Hi Nathan:

I enjoy your blogs. You are a very gifted writer. I agree completely that we need to stop interpreting Revelation through the prism of the latest headline of the International Herald Tribune. But as much as I enjoy reading your work, I most often find myself disagreeing with your positions regarding politics.

I hold deep reservations regarding man-made global warming theories. I believe that the science has been highly politicized and that the scholarly concensus, much like that behind evolution, is driven more by the quest for research dollars than by genuine scientific inquiry. So, I don't consider much of what passes for environmentalism to be a "righteous cause." I could comment similarly on various issues that you have linked with social justice. 

Of course, you're free to disagree with me. My concern is that an effort to turn the church leftwards in terms of the environment or politics leaves me outside looking in. I don't want my church to take such positions. This is not because I hate nature or the poor but because I have genuine disagreements that the political agenda of the Left really helps either the environment or the poor.  

In sum, the church seems alreadly plenty politicized over theology. To introduce advocacy for either political agenda seems to me a distraction from spreading the Gospel and, ironically, from encouraging SDAs to help the poor themselves rather than relying on the government to do so. 

Thanks again for your stimulating writing!

Dave Dildy

Amen, brother, amen!!!

Now that may make me sound ancient, but I'm not.  Rather, I passionately agree with what Nathan is saying.

It seems to me, however (and this is not scientifically validated), that the Adventist church is becoming more infiltrated with people who are subject to conspiracy theories.  Like Nathan I have received a number of examples, and have gone to some lengths to be removed from the mailing lists of such conspiracists.  At a time when the world expresses more scepticism over unproven claims, an element within the Adventist church are becoming more susceptible to these claims.  Is this a case of the gullible flooding into the Adventist church, or the intelligent leaving.

I wonder what it would take for conspiracists to see themselves for what they are.  Perhaps a web-based hall of shame would do the trick.  Or perhaps that would be an own goal - waving the dirty laundry while effecting no change.

That anthropogenic global warming is a hoax of titanic proportions has now been proven to all but the most clueless true believers.  That the purpose of this hoax was to concentrate more power in the hands of governments, local through global, is also obvious to all but the least discerning. 

If a government can get a sheeple to believe the carbon dioxide nonsense, it has a rationale to exercise control over what people drive, and how far they are allowed to drive, and even to force them onto mass transit, to control where people live in relation to where they work, to control how their houses and office buildings are built (to "green" standards), to control how often they travel and by what means, to control how often they are allowed to fly on airplanes, to control how their energy is produced, to control what they eat and how their food is produced, to control at what temperature they set their thermostats and how much electricity their televisions use.  In short, there isn't any human activity, including breathing itself--which emits carbon dioxide-- that is beyond the scope of carbon regulation.  It is the ultimate rationale for totalitarian government.  It is a tyrant's wet dream.   

The reason why the hoax won't work on a global scale is that China and India won't play along.  The government of China doesn't need a manufactured excuse to exercise totalitarian control over its population; they exercise such control as a matter of course, and if you disagree with them, they'll be more than happy to shoot you.  India is just so happy to recently be able to pull millions of its people out of the most dire poverty imaginable that they can't imagine sabotaging it all.

The conspiracy theorists are absolutely correct about the ultimate goal of the global warming hoax.  They're just ridiculously wrong about the speed with which that goal can actually be achieved. 

David Read is dead on. I wasn't even aware of the kook conspiracy theorist that Nathan refers to. But anyone who fails to see in the fraudulent global warming agenda, an end time sign, containing the fingerprints of those who seek world government, really has his head buried in the sand. 

Nathan, you started out by cautioning us against kooky alarmism. Fine, although I think it is a bit unfair to compare the Copenhagen prophecy with the Adventist eschatology of an imminent 2d Coming. But you keep veering off on the global warming agenda in a way that makes one wonder whether you are using alarmism as a sniper's perch to take shots at AGW skeptics. If so, please inform yourself before suggesting that there is any shred of scientific integrity left in the risible foundation built by paleoclimatologists, from which the Humpty Dumpty prophecies of catastrophic global warming have come crashing down. As a layperson who has closely followed climate science for the past three years, let me suggest that your analogy would have been far more felicitous had you compared SDA eschatological alarmism with the chicken littles of pseudoscience who tried to foist AGW on the world.

You should feel a bit chagrined, Nathan, to have chosen an analogy which was so transparently intended to make a political statement. Generally, in argument or persuasion, when one wants to make a point by analogy, he offers what is called a weak analogy - something that is universally accepted - rather than a strong analogy - one which is controversial. If you said, "just as the sun rises in the east..." your listener would know that you are stating the obvious. That would be a weak analogy. But if you said, "just as President Obama is a communist...", you would immediately raise objections in the mind of your listener that would make him resistant to the point you wanted to make - unless of course the political statement was a point you wanted to make as sort of a drive-by shooting, so that your readers couldn't really respond to it, because, after all, that wasn't your point.

Please, if you want to continue to tilt at AGW windmills, while the scientific community is fleeing the battlefield, do it directly, rather than hiding your sentiments in tendentious analogies.

David,

To either regard or call those who disagree with you on this, or any other subject, "clueless true believers" or "the least discerning" does little to advance your point, whatever it may happen to be, regardless of the topic.

At least part of the problem with political ideological fervor in a religious (i.e., Adventist) context is that it is not only distractive and divisive, but is often irrelevant as well. 

I now serve notice that I am stepping off of my soap box long enough to wholeheartedly concur with Nathan Brown at least in so far as the dangers of Adventists looking under every rock for a conspiracy and of extrapolating unprovable scenarios from any given current event. 

