/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>815211

I think it, and environmental damage is legit, and I've changed my life and the lives of others around me accordingly in radical ways.

Christian views range from mine to climate change denial, there is no essential "Christian view" on it

No idea, but I'm skeptical over the proposed solutions. Maybe it's a punishment from God for the absolute state of this world?

you won't get the Christian view on this board, just the /christian/ view

Anthropogenic climate change is real and we have an explicit commandment from God to take care of the planet in Genesis.

However, even if anthroppgenic climate change isn't real, there are enough economic and public health incentives to work towards becoming carbon neutral and cleaning and ending pollution. Who dosen't want clean water and clean air? Moreover, there is enough inherent value in protecting wildlife, both land and sea, to cleaning and ending pollution.

If you're a creationist I don't see how you could possibly believe it.

That aside, all the "solutions" seem to be more about wealth redistribution than actual reductions. The air doesn't care whether you're a third world country or developing or developed, yet all the agreements exempt the biggest (China) and fastest growing (developing Asian and African) polluters.

>>815243

Creationism has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is true.

>>815245

Yeah, all those tens of thousands of years of records match perfectly with a six thousand year old earth.

>>815247

That doesn't mean the Earth's climate isn't changing due to human activity, brainlet.

>>815238

I don't think anthropogenic climate change is real, it's just another extortion racket on a global scale. I do believe in destroying ecology anthropogenically, but even then on a global scale 1st world countries aren't anywhere near as responsible for it as 3rd world countries. Yes, take care of your environment and all that, but you can't save the world.

You do not need to believe that global warming is real to to understand how important ecological responsibility is.

You are conflating different things, like I have no idea how you could think these are even related.

Christianity is God's religion and would include things like theology, and maybe philosophy/metaphysics for things that are compatible with it.

However the study of the climate and how things like that happen have literally nothing to do with Christianity, this is just a totally weird error in your thinking. There is no Christian view of climate change except whatever is true, as is the same with all physical sciences. (this does not mean what scientists are saying is correct, but but rather their field of study is aimed at understanding the truth of it.)

Another unpleasant fact might be you have literally no way of knowing it is true or not, you simply do not have the means of acquiring that knowledge. All you can do is trust random authority figures and just parrot what they say, which is also not terribly good to do without good reason. If you want to know about climate change, study climate science and the related fields, and in several years you'll get the idea. That's the Christian view, stay in your own lane and if you want to have hot takes to join in on conversation prepare for years of study so you can actually intelligently speak about stuff instead of just parroting whatever was most convincing to you.

Now this would be tangential but the idea we are tending to earth is part of Christianity, however whether the climate is changing doesn't really effect this. If it's true it's something to take into account but it doesn't actually change our view at all.

In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

"In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

So we have no right to abuse/destroy it but it is ours to use.

Mossad psy-ops

>>815279

>Another unpleasant fact might be you have literally no way of knowing it is true or not, you simply do not have the means of acquiring that knowledge. All you can do is trust random authority figures and just parrot what they say, which is also not terribly good to do without good reason. If you want to know about climate change, study climate science and the related fields, and in several years you'll get the idea. That's the Christian view, stay in your own lane and if you want to have hot takes to join in on conversation prepare for years of study so you can actually intelligently speak about stuff instead of just parroting whatever was most convincing to you.

TIL that one can't have any measure of laymens opinion on anything unless you study for several years, and there is no knowledge of truth without this

>>815233

What is the Christian view then? :^)

>>815253

>it's just another extortion racket on a global scale.

The only reason carbon taxes are proposed so frequently is because they are straight-forward way to internalize a nasty externality(besides banning, but we can't do that).

If these industrialist faggots(like the Koch brothers, or Exxon) found a way to make money as easily off non-oil, you bet your ass they would do a 180, and become the biggest cheerleaders of green energy, just like aerosol manufacturers went super fast from ardent denialism, to supporting the CFC ban, once they realized they could modify their industrial processes without a major dent in their profits.

