Gretta Thunberg vs. Dr. Judith Curry

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

I don't consider the point of this image 'funny.' Except for the humor of God, who laughs at the fool in his folly. (Psalm 2)

​

I am no scientist, but I know Dr. Curry is right.

God, everywhere, proclaims His Creation as "Good." He goes into some detail here and elsewhere to show the difficulty, loneliness, darkness, and hard toil to show what man values but neglects God. To my point, God put loads of oil and coal under the earth. I've heard we have a 1,000-year supply. And it's all good. Let God be true, though every man is a liar. It is neither logical nor rational to conclude that the subterrane hydrocarbons are toxic. This indignity is sheer stupidity and a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God. The only result of increased CO2 so far is the greening of the planet. NASA taught me this. Ask me, and I will show you.

I'm too busy just now to look up the scriptures, but I can later if there is any interest.
Let this one passage from Job 28

Job 28:5–11 (NIV)

1 Where Wisdom Is Found?
[is the theme of the chapter _ed]

2 Iron is taken from the earth,
and copper is smelted from ore.
3 Mortals put an end to the darkness;
they search out the farthest recesses
for ore in the blackest darkness.
4 Far from human dwellings, they cut a shaft,
in places untouched by human feet;
far from other people, they dangle and sway.
5 The earth, from which food comes,
is transformed below as by fire;
6 lapis lazuli comes from its rocks,
and its dust contains nuggets of gold.
7 No bird of prey knows that hidden path,
no falcon’s eye has seen it.
8 Proud beasts do not set foot on it,
and no lion prowls there.
9 People assault the flinty rock with their hands
and lay bare the roots of the mountains.
10 They tunnel through the rock;
their eyes see all its treasures.
11 They search the sources of the rivers
and bring hidden things to light.​

 

[ZackF]

Since Thunberg is in her 20s now she can’t be used as a human shield anymore.

 

[Phil D.]

Given a stark choice I'll certainly take Curry over Thunberg... Yet Curry has previously admitted that global warming is real and that man does contribute to it, just not to the extent that most climatologists insist.

PB Minority Report: In terms of saying that "the only result of increased CO2 so far is the greening of the planet" and that to disagree with this is an "indignity," "sheer stupidity," and "a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God" is a bridge way too far. Nor is it at all appropriate or even logical to invoke passages like Job 28 (or Gen. 8:22) in support of such a brash, blanket claim. In fact, I think it is an abusive use of scripture. I think it is quite easily shown that man is often not a good steward of the resources God had given and put him in charge over, which then results in adverse effects on nature. I've previously said a few other things on this topic as well.

 

[ZackF]

Given a stark choice I'll certainly take Curry over Thunberg... Yet Curry has previously admitted that global warming is real and that man does contribute to it, just not to the extent that most climatologists insist.

PB Minority Report: In terms of saying that "the only result of increased CO2 so far is the greening of the planet" and that to disagree with this is an "indignity," "sheer stupidity," and "a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God" is a bridge way too far. Nor is it at all appropriate or even logical to invoke passages like Job 28 (or Gen. 8:22) in support of such a brash, blanket claim. In fact, I think it is an abusive use of scripture. I think it is quite easily shown that man is often not a good steward of the resources God had given and put him in charge over, which then results in adverse effects on nature. I've previously said a few other things on this topic as well.

My concern is methane over carbon. Not cattle nor human flatulence though.

 

[Phil D.]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) are both carbon based atmospheric gases.

 

[ZackF]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) are both carbon based atmospheric gases.

I know. Methane is more brittle but more damaging in the short run. A large bolus of methane released would, in theory, be catastrophic. I do choose, by faith, to believe the promises made to Noah.

 

[Phil D.]

I do choose, by faith, to believe the promises made to Noah.

As do I.

 

[VerticalLiftEnjoyer]

Given a stark choice I'll certainly take Curry over Thunberg... Yet Curry has previously admitted that global warming is real and that man does contribute to it, just not to the extent that most climatologists insist.

PB Minority Report: In terms of saying that "the only result of increased CO2 so far is the greening of the planet" and that to disagree with this is an "indignity," "sheer stupidity," and "a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God" is a bridge way too far. Nor is it at all appropriate or even logical to invoke passages like Job 28 (or Gen. 8:22) in support of such a brash, blanket claim. In fact, I think it is an abusive use of scripture. I think it is quite easily shown that man is often not a good steward of the resources God had given and put him in charge over, which then results in adverse effects on nature. I've previously said a few other things on this topic as well.

