Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Everyone's Going Green; You Should, Too!

America is "going green". Biodiesel, natural fabrics, and even hemp clothing have become popular. National heroes, however temporary, often have one thing in common: a concern for the environment. "Sally is our person of the month. She is 40, beautiful, a pilates guru, and she lives a green lifestyle." Thus, Sally is catapulted to a position of honor and respect, all for going along with the green ideology. Never mind that she may be thrice divorced, uses marijuana, and can't articulate a single thought. Sally has gone green; therefore we are to idolize her.

The driving force behind the green movement, the theory of Global Warming, was recently dubbed “Climate Change” in order to become inclusive of the dizzyingly frequent "global coolings". Interesting.

It has become apparent that many climatologists are far from reaching a consensus on this issue. In this article, Dr. Tim Ball, formerly of The University of Winnepeg, explains his position as one of a surprising number of "climate change" skeptics.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

Why then is there such a massive uproar among scientists, you may ask? Dr. Ball replies with an interesting statement from a Global Cooling scare of 1976.

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species."

This grave warning sounds terribly familiar, except that it is within the context of an impending chill.

We also must consider that the science of climatology has only been in functional existence since the beginning of the 19th century, around the same time the Little Ice Age came to an end. The science hasn't been around long enough to properly gather and compare data for the environmental conditions of centuries past. Further, the starting point of modern climatology is significant, in that it began toward the end of that extreme cold snap of small size. In order for any Ice Age, big or little, to come to an end, there is an implied WARMING that must take place.

It may behoove us to ask ourselves if we are reacting to mere speculation in a way that could negatively alter the economy (or our sanity). Personally, I would answer an emphatic "yes". I am not suggesting that we do not care for our environment, nor am I suggesting that we deliberately throw a candy wrapper on the ground in front of someone selling biodegradable clothing. However, if one is a Christian and yet is bending over backwards "for the sake of the earth", that person should ponder what is demanding their time, energy and thought. Is it the Creator or creation? Please choose wisely.

9 comments:

Daniel said...

CU on Friday, yes I'll be there!

Daniel said...

Ha, very clever!

C U then as well. I'll be the other Christian in the crowd...

Vertigo said...

We can't even get an 8-hour forecast right...

Anonymous said...

How does this affect a literal reading Genesis 1-3? According to backward chronology with the patriarchs, the earth is less than 6100 years old (I don't believe that day = period < the "day of the Lord" phrase or that there are gaps in the genealogy). The idea of the "ice age" seems to contradict biblical teaching.

Mark

Jon said...

Sarah,

It is nice to see someone else looking at this issue through the lens of sanity.

Sarah Scott said...

Mark,

I do not know much about the original "ice age", but the Little Ice Age was a 200 or so year excessive cold snap between the 1600s and 1800s. Hope that clears things up a bit!

Jon,

I try, anyway!

Anonymous said...

Sarah:

Okay, so if I read you right you don't believe in some ice-age that was 10,000 years ago as scientists purport because it contradicts the Bible?

Also, the little ice-age doesn't affect the Bible.

Mark

Sarah Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarah Scott said...

Mark,

Like I said, I don't know much about the original Ice Age. I am absolutely a creationist. I tend to lean towards young-earth theory, but there are times I lean towards old-earth. It simply is not my area. That said, the purported ice-age of 10,000 years ago has nothing to do with my post or argument about global warming.

You are correct, the Little Ice Age doesn't afect a reading of the Bible. Hence my clarification in response to your first question.