The danger of course is that if we ever, either corporately or individually, are mistaken about any theory that we promulgate in the context of our eschatology, it will call into question (to put it mildly) anything else that we believe; and thus weaken, if not nullify, our witness.

Theologically conservative Adventists, who consider EGW's writings to be either somewhat or strongly authoritative, really have no excuse for falling prey to these conspiracy theories; but are seemingly the most readily prone to do so. Her take concerning the prophecies of Revelation 12 and 13 clearly spells out the (particular) who, how, why, and in terms of what to look for, when. 

Ideologically-driven conspiracies are politically convenient, but theologically dangerous.

Now I have no idea what conspiracy theory has been running around Austrialia. Strangely in a blog which referenced it there is no link to the actual theory. I have my theories as to why that is but won't deal with it here. If one is going to talk about the Copanhagan conference there should be a mention of what the political forces of the conference were trying to do. Whether they were successful or not is another issue. In other words it is not a conspiracy theory if it is true. And any politically astute person should be troubled by what was going on there. As Lord Monckton wrote in his article:

--

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Ugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.

Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global

--

Actually most people don't really know what was going on at the conference and had no knowledge of the proposed treaty, because if they did some pseudo knowleable person from some media source might call them "climate change denier". see the treaty here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf 

Adventists with their roots in the Protestant Reformation had some reason to fear the rise of Roman Catholics to once again gain power. Their eschatology was based upon the assumption that what had happened a hundred years or so ago would happen again, they were not basing it upon the current happenings at their time in history but upon the prejudices so common among their fellow Americans. It is those kinds of prejudices which cause the problems whether by seeing things that aren't there or pretending what is there isn't. Both are equally harmful. And both rely on the views of people who don't really pay attention to reality.

Ron: 

The money quote from the piece you provided a link to is this:

A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.  . . .  Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.  However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.  He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”

Indeed, the global warming crowd are the political watermelons of our time:  green on the outside, red on the inside.

Where are we when we feel justified in red-baiting those who have a differing view of global warming? Those who believe that man-influenced global warming is real have a willingness to believe that it is real. Those who believe that man-influenced global warming is a hoax have a willingness to believe that is a hoax.

Would it be reasonable for those who are willing to believe that global warming is real, to accuse those who are willing to believe that it is a hoax, as reactionary plutocrats or corporate oligarchists? Of course not.

Why then would it be reasonable for those who are willing to believe it is a hoax, to accuse those who are willing to believe it is real, as being communist or communist-sympathizers? 

Stephen:  It isn't unfair to characterize someone who sympathizes with communists as a communist sympathizer. 

Whether global warming is real or hoax is not finally the point; I couldn't care less whether someone does or doesn't believe in manmade global warming.  The problem is the radical measures promoted to cure global warming, which are certain to impoverish me, my loved ones, and my nation, and take away my personal freedom.  These are the certain results of the proposed cure to an uncertain problem, and even if I believed in global warming, I'd still want to fry as a free man rather than chill out as a slave.

So perhaps I should not belittle anyone who believes in global warming.  You go right on believing.  But if you want to impose draconian solutions that prevent me from driving my car as far and as often as I want, or flying as often as I want, or setting my thermostat where I want it, then we're going to have a problem.  And of course, the draconian solutions, the totalitarian control, is the entire purpose of the global warming hoax.

Your questions, Stephen, make absolutely no sense. Those who have exposed the AGW frenzy as a hoax have no political agenda or discernible ideological alignment. They are statisticians, mathematicians and scientists whose only agenda has been getting the data and finding out how paleoclimatologists got from the data to their conclusions. Precisely what plutocratic or oligarchical agenda would you match with what AGW skeptics?

To ignore the leftist agenda behind Copenhagen is to deny the obvious facts.  If you need to be told what those facts are, the facts will be of no consequence to you. It puzzles me that those who embrace wealth redistribution and statism as moral imperatives bristle at being identified with their Marxist spiritual ancestors.

It also puzzles me, Stephen, that an intelligent person such as yourself would use a straw man fallacy to suggest a moral equivalency between traditional science to get at data and post-normal science to advance a "higher" moral imperative. No one has suggested that those who are "willing to believe" that global warming is real are communists. Rather, the argument is that those who want to use AGW to control the world are communists. Now, why don't you find a leader of the skeptics who is trying to use science to create a global political body to corral the economies of the world by insisting that AGW alarmism be backed by publicly accessible, verifiable, repeatable data? Then you might at least have the makings of an argument. 

Gentlemen (David and Nathan S.),

I stand by my comments and questions. If you are most comfortable with ad hominem argumentation with those who disagree with you on AGW, then have at it. I have not taken a public position on this controversy, just the rhetoric. 

However, in answer to Nathan's fair question about plutocracy and/or corporate oligarchy and AGW skepticism (since I brought it up), I would simply point out that anything that would cause regulation limiting emission of greenhouse gases would seemingly have an effect on whatever causes emission of greenhouse gases.

This would have production implications for corporate manufacturers and other interests whose processes or products emit greenhouse gases. These interests would logically stand to benefit from minimizing anything that would catalyze such regulation, let's put it that way.

Without getting into anything stated here already, I'll just state that I'm both open-minded and concerned about the possibility that AGW is real. I think a lot of people, including many (possibly the majority) of the scientists who study it, are also genuine in their open-mindedness.

Those who seek to perpetuate the evidence falsely (creating a hoax of a situation that may or may not be real) or dismiss all evidence unilaterally are the ones who concern me the most. My point: there's plenty of middle ground, and we should be careful not to impose on others or even suggest that there is a dichotomy of views.

Okay...I will comment on these two remarks:

"That anthropogenic global warming is a hoax of titanic proportions has now been proven to all but the most clueless true believers."

