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: No, the Dums and leftists on this board have!!!!!! | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:41:46 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: jw 's message, "Have you and the republicans been calling the evangelicals nuts for years?" on 12:38:13 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 |
| I didn't think so, the republicans needed there votes to win, now they are concerned about global warming.... n/t | jw | 12:52:21 03/12/07 Mon |