Gretta Thunberg vs. Dr. Judith Curry

[lynnie]

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.

Thanks for this interesting comment.

I forget where I read this years ago, but at the time I thought it was a very credible source, and I'm curious if you have heard this also:

During the 1990s when the earth appeared to clearly be warming up, the polar ice caps on mars were also warming and sublimating to a previously not seen degree. The moons of Saturn were also warming ( I forget how that is measured, I just remember the conclusion). The clear conclusion of the planetary data for other planets- which have no fossil fuel burning- is that warming is a solar effect ...... or in some more fringe camps, a cosmic ray effect. Have you seen this in your research?

Personally, just throwing this out there, I followed a lot of the Grand solar minimum theory people a couple years ago. The records of sunspots go back 400+ years and correlate with past solar minimums ( The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 when very few sunspots were observed; the Dalton Minimum was a period of low sunspot count, representing low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1830 or 1796 to 1820.)
The current solar minimum theory people have their data, which looked good to me, that we are headed into another minimum, which is part of a regular solar cycle. They are saying that between 2028 amd 2030 we will be getting a lot colder in the USA. It would require a massive shift to shorter season agriculture. If you have any thoughts on this subject I'd be interested in hearing them.

Thanks again for your post.

 

[Ed Walsh]

This indignity is sheer stupidity and a serious afront to the Word and honor of our great God.

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.

Dear Phil,
I read over what I wrote and was appalled. You were 100% right about your comment. I wrote what I did in a hurry and without proper reflection on how it might sound to others. I intended to express a strong personal bias toward my view, but I blew it, didn't I? I'm sorry. I'm not ashamed of my view of the future, just myself.
Ed W.

 

[Phil D.]

Dear Phil,
I read over what I wrote and was appalled. You were 100% right about your comment. I wrote what I did in a hurry and without proper reflection on how it might sound to others. I intended to express a strong personal bias toward my view, but I blew it, didn't I? I'm sorry. I'm not ashamed of my view of the future, just myself.
Ed W.

No worries, brother. I've never met you personally, but I can tell from your postings here that you are my spiritual superior in many ways. If nothing else, if we even remember it, we can resolve any minor differences like this one when we meet in glory.

 

[Ed Walsh]

No worries, brother. I've never met you personally, but I can tell from your postings here that you are my spiritual superior in many ways. If nothing else, if we even remember it, we can resolve any minor differences like this one when we meet in glory.

Thanks, Phil. And I mean your original critique. Really!