Posted by ( Diana ) on March 26, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I think well meaning people can often be mistaken. The quote from the Bible of being good stewards of the earth is often used to justify many things.Enviro-terrorists use it to actually hurt people to save what they consider part of the earth… a number of trees for example. People as exploiters are considered less than “mother earth.” Liberal theology uses it to save us from ourselves. Believing a person’s personal salvation is dependent upon their view of a Biblical passage. None speak for God and their motive must be to heap guilt. The God I serve does not employ such tactics. Jesus never resorted to any such ramblings. Thinking the people of southwest Virginia are ignorant and must be saved from themselves is the height of hypocrisy. But of course the very definition of hypocrisy is that one does not realize they possess it.

To say that the time of coal has passed is to doom thousands of people with children a livelihood. What is the solution? Catch phrases are empty unless they have substance.

Free enterprise is what makes this country run. Dominion sees an opportunity and a future need and acts. Not in my backyard you say. The people of Wise county are overwhelmingly in favor of the Power Plant.
As long as government regulations are met, both Federal and State it is none of an outside the county resident’s business. Downwind- the Linville Gorge and Smoky Mountain area has been cleared. Government regulations can be changed that is where the effort if any needs to be made.

Posted by ( Diana ) on March 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Thank you Chris-
Extremism on any level, be it ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ is not reasonable. Enviro-terrorists are that, which is probably not at all debatable amongst thining people. Another opinion I have is that ‘liberal’ thinking clergy, which has been defined as those who preach a social gospel rather than a personal salvation one, have little right to take on social issues as though they speak for God himself. Now if they wish to have a personal opinion as a concerned citizen that is one thing, but to somehow believe that they are ‘saving the planet’ and its inhabitants by touting their religious titles is equal to self-righteousness. Of which Jesus preached against.

A balance between public welfare( health of the general populous) and free enterprise is often not an easy path to find. This is my reason for saying if environmentalists do not want the power plant then they should seek legislative ways. Dominion meets the requirements as they exist now on Federal and State levels.

Cleanliness next to godliness is not found in the Bible. Just another example of one of those quips misused for purpose. Perhaps Ben Franklin said it, I can’t recall.

Posted by ( Chris ) on April 01, 2008 at 8:03 am

Diana,

I never indicated that the phrase “cleaniliness is next to Godliness” was in the Bible. Given that cleanliness is in fact discussed in the Bible i.e. Isiah 48:17, Peter 1:15, Romans 1:20 (which seems to discuss environmental cleaniliness) and 2 Corinthians 7:1; one would seem to accept the axiom of “cleaniliness is next to Godliness” as a fair assessment of bibilical teaching.

Nevertheless, the broader point that I think you bring up is how some people seem to insert their biblical interpretations as a factual premise to which all others must adhere to. Your opinion on “liberal thinking” clergy is a prime example. While it is important you qualified your statements as being your opinion, there is still no emperical evidence to suggest that a “liberal thinking” interpretation of biblical scripture is no more or less correct than your conservative interpretation. Thankfully, the United States is not a Theocracy. Our founders certainly realized the inherent dangers of a Theocratic form of government and as such placed safeguards to prevent Theocratic rule by way of the Constitution. This is why we have no state religion which guides our governmental policies.

While I certainly respect your opinions, I am somewhat puzzled as to how you can draw a moral equivalence between good governmental policy and your religious beliefs. To combine the two in regards to policy formation is inherently unfair to any one person who may hold for example a “liberal thinking” biblical understanding.

Your understanding that the “‘liberal’ thinking clergy, which has been defined as those who preach a social gospel rather than a personal salvation one, have little right to take on social issues as though they speak for God himself. Now if they wish to have a personal opinion as a concerned citizen that is one thing, but to somehow believe that they are ‘saving the planet’ and its inhabitants by touting their religious titles is equal to self-righteousness. Of which Jesus preached against.” is interesting to say the least.

