Christians and Climate Change with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe

[@daveweber1331]

I'll have to watch this again - and again! So much to absorb, to think about, to process. Thank you, to Dr. Hayhoe, for sharing this with us, and to The Meeting House, for setting it up!

[@steveaitken5468]

Before you do you should do some research - it won't be hard to determine that floods, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes etc, have been DECLINING for 100 years - this rhetoric that they are getting worse every year is pure crap. Then think about applying the same level of credibility to everything else she had to say.

[@CS-mo7xp]

If you're a Christian, then the core focus of your belief is based around patiently waiting for the day of judgement, when Jesus will return, whisk you off to heaven, and the earth and everything in it will pass away. Therefore, what is the rationale behind a self-professed Christian wanting to prolong / sustain the world's longevity?

[@rd264]

KH got me to think about whether one can be righteous eg embrace the teachings of the Bible + also embrace science and rationalism. I realize now that these are complementary parts of life, not exclusive or contradictory.

[@mariekdre339]

Are solar panels clean? What will happen when they stop working? How have they been produced? It's not THE answer. We cannot stop and think we have found the answer. We haven't and we need to keep on asking God what He wants us to do.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

'...making sound decisions based on data...with a sound mind given us by God' - I'm not convinced - 'but I like my car' seems to prevail.

[@aarononeal9830]

If you are looking for a way to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

[@denisdaly1708]

Ah, the deniers in the comments. Fair to say, none are scientists

[@makobean]

But you are, so your voice matters more than theirs, right? Plenty of scientists disagree with anthropogenic global warming. I suppose you should shut your pie hole, then, since they're scientists and you're not?

[@tink8391]

God is good

[@gorgzilla1712]

Thanks for this. Whenever a denier says that climate change is not primarily caused by humans, I tell them to show me a paper that shows less than 90% consensus from actual professionals on this issue. Of course there are going to be a few scientists who disagree with the consensus, but amplifying their voices to be equal with the vast majority who hold the consensus is just dishonest

[@gigitrue63]

Im afraid there is no "so that" in the Genesis verses she describes. It's an "AND." AND let them have dominion over the whole earth and subdue it. Humankind was not created in God's image SO THAT we could subdue the earth; but it is one of our God-given responsibilities.

[@TN-ju4ro]

according to genesis, god created all of nature BEFORE man, god couldnt have created man without creating nature first, how can you be a christian and you don't hold value for water? used for baptisms, one of gods earliest and holiest all creations in the bible, a day 1 creation, way before man, now man decided to use his flawed systems to pollute one of gods most important and earliest creations, look at how things are going nowadays, the man made systems are failing us

[@TN-ju4ro]

before man sinned he had a garden (god's system), afterwords he had all the corrupt man made systems you live in today

[@RabbitHorse777]

K. H. starts 6:33

[@YaHa-16-02]

What's the intro music? Sounds like Ratatat.

[@tink8391]

Here for the song 🕺 🤣

[@PickleSmithWildlifeAndDrone]

I've also seen a good number of Ph.D.s who say climate alarmists are wrong. Will you be having any of them speak as well?

[@jdm11060]

I'm not a climate "denier" by any stretch, but the idea we're killing the earth via fossil fuels is spurious at best. Fossil fuels have, on net, impoved (and continue to improve) the quality of life among the most impoverished and destitute among us. That should be something Christians celebrate, not berate. Changes in climate, even the most destructive and dangerous of changes, have been a natural process in the earths cycle. And humans VERY BEST defense against such negative externalities are to embrace all sources of energy. I really like the meeting house, but they got it wrong on this issue.

[@charleshostovsky9627]

no you have not, there are very very few and the few are not credible or paid lobbyists ... Dr Chuck

[@PickleSmithWildlifeAndDrone]

@@charleshostovsky9627 So I can understand your post correctly, you are presuming to say what I have and have not heard. Is that correct? If so, can you site facts or references defending your statement? Thanks.

[@jdm11060]

@@charleshostovsky9627 Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Jon Christy, Nigel Calder, Philip Stott, Piers Cornyn, Paul Reiter, Nor Shaviv, Ian Clark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Nigel Lawson, and so on and so on, just to name a few... Most of these guys have PhD's in climate related fields. The rest are well respected and have cut their teeth in climate related fields. None of them are alarmists, and most doubt the anthropomorphic narrative on climate change. Some of their names have even been used on the ICCP because of their credentials even though they completely disagree with its conclusion. Stop pretending like you have the intellectual high ground on this issue. The governemnt loves to spew the climate change propaganda because it has everything to gain by convimcing the pubic to surrender more of its money and economic freedoms over to them. You live inside an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Climate is far more complex than you're willing to admit, and if you spend any time at all looking at both viewpoints, you'd find there is no meaningful consensus on the alarmist view whatsoever.

