Environmental concerns from fossil fuel consumption has only intensified over the last 70 plus years. It's not a fad. It's morphed from valid concern to an hysterical religious movement that some of the powers will use as you say to their own ends. Rather than seeing God's hand in the disasters that are calls to repentance, the world blindly attributes these things mainly to fossil fuel consumption. Given that these calamities will increase we can expect the calls for environmental reform will intensify. But you make a valid point - the focus could still shift. There is still the "overwhelming surprise" factor.

Aren't you being facetious, duplicitous, misleading and demonstrably prone to telling tall tales in school?

The Pope NEVER offered "Sunday or sun worship as a cornerstone ..." The TEN COMMANDMENTS specifically warns against this type thing you do. It says, "You shall not bear false witness, period!" Exod. 20:16

You rest you say on Saturdays, named for the pagan god Saturn. Moreover, you wax eloquent about the matter and grow solemn, travelling over land and see seeking to make one proselyte of anyone who would be beguiled by you. If the Pope were offering "Sunday or sun worship as a cornerstone" and you condemn him, how is it afterwards, you ask to borrow his shoes and continue onward walking in very his footsteps?

Matthew 7:5

///

While I cannot speak regarding the person you were directing this comment to, I could offer the thought that it is "the seventh day," Sabbath, regardless of what one wants to call it. The person you addressed this comment to does not speak for the Adventist Church. The official belief of Adventists puts it this way:

You're right. The Pope does not directly promote paganism. He and the Catholic Church for the last 1600 years have adopted the main religious holidays of paganism and sanctified them by their own authority under the blatantly blasphemous claim that they, under God, are themselves gods on earth and therefore above the law of God. It is baptized Paganism that the Pope promotes which is more sinister than paganism itself. And so God is forced to leave them to their own delusions such as the sentiments the Pope expressed in Laudato Si which are clearly pagan and pantheistic.

Ha ha.
Well yes, that's true, but has nothing to do with what today is being called climate change.

Some people don't think the following verse regarding the plagues/wrath of God is related to environmental stewardship, which is fine. Personally I see a connection. Notice the underlined parts:
Of course the main cause for the disruption and destruction of nature and the environment is sin. But men can worsen the groans of creation by polluting it physically as well as spiritually by contaminating it with toxic chemicals, with radioactive contamination, biological weapons, with genetic confusion of species etc. This last destructive behavior is especially offensive to God because man assumes the role of the Creator when he meddles with creation.

Hmmm...



Do you not think that that has anything to do with the destruction of the ozone layer and global warming?



Cause and effect climaxing in the 7 last plagues is not an anominally.

Read what I wrote again:
but has nothing to do with what today is being called climate change.

Today, CO2, carbon dioxide, makes up about .04 percent of the gases in earth's atmosphere. That means 99.96 percent of the atmosphere is made up of other gasses. (I don't doubt that those figures are accurate. We've been able to measure CO2 accurately for about a century.) Eighty or ninety years ago CO2 was about .03 percent. In other words the non-CO2 gasses were 99.97 percent. So between the time that fossil fuel consumption rose significantly and today, atmospheric CO2 has increased by .01 percent.

The majority of scientists claim that this change is the main cause of temperature rise because CO2 traps more of the sun's energy than other gasses do. I don't doubt their claim that CO2 does do that. But I haven't understood so far how they arrived at the conclusion that a .01 percent change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming. To me, I'm open to being convinced because it's a plausible explanation but I can certainly see room for questioning how strong the causal link is between the two. Maybe someone on here can explain why. If the link was direct shouldn't scientists be able to conduct controlled studies of the temperature rise comparing one container of gas with another when exposed to the same sunlight.

Given however long you think the climate has existed on this earth, do you think 100 years is adequate to determine "normal" CO2 levels? And you're right, at .03 percent, one wonders how that can make a difference. Note, that is not .03 but 0.0003! And as you're probably aware, one volcano going off can swamp that in no time.


How would one go about determining that the temperature is rising?
Today, it is much cooler than yesterday. Does that mean we are going into global cooling? If you say one day is not long enough, then how many days or years do we need to determine whether the earth is warming or cooling? You look at a line chart from 1880 to 2000 and the temperature rises and falls, but appears to be in a general incline. But if you choose a segment midway, it appears in a decline. Is there any reason not to suspect that if there were more years, we would see rises and falls made up of smaller rises and falls? Just because we are looking at a very limited segment should not cause us to conclude anything.

If there was a way to even determine the current temperature of the earth, do we know whether that is the ideal temperature or if it should be warmer or cooler? It seems to me that there is some egocentrism that we do not even care how things were 100 years ago, but only care what it was during part of our lives and want it to be the same. But weather happens. Even if it doesn't meet all the predictions made...

So many questions that so many scientists and others do not answer or do not ask.