I first wonder “who” formulated this definition you write of? How do we know it is correct? Is there not a logical argument to the contrary which would be that those who reject any notion of social salvation in favor of a rigid Manichean focus on personal salvation have little right to take on social issues as though they speak for God himself? Seems to me that those in that corner have no personal opinions which are void of their own religious ideology. Seems to me that a person who would hold that view is convinced that their biblical interpretation is somehow morally superior or they are convinced that they are more righteous than others, which of course is the definition of self-righteousness. Of which Jesus preached against. Just a thought

Posted by ( Chris ) on April 07, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Diane,

First of all let me say that I have enjoyed this discussion. Therefore, I will choose not to interpret your statement: “‘Earth’s stewards’ has been and continues to be misused by groups and individuals. They have an agenda. The original meaning or somehow closer to-I am sure you can be more privy, as you are able to cross reference words and related Bible passages. The computer age is wonderful.” as an accusatory insinuation of me being disingenious. To assist you in refraining from assumptions like this in the future I would like to educate you about me. I consider myself a avid reader and fervent fan of the Bible. So much so that I have taken considerable time in my life researching things like the origins of the bible, the Council of Lodicea, the lost books, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. I have attended numerous lectures in the past on biblical interpretations and teachings. So, although I am far from a biblical scholar I do resent your belief that I was unable to know that cleanliness was a fair assesment of biblical teaching without the use of a computer.

That being said, I find you indication that clergy who use the pulpit to speak on social issues as a means of elevating them to being equal with God’s beliefs as true. I hope you hold the same accountability to those who utilize “conservative theology” on hot button social issues. I think it is demonstratively shown that the conservative clergy hold a lead in this category of spiritual self righteousness. I can also assure you that I am plenty old enough to appreciate the evolution of many things, although I am somewhat puzzled a to what type of evolution you refer to with Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestanism. 

We will just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of stewarship in present terms. For example, if I owned a forest and chose to clear cut it because it would be the best use for return and I wasted nothing in doing so, but as a result my neighbors were subject to problems like erosion, an influx of nuisanced wildlife, etc I would think that is not being a good steward. Stewarship as defined in the present day is basically a person or group who manages a particular thing. I don’t see “Stewardship” in terms of our environment as being anything close to Dominionism, which you seemingly do. The fact that you attempt to rationalize your belief with your own biblical interpretation is somehwat puzzling given your undeniable stance on what constitutes self righteousness. 

In any event, I can assure you as well that I fully understand your posts as you have presented them. If my interpretation is flawed I would ask you to let me know what specifically I have “misunderstood” as I certainly am not above learning. The reality is that I just don’t agree with the belief that as Stewards we do not have an obligation to be cognizant of future generations or our neighbors. We cannot adopt the Ann Coultier view of “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
If that makes me liberal then so be it. I guess I will take the consequences if in the end it defies the true meaning set forth in scripture.

Posted by ( Diana ) on April 10, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Chris,
I am truly sorry if you thought I did not think you intelligent or skilled enough. Saying a cliche, or an age old adage is found in the Bible has always been a pet peeve of mine. Your insinutation to me leaned strongly in that direction. It is a very purposeful technique used wittingly or unwittingly in debate.

The evolution of major faiths in the U.S. has evolved to different thinking as being more liberal. You probably touched on one facet that comes to mind by bringing up conservative clergy thinking on social issues. For instance, abortion. 50 years ago you would have been hard pressed to find one Christian denomination in the United States that condoned it on any level. Now it is only those considered conservative that still preach against it. Temperance also was a huge issue, probably deriving from Puritan influence for the early century Methodists, Presbyterians. Aprroximately 35 years ago some larger Methodist denominations (i.e, United Methodist) changed their thinking to allow for social drinking.

The subject however I feel we have strayed from. This is really about the power plant in St. Paul. The building which many and in this case some clergy which yes I have called ‘liberal’ feel would cause more damage than good to their neighbor. When you are clergy you are more than your ‘brother’s keeper.’ You are in an elevated position. I have called this a social issue. For the benefit of those clergy who see it otherwise I can stretch and see the spiritual connotation. So my position is they tred a slippery slope to speak with a voice that uses their position as clergy. I have no such postion. I am only an observer and take offense, though not easily, when someone tells me how I should think in order to be more humane, holy or right.

