The main link to the data is a statistical deep dive into those who are primarily the vaccine hesitant. The info is dated to sometime before July 4th, so keep that in mind. My major takeaway after trying to absorb all this and cogitating, is that those who elect not to take the vaccine are the willfully ignorant, those least engaged in the world around them (whether by choice or age experience), and those with an insular point of view. But it would be tough to create a question around that. 😁
If there is one caveat to the data, it's that I felt his sample size of ~1350 people might be too small for all the parsing he did, although there's also a point at which a larger sample is not statistically more significant.
Ouch! To say that humans should not look for ways to avoid climate change, because it is an unobtainable "end-state solution" (yes, a scary sounding term), is irresponsible for those of us whom God has called to be stewards.
Mark, I have several problems with the Brook essay, and the way you excerpted it. Based on my reading of the essay, Brooks is not necessarily advocating dismissal of climate concerns, but saying that we should work hard to reduce carbon emissions, while not getting our hopes up because "climate change is inevitable". This sort of argument may have some sort of messy appeal to Christians looking for fulfillment of Revelation's apocalyptic predictions, but it is just the sort of thinking we should be wary of.
The idea that we should seek peace on earth is also probably unattainable, but it has never done away with the Christian role as peacemaker. Likewise, we cannot abdicate our God-given responsibilities as stewards of the earth because we are on a one way train to Armageddon anyway. This sort of thinking goes against prophetic warnings (e.g., Hosea 4:3) and, if adopted by Christians, can only serve to further alienate idealist youth from considering the Church as a relevant solution to the world's woes.
As to the essay itself, Brooks glibly dismisses a significant chunk of scientific modeling and analysis to say that nothing can be done to avert climate change. This statement flies in the face of the long report's conclusions, yet is offered with no apparent scientific basis.
For Christians like myself, who love the created world and believe it part of our calling to help preserve it, one difficult pitfall to avoid is negativism. It is easy to be negative with all the crises we face today; but no one wants to listen to bad news. The thing I take from the IPCC report is that the climate and the earth is still worth fighting for. Whether preventing catastrophic climate change, or slowing it down to allow human societies more time to prepare, the good new is that we still have some say in the matter if we don't ignore the signs and the science.
I don't disagree. And if I sounded glib about climate change, I apologize. I do think global warming is a serious problem, and that we should mitigate it as best we can. I linked to this article to suggest there is no final solution to this problem, as there is no final solution to many problems we face: poverty, deadly disease, greed, murder, war, etc. That doesn't mean we don't do our best to keep them to a minimum. It just means we don't offer utopian solutions that will never be realized. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
The main link to the data is a statistical deep dive into those who are primarily the vaccine hesitant. The info is dated to sometime before July 4th, so keep that in mind. My major takeaway after trying to absorb all this and cogitating, is that those who elect not to take the vaccine are the willfully ignorant, those least engaged in the world around them (whether by choice or age experience), and those with an insular point of view. But it would be tough to create a question around that. 😁
If there is one caveat to the data, it's that I felt his sample size of ~1350 people might be too small for all the parsing he did, although there's also a point at which a larger sample is not statistically more significant.
Ouch! To say that humans should not look for ways to avoid climate change, because it is an unobtainable "end-state solution" (yes, a scary sounding term), is irresponsible for those of us whom God has called to be stewards.
Mark, I have several problems with the Brook essay, and the way you excerpted it. Based on my reading of the essay, Brooks is not necessarily advocating dismissal of climate concerns, but saying that we should work hard to reduce carbon emissions, while not getting our hopes up because "climate change is inevitable". This sort of argument may have some sort of messy appeal to Christians looking for fulfillment of Revelation's apocalyptic predictions, but it is just the sort of thinking we should be wary of.
The idea that we should seek peace on earth is also probably unattainable, but it has never done away with the Christian role as peacemaker. Likewise, we cannot abdicate our God-given responsibilities as stewards of the earth because we are on a one way train to Armageddon anyway. This sort of thinking goes against prophetic warnings (e.g., Hosea 4:3) and, if adopted by Christians, can only serve to further alienate idealist youth from considering the Church as a relevant solution to the world's woes.
As to the essay itself, Brooks glibly dismisses a significant chunk of scientific modeling and analysis to say that nothing can be done to avert climate change. This statement flies in the face of the long report's conclusions, yet is offered with no apparent scientific basis.
For Christians like myself, who love the created world and believe it part of our calling to help preserve it, one difficult pitfall to avoid is negativism. It is easy to be negative with all the crises we face today; but no one wants to listen to bad news. The thing I take from the IPCC report is that the climate and the earth is still worth fighting for. Whether preventing catastrophic climate change, or slowing it down to allow human societies more time to prepare, the good new is that we still have some say in the matter if we don't ignore the signs and the science.
I don't disagree. And if I sounded glib about climate change, I apologize. I do think global warming is a serious problem, and that we should mitigate it as best we can. I linked to this article to suggest there is no final solution to this problem, as there is no final solution to many problems we face: poverty, deadly disease, greed, murder, war, etc. That doesn't mean we don't do our best to keep them to a minimum. It just means we don't offer utopian solutions that will never be realized. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.