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: This is the leadership of the the evangelicals, traditionally right wing, far from a few nuts | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:25:35 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Yep, econuts without facts are in every group." on 12:21:25 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 |
| LOL! People on this board have been calling them nuts for years! | Oropan | 12:30:00 03/12/07 Mon |
|
||