"But anyone who fails to see in the fraudulent global warming agenda, an end time sign, containing the fingerprints of those who seek world government, really has his head buried in the sand."

Come on, you guys. Your arrogance is showing. I don't believe for one minute that you guys have read the thousands of scientific reports showing evidence for or against anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Even if you did, neither of you has the background or training to interpret the results or the conclusions. And to be more to the point, no one has shown that all or even the majority of evidence for AGW has been manufactured or manipulated (some of it? no doubt). So let's be clear: you don't have a clue of what is real based on facts; you have made up your minds based solely on a very select collection of opinions about the facts. Have you honestly been open-minded to both interpretations? Somehow I don't think so.

Now here are some real facts, some real data for you guys to swallow: the majority of Americans still believe global warming is real and that human activities are a contributing factor. Do you really believe the majority of Americans are "the most clueless true believers" who "have their heads buried in sand?" Stop the hubris, guys. The data on who thinks what are here for all to see: 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

I'll be the first to admit that I lack the expertise to reach a conclusion on anthropogenic global warming. I don't mind waiting for more evidence and concensus before making up my mind. But for now, the millions of Americans and many sincere scientists like me who lack the confidence that sufficient facts are in should be given a bit more respect.

You know...come to think of it, there have been some hoaxes about Noah's Ark. Hmmm....clearly anyone who believes Noah's flood was real has their head in the sand...

Stephen,

I suppose you would would also take issue with Jesus telling the religious police of his day that they were of their father, the devil...white-washed sepulchers...a den of thieves? Observing that the Copenhagen conference agenda was driven by fascists, communists, and their sympathizers isn't overheated rhetoric. It is an easily proven fact, unless of course you want to argue that Cuba, Venezuela and other kleptocracies around the world don't  fit those descriptions.

You can choose your opinions, but you cannot choose your facts. The reality is that Exxon-Mobile, British Petroleum, and other fossil fuel producers are funding climate alarmism, and have come out strongly in favor of global CO2 emission controls. Globalized industries love global political agendas. They have become infatuated with the political power and influence that ironically come from being too-big-to-fail subjects of faux indignation by politicians who regulate them for their own political and financial gain.. 

Ratherization of your argument ("I may not have gotten all the facts right, but the story is true.") is hardly an enviable perch. It seemed reasonable and logically to the ancients that the earth was the center of the universe. But the facts didn't bear that out. When one makes assertions that are demonstrably false, he should not expect his argument to be treated with dignity and respect. There is no moral virtue in seeking a middle ground between extreme right and extreme wrong.  

Nathan,

Obviously, Jesus was uniquely qualified to cast judgement on "the religious police of His day," in whatever terms He opted to do so. What this possibly has to do with you (or anyone else who has ever lived) labeling as evil those who simply happen to disagree with you on a particular subject--in this instance, a scientific controversy--is beyond me. 

This much is clear, that both sides of this debate have funding, and thus funding sources. "The reality," as you put it, that fossil fuel producers have funded the other side, from your perspective, does not negate "the reality" that AGW non-believers have ideologically and/or financially motivated funding sources as well.  

I repeat, I have not taken a public position on AGW, so this "ratherization" characterization of my non-position is "rather" puzzling. I do have an issue with ad hominem debate however, for what it's worth. To me, it is a sign of weakness; on multiple fronts.

I am not a scientist and have done no research on climatology or anything remotely related to the AGW controversy. You may be a scientist who has done so and, if so, are in a position to have an enlightened opinion on the subject. However there seem to be well regarded scientists on both sides of this debate, all of whom may well be ideologically motivated for all I know.

Nonetheless, the science on either side is not made more persuasive by judging those on the opposite side as evil. Perhaps the "extreme right" and "extreme wrong" line was just an attempted, tongue-in-cheek, clever play on words. You deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Whoa...

"Observing that the Copenhagen conference agenda was driven by fascists, communists, and their sympathizers isn't overheated rhetoric. It is an easily proven fact, unless of course you want to argue that Cuba, Venezuela and other kleptocracies around the world don't  fit those descriptions."

I had a personal friend there who went on his own accord, and he described quite a few other individuals, some I know of but not personally. I enjoyed his description of events, but he would laugh quite hard at this characterization. Were you there?

"The reality is that Exxon-Mobile, British Petroleum, and other fossil fuel producers are funding climate alarmism, and have come out strongly in favor of global CO2 emission controls."

Are you serious, Nathan? These companies want a CAP on how much CO2-producing oil they can sell? They want to sell us LESS of their products? Why?

I take it you buy into the conclusions of this paper: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

Now who do you suppose funded their paper? I would guess it's the same people who paid for the paper to be mailed to me and thousands of other scientists across the nation. (And I would have guessed it might be the same people you claim are actually trying to reduce CO2 emissions.) By the way, you might want to do a little background reading on these authors.

Speaking of spin...

Here are some details on global warming skeptics and their funding:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon-Funded_Skeptics

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870

And Exxon-Mobil favors global CO2-emission controls? This one was interesting:

http://griid.org/2009/11/04/the-road-to-copenhagen-climate-change-and-climate-deniers/ (excerpt: "Exxon-Mobil has spent between $17 – 23 million dollars to fund groups that deny global warming, according to the research done by Exxpose Exxon")

I am seeing from my Google search that Exxon may have recently reversed its position on global warming, but I don't have the time to sort out the issue, and I remain skeptical about much of the reporting. There's no shortage of propaganda on BOTH sides.