>>815296

Well, the Vatican, the Ecum. See(i think some of the orientals, too), and the WCC are pretty big into fighting climate change.

So, that's like the leadership of 90% of Christianity.

>>815294

When the overwhelming majority of scientists are screaming about it, the Army is making reports to see how much of their bases will get screwed by extreme weather, Beijing is buying up fertile land that wont get screwed so much in higher temps, and business are starting to factor climate-related losses in accounting, you can be sure it's a big problem.

>>815211

Pollution of soil, water and air comes solely from predatory capitalism, now predatory capitalism blames it on climate change/global warming. So the ones who stole all the money while destroying nature, are now introducing the next racket to steal even more money, this time to allegedly fix the damage they did in the first pace. Sounds legit…all hail israel.

I doubt there's a Chirstian view on climate change. There is however, a Christian view on consumerism and the proper use of resources. Consume what you need, be frugal, don't be unnecessarily destructive. In many ways, Christianity is ecological. However, many ecologists are anti-human, putting humans at the same level as other animals, sometimes even lower. That's decidedly against Christian teachings.

>>815314

Jesus, man.

I'm a partial fan of deep ecology, and think humans have treated the biosphere horrifically, but calm down.

>>815315

Then don't make such offhand statements like that. It's humanities ignorance to the consequences of their actions that started us down the road of self destruction. Also, understanding how the individual parts of an ecosystem are working together is by no means "deep ecology", it's simply common sense. Animal is just a derogatory term humans made up to feel better about the crimes they are committing against other lifeforms. It's a cowardly excuse for negative behavior. Pure, selfish hedonism.

>>815314

You are free to believe that humans are "the world's most destructive parasite", but that's still against Christian teachings. Humans were created in God's own image and human lives are the most sacred thing on Earth. Christianity is about love, pardon and redemption. Saying humanity should all disappear in flames cause starting anew is better than attempting to save reeks of Talmudic Judaism, so please, avoid the temptations of the revolutionary spirit; it's nothing but hatred and resentment attempting to legitimate themselves.

>Maybe when they start eating humans on the streets will you realize what you've done by following hedonism.

Man, my original post was just two lines long. "There is however, a Christian view on consumerism and the proper use of resources. Consume what you need, be frugal, don't be unnecessarily destructive. In many ways, Christianity is ecological." How's that "following hedonism"? I'm stating the absolute opposite: if people followed a Christian way of life and turned away from consumerism, there would be no problem with of over exploitation of natural resources.

Calm down, man, breathe, pray a prayer and please, stop harboring so much hate for the rest of your fellow humans.

>>815211

Personally I believe it's true after doing some research.

There is no reasonable dispute over whether humans are causing global warming.

Revelation 16:9-11 King James Version (KJV)

9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

>>815307

> Consume what you need, be frugal

I was gonna ask this in the QTDDTOT thread but might as well here - would it be a sin to spend more of my wages on renting a nicer place in a nicer part of the city? Where I am isn't bad, it's small and cramped but is fairly good value for money for the location (although the nicer part of the city would likely be just as cramped). But where I am currently is an area mostly of dense post war housing and pre-war social housing, an interesting area and perfectly livable, but as an urban planner I'm slightly obsessed with the quality and beauty of environment (which I think is fair to say factor's into one's wellbeing) that was created with the wealth of the time and fantasise that the New Jerusalem will somewhat partially reflect what the nice parts of the city are like over here but can't help but think if I'm willing to/would be able to spend 50%+ more rent than my current place if I were to move, that money would be better spent being given to the poor or helping people rather than lining a landlord's pocket.

Encouraging. The apostles prophesied that the world (humanity as a whole along with it) will be succumbed by fire because of man's rebellion. And look at the degeneracy of our age-it's like people is following Romans 1:18-31 as a guide book rather than as a negative description as intended.

