3 responses

1. 

   Simon

   11 December 2009

   I've noticed a disturbing trend for arguments along the lines of:

   a) the climate change "lobby" is far too man-centred in it's response, therefore climate change is a myth. I find this argument very disturbing, especially since I agree with the premise. Such an argument could be used to portray sin as a myth on the basis that man's attempts to earn salvation from the consequences of our sin are far too man-centred. Clearly that isn't true. I find it strange that there is such resistance amongst evangelical Christians to the thought that fallen man's effect on God's creation could be harmful.

   b) to take notice of the views of scientists is to be in the thrall to a priestly class. As said above, I don't find man-made climate change scenario is discredited from a theological point of view so it leads me to consider the science – and I think it's good to respect that when they stick to science, then scientists have something to contribute to scientific debate. Likewise, why is the "priestly class" argument confined to scientists? I have a lot of respect for Wayne Grudem's theological expertise, as I suspect would many who have used this argument. But for consistency's sake if I should be so cynical about the priestly class of scientists, why not theologians and Bible translators? (I try and avoid being cynical about any of these, for the record.

   Reply
2. 

   Simon

   11 December 2009

   I did a quick search for Grudem and climate change and in first place (directly above your post) came a link to this: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/an-open-letter-to-the-signers-of-climate-change-an-evangelical-call-to-action-and-others-concerned-about-global-warming.pdf

   The last paragraph of page 2 gives perhaps the most surreal Biblical/theological justification of reckless use of the Earth's resources I have yet seen – on the basis of the stewardship which God has given us over the earth, backed up by Wayne Grudem himself. I have never heard any of the most shrill and extreme climate change lobbyists suggest that an appropriate action is to stop taking "such ordinary and
   morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food." (merely a responsible amount of some of the latter in order to continue being able to do some of the former)

   Reply
3. 

   Max

   14 December 2009

   http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

   Reply