[@jdm11060]

@@volkerengels5298 "very famous for saying everything for which he is given money." I don't believe you. I'm not saying you're lying, but you're probably just repeating things you've heard without ever looking into it yourself. I'd be happy to look at any actual evidence you wanted to put out there instead of merely just saying things, though I doubt in the current climate of cancel culture and smearing those who disagree with the politically acceptable status quo with lies and deceptions, that I'd even be getting reliable information at all. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of the PhD's in the list of "climate deniers" were corrupted. In fact, I'd be surprised if none of them were. The point was is proving that there are plenty of well educated, researched, and respected scientists who disagree with the alarmist view of climate change, well, that is until they came out publicly against it, of course...

[@daviddorf]

I appreciate you meeting house. I learned a lot here but I'm not going to quit eating meat, especially beef. I don't believe it is healthy to recommend eating less meat. Meat is very nutritious. I also have a problem where I develop kidney stones if I eat vegetables (because of oxalates). Since switching to a meat-based diet I feel better, don't develop kidney stones and I don't waste my food. I eat every single ounce of meat I cook for myself.

[@BICCollective]

Hey David, not all of these suggestions are accessible for everyone, so we're glad you've found what works for you. Thanks for sharing! -Olivia

[@daviddorf]

@@BICCollective Thanks for your reply and your Christlike example :-)

[@LukeHenkel]

@daviddorf this is a good point - folks' bodies vastly differ and so do nutritional needs and responses. Some people do well with meat and others don't (that's backed by Western science and also proven in Eastern medicine, according to blood type). What is important is that this conversation, and the work of professionals like Dr. Hayhoe, is that we together consume less, and focus on ALL people doing what they can for our planet. It's not one person doing everything perfectly - it's many people, doing things imperfectly but at least DOING them!

[@golfern58]

You can't believe how much I would be to have the climate change deniers in my church see this.

[@thejarjosh]

Hayhoe avoids debating. If you bring up warming accelerated around 1914 right as we entered the Modern Maximum on twitter she'll immediately block you. Bearing false witness isn't great.

[@uche007us]

Debating is not her strongest attribute, she prefers preaching to ignorant people. That way, her disinfo cannot be challenged

[@nottenvironmental6208]

I stopped going to church's because I was treated poorly and even shouted at as I realised anthropogenic climate change was the biggest risk and opportunity. Not the love talked about.

[@democraticjustice7285]

They have.

[@shrederman9838]

@@thejarjosh The Euphrates is drying from climate change, a 3rd of mankind will be killed by smoke and fire and brimstone. Trump the antichrist has stolen the hearts of christians and these christians believe jesus is too liberal and soft. Algae turned the seas and rivers and lakes blood red. If you don't repent and believe in the Living God you'll never see His kingdom. He is coming soon.

[@jdm11060]

I talk about this issue frequently without the doom and gloom, because the alarmism is largely spurious and counter-productive. I'm at least pleased she didn't advocate we appeal to Caesar for solutions... As an aside, its so tremendously frustrating that the relationship between CO2 and temperature yet again goes unexplained. CO2 traces BEHIND temperature, not in front of.

[@jdm11060]

@@volkerengels5298 NO! You stop spreading misinformation! Wow.. that is easy! All you have to do is just say things and not cite anything to prove them wrong. Fun! Go look at the graphs for yourself.

[@danbaxendale4574]

The church is falling into the hands of 'the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming' - wake up church. Get back to the Gospel.