In the example of clear cut you cited there are guidelines and ultimately laws to protect if your actions harm another’s property. The humane way is be nice to each other, if you aren’t religious, and the golden rule if you are. This is always true. And such is true with Dominion, Federal and State guidelines and laws are in place. I have addressed this before. Work to change the laws if you (any person who is against power plants). But please don’t try to make me think you know what God would say. I don’t know, maybe Jesus would say we just don’t need electricity. Light a candle, kids.

Posted by ( Lewis Loflin ) on April 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Here are some more “strawman” stuff for Chris:

To continue from above. Why am I skecpital of man made global warming? Because I reject “science” when it’s involved in politics just as I do religion being involved in politics. I also reject any form of religion or spiritualism mixed into science.

Environmentalism tops the agenda at every socialist/communist organization in the world. The Socialist Action says this so-called crisis “(is) the result of the reckless policies of profit driven capitalism…” Earth Day happens to be Lenin’s birthday. What about the hysterical U.N. report? The 18 scientists from 11 countries include John Holdren of Harvard University, who is the “Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy.” That’s right, the wife of John Kerry who funds numerous radical-left organizations. The report was partially funded by the private U.N. Foundation, owned by Ted Turner of CNN fame, who idolizes Fidel Castro. The Salt Lake Tribune said, “Only a (U.N.) carbon tax can stop global warming.” This would make the U.N. a self-funding world government bent on a massive Third World welfare program. Many believe a Democratic Congress could get this passed into law. Al Gore backs this tax.

What about this carbon tax? From http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D5C3C93F-802A-23AD-4F29-FE59494B48A6

““$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.” The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.”

Why in the heck should a US citizen be paying taxes to the UN? Over my dead body! Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against ‘Futile’ Climate Control Efforts to include: Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the “Father of Meteorology”; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the “1000 Most Cited Scientists”; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

To quote, “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables...”

See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Now we have global cooling: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html “The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.”

And from NASA http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

To quote, “ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.”

And http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000830073152.htm

“ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2000) — Since climate change affects everyone on Earth, scientists have been trying to pinpoint its causes. For many years, researchers agreed that climate change was triggered by what they called “greenhouse gases,” with carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, playing the biggest role. However, new research suggests fossil fuel burning may not be as important in the mechanics of climate change as previously thought.”

Ice caps ar emelting on Mars due to increased solar radition. From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

And: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Some more politics. From http://www.socialistaction.org/environment.htm

Quote, We stand firmly in opposition to the destruction of the environment. We believe that the scourge of pollution, depletion of resources and degradation of our natural environment is primarily the result of the reckless policies of profit driven capitalism, and the shortsighted consumerism that it fosters. We believe that under socialism - through a rational, democratically controlled planned economy - we will be able to make decisions that can stop and reverse the destruction of the environment.

And,

“The Climate Skepticism of Alexander Cockburn:  Left journalist and commentator Alexander Cockburn recently took a strange turn to the right by joining the ranks of nay-saying climate skeptics in a series of four articles published in The Nation...”

So when did skepticism of Global Warming dogma become right-wing? Are they saying global warming is left-wing? Science shouldn’t be political, which global warming has become just that. What are their other positions?

“Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer: An alarming number of so-called environmentalists in the United States are taking the position that more nuclear power generation is the way to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to global warming...”

And, “Why We Need a New Environmental Movement...”

Earth Day Is Lenin’s Birthday: Coincidence or Communism?

In 1955, then Soviet Premier, Nikita Krushchev ordered April 22nd be designated a day to celebrate Communism. In 1970, it was chosen to be Earth Day by Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of the event. Those founders had 365 days from which to choose. They chose Lenin’s birthday. Gaylord Anton Nelson (June 4, 1916 – July 3, 2005) was an American Democratic politician from Wisconsin. He was the principal founder of Earth Day in 1970. He had to know this.

To quote this, “Never a Marxist, Zeidler describes himself as a Democratic Socialist who shared a lot of immediate objectives, if not political theory, with progressive liberal Democrats such as former Wisconsin Govs. Gaylord Nelson and John Reynolds.”

Ref. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950124/ai_n10182393

Question: where does socialist, progressive liberal, and Marxist differ?

