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! As long as it doesn't cost them anything or inconvience them! | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:02:08 12/13/07 Thu In reply to: Mo' Green 's message, "The Pope?? "84 percent of evangelicals support legislation to reduce global warming pollution levels"" on 11:31:17 12/13/07 Thu Sure, everybody says they are against global warming....it's the PC to say. But try to make them pay some money out of their own pocket to pay for it and watch the S@$# hit the fan. Global warming is nothing more than a political tactic to try to get votes from ignorent people. None of those politicians are going to do ANYTHING after they are elected that will affect their voters pocket books because they want to keep their nice cushy job after the next election. If case you haven't notice the US is in a perpetual state of running for election. BTW, what happened to all the stuff the Dem candidates promised they were going to do about earmarks, the War, oil companies, taxes and on and on? >You can tell the pope that nobody is proposing >solutions not supported by science. > >Frankly, religion shouldn't have a role in public >policy, but your reactionary pope is not the only one >with an opinion. > > >href="http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071211/304 >63_Holiday_Dilemma:__Real_vs._Artificial_Christmas_Tree >.htm">http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071211/304 >63_Holiday_Dilemma:__Real_vs._Artificial_Christmas_Tree >.htm > >Christian Post Reporter >Wed, Dec. 12 2007 01:12 PM ET > >With Christmas right around the corner, more >Christians this year are finding themselves faced with >the difficult decision of choosing between a real and >an artificial Christmas tree. > >As the Christian community becomes increasingly >environmentally conscious, megachurch pastors Rick >Warren and Bill Hybels as well as more than 100 >influential evangelical leaders, are speaking out >about global warming and calling on governments and >Christians to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions – >the main cause of global warming. Signers of the >Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) agree that global >warming is real and mainly caused by humans. > >“Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate >change problem is human induced, are reminded that >when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise >stewardship over the earth and its creatures,” the ECI >statement reads. “Climate change is the latest >evidence of our failure to exercise proper >stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity >for us to do better.” > >During this holiday season, some Christians are making >the decision to take what they believe to be a small >but important step toward slowing global warming by >buying a natural Christmas tree. > >“When you buy a real Christmas tree, you’re buying a >tree where the environmental impact of growing and >harvesting that tree is positive,” says Paul Krebs, >owner of Oregon-based Coyote Hills Tree Farm. > >According to the Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree >Association, each acre of Christmas trees provides the >daily oxygen for 18 people. With 1 million acres of >Christmas tree farms nationwide, this translates into >oxygen for 18 million people each day or the >equivalent daily oxygen use by twice as many people as >the population of Los Angeles County. > >Meanwhile, artificial Christmas trees are typically >made of various plastics which end up in landfills >after their usefulness is over. Plastic trees are not >easily recyclable or reusable after their average 4-5 >year life span. > >Also, 85 percent of the artificial trees bought in the >United States each year comes from China, where the >environmental and employment standards are below U.S. >standards – thus increasing the potential negative >environmental impact. > >Natural trees, on the other hand, are entirely a U.S. >product and are grown as a sustainable crop which >takes many years of culturing and work to bring to the >market. > >Oregon, for instance, supplies roughly 25 percent of >the nation’s Christmas trees. > >Krebs explains that most trees are removed from the >fields by helicopter so tractors and equipment do not >disturb the west ground during harvest. > >“It also reduces time, getting fresher trees to the >market,” he adds. “Sustainable agriculture practice >and conservative methods are important to virtually >all tree farms.” > >Coyote Hills Tree Farm offers to send trees directly >to the customer, cutting the tree just prior to >shipping. > >“We mechanically shake all trees to remove loose >debris before boxing and shipping by UPS. We call >these trees ‘the pick of the field,’” Krebs says. “All >boxes have a moisture control seal to preserve >freshness.” > >Meanwhile, on the east coast a former World War II >veteran, John Cooper, created an idyllic Christmas >tree farm in West Virginia which he calls Santa’s >Forest. Cooper, who was the president of the West >Virginia Christmas Tree Association and representative >to the National Christmas Tree Association, was >invited to the White House during the Carter >administration to present a Christmas tree to the >first lady on behalf of his state. > >Santa’s Forest says it also follows sustainable >growing guidelines that protect the environment while >providing Americans with their choice of fresh >Christmas trees. > >The company offers a wide variety of trees, including >Scotch Pine, Balsam Fir, Canaan Valley Fir, Colorado >Spruce, Fraser Fir, and White Pine. > >In June 2007, Santa’s Forest was formally transferred >over to the owners of FreshChristmasTree.com who >combined their successful mail order business with a >traditional cut-your-own tree farm. > >In addition to providing oxygen, another advantage of >real Christmas trees are the programs available in >most major metropolitan areas that will take the trees >after the holidays and turn it into mulch for >playgrounds, gardens, and other landscape needs. >Because real trees are 100 percent biodegradable, they >do not contribute to landfill and waste management >problems. > >A recent poll by Ellison Research found that 84 >percent of evangelicals support legislation to reduce >global warming pollution levels. The poll also found >that 54 percent of evangelicals are more likely to >support a candidate that works on the issue > > >>The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom >>By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » >> >>Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007 >> >> Comments >> >> >>Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change >>prophets of doom >>Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on >>climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any >>solutions to global warming must be based on firm >>evidence and not on dubious ideology. >> >>The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics >>suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting >>the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented >>disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. >> >>The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns >>may be valid it was vital that the international >>community based its policies on science rather than >>the dogma of the environmentalist movement. >> >>His remarks will be made in his annual message for >>World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released >>as delegates from all over the world convened on the >>Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate >>change talks. >> >>The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for >>the environment but not to the point where the welfare >>of animals and plants was given a greater priority >>than that of mankind. >> >> >> >>Adrift: Polar bears on melting iceberg >>"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the >>ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the >>message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of >>Peace". >> >>"It is important for assessments in this regard to be >>carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and >>people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure >>to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim >>of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable >>development capable of ensuring the well-being of all >>while respecting environmental balances. >> >>"If the protection of the environment involves costs, >>they should be justly distributed, taking due account >>of the different levels of development of various >>countries and the need for solidarity with future >>generations. >> >>"Prudence does not mean failing to accept >>responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means >>being committed to making joint decisions after >>pondering responsibly the road to be taken." >> >>Efforts to protect the environment should seek >>"agreement on a model of sustainable development >>capable of ensuring the well-being of all while >>respecting environmental balances", the Pope said. >> >>He added that to further the cause of world peace it >>was sensible for nations to "choose the path of >>dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" >>in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the >>planet. >> >>The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of >>government and international organisations. >> >>His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges >>that problems may be associated with unbridled >>development and climate change, he believes the case >>against global warming to be over-hyped. >> >>A broad consensus is developing among the world's >>scientific community over the evils of climate >change. >> >>But there is also an intransigent body of scientific >>opinion which continues to insist that industrial >>emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon. >> >>Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the >>earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused >>by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics >>of environmentalism have compared the movement to a >>burgeoning industry in its own right. >> >>In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on >>climate change that was welcomed by >environmentalists. >> >>But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since >>expressed doubts about a movement which has been >>likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its >>assumptions as any religion. >> >>In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the >>Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted >>that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by >>0.5 degrees celsius. >> >>"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be >>blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian >>scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would >>force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five >>degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were >>enforced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and >>>Government Reform Committee has been investigating >>>allegations of political interference with government >>>climate change science under the Bush Administration. >>>During the course of this investigation, the >Committee >>>obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the >White >>>House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the >>>Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, >>>and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the >>>information made available to the Committee has never >>>been publicly disclosed. >>> >>>This report presents the findings of the Committee’s >>>investigation. The evidence before the Committee >leads >>>to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush >Administration >>>has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate >>>climate change science and mislead policymakers and >>>the public about the dangers of global warming. >>> >>>In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed >an >>>internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: >>>“Victory will be achieved when … average citizens >>>‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] >>>recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the >>>‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has >>>acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan >>>were its mission statement. White House officials and >>>political appointees in the agencies censored >>>congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of >>>global warming, controlled media access to government >>>climate scientists, and edited federal scientific >>>reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into >>>discussions of climate change and to minimize the >>>threat to the environment and the economy. >>> >>>The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists >>>The White House exerted unusual control over the >>>public statements of federal scientists on climate >>>change issues. It was standard practice for media >>>requests to speak with federal scientists on climate >>>change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House >>>approval. By controlling which government scientists >>>could respond to media inquiries, the White House >>>suppressed dissemination of scientific views that >>>could conflict with Administration policies. The >White >>>House also edited congressional testimony regarding >>>the science of climate change. >>> >>>Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the >>>Committee: “Our communications people would render a >>>view as to whether someone should give an interview >or >>>not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, >>>a career public affairs officer at the National >>>Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media >requests >>>related to climate change issues were handled >>>differently from other requests because “I would have >>>to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice >>>was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. >>>Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the >>>Department of Commerce not want scientists who >>>believed that climate change was increasing hurricane >>>activity talking with the press?” He responded: >“There >>>was a consistent approach that might have indicated >>>that.” >>> >>>White House officials and agency political appointees >>>also altered congressional testimony regarding the >>>science of climate change. The changes to the recent >>>climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the >>>Director of the Centers for Disease Control and >>>Prevention, have received considerable attention. A >>>year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of >>>National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the >>>House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also >>>heavily edited by both White House officials and >>>political appointees at the Commerce Department. He >>>was not allowed to say in his written testimony that >>>“modern climate change is dominated by human >>>influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown >>>territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is >>>very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are >>>largely responsible for many of the observed changes >>>in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is >>>playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity >>>became “may play.” >>> >>>The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change >>>Reports >>>There was a systematic White House effort to minimize >>>the significance of climate change by editing climate >>>change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and >>>other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the >>>Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change >>>Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific >>>uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the >>>importance of the human role in global warming. >>> >>>The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft >>>Report on the Environment that were so extreme that >>>the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate >>>change section of the report. One such edit was the >>>inclusion of a reference to a discredited, >>>industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice >>>President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to >>>begin to refer to this study in Administration >>>communications on the science of global climate >>>change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held >>>by many in the climate science community that the >past >>>century was the warmest in the past millennium and >>>signals of human induced ‘global warming.’” >>> >>>In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went >>>beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate >>>change section of the report. >>> >>>Other White House Actions >>>The White House played a major role in crafting the >>>August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to >>>regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James >>>Connaughton personally edited the draft legal >opinion. >>>When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of >>>Science conclusion that “the changes observed over >the >>>last several decades are likely mostly due to human >>>activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes >>>are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal >>>case being made.” The first line of another internal >>>CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA >>>legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The >>>final opinion incorporating the White House edits was >>>rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in >>>Massachusetts v. EPA. >>> >>>The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA >>>Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that >it >>>followed the White House line on climate change. >>>Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on >repeating >>>an unsupported assertion that millions of American >>>jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were >>>ratified. >>> >>> >>>href="http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653">h >t >>t >>>p://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |