Hi Herb. I placed "unifying" ahead of "more effective" for a very good reason. What are your thoughts on the best way to promote unity in the CRC while fulfilling the 2012 decision on global warming? Wouldn't it be more unifying for CRC employees to encourage those who believe in global warming to take action (i.e. to do things like join Consumers Energy's green energy program)? Even though I wouldn't personally take such action (because I do not believe in global warming), I fully support you taking that action. Thus, unity.
As for effectiveness, which is more effective? Lobbying for a new tax that may or may not pass sometime down the road, which may or may not actually reduce CO2 emissions? Or believers in global warming taking action now that reduces their own CO2 emissions, and funds green energy programs?
Unity is a command that comes from Scripture. Reducing CO2 production is not. So the prioritization seems pretty simple there.
As for effectiveness, it's not a false choice. The reality of a CO2 tax is that:
1) The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2021 (as the current Senate and President are not in favor of it).
2) It does not reduce CO2 production...it simply makes coal, oil, and natural gas more expensive, and hopes that higher price forces people to switch to other energy supplies.
On the flip side, if everyone who says they believe in global warming took drastic steps today to cut their CO2 emissions, and started putting as much money as possible into wind & solar, you would have a definite and immediate effect on CO2 emissions (which would clearly be more effective than a theoretical effect sometime in the theoretical future...which is what you get with a CO2 tax).
Which leads us to something that baffles me more & more, as I learn more about global warming ideology. Perhaps you can help me understand it. Why aren't believers in global warming taking more drastic steps in their own personal lives to curb CO2 productions? If it is true that CO2 is already causing devastation all over the world, and CO2 production is going to have catastrophic effects on life as we know it on planet Earth, where is the personal urgency?
Hmmm...it's almost like men should teach their sons to cherish and protect the women in their lives. To honor those women. To hold the door open for them. To speak to women respectfully, and not like they would to "another guy." To practice modesty and act in a chivalrous manner. To treat women better. In other words, to act like a real man.
And then to expect the same honorable behavior from their brothers, friends, and fathers.
Roger, we can't confuse acceptance with effectiveness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only effective solution to the problems being discussed at these interfaith events. But that does not mean it will be accepted by all those present, particularly by the leadership in charge of such events (and invited back to the next event). Think of Paul preaching to the Jewish leaders.
The religion that you have said you practice is more likely to be accepted by politicians, liberal Christian leaders, and leaders of other religions, because it does not ask them to repent or change. It is seen as inclusive and non-judgmental. On the other hand, a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus requires people to submit to His authority. That is not very popular with the leaders in these circles!
The irony is that even those who have rejected the Gospel of Jesus benefit from the peace and tranquility the Gospel brings to humanity.
Ken, you are absolutely correct. I should have put the word "more" in front of those actions. More honor. More respect. I definitely don't mean that men should treat the men in their lives in an un-Biblical way. Or that women have free reign to be disrespectful. That's a good call on your part.
I'm running into many people who say they believe in global warming, but they've done nothing in their personal life to drastically reduce their CO2 emissions. This includes people who would be considered "sold-out" global warming evangelists. I like to ask people about this, from a standpoint of pure curiosity, but people get very defensive about it.
8 - )
I wouldn't say "personal CO2 reductions" and "speaking out in favor of a CO2 tax" are either/or. Certainly people who believe in global warming should do both. I'm just saying one is a guaranteed way to have an effect now (but will cause the person some minor discomfort in their personal life), while the other will not be happening anytime soon (but causes no personal discomfort).
And it fascinates me that people who proclaim the immediate and catastrophic destruction of life as we know it won't do the former, but will do the latter.
Hi Ken. As part of my participation in the Cooler/Smarter series being sponsored by the Climate Witness Project, I have been doing a LOT of research into this area. The more I learn, the more it becomes clear that the potential of wind & solar is vastly overstated, and the damaging environmental impact of wind & solar is vastly understated. They are useful in certain situations, and I'm certainly thankful to God for them in those situations. But wind & solar are totally inadequate for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas. (Side note...solar energy is AWESOME in its power for warming our planet and feeding our plants...but that is through direct sunlight and not through solar panels).
8 - )
I look forward to sharing my findings in the future, and I hope you will continue to interact with my posts. Thanks!