Who is John Holdren? From http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/john-holdren

“John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is also the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center and from 2005 to 2008 served as President-Elect, President, and Chair of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work focuses on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.”

He is bought and paid for by John Kerry’s wife, who funds a number of radical left orginizations. According to the classes he teaches, none are scientific but concern public policy. He has a long record of left-wing activism going back decades. But that is not all.

From: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0216am_holdren_address.shtml

To quote,

“AAAS President John P. Holdren Urges Swift Action to Build a Sustainable Future SAN FRANCISCO—Challenges such as poverty, climate change and nuclear proliferation pose global risks that require scientists and engineers to join with political and business leaders in a concerted search for solutions”

That’s politics, not science.

To quote http://www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html

CounterPunch got its hands on a copy of the nuclear industry’s Kyoto briefing book prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a $100 million a year trade organization. The book was written by researchers at Bechtel, the giant construction firm that has built dozens of nuclear plants across the globe...The NEI’s Kyoto packet includes a long list of endorsements ranging from Tom Clancy and the Pope to Hazel O’Leary and green guru James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis...Another reason is that the nuclear lobby has enjoyed a long and profitable relationship with both Clinton and Gore. Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry’s more problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs. And, of course, Bill Clinton backed Entergy’s outrageous plan to make Arkansas ratepayers pay for cost overruns on the company’s Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana…

During the run up to Kyoto, the nuclear industry secured another startling windfall, this time a promise of nearly $400 million in research and development subsidies. The key man here is one of Al Gore’s intellectual Svengalis, John P. Holdren. While a professor at Berkeley, Holdren portrayed himself as a mighty foe of nuclear weapons. His popularity among Berkeley students soared after he gave ecological backing to Carl Sagan’s scary scenarios about nuclear winter. Now Holdren is ensconced at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where he presides as the John and Teresa Heinz professor of environmental policy. It will be recalled that Teresa Heinz is the $2 billion widow of the late Sen. John Heinz, intimate friend of Clinton’s former global warming negotiator Tim Wirth, current wife of Sen. John Kerry, head of a $200 million foundation which gives money for “practical solutions to global environmental problems” and long-time board member of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Holdren was tapped by Gore and Clinton’s science advisor Jack Gibbons to head a task force on energy and climate policy as part of the Presidential Commission on Science and Technology. Holdren’s panel was well stocked with allies of the nuclear lobby…

Let’s look some more into this Clinton/Gore/Kerry surrogate. Holdren it turns out headed that UN study Chris likes to bring up.

From Voice of America at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm?CFID=298606376&CFTOKEN=66645531

Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax By Peter Heinlein United Nations 28 February 2007 A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. VOA’s correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling. A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries is calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change. In a report requested by the United Nations and partially paid for by the privately funded U.N. Foundation…

More of the ususal usual global climate dogma, but who/what is the so-called UN Foundation that helped pay for this study?

To quote http://www.unfoundation.org/

“The UN Foundation was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. The UN Foundation builds and implements public-private partnerships to address the world’s most pressing problems, and broadens support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach. The UN Foundation is a public charity.”

Communist sympathiser Ted Turner, ex-husband of pro-communist “Hanoi” Jane Fonda. What does Turner think of Fidel Castro?

Go to youtube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=T0sp_BvQ5cM&feature=related and watch Ted’s love affair with Castro.

Ted says news media has no business showing the American flag. See http://youtube.com/watch?v=zPIA95SLv6g

More on Turner: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1iP1HB2K8CY

Ted on North Korea: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UA2UVgmydZc

Ted says we have too many people in the world (Does he imply we kill a bunch of the surplus?) http://youtube.com/watch?v=JTnAToiQSGE

Chris likes to tell us about all of those “peer reviewed” science whatever. But what hapens to anyone that dares to question Global Warming dogma? Let’s turn to John Holdren again.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is an Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

In 1998, Lomborg published four articles about the state of the environment in the leading Danish newspaper Politiken, which according to him “resulted in a firestorm debate spanning over 400 articles in major metropolitan newspapers.” In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated. After the book’s publication, members of the Danish and international scientific community accused Lomborg of “scientific dishonesty”. These allegations were investigated by appropriate arms of the Danish government and in the end, no official charges were left standing. However, there are scientists who remain critical of Lomborg’s work.