>>815379

Personally, I don't see a problem with it. It's not wasteful, it's not compulsory consumption, it's something with a definite positive impact on your life. From what you're saying, it's also not beyond your means. Helping others and helping yourself are not exclusive; I'd say go for it. Also, poor aid tends to be extremely inefficient, unless it's at a very local level; it's definitely a good thing but sadly, no amount of poor aid will ever solve poverty pls don't lapidate me for saying that

>should a christian take care of the environment?

Yes

>Is environmentalism/green movement a cult?

Yes

>should a christian support them?

No

The green cult goes far beyond the issue of taking care of the earth, they believe that the human population should be culled and shit. No support should be given to these people.

Scam. Vague term. False narrative. No such thing at global scale.

It's being used to create chaos and spread poverty, specially in poorer countries where they say will be the most affected by the (((climate change))) a faction of the neo-Pharisees really have their fingers on that, screw you who get triggered by the truth. That narrative is being used for globalist and totalitarian purposes, and globalism and totalitarianism are characteristics of the rule of the enemies of God. The evil is gonna be everywhere trying to dictate and perverse every thing you do, in a more threatening way than what we have now.

But you can actually change the climate by changing the surface reflectiveness and moisture. That's very real and has a local impact (if we sum up everything together, then we have a global phenomenon).

The rest is as anti-scientific as it can get.

The "obstination" over that carbon dioxide participation on the "climate formula" (a stupid and pretentious thing to do, moved by scientificist arrogance, an "Enlightenment" abomination-baby) and the active denial of the natural cycles on Earth to the public (easily verified) are ridiculous. The denial of the logic that it's temperature that causes the oceans to eject CO2 and that a "end of times feedback doom loop" is retarded because higher temperatures have always happened in the past. It's retarded as it's a known fact we live in an interglacial period (in the – theoretical – direction of the mildest glaciation of human history, independently of any anthropogenic crap).

The amount of hysteria and persecution in the "Academy" is demonic, the propaganda is demonic, and they are used for denying the truth, spreading "official lies" that shouldn't be questioned. Trying to gather all the world acting over a common ruler, which we know are progressives trying to subvert us and fight against true Christianity (they only accept their subverted artificial "branches", as with judenized pentecostals).

Anthropogenic climate change as it's presented is a global scam. And a very demonic one.

>>815238

>there are enough economic and public health incentives to work towards becoming carbon neutral

No. There are not. You're brainwashed. Diluted (in the atmosphere) CO2 alone is harmless and a very small part of the air you breath. It's actually positive, since it makes plants grow faster, they get more material to build themselves. Bio-fuels are a nice way to use the lands we have so we can have a higher population in a better living standard and more souls. We shouldn't transform the whole world to its original form. We were given the world by God to be used in the best way we can. Enough with all this misanthropy. Nature can be preserved and used to give us the best results, but agriculture and bio-fuels are necessary as well. The current countries who promote "clean energy" over the world are the ones who pollute it more. Germany got rid of cleaner nuclear energy, which they could use responsibly, and now burns coal like their current women, spreading polution over the atmosphere. They use a lot of diesel (which pollutes a lot) instead of gasoline, which could be cheaper if not by their hysteria.

I hate hysteria and misinformation. You sound exactly like the average brainwashed idiot who's scared for no reason to CO2.

>>815427

>and a very small part of the air you breath

I meant "you breath in". When you breath out, it's obviously saturated with CO2. When you breath in, the amount of it in atmosphere is negligible for your health.

>>815300

>are pretty big into fighting climate change

Because they are fed with lies. The same goes for geopolitics. The intention may be good, but, by having lies being fed to them to form their "logic", the results are negative. These lies make them, indirectly, foment globalism, malthusianism, self-hate, chaos, crimes and poverty (think about what's happening in Europe with all their veiled misanthropy and their immigrations, the idea is to make it worse and make the people chaotic, weak and dependable on their ruling class, and, obviously, non-Christians).

>>815425

>and the active denial of the natural cycles on Earth to the public (easily verified) are ridiculous.