ProfessorNotKent,

Your comments are usually quite cogent, but on this topic the wheels seem to have come off. First you say I don't have a clue what is based on real facts (At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have for the past 2 1/2 years, been a highly informed and engaged layperson when it comes to global warming issues, and I am an avid consumer of articles and websites on both sides of the debate, such as "realclimate.org" and "wattsupwiththat"). Then, having just called me clueless, you offer the polled opinion of the majority of Americans that AGW is real (you must be looking at older polls than I have seen recently), and dare me to call them clueless. Are you kidding!  Am I to understand that, when it comes to the science of life origins, you will now be deferring to the majority of Americans, who also believe in the Genesis story of creation? In one sentence, you imply that I cannot possibly have an informed opinion unless I am part of the "pal review" (euphemistically called peer review) club. Then, a few sentences later, you argue for the democratization of climate science. Come on! You're better than this.

Why do you insist on refuting what you want to assume I meant, instead of engaging with what I actually said? I have not argued that there are not special interests who oppose the AGW agenda. Of course there are! What I have contended is that those mathematicians, statisticians, meterologists, physicists, etc., who have exposed the stonewalling of FOI requests, cherrypicking of data, and manipulation of data by the paleoclimatology community do not have a political or economic agenda.

In order to create moral symmetry between the incontrovertible political agenda of the paleoclimatologists, whose fraud is being exposed, and the scientific community exposing them, Stephen falsely implied that the latter were nefariously tied in with plutocrats and corporatists. You then set up a false dichotomy between the reality of "those who perpetuate evidence falsely" and the straw man of "those who dismiss all evidence." Personally, I can cite many instances of AGW experts who fall into the first category. Can you name any AGW skeptic experts who fall into the latter category? I suspect not. If not, you have created a fiction in order to find "plenty of middle ground" and create the illusion of moral symmetry between scientists on both sides of the debate. This is one of the more common fallacies indulged in by postmodernists to evade the necessity of dealing with opposing truth claims.

The IPCC reports, computer models projecting catastrophic warming, and public perception of global warming rest overwhelmingly upon the work of a few paleoclimatologists who have collected actual and proxy  temperature data, then adjusted and smoothed, and mixed that data to come up with temperature charts that show steady warming over the past 100 years - particularly since 1940 - that correlates with rising CO2. Their work was the centerpiece and platform for Al Gore's ironically titled movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Those scientists, publicly funded, have steadfastly refused to make their original data and formulae available to the public for many years.  This alone should be reason enough for anyone interested in intellectual honesty to say there is no trustworthy foundation for AGW claims. Of course, in the past 6 months, an avalanche of evidence indicating fraud and manipulation, not limited to the "CRUtape letters", has been forthcoming, leaving no doubt that the "climate change" mask adorning Copenhagen Conference was nothing but faux moral cover to advance a globalist, totalitarian political agenda. 

Nathan,

Let me make clear my positions without any reference to yours:

(1) I don't believe that all or even the majority of evidence for AGW is fabricated, and suspect that the majority of reseachers finding evidence for AGW are sincere and do their science properly.

(2) When there is ample evidence of plenty of funding for AGW skeptics, I don't believe for a minute that the AGW-skeptic researchers lack a political or economic agenda (someone is paying for their research and efforts to publicize their views).

(3) The majority of Americans still believe AGW is real, according to the 2010 Gallup poll I provided a link to in my prior post:

www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

(4) I personally don't have complete confidence in whether AGW is real; I'm content to wait and see.

I don't want you to feel attacked. I just wanted to offer some balance to what I saw as hubris, and I don't care to back up my positions further. You're a cool guy, and I do respect and admire your efforts to stay informed and balanced.

Nathan,

I don't mind being labeled, I do mind being misquoted. My "false" implication of "moral symmetry"  that you cite, initially came in the form of an analogy appealing to you to avoid such a broad brushed similar implication of the other side. In fact I said that it would not be reasonable to imply that those (interests) on your side of the argument are necessarily plutocrats or corporatist oligarchists.

You appear to be deeply invested emotionally in this subject. If you insist on classifying those who disagree with you on this as globally subversive and/or evil, so be it.

That said, I disagree that there is a link between the environmental movement and Adventist doctrinal eschatology. There is no allusion to the environmental movement in Daniel 7 through 9, nor in Revelation 12 and 13, nor in The Great Controversy narrative. 

Be well, my friend. 

Stephen, you seem to deny that there is a subversive/evil agenda underlying the movement to spend tens of trillions of dollars that the world doesn't have to avert climate apocalypse. I think there is such an agenda, and I think it is evil.  But I surely don't think folks who disagree with me about the existence of such an agenda are evil - just misguided and ill-informed. That is a very different issue from whether AGW is real. Many people who believe it is real are skeptical of the magnitude of the threat, and have deep reservations about the radical solutions being proposed by the Copenhagen organizers. The fact that polls consistently rank global warming as dead last among issues of concern to Americans, indicates that most people do not see it as a significant threat. If you are interested in really looking at the evidence, may I suggest a recent publication which comprehensively examines the claims and evidence on both sides - The Hockey Stick Illusion. Stephen Mosher also has an excellent book out, entitled: Climategate: The Crutape Letters, which provides a compelling context to honestly confront the moral issues and motivations which have driven climate science for the past ten years.