Holdren led this attack to silence a critic. The whole inquisition was rejected by Danish the government. Much to the rage of the Global Warming cult and Holdren to quote, “In March 2002, the newly elected center-right prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, appointed Lomborg to run Denmark’s new Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI). On June 22 2004, Lomborg announced his decision to resign from this post to go back to the University of Aarhus, saying his work at the Institute was done and that he could better serve the public debate from the academic sector.”

Also see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf

To quote, “...the use of science by scientists as a means of negotiating for desired political outcomes – the politicization of science by scientists – threatens the development of effective policies in contested issues. By tying themselves to politics, rather than policy, scientists necessarily restrict their value and the value of their science...If scientists evaluate the research findings of their peers on the basis of political perspectives, then “scientific” debate among academics risks morphing into political debates…

Also see “A reprieve for free speech” http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/78-file/Economist_com__Bjorn_Lomborg.htm?PHPSESSID=35976d9d2217d203e68c1bc1419df48f

NEW developments to report in the saga of Bjorn Lomborg and “scientific dishonesty”. Dr Lomborg, currently the director of Denmark’s Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, a global bestseller that embarrassed green groups by documenting their systematic exaggeration of the Earth’s environmental problems. Furious environmentalists brought a complaint about the book before a body called the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), which, as we reported on January 11th of this year, found that: “Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration [Dr Lomborg’s book] is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.”

This finding, and the total absence of evidence or argument to support it, struck many as bizarre. Having read the DCSD’s report, we ourselves concluded, “The panel’s ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.”

On December 17th, Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the DCSD’s finding. It is more politely expressed than ours, but comes to much the same conclusion. The ruling is thrown back to the DCSD with instructions to think again. Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and...the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”

But the fight isn’t over. To quote, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6924/full/421681b.html “Social scientists call for abolition of dishonesty committee...” In other words if the committee comes to wrong political conclusion, disband the committee.

So much for the socialist’ side. What about the religious side? James Lovelock founded modern environmental religion. I won’t go into everything on him, but this one statement from http://www.countercurrents.org/goodell291007.htm is enough for me: “Most scientists toil at the margins of human knowledge, adding incrementally to our understanding of the world. Lovelock is one of the few living scientists whose ideas have touched off not only a scientific revolution but a spiritual one as well...”

Spriritualism is not science. It’s a way for the modern atheist to have a religious experience without a belief in God. So environmentalism takes on the aura of a religious crusade and has become less and less about science and more and more about a religion. Because most leftist’ types tend towards atheism, they need something to devote their lives to. Where to separate these people is difficult and I have no wish to lump them all together. I don’t believe it’s a cult or conspiracy, but an allience of convienience.

So Chris can save his yelling about “strawman” he comes up with for everything. I will not debate him. And I’ll warn Diane and others right now they are wasting their time trying to explain their beliefs to him. I have no idea what he really believes and I’ll withhold judgement on that.

Posted by ( Lewis Loflin ) on April 22, 2008 at 5:00 am

Here is material related to why these so-called “liberal churches” have become involved in this political issue they have no business being in. It’s called separation of church and state.

From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7081/full/440136a.html

Nature 440, 136-137 (9 March 2006)

Special Report Church joins crusade over climate change

Evangelical leaders have called on the United States to step up its efforts to control greenhouse-gas emissions. But can they force action where others have failed, asks Amanda Haag.

Fire and brimstone are coming to the aid of US science, as evangelical scientists and their allies in the religious community embark on a battle against climate change."The time has come...for destroying those who destroy the Earth,” says Calvin DeWitt, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, quoting from the Scriptures…

From http://www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/2007/02/

To quote, “This is the text of a sermon by Peter Laarman preached at the First United Methodist Church of Los Angeles on February 11, 2007. The sermon texts were Luke 6:17-26 and Jeremiah 17.5-10.”

