Creation Care for the Discerning Adventist

By: Alexander Carpenter

After you've seen An Inconvenient Truth here are eighteen good resources for folks of faith to learn about the issue of climate change and what we as Christians can do.

A significant part of the evangelical world is starting to really care about creation.  Read about the Evangelical Environmental Network. 

The Adventist church just spent three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand the chronology of creation.  How much time and money was spent thinking about actually caring for that creation?

We are stewards of our billionaire church; where is our elected leadership investing our tithe? Do we have a green, renewable resource policy? Do our leaders really care for creation, or merely care about chronology?

Perhaps the creator might ask us about what we did with everything after the first six days?

Or, of course we could just rehash 1844 for the hundredth time. . .wait, let's face it, we've got a new millennium; we're post-disappointment Adventists--wherever Jesus ministers architecturally, this planet could use a little attention from the remnant.

Didn't Jesus have something to say about those waiting, foolish virgins who burned up all their oil?

Comments

[Ryan Bell]

It's about time! We're really good at esoteric debates about things that did or didn't happen 160+ years ago in a platonic temple in heaven. The more straightforward issue of discipleship, it seems to me, is exactly what you're suggestion. Right there in Genesis 1 humans are asked to be stewards of God's creation. This command even comes, chronologically, before the Sabbath. The movie is a great conversation starter and motivator and every Adventist should see it!

[Ron Corson]

It would probably be best to get informed on the other side of the issue as well. As Human induced global warming is scientifically not as accepted as the media may present.

For instance:
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246768
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am William M. Gray, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. I have been studying and forecasting weather and climate for over 50 years (see my attached Vitae). My specialty has been tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones. I have made Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for the last 22 years.

Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media-hype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept either of these scenarios. Observations and theory do not support these ideas. The nuclear winter hypothesis did not recognize that the globe's hydrologic cycle operates on a time scale of 8-10 days and that nuclear- spawned dust material would be quickly rained out of the atmosphere. The human-induced global warming scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean's deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change.

You will also find an abundance of material in the footnotes of Michael Crichton's book State of Fear, he actually has a series of lectures on the subject as well.

[Alexander Carpenter]

A scientist who quotes his "innate sense" and a novelist--yup, the jury is still out.

How's this for non-mediated evidence: "On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is 'clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.' The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."

Feel free to read it right here: http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

[Johnny]

I have to say, the Matt 25:10-13 reference was well done. It brought a smile to my face.

Cheers!

[Ron Corson]

It is rather typical of those who have not looked into other perspectives to belittle the other view by implying that it is the rare scientist or novelist that dispute the human caused global climate change. However it is to those people that we need to look (and there is far more then a rare scientist against the human caused global warming), because the counter position often asks the questions that others don't ask.

As regards your statement from the final government report you mislead the readers by not offering the parts which go against your theory. The statement reads:

"• Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature
change in space and time show clear evidence of human influences on the climate
system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).
• The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes
alone , nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols
and tropospheric ozone) alone."

No one denies human changes to climate such as the blacktop of cities or the smog etc. The question is does this cause global climate change. In the 1970's the popular science said we were entering a new period of cooling. see:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

If you have not read Crichton's speeches which clearly you have not you should read them because he deals with much more then the science, he deals with the suppositions of the media as well as the speculations which are so popular today in these issues.

You can read them at
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

[Alexander Carpenter]

Ron,

First, don't fall into the trap of defending yourself by assuming that the opponent hasn't considered your perspective. Although I am sure not in you, it can stem from a desire to be understood, rather than to be factually correct.

Second, I grant that the science hasn't answered every question, but one must understand how science operates. You might read Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions. There are still folks who argue logically that the earth is flat - and while it is fine to listen, one must come to the discussion with parameters for truth. Otherwise a person can be led along in codependent relationships with twisted evidence. Individual reports can be wrong, yes. Your evidence from the 70s is great - go back a few years and most of the community scoffed at plate drift. Scientific models change, and I would propose that we are coming to the end of another huge revolution. But just because everything is not explained or every scientist convienced, doesn't mean that the we shouldn't cut the heat. To really learn requires a person to articulate: what will it take to convince me otherwise. I assume that it is more than the word from Crichton.

Third, human activity doesn't explain everything about the rising temp. But it is the one part we can control. But as you admit it is a significant factor and it has been the biggest change in the world. Here is a great place to see a lot of clear evidence and helpful graphs at once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Alexander Carpenter]

Ron,

Wait, Glen Beck (some radio dj) and a novelist are your information choices on one of the most important SCIENTIFIC issues facing the human race. . .of course the jury will still seem out.

Did you really link to a page where the guy's motto is: The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

Both of their professional goals are not truth, but sales. As long as there is a debate, they have something to talk about. And as has been shown, some in the media have created a controversy around global warming when in fact, the scientific journals have not found a solid, peer-reviewed article that counters the evidence trend of climate change.

Start reading this Climate Science by Scientists. I think that you will appreciate the tone.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

[Ron Corson]

I put up a response to your posts and comments on my Blog (click my name)

Your above response shows what is in logic terms is called :

Ad Populum:

"This is a direct appeal to prejudice, or at best to passing popular sentiments. Less severely, this is simply an appeal to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. Sometimes less flatteringly called "pandering" or "jumping on the bandwagon."'

As if there is something wrong with the motto of "fusion between entertainment and enlightenment". Maybe you have been in school too long and think that boring lectures are the best way to reach people. Though it seems in my experience I often learned more from lecturers that were also entertaining. But then again I don't jump to conclusions such as "Both of their professional goals are not truth, but sales". But then that is because I try not to use such fallacious arguments.

You in general are not really dealing with the issues hence the title of my new post on my blog "when Science isn't Science". Because that is what we are dealing with here.

[johnny]

I came back to this post and honestly was surprised by the intense discussion.

I feel I can sidestep the whole global warming brouhaha by echoing the Biblical appeal by Alexander.

I agree that we should be promoting environmental care based on concepts of stewardship.

That is of course if we accept the premise that Christ in Matt. 25:14-30 set forth that we will be held accountable for what we do with the resources entrusted to us.

To be imparted with such a responsibility gives Christians motivations far beyond global warming doomsday scenarios to act for responsible use of the earth and its resources.

Certainly therefore we, as Christians, don't need global warming to prompt us to promote environmental concern.

We have that motivation already!

[Alexander Carpenter]

That we do--well said, Johnny.

It's also important not to shy away from science. As the comments above show, there is a tendency within Adventism that pays more attention to the commentary than to actual, careful research.

In pursuing present truth, the Adventist tradition of "the three angels' messages" and our early history points out the human responsibly to know both God's first (scripture) and second book (nature)--and to act upon that integrated knowledge.