The term "Evangelical" is a bit of a moving goal post. But, there is a strong association between Evangelical and getting climate science totally wrong in a way that is actually materially damaging to our planet and to future generations. So, it is not hard to be angry at Evangelicals because they are ruining it for everyone.
But, within the "Evangelical" movement, there are people who are trying to change that. I wish them luck. One person is Katharine Hayhoe, and here she is talking about that:
Another is my friend Paul Douglas, famous meteorologist. He wrote Caring for Creation: The Evangelical's Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment:
Climate change is a confusing and polarizing issue. It may also prove to be the most daunting challenge of this century because children, the elderly, and the poor will be the first to feel its effects. The issue is all over the news, but what is seldom heard is a conservative, evangelical perspective.
Connecting the dots between science and faith, this book explores the climate debate and how Christians can take the lead in caring for God's creation. The authors answer top questions such as "What's really happening?" and "Who can we trust?" and discuss stewarding the earth in light of evangelical values. "Acting on climate change is not about political agendas," they say. "It's about our kids. It's about being a disciple of Jesus Christ." Capping off this empowering book are practical, simple ideas for improving our environment and helping our families and those around us.
So, if you are an Evangelical, take heed. If you are not, find one and pass these items on to them.
In Western Europe we hardly use the term 'evangelicals'. We use the word 'christenen', çhristians. Wether they be catholic, lutheran, calvinist, Dutch-reformed, protestants, old-catholic, remonstrants, mennonites, etc. Also methodist, seventh day, Jehova-witnesses, copts, a.o. We see a decreasing membership and churchcommunities in confusion and in decline. Perhaps you have heard of pope Francis' encycliek Laudato Si, May 2015. To me the message is clear, but insiders told me today about the doubts within the catholic church caused by the scientific basics of Laudato Si. I tel you this, to make it clear why even messages of the pope meet resistance. I think the indepence and impartiality of science in general and of earth science in particular is of the utmost importance. Even in a small state as the Netherlands political and economic and or ecological preferences and or personal bounds and relations can make scientists blind and corrupt for a scientific pointaview. I think the value of a basic christlike attitude is honesty and impartiality. You don´t have to be christian or a believer to have such an attitude. Some atheists and agnostics make the best christians by heart and mind,although they are atheists of agnostics. It is not a question of labels, it s a question of attitude and solidity. Only truth can bear all criticism, meaning it is not the denomination that counts but the will and effort of coming to truth and to check and recheck. Not meaning that you must be a wethervane, on the contrary, stick to what you established scientifically, until is has been proven wrong or less right or differently. On these basics.
No, boogers,we in Western Europe use "Evangelicals" all the time.
I know, I'm there.
"Only truth can bear all criticism"
Which is why you bear off when criticised... neat.
On these basics a ground for coming together to knowledge. In essence this is something global or natural and not a specific Christian thing. There are enough examples of scientific progress made on these principles. It is this drive that counts.
Laren NH, Thursday 12 January 2017, 17.30 PM DT.
God that was an empty post, boogers.
Mind you, when you try for substance it ain't any better. Just more boring.
High wowels are you back again? You are wrong.
Boogers, you're wrong.
It is an interesting advertising angle to use religion to try to motivate people to emit less CO2.
I think the Pope is on board also.
'Evangelical' in the US often refers to non-mainline churches or groups that put an emphasis on aggresive outreach, missionary activity, conversions and *adult baptism*. They evangelize -- a lot-- and talk incessantly about being saved along with a specific set of beliefs that go with this. They tend to be politically reactionary and frequently (but not always) overlap with fundamentalists. Many oppose separation of church and state.
Again this is different from main line Christanity. In fact I've heard some deny that main line churchs can be even be considered Christian. They are a force to be reckoned with in the US and around the world.
Pfeh, baptists insist that RCC is run by Satan.
Not kidding you. Not hyperbolically, REALLY run by Satan. And not because of the kiddie fiddling, which is 100% as prevalent in the other denominations as in the RCC.
PS when it comes to how many christians there are in the USA, nobody bothers to skip over the "notreally christians". Not evangelical, not baptist, not protestant, not catholic. All of them, when it comes to "We're the biggest religion in the country", it's all one big happy family.
Southern Baptists are a big part of the problem.
Here in West Michigan, in the greater Grand Rapids/Holland and nearby areas, there is a strong Calvinist population, sadly with rationality and decency watered down (even more than the religion alone does) with a very strong Libertarian bent. This is the region that gave us the Prince family and the mercenaries one of the sons organized for Bush's wars. The new nominee for Education Secretary was born to the Prince family married into one of the few families less respectable, the DeVos family. (Pyramid company AmWay should come to mind.)
It's one of the most anti-science, anti-acceptance of minorities, anti-anything modern, areas in Michigan. Hardly evangelicals, but not people with whom you'd want to associate. Good luck getting those people to consider anything about climate change as being real.
Another evangelical writing about climate change is my uncle Dr. Howard Snyder. See, e.g., his book Salvation Means Creation Healed.
Climate Mitigation Engineering: possibly new approach
I would like to know if anyone is working on using ocean plankton to mitigate Climate Change using Emiliania huxleyi? It is the single biggest source of Oxygen on Earth. Eats Carbon like there is no tomorrow, and at the rate Methane is dissociating in the Artic there may not be one for kids under 12.
Is it feasible to select and drain appropriate swamps or lakes in the Artic areas and lay pipe or cannels to bring in sea/ocean water? The latitude would of course be important. The plankton may prove to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric Carbon.
To paraphrase Bill Gates, we need to consider every option.
Windsor ON CA
Yes. I'm not a fan of that form of geoengineering. All one needs to do apparently is seed the oceans with Fe dust.
Pixie dust works faster, though.
Iron seeding produces algal blooms that remove carbon AND OXYGEN and kill off fish because they too need oxygen to breathe.
And iron dust isn't free, isn't in dust form and doesn't appear to be cheap to transport by the millions of tons either.