No More Crusades: Tom Hayden “It’s good to see 500 progressive Christians becoming organized in response to the highjacking of the faith by right-wing Christian networks. The fact that voters turned away the agenda of social and religious conservatives in the Nov 2006 election is a sign of the times.

(my comment: the religious right and real Christians like Diane are the true Christians, even though I disagree with their positions. I’m not a Christian myself as Andrea well knows. Diane: stick with your beliefs!)

To continue:

...When I chaired the Natural Resources Committee in the California Senate, I noticed that the clergy never testified against the destruction of species, forests, clean air and water, the wellsprings of life itself...The environment thus is valued as a utilitarian resource, a giant storehouse of raw materials for the use of humankind. Right-wing Christians like Reagan’s former interior secretary James Watt have argued against preservation of the environment in light of the Second Coming. Liberals have argued for environmental stewardship, often citing the “dominion” reference in Genesis as justification...The scriptures place us in this role to underscore our special, sacred status above the lesser world of living things and ecosystems. As stewards, we become the plant managers for the absentee owner…

(My comment: this is where I agree with the Christian view of Nature, not the New Age, pantheistic view of Liberals. Yes we must do what we can to protect the environment, but human beings come before bugs and slugs. Christianity in reality takes a rational view of Nature (not spiritual) as do I.)

“...That day is coming but it will take great soul-searching, in theology and practice, for Christianity – and other faith traditions as well – to make the adjustment. I agree with Al Gore who wrote that “when we rise, we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all, it is a moral and spiritual challenge.”

...I am not sure that the theological and institutional adjustment can be made. We are living on borrowed time. But I believe we can rediscover a Lost Gospel of the Earth, an indigenous and mystical sense of the cosmos buried within all our religious traditions as evidence of past religious wars. It is there in the rainbow covenant between God and earth itself. It is there when Isiah speaks of the holy mountain and the earth being full of the knowledge of the Lord...”

This idiot is looking secular version of a mythical Eden. This garbage has nothing to with science. That is what is behind these so-called “liberal” churches that have abandoned a traditional view of Christ and have remapped modern socialist and New Age themes (social gospel) into their theology. So-called “progressive” Christians are no more Christian than Christianity is Judaism.

From http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/global-warming-religious-perspective.html sums this up:

Global Warming: a Religious Perspective

Some very insightful and thought-provoking analysis of global warming, written by Josie Appleton, in full at http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3406/. Here is my edited summary of her key points, which provide a fantastic perspective by which to think critically about the whole global warming phenomena. On the one hand, there is the straightforward critique of the science behind the models of climate change. Far more interesting is her cultural analysis, which shows that concern with global warming has become a functional pseudo-religion, driven by a fear and dislike of the modern world, with all the irrationality that implies.

In short, the attraction of the global warming issue has little to do with environmental problems. Instead, global warming appears to provide answers to life’s big questions, offering a new kind of historic mission and a new structure for personal morality. Global warming has become a religious crusade, full of a righteous call-to-arms, and of moral lessons for humanity. Global warming has become a foil for a whole series of political and moral agendas, a way of discussing everything from the sins of consumerism to human arrogance. [Last, but not least, I would add, it provides a sense of moral and intellectual superiority, which is a prerequisite for the modern liberal!]

The language of environmentalism is not the language of rational management, it is the language of religion. Examine the religious imagery used by Al Gore explaining what global warming means to him:

“The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise…. When we do rise, it will fill out spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope.”

WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THIS NONSENSE FROM GORE HAVE TO DO WITH SCIENCE? THEY NEED TO INTERPRET THIS BUSINESS THROUGH SCIENCE AND REASON, SOMETHING NOT TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES TODAY.

This is the main reason I reject these eco-doomsday theology that I believe Chris and others “more enlightened” and superior to rest of us believe in. I want verifiable scientific proof, not a secular-religious remapping of the Bible. Just because one is an atheist or agnostic doesn’t mean they are unreligious.