[@rd264]

whatever, the church is irrelevent to the Bible's spiritual message

[@ambiguousme2662]

The certainty that Ms. Hayhoe speaks with worries me. The fear mongering that her peers participate in bothers me. "We're all gonna burn. . . " in 8-10 years no less!!! And then the fact that the United Nations endorses her agenda - the most dysfunctional organization on the planet, one dominated by 3rd world dictatorships - well that really makes me skeptical. There are literally THOUSANDS of scientists every bit as qualified as Ms. Hayhoe who challenge her conclusions on human caused global warming. For one, a fellow Canadian, the Ph.D ecologist and co-founder of GREEPEACE, Patrick Moore. The science is NOT settled. China & India are in the process of building more than 1,000 new COAL FIRED power plants! Will destroying our economy for the sake of this theory make any difference? No!!! Are we going to spend TRILLIONS of $$$ to reduce CO2, a harmless gas, when we could be spending the $$$ on REAL pollution issues, like Canadian cities Victoria & Montreal dumping raw sewage into the ocean. Does Ms. Hayhoe know the huge environmental damage that solar "farms" and wind turbines do????? It's huge!!! Does she not know of previous "environmental disaster" periods like the "dustbowl" droughts of the 30's? Obviously there's so much to discuss on this topic, but to accept her premise without MUCH investigation is truly BLIND FAITH.

[@rd264]

the climate science is settled.

[@RebeckahErlank]

Interesting how China and India are currently drowning in floods almost weekly. Seems the doctor was onto something.

[@ChiefCabioch]

In the last 50 years, out of 40 dire predictions, how many came true?...(0)

[@jeffdorian3399]

If it was stock market predictions, they'd be rich.

[@ChiefCabioch]

Obama already got his, in Martha's Vinyard.

[@michaelattoe5710]

This person is not a scientist!

[@BICCollective]

Well that's not true. You can disagree with Katharine, but you can't say that someone who holds a PhD in atmospheric science, and has conducted research that has contributed to over 125 peer-reviewed papers and and publications isn't a scientist. We can have a healthy conversation about this but we should at least be factual. Peace -DS

[@michaelattoe5710]

@@BICCollectiveShe does not have a degree in in atmospheric science. That is simply a name she has adopted for herself. She has a Masters of Science but is actually teaching political science, which screams activist. I've also seen bits of her presenting information of her beliefs on a friends of science KZbin video, and what she was saying was demonstrated to be completely wrong and easily debunked by the friends of science KZbin video. Peer reviewed these days has no meaning because it's been bastardized to mean I got other people who agree with what my belief system is to read my work. At any rate, if she is such a knowledgeable scientist, why is she blocking people from her Twitter account who are critiquing her work and refusing to debate anybody who challenges her? I would say the true mark of a scientist is somebody who's not only willing but wants to have people critique their work and test their ideas. She will have none of that, she just wants a stage to present her beliefs.

[@psfranklin1]

@@michaelattoe5710 You need to get your facts right - you're mixing fact and fiction which is a distortion of truth. She does, in fact, have a PhD from the University of Illinois. She does presently teach in political science, but so what? It's not difficult to see why an institution would want someone with her credentials and experience speaking into public policy issue (to say simply that she is "teaching political science" is a misconstrued; her actual title is "Political Science Endowed Professor in Public Policy and Law"). Scientists with PhDs are employed in all kinds of ways - in academia, in government, and in industry. Disagree with her? Fine. Try to discredit her, not cool! See: www.katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/biography/; or even: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe

[@386alexander]

@@BICCollective She's a political scientist and that's not even a science! She's worships at the altar of her leftist Hollywood ' friends' !!

[@rd264]

shes both a climate scientist and spiritual person who has helped me to think about whether one can be righteous eg embrace the teachings of the Bible + also embrace science and rationalism. Now I realized that these are complementary parts of life, not exclusive or contradictory. This is clear in the Bible as well [hence KH's quotes from the Bible here] but i was never a Bible reader or churchgoer and was not interested in religion. I preferred rationalism. I now embrace the bible and am fascinated by its teachings, and I can pursue that because its not within the reach of science or contrary to science.

[@ta5664]

35:26 should be told to environmentalists who are fear mongering. Excellent!

[@thejarjosh]

So many lies in this video. Isnt she married to a pastor? Why is she lusting after Decaprio. 8 billion people are digging up and using oil and coal after explaining that many people arent and we shouldnt have them follow our path because we would have to sell them what they need(i dont know why we have to sell when we give money away all the time)

[@westtide]

You better check your theology dear. You are preaching the worship of creation rather than the creator.

[@KayakKyle]

worship and care of creation are two very distinct things. If someone argues of caring for creation in order to better protect and serve the marginalized in the world that is very different from the worship of creation. Nature is a truly wonderful thing that God gave us and where we can discover attributes of God that point us to him and it is in everyone's best interest to look after it!

[@RebeckahErlank]

The creation reveals the Creator! So that all men know that He is God.