I agree. Don't get why minerals being destructive to our world and slowly killing us is against the Word of God. Does the ground not yield briers and thorns?

I was going to create a thread talking about this, but as I typed it out and searched out examples, I realized that whether it be Asbestos or Radium; Marijuana or Coca leaves; petroleum oil or hydrogen; every thing was clearly built to be utilized for some good, and I can only assume Asbestos hacks our lungs to pieces because of our sin.

 

[Gforce9]

Climate issues aside, if we had a PB equivalency to Thunberg to Curry, it might be Robert Tilton to Sinclair Ferguson.

 

[Phil D.]

it might be Robert Tilton to Sinclair Ferguson.

But can Ferguson do this..!?

 

[MyCrows]

Minecraft has more realistic climate physics than that of the climate control scientists. It's manipulation, period.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Revelation 16:8,9 "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 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."

 

[dsanch1120]

I’m sure I’ll regret this..
But it is worth noting that’s it’s not just Thunberg, but the vast majority of scientists. Even the oil/coal companies acknowledge climate change and the negative impact of fossil fuels. This came after lobbying and trying very hard to convince the public against something that would have cost them a lot of money. They continue to lobby today in order to support their bottom line and sway public opinion. In my mind, those who bribe are not particularly trustworthy.
A few dissenters always sound disproportionately loud, but perhaps should be given proportionate consideration.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Given a stark choice I'll certainly take Curry over Thunberg... Yet Curry has previously admitted that global warming is real and that man does contribute to it, just not to the extent that most climatologists insist.

PB Minority Report: In terms of saying that "the only result of increased CO2 so far is the greening of the planet" and that to disagree with this is an "indignity," "sheer stupidity," and "a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God" is a bridge way too far. Nor is it at all appropriate or even logical to invoke passages like Job 28 (or Gen. 8:22) in support of such a brash, blanket claim. In fact, I think it is an abusive use of scripture. I think it is quite easily shown that man is often not a good steward of the resources God had given and put him in charge over, which then results in adverse effects on nature. I've previously said a few other things on this topic as well.

I see you didn't like my post. I didn't think anyone would.

There are several TRUE things about climate change.
The Greening of the World – This is a fact so clearly demonstrated by NASA, who is no friend of my view, that I yawn whenever someone tells me I am a nut case. As you might expect, the most greening is in China and India, spreading to North Africa.
Global Temperature is Rising – This is true beyond a doubt. Here's the controversial part. I welcome it.
The Ice Core Story – Some ice core findings tell when CO2 was magnitudes higher than our highest, with no cataclysmic events in the water or atmosphere.
God is Good – Experts agree. Do you think that God would put all this CO2-generating stuff underground and tell us to go get it, only to find that the most essential mineral in all our lives is poison strong enough to kill us in a few more years? The goalpost keeps moving in our date of doom.
Global Warming Saves Lives – I forget the exact metric, but global warming saves thousands of lives yearly. Some people die from severe heat, but at least ten times as many die each winter from the cold. That's a pretty good tradeoff.

Thus far, with facts. Now, several things are only in my opinion.
Global warming is good for everyone. Not just plants.
Global warming is a shock value word for weather. And the world weather is getting better. Major disasters have fewer deaths now than previously, mostly due to improved prediction, and modernized ways of helping people in distress.
I have never worried about improving weather norms. Everyone benefits, and I just plain like it.

Am I really as bad as you made me out to be?

 

[VerticalLiftEnjoyer]

God is Good – Experts agree. Do you think that God would put all this CO2-generating stuff underground and tell us to go get it, only to find that the most essential mineral in all our lives is poison strong enough to kill us in a few more years? The goalpost keeps moving in our date of doom

Same car that gets you from point a to point b will also smother you if you close the garage door. I also doubt you want to be on the exhaust end of a diesel rolling coal. Is it overblown? Probably; definitely politically, but a single factory churns out more products in a week than most medieval nations did in a year.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

I understand that this is a very odd choice for an inaugural PB post, but the subject matter is something I have some familiarity with.