I do feel passionately that objective truth can be approximated, and that it is important to try and do so. Of course not all truth comes in the form of objective evidence.  But I believe that any Truth, in the form of ideology, which blinds us to available objective evidence, is extremely dangerous, and has the potential to become demonic.  In fact, I think this is the larger truth that Nathan Brown's blog is getting at. Unfortunately, his example created a jarring cognitive dissonance for me by implying that AGW skeptics are kook extremists, a conventional trope of postmodernism which inverts and caricaturizes reality in order to deny respectability to any opposition. (c.f., Janet Napolitano warning security agencies to profile conservative activists as posing a potential threat of violence) 

Let me take this a step farther - and here I think even ProfessorNot Kent might agree with me. You say that the environmental movement is not alluded to in Daniel 7-9 or in Revelation 12 & 13, nor is it a part of Adventist eschatology. I'm not sure what you mean by "alluded to", but Daniel and Revelation are full of symbols which every generation has applied to its own experience for at least two thousand years.  Do you really think that those symbols and passages allude to the SDA Church or the Papacy? Those symbols and passages most clearly and unequivocally direct our attention to forces which war against The Most High and oppress His followers. Adventist eschatology doesn't account for secularism or militant Islam, the two great spiritual forces in the world today that war against Christians. It didn't account for communism or fascism. Does that mean we ignore them? To the extent that any Truth claim (I use capital "T" to reference the universality of a truth claim),  denies God or distorts His character,  that Truth claim is demonic.  To the extent that SDA eschatology merely reifies the ghosts of historic "principalities and powers", it will become self-referential, irrelevant and powerless. Can we agree on that? 

Guys,

You good people use big words. There ain't no additional degree I can benefit from, so I ain't goin' back to school to learn more. And I ain't got the time of day to Google every big word you're using. I was taught long ago that if someone can't understand what I'm saying, then I ain't sayin' it right. Maybe you guys oughta think about this here observation.

So...I can't tell who thinks Adventist eschatology says exactly what about the environment. It all sounds so hyperconvulutimated. Can you pleaz make it simple for simple folk like me? If you'd be so kind, then maybe I can tell ye fer sure just which one of you guys I happen to agree with.

Here is what I do know. The Bible that I grew up with makes very clear that God cares about all life forms, not just those he thoughtfully designed with bulbous noses to support a pair of spectacles and labyrinthine ears to conveniently hide hearing aids (hey, how's them for a couple fancy words of my own, eh?). Adam was instructed to care for the "garden," and frankly, every since, we've ignored that command and created one big mess of the planet instead. In my experience, Adventists have always seemed to care a great deal about the Creator and the Created ("nature" seems to be a revered word, often called "God's Second Book"), but for some reason they have very little concern about slaughtering many of the Creatures and rendering much of the Creation uninhabitable to anything but the ones with bulbous noses and labyrinthine ears (i.e., those that resemble you and me, though we could throw in a chimp to entertain the antidarwinists among us).

If one of you fellows is suggesting the Adventist Church oughta care a bit more about the Creation, I'm in total agreement. Maybe, if the Church could get behind this, folks could actually get along with each other and use their time for something practical and good--trying to save the Creation--rather than arguing incessantly and unproductively about how Creation came about in the first place. If the Adventist Church actually has some programs promoting Creation Care, as other Church groups have begun to do, I sure wish I could learn more about it.

I would assume that the originator of this blog might wonder what happened to the proposed topic on church alarmists.  Initially, while I found the AGW discussion very engaging, it also appeared to be a rabbit trail, veering off the original subject.  However, with further reflection, it seems that when concerns with alarmists extend outside the church, the discussion is still in line with the first post.  While SDA’s by history might be seen as having a propensity to paranoia and sounding the alarm concerning forces mounted against them, such tendencies are evident in various movements and individuals throughout history. 

History is the only valid arbiter of whether a given alarmist position was a valid warning or bogus distraction.  And history also suggests that most of us aren’t very good at discerning when a voice crying in the wilderness should be heeded.  If not, I and many others would be much richer, having heeded warnings of the few who sounded the alarm about the subprime meltdown (warnings that the vast majority of “experts” dismissed).  Unfortunately, most in today’s society appear to have little interest in history and what it might teach us about avoiding mistakes and failed approaches of the past.  Alarmists of the past who end up being validated were usually well grounded in facts and history.  Unfortunately, in present day culture, facts and history take a distant back seat to money and power. 

My information on AGW is limited and based on what I hear in general mainstream news and commentary.  But I must admit that so far, I find the AGW movement to be highly suspect.  I do find the previous “middle of the road” suggestion to be rather tempting.  But in the current climate, there seems to be little room for that.  I would be happy if the AGW advocates would say that the jury remains out and we need more data and observation before we can take any definitive position on this.  However, instead, they are sounding the alarm, demanding radical change and control over various aspects of energy consumption and emissions in a manner that will have a rather drastic effect on the economy.  One might argue that history could show that these alarmists are sounding valid warnings and, given the purported small window of opportunity to avert disaster, the case is made for immediate action. However, the best case scenarios I have heard suggest that even with radical measures taken, we are likely to lower the temperature by no more than ½ of a degree in next 40-50 years (based on the fact that even if man is contributing, it is still a small percentage). 

Few can argue with the fact that implementing the radical policies advocated by the ardent AGW people will have huge consequences, with the likelihood of prolonged recession, lower productivity and suffering of many.  Unless they can point to the likelihood that they can effect a far more dramatic reversal of their envisioned global warming that continues to be debatable, it’s hard to make the case for their radical solutions.  Is the science on this so convincingly settled that we are willing to flush a major portion of our GDP down the tube simply to limit man-made greenhouse gases that are having debatable impact? Considering the upside and downside potential, there is a far greater negative potential from implementing AGW policies if they are wrong, than going with the skeptics position if they are wrong.  As a follower of Christ, considering that “the least of these” in both Western society and the third world are likely to suffer the most under radical AGW policies, I must say that it’s hard to make the case for elitist approaches that pose such risk to the most vulnerable. 

