Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Yep, econuts without facts are in every group. | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:21:25 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "In fact, the evangelical movement just reaffirmed it's call for action against human caused global warming" on 12:02:59 03/12/07 Mon I would hardly take these guys as proof that global warming is manmade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > It looks like the evangelicals are not so right >wing any more, they care for the poor and the >environment, nothing in there about exploiting the >poor so the filthy rich can prosper. this is to the >credit of the evangelical movement, they are putting >their values above politics. > >Evangelical Board Affirms Concern for Global Warming >By Michelle Vu >Christian Post Reporter >Mon, Mar. 12 2007 10:20 AM ET > >The board of the National Association of Evangelical >affirmed that “creation care” is an important moral >issue deserving the organization’s support and >commitment. > >Related >Evangelical's Global Warming Stance Disturbs Some >Christian Leaders >Evangelical Board Split Over Leader's Global Warming >Efforts >Report Outlines Global Warming's Effects >NAE’s president, the Rev. Leith Anderson, said that >the board did not specifically respond to the letter >sent by prominent evangelical leaders criticizing its >vice president of government relations, but instead >simply reaffirmed a 2004 paper that listed creation >care as an evangelical responsibility, according to >The Washington Post. > >Earlier in the month more than two dozen well-known >evangelical leaders including James C. Dobson, founder >and chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, >president of Coalitions for America; and Tony Perkins, >president of the Family Research Council wrote a >letter to the NAE board urging it to take action >against its vice president the Rev. Richard Cizik for >his global warming advocacy. > >Signers of the letter argued that Cizik failed to >represent the evangelical body on global warming >because he only spoke on behalf of evangelicals who >believe that global warming is human-induced. However, >there is no consensus among evangelicals on the issue >and some believe global warming is mainly naturally >caused. > >The group of Christian leaders further noted that the >policy director’s promotion of global warming was >diverting attention away from more important moral >issues such as abortion and homosexuality. > >However, despite the significant attention given to >the letter and speculations that its content would be >a key topic of discussion, Anderson said that the >meeting ended on Friday with only the board affirming >its 2004 paper, “For the Health of the Nations,” that >detailed seven areas of civic responsibilities of >evangelicals: sanctity of life, nurturing the family, >compassion for the poor, religious freedom, human >rights, inhibiting violence, and creation care. > >“I think there was a lot of support from me, from the >executive committee and from the board for Rich >Cizik,” said Anderson to The Washington Post. > >Anderson had voiced support for Cizik even prior to >the meeting, calling him a “great asset” and >highlighting the vice president’s 25 years of service >in Washington. > >The names of Anderson and the new NAE executive >director, W. Todd Bassett, both appear as supporters >of the Evangelical Climate Initiative – a statement >that recognizes the biblical responsibility of >Christians to care for the environment and >acknowledges that global warming is mainly caused by >humans. > >The two-day board meeting concluded with Cizik giving >a report on his work in Washington and the board >approving a 12-page statement on terrorism and torture. > > >>OPINION By PHILIP STOTT >>March 9, 2007 — From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the >>post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change >>cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and >>sinfulness. >> >>In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The >>Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: >>Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts >>expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major >>cooling of the climate is widely considered >>inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents >>the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding >>sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven >>ways. >> >>But neither history nor science bolsters such an >>apocalyptic faith. >> >>History and Science >> >>Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is >>no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the >>tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer >>world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in >>permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to "crisis" >>with warming. >> >> >>Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last >>ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In >>recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively >>uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of >>the 20th century than during the second. At around a >>couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of >>much larger positive and negative changes locally. The >>risk from global warming is less than that from other >>factors (primarily geological). >> >>The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed >>during the second half of the 20th century, yet >>agricultural output increased markedly. The impact on >>disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like malaria, >>are not so much a matter of temperature as of poverty >>and public health. Malaria remains endemic in Siberia, >>and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to >>cold is generally more dangerous. >> >>So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause >>of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on >>temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with >>increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse >>gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor >>even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or >>greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient >>benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer >>models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming. >> >>What is rarely noted is that we are already >>three-quarters of the way into this in terms of >>radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 >>(+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose >>that all of this is due to humans. >> >> >> >> >>Indeed the system requires no external driver to >>fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of ocean >>disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also >>alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the sun, >>water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth >>remembering that modelers even find it difficult to >>account for the medieval warm period. >> >> >> >>The Real Crisis >> >> >> >>Our so-called "crisis" is thus neither a product of >>current observations nor of projections. >> >> >> >>But does it matter if global warming is a "crisis" or >>not? Aren't we threatened by a serious temperature >>rise? Shouldn't we act anyway, because we are stewards >>of the environment? >> >> >> >>Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming >>hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of >>waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. >>A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This >>does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting >>about "saving the planet." What is wrong with us that >>we downplay this human misery before our eyes and >>focus on events that will probably not happen even a >>hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause >>of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we >>can and must act. >> >> >> >>The global warming "crisis" is misguided. In >>hubristically seeking to "control" climate, we >>foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable >>change. There is no way we can predictably manage this >>most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. >>The inconvenient truth is that "doing something" >>(emitting gases) at the margins and "not doing >>something" (not emitting gases) are equally >>unpredictable. >> >> >>Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both >>an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 >>billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty >>water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By >>contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of >>the pampered rich. >> >>We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human >>doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The >>"crisis" is the global warming political agenda, not >>climate change. >> >> >> >>Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the >>University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was >>the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| This is the leadership of the the evangelicals, traditionally right wing, far from a few nuts | jw | 12:25:35 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||