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