Ah, yes, the good old denialist "muh cycles", "it's just the sun, bruh".

I've been hearing that stuff since the mid 2000's, and the closest thing they had to show was some poorly made graph saying the cycle should reverse around 2015, and average temp should end up really low by 2020.

But we are in worse shit than 5 years ago.

Besides, said cycles(Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc.) usually result in a 0,6-0,8 C increase at most, and are spread about 300-500 years, not 1.0+C in 50 years.

>>815427

>It's actually positive, since it makes plants grow faster, they get more material to build themselves.

Which plateau at a certain point, especially given phosphorous and nitrogen doesn't increase as well(http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate%20of%20photosynthesis%20limiting%20factors.pdf).

And higher temperature extremes means less fruit, as the plants try just to survive(http://www.tomatodirt.com/tomato-sunscald.html http://www.tomatodirt.com/too-hot-for-tomatoes.html)

>Bio-fuels are a nice way to use the lands we have so we can have a higher population in a better living standard and more souls.

Which would directly impact our food production.

Speaking of, why are even bringing up bio-diesel, given you think fossil fuel(which will still be extractable for a long time) CO2 emissions are harmless?

>They use a lot of diesel (which pollutes a lot) instead of gasoline, which could be cheaper if not by their hysteria.

Are we talking about the same Germany that is banning diesel cars left and right?

>>815431

Then why the winnie the pooh are you a christian, if you think almost all denoms are in cahoots, or were easily tricked into following the whims of the apocalyptic globalists that want to eat our babies?

>>815507

>Bruh, why are you even Christian if you think the world is fallen and that compounding errors drive people into sin?

Such a revolutionary argument, people who think the majority of religious institutions are headed in the wrong direction BTFO

>>815506

Germany's emissions have gone up considerably since these pointless initiatives because of 1) Suicidal mass immigration ramping up demand and energy use 2) The "environmentalism" scam which has focused primarily on retarding efforts to implement the only feasible source of sustainable emission-free power, nuclear.

It's worth taking precautions just to be safe, but it's not remotely clear that there's been any average temperature increase relative to 5 years ago (none the less "deep shit" level increases) and it's not clear that temperature increases will necessarily lead to environmental disaster. There's also lot of potential benefits to a warmer northern hemisphere, such as making the far North of Europe and Canada suitable for human habitation.

The handwringing over disrupted food supply is idotic since amount of arable land is likely to actually increase with warmer temperatures, struggling fruit trees aren't necessary to adequately feed the population (and the zones in which they thrive will just move slightly northward anyway). Wheat and other staples are not at risk of becoming ungrowable so there's basically no risk at all.

>>815421

Big papa Frank shilling for global governance again, what a shock.

Who cares? We know how the world will end. If it is the bringer of this end, then we should continue to evangelize and warn others.

From a practical point of view: who cares? First world countries already are very clean and pollute very little. The issue is up and comers like China and India, as well as third world countries, who make up the majority of the world and will make a vast majority of the world soon enough. If it were real, then a solution would involve these groups who will never agree to it because of ambition, ignorance, or incompetence. Putting pressure on first world countries to quintiple down on our already super eco friendly policies is ridiculous. Suppose there's a lake in the middle of four neighborhoods. The richest neighborhood does its best to keep it clean. Two try not to pollute but do not clean it. And the fourth actively pollutes it. The solution isn't to ask the rich guys to triple down on their efforts, it's to get everyone to clean, which they won't.

>>815506

>I've been hearing that stuff since the mid 2000's, and the closest thing they had to show was some poorly made graph saying the cycle should reverse around 2015, and average temp should end up really low by 2020.

You are seeing only what you want to see, you're corrupted by that liar narrative I'm criticizing.

I'm talking about Earth's "history", the registers different temperatures have left on Earth and the ones we can actually read. You are the one talking about pointless projections as if they can be accurate (that's part of your narrative). You are creating your own strawman based on the idiocy scientificism have endowed you.

Go do your own research. But do it as if you are defending my point, just so there's honesty in your deeds and thoughts. Go further and search about larger cycles. Go further and further and search about the actual glaciation cycles (they are 50k years long and related to the positions of Earth, and also its continents/oceans, to the Sun). The bigger ones can be "predicted" but without the fine accuracy globalist hysteria requires and made you to require from others (and from your strawmen); the smaller ones can't be predicted, only guessed by volcanic activity and other smaller factors.

>usually result in a 0,6-0,8 C increase at most, and are spread about 300-500 years, not 1.0+C in 50 years

Bullshit. Go make your homework.

>And higher temperature extremes means less fruit, as the plants try just to survive

>extremes

Bullshit. I wasn't talking about the same extremes as you. You are the one defending the theoretical extremes, not me.

>more CO2 cause more extremes, hence you're wrong and CO2 is bad

That's how retarded you sounded.

And about higher temperatures, it depends on the plant and region. The Amazon Forest area is an example of a product of a warm world, it rains more as the winds from Equator are moister, the winds move faster and farther, spreading rains all over the region; the climate is warmer in average, but less extreme than in a desert. The Sahara gets greener (the desert gets smaller) in the Summer, but the rains in the region depends on the winds, and that's way more complex than "the warmer, the worse"; the Sahara gets some rains as the regional winds and the climate on Earth change, and it always change. Point is: the more warmth, the more moisture, the more greener… the more stable things use to get, the less extreme it gets.

Usually, all around the globe, it rains more the warmer it gets, except for geographical anomalies (usually related to lack of winds). More water and more carbon dioxide usually means more plants, but that's not true for every culture of plants. Warmer weather brings more plagues and may bring more difficulty to some plants, or more competitors. Ironically, it also proliferates more bacterias which can be used to fertilize the soil (the originally poor Amazon soil depends on bacterias for its acidity and fertilization). And, if I'm not mistaken, more heat, more rains, and then more free Nitrogen is created to fertilize the soil.

Anyway, I have never said there wasn't other limiting factors.

>but muh drastic changes

It's your narrative, not mine. CO2 participation on temperature is local and the "vicious circle of doom" theory is bullshit, pure hysteria, and that "drastic changes" is how anthropogenic global warming would be made possible via CO2 (to the alarmists). The ocean is a huge equalizer which makes things go slower. Its mass is way more relevant than our atmosphere mass, which can't keep warmth for much time. Oceans used to be neglected by the hysteria industry because their participation on global climate was way too obvious and went against the alarmist narratives, now they are using the ocean as its participation is a surprise and trying to use it to strengthen their narrative ("we just discovered the evil oceans are absorbing all the heat, that's why all our models and projections failed; its heat sink ability has a limit, it will burst as a bubble and make global warming even worse, we are doomed"). And water in atmosphere behaves in a complex way, but it has thresholds for weather stability, depending on its state, altitude and spreading (clouds, for example, make things cooler in the day, warmer in the night; water vapor holds more heat, so close to the ground it rises average temperature, same goes to water in liquid state, but snow makes things cooler; lack of water makes the temperature to vary more and get averagely cooler).

The global climate is chaotic and unstable at smaller scales, but very stable at bigger ones, thanks God.

>>815506

>>815623

The very bases of CO2-doom-theory are flawed. They are based on flawled formula and hypotheses that are far from solid and are taken as some law of nature (read about the products of climatologists trying to find answers to the snow ball Earth hypothesis, that's how the CO2 hypothesis got popular, but it's far, very far, from being solid, it's all flawed). The amount of arrogance used by "scientists" who turn their hypothetical crap to "truths" is obviously demonic, and obviously anti-scientific. If you investigate the climate reports being disseminated around will soon realize it's all fraudulent crap moved by geopolitics.

