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: LOL! People on this board have been calling them nuts for years! | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:30:00 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "This is the leadership of the the evangelicals, traditionally right wing, far from a few nuts" on 12:25:35 03/12/07 Mon > and no one said it was proof, but it does mean that >even large national movements who otherwise disagree >with scientists on some hot issues agree with them on >the most important issue of the day. > >>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 |
| Have you and the republicans been calling the evangelicals nuts for years? | jw | 12:38:13 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||