I am also skeptical because the solutions they recommend ignore the biggest culprit.  It is my understanding that greenhouse gas emissions from all our factories and transportation put together are far surpassed by what is put out by cattle and the entire meat industry.  So if this is such a crisis, why don’t they simply push to end meat production and consumption?  This seems far less intrusive than most of the other measures proposed. There would also be the side benefit of helping world hunger, since it takes 17 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.  However, I suspect that this simple solution is less attractive, because it doesn’t allow for the control and taxation of various aspects of individual and corporate life, as would be the case with the focus on fuel emissions. 

I appreciated the site on public polling provided by ProfessorNotKent.  But it wasn’t exactly convincing of the notion that there is widespread support for AGW.  That site clearly shows that the trends in recent years are going against this and if they continue at the same rate, soon, even the bare majority that buy some parts of AGW will be gone.  Once the majority becomes educated as to the numerous bogus claims that tend to undermine whatever valid science there might be, I suspect this trend will increase.  48% now believe the AGW claims have been exaggerated.  Two thirds don’t believe global warming will affect them in their lifetime and only half believe that warming is due to human activity. 

Not that I’m a big believer in democratizing the science of this.  (After all the majority voted for Obama who campaigned on increased government takeover, and now sudden the majority are wishing for smaller government.) But given the politicization of it all, democratizing to some degree seems unavoidable.  However, if popular opinion is taken into account, one can hardly make the case the there is much depth to any belief in AGW.  A poll taken about two months ago asked to prioritize the greatest areas of concern; health care, the economy, the war, etc. Of the 28 items asked about, global warming came in dead last.  

While this blog began with concerns over the church alarmists and our need to be alert rather than mindlessly sounding the alarm, as Christians in the world, we must be vigilant concerning the potential for bogus alarmists both in and outside of the church.  These can threaten our spiritual life, as we become caught up in alarms that call us to man-made solutions that are ultimately doomed to fail.  I find it rather puzzling that Copenhagen or any other circumstances would ellicit alarm and panic among believers. I can buy the alert, but I would hope that our faith would negate the need for alarm. After all, our belief gives us a unique perspective, knowing that eventually evil will play out, ushering in the end of time. Even after all my extensive exposure to SDA eschatology, I’m not clear on how discerning the manner in which this plays out will impact my salvation. In the ultimate scheme of God’s eternity, the most relevant and timeless alarm is the one that alerts us to our desperate need for His transformative presence in our lives. For me, that’s one alarm that is firmly based in fact, history and experience, one that cannot be ignored.  

Just a few thoughts:

What we have today is not handed to us by our ancestors as much as it is borrowed from our children. What will we leave our children with?

Forget AGW; look at the other consequences of our carbon-rich lifestyle. We're polluting our air, land, waterways, and even remote seas (seabirds are feeding lethal plastics to their babies on the most remote Pacific islands!); we're absolutely choking on smog (any of you folks live in L.A.?); we're chopping down our forests and causing widespread desertification (especially in developing countries); we're losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate; we're destroying invaluable and irreplaceable ecosystem services that our very survival depends on; and Brad Pitt and Agelina Jolie might be breaking up. Our children have the highest rates of asthma and obesity our nation has ever seen (and they're still increasing). And we don't want to crimp our lifestyle because...well...let's face it, we're downright selfish. We want what we want and we don't care what our children will get.

I'll get to more in my next post...

Livestock production is indeed a menace to the planet. As the single largest anthropogenic user of land, it accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and occupies 30% of the land surface of the planet. That's insane, not to mention unsustainable. It accounts for 20% of the global terrestrial animal mass! It's a key driver of things like deforestation, desertification, and soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation of waterways. 

Livestock production accounts for 9% of anthropogenic CO2 emisions, 37% of anthropogenic methane (having 23 times the global warming potential of CO2), 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (having 296 times the global warming potential of CO2), and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emisions (which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems). Altogether, the livestock sector is responsible for a whopping 18% of "greenhouse gas emissions" (in CO2 equivalents)! 

Livestock production satisfies the palates of developed countries while depriving developing countries of more economical and sustainable means of nutrition and income.

Fortunately, all of this and more have been noticed by environmentalists, as summarized in an exhaustively documented United Nations report: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM.

I suggest that reading Livestock's Long Shadow (the UN report) will educate one better about the real and legitimate concerns about this planet's welfare than any book on AGW. Anyone hungry for a Big Mac?

Do we have reason for alarm? Take heed of this prophecy: "The time has come...for destroying those who destroy the earth." (Revelation 11:18)

ProfessorNotKent:

First, defining what we have in terms of what is handed to us versus barrowed from our children is certainly in the eyes of the beholder and based on what is considered of value. Many would argue that we are passing on a world with much more in the way of the good life (assurance of warm bed and food, creature comforts, pleasure, technological advances, etc.) than the world in which we grew up.  While the secularists would join you in lamenting the environmental devastation, they would also certainly argue that man is bettering themselves and moving toward a world order of social justice and the higher morality of equality where divisions of faith, ideology and politics are all but erased in future generations.  Secular progressives would argue that we are passing on a better world for all, as boundaries that separate diminish, to the point we are all one world community, with our oneness being the ultimate value which takes precedence over all other unique values that might cause divisiveness. 

But I must also share you concern over the negative we are passing on to our children, though with a different emphasis.  While environmental concerns cannot be ignored, we are leaving far worse things to our children than any modern day ecological devastation.  Our entitlement society is leaving them with wholly unrealistic expectation and demands, with a miss match of character and discipline that is not likely to end well.  And the greatest immorality done to our children is our decision to rob from them in order to satisfy our own immediate desires/needs that we are unwilling to pay for (in the form of our unsustainable national debt). 