I hope you realize I hate this narrative, I really hate this narrative, just like I hate lies. I definitively hate lies. My love is for the truth and there's not truth on the anthropogenic global warming by CO2 (now "climate change", a meaningless term). There's no truth through hysteria.

All the offenses in my posts are intended and serve a purpose. If you want to get offended by the words I used, it's intentional, get offended then (despite its hyperbolic nature); I wouldn't be honest if I expressed myself otherwise. I wish you to be more honest with yourself and with the geopolitical question about such narrative. I truly believe that believing in that alarmist narrative is stupidity and a danger to our souls, as what follows with globalism is what we see in Europe, specially Sweden, and in China (and things will keep getting worse in China as surveillance technology improves).

>denialist

Although I'm no in position to get offended by words, that's a disgusting word to use in this case, as if all these stupid forced hypotheses patched together were some indisputable truth. Their models always fail, that should point to something.

Maybe someday I get so tired of it that I will start calling proselytists of AGW "climate denialists", as they deny the very nature of the "global climate" (even though it's absurd to use this expression as I view it; climates always change).

>>815506

>Which would directly impact our food production.

There are lands that are better suited for plants used for fuel. There are lands better suited for food. Fuel is important for humanity. Energy becomes wealth, makes food distribution cheaper (more efficient). Imagine all the automobiles and horses in the word suddenly vanishing. Fuel is good.

>Speaking of, why are even bringing up bio-diesel, given you think fossil fuel(which will still be extractable for a long time) CO2 emissions are harmless?

Because bio-fuel is clean. It doesn't have heavy metals on it, like diesel uses to do. If gasoline or ethanol get cheaper because a bigger bio-fuel availability, than we need less and less diesel. Burning mineral coal also brings shit into the atmosphere.

>Are we talking about the same Germany that is banning diesel cars left and right?

Aren't the bans local?

Anyway, if they change it all to "clean" (NOT AT ALL) electric cars, as France is trying to push into their citizens, then we have a dirtier fuel, as batteries pollute the environment they are disposed, and diesel is used for moving the rarer car mats around the world.

>>815532 is not me, by the way.

>>815507

>"apocalyptic globalist"

It's biblical. Why do you doubt?

I believe moral flaws and disconnection with Christ will be (and already are) forced unto the us by our environment, just like the Apocalypse Book tells us. And I'm seeing it being pushed by what we call "globalists" and "progressives" (and they are not the only ones). There's a moral inversion very obvious happening in our lifetime, yet you debouch when someone points it out? You say I shouldn't be Christian because I can see the "process" moving us to that direction? Should I make myself blind, then, to be a true Christian? That's dangerously what you imply as you refused to read my intentions and beliefs.

I'm Roman Catholic, and the pope can fail, obviously, specially over temporal and political matters. A pope is also not required to be omniscient. In this case, he's fed with lies and gets to wrong conclusions, he's blind to aspects of reality. Even if the body of his logic and intentions are good, the conclusion can fail.

For example, he may think the immigrants in Europe are actual refugees and not true invaders wanting to spread Mohammedanism. He may think European governors wouldn't sacrifice their own people and Christianity itself to the hordes of Baphomet because it's politically more convenient (cheaper labor, taxes taxes taxes, more chaos so their people is dependent on them). He may not believe there's an open war against the institutions of Family (of atemporal nature) and Nation (more temporal nature, extension of the Family) and how it corrupts Christians and let them open to invasions and subversion.

>>815532

>if you think the world is fallen and that compounding errors drive people into sin?

Problem is, you aren't saying "some of our bishops and pastors made mistakes due to human failings and sins".

What you are saying is not only have the Gates of Hell prevailed against Christianity, but that Christianity IS a Gate of Hell.

>>815623

>I'm talking about Earth's "history", the registers different temperatures have left on Earth and the ones we can actually read.

So give me an example of a 1.0+C increase in half a century in Earth's history.

>primarily on retarding efforts to implement the only feasible source of sustainable emission-free power, nuclear.

You know nuclear is a issue that's dividing environmentalism in for and against camps, right?