Tom, Chapter 15 ("On Thin Ice") of Katherine Hayhoe's book "A Climate For Change" (again, I'm reading it as part of my involvement in OSJ's Cooler/Smarter series says (page 97):
"Today, scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
The only range of possible outcomes Hayhoe gives is:
"Just a decade ago, scientists were speculating that the summer Arctic might be ice-free toward the end of the twentyfirst century. A few years ago, the best projections were showing an ice-free Arctic as early as 2040. Today scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
In other words, things are getting dramatically worse! Except these "scientists" prediction was wrong by 1,700,000 square miles. Whoops.
Ken, you were not mistaken at all. My post is definitely thanking God for blessings, specifically the blessing of coal, oil, and natural gas, which provide almost all of the energy that all of us use on a daily basis. Simply put, these resources keep us alive. Not only that, but fossil fuel resources are a main reason that humanity has advanced so much in the last 150 years.
Many of us are alarmed that God's blessing is being called a curse. Thus the reason for my Prayer of Thanksgiving for Fossil Fuels. It is to set the record straight, and start thanking God for something that others take for granted at best, and at worse they demonize and complain about.
As to the questions and responses to your post, it is because of your statement that "the Lord is now giving us alternatives to accomplish the same thing that are better for our environment He created!" That statement deserves to be questioned because it is simply inaccurate (assuming that you are referring to wind & solar...if you are referring to nuclear energy then you have a valid point). No one is questioning you or your thankfulness. On the contrary, I welcome your input! You are free to question anything I write. I have no problem with that.
Pease consider these 3 questions:
- Are wind & solar truly capable of accomplishing the same things as coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are wind & solar truly better for the environment than coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are people being accurate, or fair to God, when they consider coal, oil, & natural gas a curse?
While I agree that with Doug that the BEST course of action would be for the CRC to pull totally and completely out of the global warming debate, until and unless that happens one thing is very clear.
By choosing to enter the fray on the issue, Synod, CRC employees, and others connected to the CRC have thrown the door WIDE open to having a public debate about the issue. Any attempt to silence those of us who enter the discussion on the side of skepticism and wanting better science is completely out of line. (And frankly, it makes me suspect the weakness of one side in the debate.) We in the CRC cannot open the door, then complain that people want to walk through the door, from one side or the other.
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hi Herb. I placed "unifying" ahead of "more effective" for a very good reason. What are your thoughts on the best way to promote unity in the CRC while fulfilling the 2012 decision on global warming? Wouldn't it be more unifying for CRC employees to encourage those who believe in global warming to take action (i.e. to do things like join Consumers Energy's green energy program)? Even though I wouldn't personally take such action (because I do not believe in global warming), I fully support you taking that action. Thus, unity.
As for effectiveness, which is more effective? Lobbying for a new tax that may or may not pass sometime down the road, which may or may not actually reduce CO2 emissions? Or believers in global warming taking action now that reduces their own CO2 emissions, and funds green energy programs?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Unity is a command that comes from Scripture. Reducing CO2 production is not. So the prioritization seems pretty simple there.
As for effectiveness, it's not a false choice. The reality of a CO2 tax is that:
1) The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2021 (as the current Senate and President are not in favor of it).
2) It does not reduce CO2 production...it simply makes coal, oil, and natural gas more expensive, and hopes that higher price forces people to switch to other energy supplies.
On the flip side, if everyone who says they believe in global warming took drastic steps today to cut their CO2 emissions, and started putting as much money as possible into wind & solar, you would have a definite and immediate effect on CO2 emissions (which would clearly be more effective than a theoretical effect sometime in the theoretical future...which is what you get with a CO2 tax).
Which leads us to something that baffles me more & more, as I learn more about global warming ideology. Perhaps you can help me understand it. Why aren't believers in global warming taking more drastic steps in their own personal lives to curb CO2 productions? If it is true that CO2 is already causing devastation all over the world, and CO2 production is going to have catastrophic effects on life as we know it on planet Earth, where is the personal urgency?
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
Hmmm...it's almost like men should teach their sons to cherish and protect the women in their lives. To honor those women. To hold the door open for them. To speak to women respectfully, and not like they would to "another guy." To practice modesty and act in a chivalrous manner. To treat women better. In other words, to act like a real man.
And then to expect the same honorable behavior from their brothers, friends, and fathers.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Roger, we can't confuse acceptance with effectiveness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only effective solution to the problems being discussed at these interfaith events. But that does not mean it will be accepted by all those present, particularly by the leadership in charge of such events (and invited back to the next event). Think of Paul preaching to the Jewish leaders.
