For the average person, there is no way to understand or discuss the climate issues - it is far too complicated with some factors adding and some subtracting, some affecting certain areas more than others.
What is simple to understand for anyone is: humans have dug up, drilled, extracted millions of tons of hydro-carbons that were not part of the atmopheric carbon cycles for hundreds of millions of years, but during a period of only 200 years - we released all this sequestered material back into the active atmospheric carbon cycle, changing the CO2 levels from 280ppm to 420ppm in the blink of an eye. This is a fact , is undisputed and is undeniable.
To pretend changes to the chemisty of the atmosphere should have "no impact at all' is naive.
It is quite complicated indeed, and I don't think most scientists are even able to grasp the extent of it. Scientists typically consider one area, theirs, and try to fit their conclusions to the whole planet based on that one field of study.
So, who created those flesh eating bacteria, cancers, and other crap that is killing children in gruesome ways? Who came up with the idea of creating parasitic worms that eat eyes? Or who decided that leprosy, rabies, smallpox and brain-eating amoeba were a good thing to make?
God has said, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:9). That flesh-eating bacteria, etc. is not part of God's design, and won't be part of His kingdom.
Don't go, oh, the bad guy did it. Either god is omnipotent and wouldn't let that happen, or he isn't and he can get lost. If 'god' has an 'enemy', he clearly isn't omnipotent by the definition of the word. And don't say: 'it is part of his plan', because that plan sucks so bad in that case that my first year students can do better.
Well, it was indeed God's enemy that was responsible for these life-destroying plagues. But there is a reason God has allowed it, and that reason boils down to preservation of God's most sacred gift: freedom of choice. You see, if God had immediately destroyed Lucifer/Satan when he first rebelled in Heaven, yes, the rebellion would have been squashed, but all of the remaining angels would no longer have served God voluntarily, of their own free will. Their free will would have changed to being forced by fear. Fear would have replaced love to God.
If a man puts a gun to a woman's head and says, "Marry me!"--to save her life, she will likely say, "Yes." But will she do so out of love, of her own free will? No, her will is not free. It is bound by fear. She is coerced, forced to do what she would not otherwise choose.
It is this service out of fear, instead of love and free will, that is odious to God. God truly loves us. He does not want for anyone in His universe to serve Him from abject fear. He could have also created beings that simply had no choice at all--no fear, no free will, just automatons, doing what they were programmed to do. But how much pleasure does one get from the "I love you" repeated by the little doll when a button is pressed, versus hearing it said by one who had a choice in the matter? God has no pleasure in the empty "love" of a robot. This is why He created us with free will.
Because God's enemy has said that God's laws are not fair, God Himself is essentially on trial throughout this sin experiment. Unfortunately, we are center stage in the experiment, and it takes time for the truth to be revealed. When all are thoroughly convinced, and sick to death of the evil perpetrated by God's enemy; when no doubt remains in the mind of anyone as to God's fairness in destroying Satan...then God will step in and put an end to all of this pain and misery. Only then will it be safe for God to destroy His enemies without causing His other subjects to live in fear of Him.
No, scientific conclusions come when experimentation shows or does not show repeatable results for the hypothesis.
Did you know that many or perhaps even most scientific "conclusions" are little more than propaganda, and that their experimental results are not repeatable? Check out the article entitled "
Scientific Regress" to see just how far we have come.
Here's the first paragraph, to whet the appetite:
The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.