To continue:

...The solution to global warming involves a sense of guilt, a sense of repentance, and a sense of the moral failure of the modern lifestyle. We must have a quieter, slower, calmer life, overcoming the problem of human hubris and the restless desire to dominate and control. We will live locally, we will be thankful, we will make do. Children would be able to play in the street again; airports would be converted back into forests. Global warming is not so much a problem to solve, as an issue around which to reorganize society. This is a religious story like Noah’s flood, and the lesson is in the sins of hubris, selfishness, and consumerism…

...Only in the 2000s have scientists been pumping out models that predict catastrophic change. The cause for this shift in mentality: social shifts that predispose us to a more dangerous view of the world and a discontent with our current situation. Our social anxieties today – a fear of change, a sense of the fragility of things – guide the questions that scientists ask, and the kinds of theories that ring true to the people who hear them.

From http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/159/

Frank Furedi Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, and author of Politics of Fear, Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?, Therapy Culture, Paranoid Parenting and Culture of Fear.

In search of eco-salvation
Many religions are now more likely to preach about saving the planet than saving souls.

To quote, “These days, moralisers find it easier to make people feel guilty about their impact on the environment than about committing one of the seven deadly sins. Not surprisingly, many religious institutions are busy reinventing themselves by promoting ecological virtues and preaching against the eco-sins of polluters.”

This I have seen myself in public schools:

“The appeal of eco-spirituality to so many different religions is a testimony to the powerful influence that environmentalism exercises over contemporary culture. At a time when traditional institutions find it difficult to connect with popular concerns, environmentalism is still able to transmit ideas about human responsibility through appealing to a sense of right and wrong. That is why the authors of children’s books and school officials also use environmentalism as a vehicle for socialising youngsters.”

Note the material here is going into new pages on my website and not just here. So Chris, etc. understand what my position is:

Keep religion and politics out of science.

Keep politics out of religion.

Posted by ( Lewis Loflin ) on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 am

Chris,

I respect your view and deem it worthy of consideration, but I must stand by the science I know and can verify myself versus the word of those that are clearly political in motive.

You can except “peer reviewed studies” but I won’t accept that from those that crucify very alternate view and threaten others. I have tried to pull up the data they claim to use, nobody will release it. I won’t accept the word of Christian fundamentalists nor secular fundamentalists merely on faith.

I disbelieve Christian dogma because in my study of the Bible, the Bible itself clearly disproves their claims. Jesus was no messiah (at least as the Old Testament says) because He did nothing the Jewish messiah was supposed to do. The “peer reviewed” consensiuos in 325 at Nicaea declared Jesus was God, end of story, then they murdered every desenter.

So why are you not a fundamentalist’ Christian? (This is not to belittle Chris or Christians) I do respect that you think for yourself and stick by your convictions as I do Diane and Andrea for theirs, but the four of us I venture differ on some very vital points. We all think in differing ways I believe are healthy, but I don’t believe it’s right for any of us to impose our views on others. But this environmental “religion” seeks to impose massive costs and controls on millions of people by fiat, not the ballot box. To me individual liberty overrules the “democratic” mob.

I’ll make it clear right now I don’t claim expertise in the field of climate, but reason says that those that can’t even predict the weather even for next week should be questioned.  I have had physics, chemistry, and biology at a very tough four year college. Their science claims doesn’t fit the facts and I avoid material from those I consider political from the other side of the argument too.

You said,

<<I tend to accept that the folks who are worried about anthropogenic warming and have proved it are not simply doing so to further a sinister agenda.

I respect that, but I have presented a lot of proof outside oil companies, neocons, etc. that call their claims into question. I made it clear before I don’t believe this is some “plot” but an alliance of those with similar political and social views. I believe those social/political views are what are driving them.

And with due respect I must include you in that group. I believe you are honest and well meaning, most of the rank and file “environmentalists” are, but if this was being driven by Pat Robertson and Dobson along Biblical lines you would be the first to attack it. I would too if the science doesn’t fit and it doesn’t.

I want and demand verifiable scientific proof I can check myself. Why don’t you present scientific proof? Why just the opinion of this UN demigod IPCC? Who appointed them to determine anything? Who appointed the UN to rule over anything in the United States, a sovereign nation? You still believe in your country don’t you, or do you think in terms of “world” as the left often does? America first, the world be damned, that is my view.