I recently finished an environmental science course in which I was required to research the known forcers of the climate system and both sides of the debate so thoroughly as to be nearly sick to my stomach. Ultimately, I came away thinking that folks like Steve Koonin, Judith Curry, and Bjorn Lomborg had the data on their side; the 2018 IPCC report's estimates regarding mean surface temperature rise did not entail the immediate catastrophic doomsday scenario that center-left policy makers throughout the Western world ended up adopting as the basis for ill-advised energy transitions, carbon neutrality initiatives, and deficit spending sprees. Nevertheless, upon reading Steve's citation of Revelation 16:8,9, I think the pieces fall into place much more understandably. Whether the instrumental cause of increased global warming is increasing carbon emissions from developing countries, or a result of internal thermohaline variability of deep ocean currents causing more surface evaporation and thus more water vapor formation, I choose to believe that the climatic changes we will experience in the coming decades are a foretaste of God's wrath on an unbelieving and wicked world. In this light, I think that the response of governments the world over makes sense in context: rather than fear the LORD and repent, their knee-jerk reaction is to clamp down on economic freedoms and impose even more control over their nations' resources. They trust in man's scheming rather than God's providence.


May the LORD grant us grace to discern the signs of the times as well as equip us with the courage to be faithful witnesses to Him.

 

[Phil D.]

Am I really as bad as you made me out to be?

I think some of your bare "scientific" assertions, characterizations of those who would disagree with you, and application of scripture are ill-founded, and thus "bad" - but not you personally...

 

[Phil D.]

I recently finished an environmental science course in which I was required to research the known forcers of the climate system and both sides of the debate so thoroughly as to be nearly sick to my stomach. Ultimately, I came away thinking that folks like Steve Koonin, Judith Curry, and Bjorn Lomborg had the data on their side; the 2018 IPCC report's estimates regarding mean surface temperature rise did not entail the immediate catastrophic doomsday scenario that center-left policy makers throughout the Western world ended up adopting as the basis for ill-advised energy transitions, carbon neutrality initiatives, and deficit spending sprees. Nevertheless, upon reading Steve's citation of Revelation 16:8,9, I think the pieces fall into place much more understandably. Whether the instrumental cause of increased global warming is increasing carbon emissions from developing countries, or a result of internal thermohaline variability of deep ocean currents causing more surface evaporation and thus more water vapor formation, I choose to believe that the climatic changes we will experience in the coming decades are a foretaste of God's wrath on an unbelieving and wicked world. In this light, I think that the response of governments the world over makes sense in context: rather than fear the LORD and repent, their knee-jerk reaction is to clamp down on economic freedoms and impose even more control over their nations' resources. They trust in man's scheming rather than God's providence.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The issue of climate change has become highly politicized, leading to nefarious manipulation and godless (thus senseless) "solutions." That goes for both sides, in my opinion. The supposed cures demanded by the powers-that-be, are and will cause more overall damage in other vital areas than the problem itself is causing. A compounded judgment, as it were. Kind of like with COVID...

 

[Ed Walsh]

Nevertheless, upon reading Steve's citation of Revelation 16:8,9, I think the pieces fall into place much more understandably. Whether the instrumental cause of increased global warming is increasing carbon emissions from developing countries, or a result of internal thermohaline variability of deep ocean currents causing more surface evaporation and thus more water vapor formation, I choose to believe that the climatic changes we will experience in the coming decades are a foretaste of God's wrath on an unbelieving and wicked world. In this light, I think that the response of governments the world over makes sense in context: rather than fear the LORD and repent, their knee-jerk reaction is to clamp down on economic freedoms and impose even more control over their nations' resources. They trust in man's scheming rather than God's providence.