Speaking of nuclear, though:

https://www.businessinsider.com/thaw-could-release-cold-war-toxic-waste-buried-under-greenland-ice-2016-8

>It's worth taking precautions just to be safe, but it's not remotely clear that there's been any average temperature increase relative to 5 years ago

Global temperature 2014: 14.6C;

Global temperature 2018: 14.7C;

But hey, let's take a more practical example.

Let's take a random(using randomcity.net) temperate city, and compare how many 32+C days it has compared to the past:

Chesapeake (VA).:

2018: 44;

2009: 39;

1999: 35;

1989: 36;

1979: 33;

1969: 28;

>and it's not clear that temperature increases will necessarily lead to environmental disaster.

No, it will result in cupcakes.

>There's also lot of potential benefits to a warmer northern hemisphere, such as making the far North of Europe and Canada suitable for human habitation.

So, you wanna trade the aridisation of the US Midwest, and South and South-Eastern Europe, which are fertile bread baskets, with the thawed low-fertility wastelands of Siberia, and the rocky cliffs of the Canadian Shield and Norway.

What a marvelous trade.

>Go further and further and search about the actual glaciation cycles (they are 50k years long

Actually, it's 41k. I know all about the Milankovitch cycles.

>related to the positions of Earth, and also its continents/oceans, to the Sun

As i said, "muh Sun".

So, tell me, when should the Sun's warming decrease?

>Go do your own research.

>Bullshit. Go make your homework.

>Bullshit. I wasn't talking about the same extremes as you.

Such fine argumentation, Cicero.

Very well stocked with supporting facts, too.

>And about higher temperatures, it depends on the plant and region.

Yes, it rains more.

Should result in tropics being wetter, warmer and wetter winters in Europe, but more arid summers, a semi-greening of the Sahel, a lot of areas with arid tendencies turning more arid, savannahs turning into shrubland, etc.

Problem is, you are doing all this in under a century, which is massively disruptive and deadly to both ecosystems and humans.

>I hope you realize I hate this narrative, I really hate this narrative, just like I hate lies. I definitively hate lies.

If you hate narratives and lies, why are you parroting the arguments of the Koch brothers?

90% of anti-climate propaganda is propagated by them, through their libertarian think-thanks.

And you notice that, even in this thread, because it's literally extremely thinly-veiled standard libertarian laissez-faire and pro-oil industry arguments, with the numbers filled off.

>pff, it's just a scam made by those thieves in the gubment to tax the shit out of you, and regulate your life, so they can get rich;

>they just want to institute communism;

>regulations are evul;

>it's just a barrier of entry so the little guy(poor countries) can't economically develop(become antrepeneurs);

>oil is awesome for everyone, so we need to sell and exploit more, not less;

>yeah, sure, the environment, but don't you want cheaper shit, instead?

>>815628

>There are lands that are better suited for plants used for fuel.

Oh, please tell me, which types of lands are better for fuel crops, instead of food crops(which in many cases, are the same plants)?

>>815902

Some confuse cash for Christ.

>>815902

Because change and accountability are hard, so it's easier to either deny it or pass along blame. Meanwhile, I think it's sad that the world has to be ending in order for people to embrace an environmentalist, resource conservative attitude…

Though I do oppose government regulation of my personal finances, especially given what they seem to spend it on. Ultimately, I can't regulate other people. I can only control myself and hope for the best.

>>815902

>>815904

>>815909

Climate Change is natural, always happening, always will happen. Go look at the record. It's highly unstable. The idea that climate is steady or at an equilibrium until we came along and made factories is just goofy and anti-science.

That being said the average temp has gone up 1degree Celcius in the last 200+ years. Nothing to get excited about given the gigantic historical shifts in temperature the earth has had before men could influence pollution.

You can be against excessive pollution and environmental damage and not fall for the anthro-global warming meme.

Also a lot of environmentalists have a blind spot to nuclear energy, like say thorium based power, which could potentially be very clean and efficient.