Many of the current proposals for saving the environment will cause the debt for future generations to skyrocket.  Given the irresponsible spending of the previous administration that has been unconscionably multiplied by the current administration, I think it’s safe to say that fifty years hence, no matter what the environmental status, future generations will be railing far more about our lack of fiscal responsibility than they will over any lack of environmental concern. 

You say, “Forget AGW.”  I only wish I could, along with everyone else. The current AGW agenda (which designates my breathing as contributing to global warming) makes any other environmental expense pale in comparison, proposing legislation that will cost multi-trillions worldwide.  So I’m more than happy you want to forget it.

As a lifelong vegetarian (almost vegan), I was happy to learn from your stats that I am practicing not only a healthy, but also environmentally friendly lifestyle.  However, in fairness, it’s not exactly a selfless sacrifice, since I’ve never known anything else. I think it’s tempting to champion an area of morality that we already practice without problem, giving some sense of moral superiority.  And much of the values and morality around environmental concerns are based on a kind of political correctness, more reality.  I would guess that most, including Obama and his crowd would much rather that all convert to hybrid or electric cars than become vegan. (Speaking of hypocrisy on the left, our environmentally conscious president hasn’t even given up smoking).  And I think the hybrid drivers who are further trashing the environment by the production demanded to satisfy their feel-good environmentally friendly vehicles would be viewed as far more environmentally conscious than a vegetarian like me driving a ’92 Tempo.

I’m not sure of the connection between the environment and the medical concerns you mentioned. The epidemic of obesity is a reflection of a general lack of self-discipline in society.  Most eat too much.  Whether that is environmentally friendly or unfriendly food, too much of it will make one fat.  Asthma is certainly exacerbated by environmental pollution but many other factors are involved. And the vulnerability for this condition is based on many other issues, such as lack of breast feeding, genetics and respiratory infections.

I do agree with your conclusions that we have become increasingly selfish. But I find myself concerned with the agenda that for many seems to follow this conclusion.  The usual political correctness and secular agenda today is that we need to respond to our selfish tendencies by advocating social justice, redistribution the wealth, policing the environment, etc. Since we are all so self-centered, the only way to effect a more just society is to force charity, changes in energy used, etc. through legislation.  It is ironic that the very government that has championed a nanny state, perpetuating an increasing sense of entitlement, now laments the narcissistic society it has helped create, one that they must now force to be more charitable, socially conscious and environmentally sensitive. 

For me, the whole social/environmental agenda misses the point or Christ’s message.  I’m not opposed to good stewardship of the environment or to sharing my plenty with the least of these.  But that is an outgrowth of my faith, not the heart of it. Yet many modern day Christians see the heart of their faith to be creating a more just and clean world.  I’m reminded of the old hymn, “This world is not my home,” that today might be better titled, “A better world can be my home.” This is the case to such an extent that modern day Christians view their primary mandate to be improving life on this earth, becoming political advocates for social justice and the environment in a manner that will force their agendas, removing free choice from the equation.

It is debatable whether this will create a better world, but even if it would, is that really the heart of Christ’s message? As is frequently the case with textual quotes used to support an agenda, you left out a significant portion of Revelation 11:18 in your post.  I will readily admit that I’m no student or expert in Revelation (as most of it has me rather lost). But read in context, most would be hard pressed to say that the point of the text was to sensitize believers to the environment.  It appears that “destroying those who destroy the earth” is referring to the general destructiveness of evil more than any concern with the environment.  After all, it’s hard to argue that when Christ returns He will be all that concerned with the shaped of our physical environment, given His plans to destroy the whole thing and make a new earth anyway. 

But more to the point, let’s look at the entire text. “The nations were angry and your time has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverenced your name, both small and great—and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” This is about when Christ comes to establish a whole new spiritual order with His people, those who have revered His name.  And I don’t think that the main ones He plans to destroy are those have been the most environmentally irresponsible.  Neither do I read that His salvation will extend primarily to those who attempted to make the earth a better place in which to live. 

Christians who become overly caught up in economic/social/environmental justice run the risk of missing Christ.  (Parenthetically, when I looked up Creation Cares, the site appeared to be totally onboard with AGW).  I have trouble imagining if Christ were here today that He would champion causes for world improvement as a primary agenda to the degree that is evident is much of the social/environmental justice Christians. Few would argue that it is far easier to have faith with a primary agenda of these just causes than to have the essential focus be Christ in us, capitulating to His work of transforming us. 

He didn’t invite us to be of the world, primarily focused on creating a more environmentally friendly and just world. Rather, we are called to be daily crucified with Him letting His life increasingly play out in ours, to such an extent that hopefully, increasingly, little in this world will be much cause for alarm.

Getting back to the alarmed, not alert theme, it is intestesting to observe what alarms and alerts command the attention of Christian communities. Most polls suggests that the majority of believers don't demonstrate lives any more transformed than those of non-believers. Yet there appears of be far more focus on themes of social justice and the environment than on the deploarble morals of this world that are sadly mirrored in most communities of faith. 

I hear Christ seeking changed lives far more that a changed environment and more just world.  I wonder what change might occur within the lives our communities of faith and others who surround us, if the same zeal (in terms of time and energy for social/environmental/economic justice) was given to daily dying to self, exchanging His life for the life of self, allowing Him to transform us as we become increasing focused on His world rather than our own. 

 Revelation 11:18 is a strong prophetic text backing up the man made destruction of the earth.  When you look at the horrific raping of the God's creation in China and India alone, and the other developing countries, its dramatic fulfillment in our time cannot be denied.  On the other hand, when it comes to the climate change issue it seems to be a mixed picture. One cannot ignore the shrinkage of the Alaskan glaciers, its quite visible to for all to see.  But, on balance, they experienced near record low temps: Tok, AK -75F!  How's that for global warming! 