Hi Garrick,

OPC! I was an elder in the OPC and a former webmaster for the denomination. But the web has passed me by years ago—no more hard coding from scratch using only NotPad. WordPress has ruined us all. I worked a lot with GI and Ross Grham in those days and had the honor of editing and formatting what I assume was GI's last book.
~~~~~~

Well, @Laborer for the Lord , thanks for chiming in with real knowledge that's already been helpful to me. I talk a good line, but I haven't studied as you have. I may have a few words on your post later, but Isaiah, Jeramima, Leviticus, and Danial are calling me back Logos.

Great to meet you,

Ed Walsh

 

[Solparvus]

I see you didn't like my post. I didn't think anyone would.

There are several TRUE things about climate change.
The Greening of the World – This is a fact so clearly demonstrated by NASA, who is no friend of my view, that I yawn whenever someone tells me I am a nut case. As you might expect, the most greening is in China and India, spreading to North Africa.
Global Temperature is Rising – This is true beyond a doubt. Here's the controversial part. I welcome it.
The Ice Core Story – Some ice core findings tell when CO2 was magnitudes higher than our highest, with no cataclysmic events in the water or atmosphere.
God is Good – Experts agree. Do you think that God would put all this CO2-generating stuff underground and tell us to go get it, only to find that the most essential mineral in all our lives is poison strong enough to kill us in a few more years? The goalpost keeps moving in our date of doom.
Global Warming Saves Lives – I forget the exact metric, but global warming saves thousands of lives yearly. Some people die from severe heat, but at least ten times as many die each winter from the cold. That's a pretty good tradeoff.

Thus far, with facts. Now, several things are only in my opinion.
Global warming is good for everyone. Not just plants.
Global warming is a shock value word for weather. And the world weather is getting better. Major disasters have fewer deaths now than previously, mostly due to improved prediction, and modernized ways of helping people in distress.
I have never worried about improving weather norms. Everyone benefits, and I just plain like it.

Am I really as bad as you made me out to be?

This reminds me, there was an economic blossoming in medieval Europe because of (though not exclusively because of) higher-than-average temperatures from approx. 950 to 1250 AD. Rain was more abundant and crop failure less likely. If I recall correctly, some have asserted a possible connection between the end of this extended warm season and the spread of bubonic plague. That is, with cold comes weakened immunity, thus greater susceptibility to disease. The disease may have providentially come over at a particularly bad moment. If warming is happening, then it's like you said: there are trade-offs.

As a near-lifelong northerner, I don't admit minding that the last few years have felt warmer. I'm enjoying it. I do occasional extended travel by car, so the thought of not driving long distances in snow delights me.

 

[DanSSwing]

I’m sure I’ll regret this..
But it is worth noting that’s it’s not just Thunberg, but the vast majority of scientists.

There's a reason for this, best illustrated by a discussion I walked in on between several very liberal graduate students at the University of Wisconsin. They were observing that scientists and historians want to get published and get paid above all else. No one gets paid by writing what everyone already knows and what isn't important. On the other hand, there are tremendous incentives to make things up AND to claim it's more important than anything else.

I wish it were this simple though. The people who started the climate scare are the totalitarians who want the state to control absolutely everything. These scientists are just the useful idiots who are getting in on the grift. On some level they may actually believe it, but I think it's similar to the atheist suppressing his knowledge of God. He doesn't really want to dig deeper because that would threaten the construct he's comfortable with.

 

[dsanch1120]

They were observing that scientists and historians want to get published and get paid above all else. No one gets paid by writing what everyone already knows and what isn't important. On the other hand, there are tremendous incentives to make things up AND to claim it's more important than anything else.

I wonder if this applies to those who push again the grain as well. We should apply an equally pessimistic standard to all, no? By that metric, those who push again the grain do so because it will generate more clicks, get them more attention, and ultimately make them more
money.
Having known and gone to college with much of these “useful idiots,” many of them believers and friends, most of them believe in a threat from climate change. I don’t think this is a fair assessment.

On some level they may actually believe it, but I think it's similar to the atheist suppressing his knowledge of God. He doesn't really want to dig deeper because that would threaten the construct he's comfortable with.

Once again, this should apply both ways. I could just as easily say that people deny/ignore climate change because it requires the average person to reduce their consumption and materialism, and they’ve been led astray by fossil fuel lobbyists who stand to lose a buck if climate change action is taken. But that’s not a kind assessment of the average republican. I prefer to just leave assumptions at them holding to something they believe, albeit something I think is incorrect.

 

[MyCrows]

I find it interesting that the same crowd that pushes evolution, and insists that "life finds a way", is the same crowd that will tell us that moving a log in the jungle will cause an entire subspecies to go extinct in a year.

