chinese and the Indians will go their merry way. We had better hope that this scare is like the other ones. If it is not we're DOOMED.

Well you and I are not doomed. We will be dead.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Hope. Ah, yes.

Remember when Pandora opened the box and let out all the evils of the world? Death and the rest of it?

Then she slapped the lid on and heard a little voice, let me out, let me out. Look again, there in the bottom was hope.

But remember--it was a box of EVILS and hope too, was one of the evil things. It keeps people from acting when they should.

A useful myth, better than that one about parents sacrificing their children like Abraham and the Big Guy.

[Gail White]

Anyone who agrees with Scripture will agree with the angel in the Book of Revelation who says "Hurt not the trees..."