… is not my favourite pastime as people’s minds are generally made up and difficult to sway. As a flunkee in high school physics I’m somewhat behind the eight-ball when countering climate skeptics’ arguments. What I can argue, however, is human responsibility to care for the planet. When someone gleefully seeks to trump this argument with the observation that the Genesis mandate is to “subdue” the earth (Gen 1:28), I can counter with a Hebrew word study that suggests “understanding” and “walking amongst” as a counterpoint to the violence we habitually associate with the word “subdue” – in other words it carries a benevolent relational flavour.
Anyhow Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says is a most excellent resource for scientific ignoramuses such as myself. I might just point my friendly adversaries there.
Wondering Pilgrim 
Do you know how soon will it be before we are effected by the 7 meter sea level rise caused by the melting of the Greenland ice cap then?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Roger
Thanks for your question.
I frankly wouldn’t have a clue.http://www.lightblueline.org/node/18 suggests millennia given certain conditions. Neither would I have the knowledge to assess all the motives of all the shakers and movers in the climate change debate. I can throw my weight behind this statement on your blog, however (although not sure on the CO2 bit): “So lets get out and save the planet from the real dangers it faces, like heavy metal contamination, pollution of water, noxious gases (of which CO2 is not a member), garbage filling our oceans and landfills and the like and at least enjoy the warmer weather while it lasts.”
This is “subduing the earth” in the Hebrew sense of relational care.
Yours in the stewardship of Creation
Wondering Pilgrim
LikeLike
You are absolutely right!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html#table-spm-3
implies at least 2 thousand years.
And the IPCC are prone to exaggeration!
So Al Gore is safe in his beach front property.:)
Unfortunately the whole AGW debate falls apart section by section, just like the flooding debate (we have cities here preparing plans for 15 meter sealevel rises!)including the classiication of CO2 as a pollutant!.
Thanks for reading my blog.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
PS I have asked the same question over a number of blogs and all but two have spammed my comment. All alarmist blogs of course:)
LikeLike
Thanks Ben,
In your pingback, this bloke argues my point far better than I can. Another pertinent article, I think, appeared today in the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-nation-of-fickle-fools-20110412-1dcjd.html
LikeLike
I’m in your camp too. Flunked physics, just couldn’t get it. However I was an A+ Chemistry student so I am not totally scientifically challenged!
Irrespective of global warming or not, it is clear the earth is a non-renewal resource in many ways. Was it ever designed to carry the load it now carries? To use my technical jargon, was it load tested to this capacity?
If we don’t care for it, we will sign our own death warrants.
LikeLike