So which is it? Is life resilient, adapting and evolving over time to plough through insane adversity? Or is life super fragile, and we should be afraid to take five steps into the forest, lest we kill everything?

The earth will not last a day longer, or a day shorter than God has ordained. We may not be good stewards, but God will sustain what he wills to sustain.

 

[dsanch1120]

The earth will not last a day longer, or a day shorter than God has ordained. We may not be good stewards, but God will sustain what he wills to sustain.

“Life finds a way” isn’t comforting to those who are negatively impacted. Both “life finds a way” and “climate change is a threat” can be true, it’s not either/or. Humans will be fine, but the potential cost to cities and infrastructure would be quite uncomfortable.
I whole heartedly agree in God’s sovereignty over the planet and the environment. Yet I also believe that if God gives me a house to live in, I’d prefer to keep in clean while I and my children are there.

 

[DanSSwing]

I wonder if this applies to those who push again the grain as well. We should apply an equally pessimistic standard to all, no? By that metric, those who push again the grain do so because it will generate more clicks, get them more attention, and ultimately make them more
money.
Having known and gone to college with much of these “useful idiots,” many of them believers and friends, most of them believe in a threat from climate change. I don’t think this is a fair assessment.

Please note that I was replying directly to your claim about professional scientists. My comment only added professional historians. The professional scientists and historians who push back against the climate scare or against historical revisionism do so at the risk of their careers.

I'm not talking about the average Joe who isn't an expert but just accepts things on the basis of perceived authority.

 

[DanSSwing]

I find it interesting that the same crowd that pushes evolution, and insists that "life finds a way", is the same crowd that will tell us that moving a log in the jungle will cause an entire subspecies to go extinct in a year.

So which is it? Is life resilient, adapting and evolving over time to plough through insane adversity? Or is life super fragile, and we should be afraid to take five steps into the forest, lest we kill everything?

The earth will not last a day longer, or a day shorter than God has ordained. We may not be good stewards, but God will sustain what he wills to sustain.

This also reminds me of the unfortunate coincidence that oil was discovered right about the same time that Darwinian naturalism was all the rage. This gave us the misnomer "fossil fuel" based solely on the commonality of carbon in petroleum and living organisms.

This book is on my reading list:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387952535?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

 

[dsanch1120]

Please note that I was replying directly to your claim about professional scientists. My comment only added professional historians. The professional scientists and historians who push back against the climate scare or against historical revisionism do so at the risk of their careers.

I'm not talking about the average Joe who isn't an expert but just accepts things on the basis of perceived authority.

Thank you for the clarification. My point still stands that those who go against the grain often have far more to gain. In my opinion, the narrative of “they’re risking their career” gives their opinion undue credibility. Greg Johnson went against the grain, I find it rather unfortunate that he got the attention he did. But these ones who go against the grain are now household names in conservative circles, they get media attention, their articles get read and their books purchased. From my eyes, you gain a lot by going against the grain.
Dissenters are just that: dissenters. Their opinions should be given equal consideration to their colleagues. They may be correct, but going against the consensus neither makes them correct nor makes them more likely to be correct.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I wonder if this applies to those who push again the grain as well. We should apply an equally pessimistic standard to all, no? By that metric, those who push again the grain do so because it will generate more clicks, get them more attention, and ultimately make them more
money.

Not in public academia. There are clear boundaries you may not cross in certain fields without being blacklisted. And often, if you do something “groundbreaking” that continues to push the party line, you get fast-tracked through big publishing. Even if you make it all up (which unfortunately is not uncommon enough).

 

[dsanch1120]

Not in public academia. There are clear boundaries you may not cross in certain fields without being blacklisted. And often, if you do something “groundbreaking” that continues to push the party line, you get fast-tracked through big publishing. Even if you make it all up (which unfortunately is not uncommon enough).

This seems like conjecture to me, and still does not disprove my point. Going against the grain seems to make you very popular with people who already have made up their minds and want a scientist to validate their thoughts. History has shown that plenty of boundaries and norms have been crossed/violated for better or worse that go against the mainstream academic consensus, many of these are things we take for granted today. If one side can be impacted by money, corruption, and politics, so too can the other side. A dissenter isn't automatically correct because they're a dissenter, nor are they more likely to be correct because they're a dissenter. They and their disagreements should be viewed in perspective.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'll leave this here...