The religion that you have said you practice is more likely to be accepted by politicians, liberal Christian leaders, and leaders of other religions, because it does not ask them to repent or change. It is seen as inclusive and non-judgmental. On the other hand, a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus requires people to submit to His authority. That is not very popular with the leaders in these circles!
The irony is that even those who have rejected the Gospel of Jesus benefit from the peace and tranquility the Gospel brings to humanity.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
Ken, you are absolutely correct. I should have put the word "more" in front of those actions. More honor. More respect. I definitely don't mean that men should treat the men in their lives in an un-Biblical way. Or that women have free reign to be disrespectful. That's a good call on your part.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I'm running into many people who say they believe in global warming, but they've done nothing in their personal life to drastically reduce their CO2 emissions. This includes people who would be considered "sold-out" global warming evangelists. I like to ask people about this, from a standpoint of pure curiosity, but people get very defensive about it.
8 - )
I wouldn't say "personal CO2 reductions" and "speaking out in favor of a CO2 tax" are either/or. Certainly people who believe in global warming should do both. I'm just saying one is a guaranteed way to have an effect now (but will cause the person some minor discomfort in their personal life), while the other will not be happening anytime soon (but causes no personal discomfort).
And it fascinates me that people who proclaim the immediate and catastrophic destruction of life as we know it won't do the former, but will do the latter.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
Hi Ken. As part of my participation in the Cooler/Smarter series being sponsored by the Climate Witness Project, I have been doing a LOT of research into this area. The more I learn, the more it becomes clear that the potential of wind & solar is vastly overstated, and the damaging environmental impact of wind & solar is vastly understated. They are useful in certain situations, and I'm certainly thankful to God for them in those situations. But wind & solar are totally inadequate for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas. (Side note...solar energy is AWESOME in its power for warming our planet and feeding our plants...but that is through direct sunlight and not through solar panels).
8 - )
I look forward to sharing my findings in the future, and I hope you will continue to interact with my posts. Thanks!
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom, Chapter 15 ("On Thin Ice") of Katherine Hayhoe's book "A Climate For Change" (again, I'm reading it as part of my involvement in OSJ's Cooler/Smarter series says (page 97):
"Today, scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
The only range of possible outcomes Hayhoe gives is:
"Just a decade ago, scientists were speculating that the summer Arctic might be ice-free toward the end of the twentyfirst century. A few years ago, the best projections were showing an ice-free Arctic as early as 2040. Today scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
In other words, things are getting dramatically worse! Except these "scientists" prediction was wrong by 1,700,000 square miles. Whoops.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
Ken, you were not mistaken at all. My post is definitely thanking God for blessings, specifically the blessing of coal, oil, and natural gas, which provide almost all of the energy that all of us use on a daily basis. Simply put, these resources keep us alive. Not only that, but fossil fuel resources are a main reason that humanity has advanced so much in the last 150 years.
Many of us are alarmed that God's blessing is being called a curse. Thus the reason for my Prayer of Thanksgiving for Fossil Fuels. It is to set the record straight, and start thanking God for something that others take for granted at best, and at worse they demonize and complain about.
As to the questions and responses to your post, it is because of your statement that "the Lord is now giving us alternatives to accomplish the same thing that are better for our environment He created!" That statement deserves to be questioned because it is simply inaccurate (assuming that you are referring to wind & solar...if you are referring to nuclear energy then you have a valid point). No one is questioning you or your thankfulness. On the contrary, I welcome your input! You are free to question anything I write. I have no problem with that.
Pease consider these 3 questions:
- Are wind & solar truly capable of accomplishing the same things as coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are wind & solar truly better for the environment than coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are people being accurate, or fair to God, when they consider coal, oil, & natural gas a curse?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
While I agree that with Doug that the BEST course of action would be for the CRC to pull totally and completely out of the global warming debate, until and unless that happens one thing is very clear.
By choosing to enter the fray on the issue, Synod, CRC employees, and others connected to the CRC have thrown the door WIDE open to having a public debate about the issue. Any attempt to silence those of us who enter the discussion on the side of skepticism and wanting better science is completely out of line. (And frankly, it makes me suspect the weakness of one side in the debate.) We in the CRC cannot open the door, then complain that people want to walk through the door, from one side or the other.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).