>>815911

>That being said the average temp has gone up 1degree Celcius in the last 200+ years.

It started in the mid 20th century.

>Climate Change is natural, always happening, always will happen.

>Nothing to get excited about given the gigantic historical shifts in temperature the earth has had before men could influence pollution.

Again, show me a comparable record of such a fast increase, in under a century.

>>815913

Or just to be clear, so you can't be pedantic, said warming started in the 20s, and really accelerated in the mid of the last century.

>>815915

show me a 200 year period where climate wasn't changing.

>>815919

So, you have no example for such a similar change, and are just moving the goalpoasts and saying vague platitudes like "everything is in flux".

Good to know.

>>815930

>reconstructed

In the trash it goes.

>>815930

that whole chart is extremely erratic, does that look stable to you? I see 1 degree shifts all over the place…

>>815936

>>815939

So better to have no evidence at all outside of personal opinion than even a guestimate? I'm not even saying I have a firm stance on climate change, I'm just saying that complete disregard of any even attempted evidence is a bit suspect…

>>815940

>complete disregard for science

did you fall for the "97% of scientists meme"?

you know who started that right?

>>815947

I literally don't have a stance on climate change. Like I said, I don't think environmentalism should be reliant on that, and I think a lot of so called environmentalists don't know what they're talking about when they decide to interfere with nature in a different yet still destructive way (planting grid mapped forests, creating barriers to recycling, focusing on low return alternative energy, disrupting the food chain, blaming corporations rather than actually doing anything, embracing veganism despite decaying vegetable matter producing more greenhouse gasses than the entire global cattle industry, etc.).

What I am saying is that saying something is better than saying nothing in this debate.

>>815532

>Big papa Frank shilling for global governance again, what a shock.

Well ideally the world would be goverend by the Church, but there are heretics like you that refuse to come under Christ yet proclaim to be a Christian

>>826856

>Protestants don't believe in science

Substantiate yourself

>>826864

There are protestants on both sides of all of those things, but you have some bigger theological problems if you don't take any of the Bible literally

>>826837

If it's a chinese hoax, why does the chinese military use the effects of a warming planet as a factor in their near-future geopolitical plans?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/29/russia-china-climate-change-1691698

And why are they dumping so much money into renewables, if they know it's pointless?

And most of all, why did climate change start being talked about in the West, with no visible money or paper-trail in any of these studies or articles to link them to Beijing?

The official Christian view on climate change: this world is passing away, so be a good person and love everyone, doing your best to minimize harm to others while actively trying to pursue their good. Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, we ought not destroy the environment if we can help it. Practice the virtue of temperance and consume less. Exalt the beauty of creation by disposing of rubbish and liter properly. Promote your humility by denying yourself luxuries.

Sooner or later, this world is going to be destroyed, but it won't be because of bad weather. Who knows? The catastrophic disasters that God prophesied prior to the End Times could be a direct result of anthropogenic climate change (personally, I think that would be poetic – that what has traditionally been viewed as God's wrath is actually just the inevitable result of our own actions). Or it could all be a hoax the elite ruling class is using to consolidate power in a world government.

All I really know is: my salvation does not hinge on whether I believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I'm sure it has less to do with my actions toward the environment and more with my reasons for acting the way I do toward the environment. So, at the end of the day, I'm going to be thrifty and conservative so that I can preserve the beauty of the world and resources for others, and I'm going to be wary of supporting legislation and public policies that are issued in the name of combating climate change but which can be used to oppress people. That's my moral view of the matter. My political view is this: if we assume climate change is happening at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, then we assume that humans are responsible, then we assume that we can do something about it, we must finally assume that the people who are proposing to do things are actually proposing the right things to do, which is too many assumptions for my blood. We'd be better off allocating resources toward adapting to climate change rather than preventing it.

>>815211

The Christian view on climate change is that the earth is going to get really, really hot when He destroys it with fire.