Given my relative ignorance on Revelation, I decided to educate myself with reviewing some commentary on Revelation 11:18.  Several gave similar interpretations to the following: 

The time came ] to destroy those who destroy the earth = is the final event introduced by John that occurs immediately after God Almighty takes back His rightful rule over the earth. The verb to destroy in the Greek literally means "to cause the complete destruction of someone or something — ‘to destroy utterly (Louw-Nida, § 20.40)." The object of this utter destruction is "those who destroy the earth." Those who destroy have the same verb as to destroy just referenced. Scholars do not agree on its meaning here. Most claim a figurative meaning here. The sense is those who morally ruin the earth (Louw-Nida, § 88.266). God will physically destroy those who have bankrupted the people. This is the expressed purpose of the bowl judgments, which constitutes the third "woe." The primary party guilty of morally ruining the earth is the "great harlot" of Revelation 17-18.

http://www.revelationcommentary.org/11_chapter.html

So obviously this is subject to different interpretations.  None of the commentaries I read referred to this primarily referencing environmental destruction.  If this were a major point of the prophesy, it certainly is not reflected much in other prophetic messages in Revelation or the rest of Scripture. 

Thank you guys for your comments. All taken well.

"Creation Care" is a phrase used by many of the not-so-many Christian groups who advocate environmental stewardship. "Creation Cares" was a typo on my part--sorry about that--and I have no idea (or interest) in which of these groups look favorably upon AGW. Does the SDA Church advocate "Creation Care?" (I can probably Google this myself.)

To this statement, "I’m reminded of the old hymn, 'This world is not my home,' that today might be better titled, 'A better world can be my home,'" I say "AMEN!" 

ProfessorNot Kent,

I'd really suggest you read Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. The fact that you are unaware of how much cleaner the air in the L.A. basin is than it was 40 years ago suggests you may not be too interested in evidence that challenges your deeply held beliefs. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a greenhouse gas. Life expectancy is greater throughout the world; waterways are cleaner, at least in this country; more people are being fed than ever before, and the percentage of those in poverty, though deplorably high, is lower than ever. I could go on and on. But I would simply be parroting information which is available from more credible, informed sources.  

Quite frankly, you are sounding increasingly like the fringe alarmists that Nathan Brown warned of: "The gods are angry; we have offended Mother Gaia; humankind is the apocalyptic destroyer of the earth. The Mayans placated the gods by sacrificing children. Perhaps we can do them one better. Let's placate the gods by putting our childrens' futures and Western civilization itself on the altar."

Nathan,

I'm familiar with air quality issues in Los Angeles (the more relevant question is will they be better 40 years from now?) and the many factors contributing to the ongoing epidemic of asthma in the United States (e.g., hygiene, obesity, changing demographics, sedentary lifestyle...and dare I mention higher air temperatures). Non-CO2 air pollutants are also contributory, and Los Angeleans undeniably generate more than their fair share.

I don't disagree substantially with your current assessment of human life on this planet (however cherry-picked your facts might be). My concerns, however, are summarized in one easily ignored word: SUSTAINABILITY. If my concerns about the next generation translate into "fringe alarmist" in your thinking, however caricaturized, that's fine by me. So be it.

By the way, Nathan, who do you suggest we should thank for the cleaner air and water in the U.S.?

And do you find it interesting that positive changes in longevity and poverty have taken place while regulations and costs associated with environmental clean-up have increased simultaneously?

ProfessorNot Kent,

If you think I am suggesting that the government has no proper role in protecting the environment, you have misunderstood me.  I do expect government policy to emerge from the consent of the governed - not from imperial courts that declare CO2 to be a pollutant, and not from regulatory diktats that declare polar bears to be a threatened species. More importantly, I am dismayed by a morality that would see virtue in any policies which deprive our children and grandchildren of the opportunity for self-determination by saddling them with tens of trillions in debt - all to allay a hypothesized apocalypse that even its promoters concede is subject to high degrees of uncertainty.  

At least when religion uses alarmism to advance its agenda it doesn't coercively impoverish non-believers, rob future generations, and call it stewardship; and it doesn't use billions of dollars to prostitute science for political agendas.

Longevity and poverty are pretty far off topic. But since you asked, let me remind you that correlation is not causation. Longevity has been steadily improving since the beginning of the 20th Century, and is far more readily correlated with advances in medicine and technology produced by free enterprise than with government regulation.  And as for poverty, if you look at government figures, it is hard to make a case for the proposition that government spending has done much of anything except to perpetuate poverty, which is only to be expected. When you subsidize something, you get more of it; when you tax it, you get less. 

Nathan, I liked your response. I'm finished with this topic (and thank you, Nathan Brown, for tolerating some topic divergence). Is Stephen your brother per chance, and a lawyer as well?

If you guys are into baseball, I hope the home teams win this year (LA Angels, LA Dodgers). May their fans generate a lot of heat and greenhouse emissions!

Let me echo the expression of appreciation to Nathan Brown, with whom I almost always disagree, for stimulating thought and conversation that forces me to test my values and beliefs against those of other thoughtful, concerned Christians. Yes, ProfessorNot Kent, Stephen and I are brothers, though he is a child psychiatrist. I realized I couldn't handle you by myself, so called in the cavalry.  It's been a fun exchange. Thank you.

You might be interested to note that the American Chemical Society just came out with what I (even as a non-vegetarian) found to be a rather unconvincing statement that meat and dairy production are not major factors in CO2 emissions. If you go to the "wattsupwiththat" website, you'll find the article posted on March 22, under the heading "ACS:going veggie won't impact global warming".

GO DODGERS!