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: Have you and the republicans been calling the evangelicals nuts for years? | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:38:13 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: Oropan 's message, "LOL! People on this board have been calling them nuts for years!" on 12:30:00 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 |
| No, the Dums and leftists on this board have!!!!!! | Oropan | 12:41:46 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||