<<<Perhaps you should inform your readers who funds the persons you mention in your diatribe.

The taxpayers fund NASA. National Geographic is private, others work at various colleges or are private citizens taking considerable personal risk. Sorry they aren’t endorsed by gods of socialism at the UN, or billionaire communists like Ted Turner or Soros, or moveon.org.

You either have proof the average person can verify or you don’t. Sorry, no strawman diatribe this time.

Posted by ( Lewis Loflin ) on May 01, 2008 at 1:55 am

Again Chris you have totally missed every point I brought up.

<<scientific argument on biblical terms and 2,500 scientist and 130 nations doing so.

I don’t quote Robertson as an authority on science. And who are those 130 nations? 60-70 of them Muslim fundamentalist, many of the rest backward and corrupt with a political agenda. If promised billions of dollars via the UN in carbon taxes (that China, India, etc. are exempt from) they will certainly go along with it.

>>I except peer reviewed studies because that is how science works

To quote one scientist,

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.  Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.  In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

That is not how science works. That was the same kind of “peer review” that at one time said the sun circled the earth. The UN is not a science body.

<<Your first link led to “NASA Climate Change ‘Peacemakers’ Aided Nobel Effort” That same organization gave a terrorist named Arafat a peace prize.

You second link, “2007 Was Tied as Earth’s Second-Warmest Year” is true, but measured since when? They said 2005, did you bother to read the rest of it? To quote,

“"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature,” said Hansen. “Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected...”

Sorry Chris, it’s already failed for 2008 as temperatures have dropped across the globe so far this year. You notice something else he said, volcanic eruptions. Those are unpredictable and are proven to alter climate.

So let me again clear up your endless confusion: we have global warming, most/all of the causes are natural events, it has happened in the past, it will happen again.

Yes I read the NASA proclamation of end times coming from a Mr. Hanson, who has detractors in NASA. By the way, global warming is great way to get additional funding. To quote that article,

“Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying..”

Really? That what they said in the 1970s with the ice age they predicted.

Another article you referred to, “A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA” has no relation to science. NASA is a government organization and is thus political. Bush has a political agenda just as Al Gore does.

The rest of your links try to prove global warming exists, I never said it didn’t. The causes and future predictions are under dispute. 

You last link was to National Geographic and to quote, “Global Warming Fast Facts..."Very likely,” the IPCC said in a February 2007 report...”

They like you refer to the same old people with a political agenda. But I finally found part of the material from that report that you and NG hasn’t even read, so I will quote a few sections. You can go get your own copy and read it.

The Climate System: An Overview, we turn to the first page of text, and on the third paragraph read:

Climate variations and change, caused by external “forcings”, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behavior and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.

PARTLY PREDICTABLE??? What the heck does that mean? And we rely on what? “carefully constructed scenarios.” Science doesn’t work by such nonsense.

But we have plenty more. To quote,

“"While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment.”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? SUBJECTIVE!!! They have zero scientific proof even from their own words! Let’s see the definition of subjective, to quote Princeton,

“taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; “a subjective judgment”
# immanent: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; “a cognition is an immanent act of mind”

So where is that listed in the scientific method? In other words we are in the realm of politics and religion.

Now one more quote,

“The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

No kidding. This is exactly why you can’t present a shred of scientific proof because there is none as to the future and the present has many valid natural explanations. But we must be “subjective” here and go by our feelings on religion and politics. I’ll quote one of those Marxist/atheist useful idiots who explains it all in religious terms.

From http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Philosophy/christianity_s_impact_on_the_e.html
and Wiki,

Lynn Townsend White, Jr. (April 29, 1907 – March 30, 1987) was a professor of medieval history at Princeton, Stanford and, for many years, University of California, Los Angeles. He was president of Mills College, Oakland from 1943 to 1958.

To quote,

“Today, there are a vast number of environmental problems, all with unique causes.  Some people have said that Christianity is one of the primary causes of the degradation of the environment.

Lynn White has said that the modern destruction of the environment can be attributed to Christianity.  The Biblical belief that nature, seen as inferior to people, can be controlled by man, has brought a lack of respect for the sacredness of the environment, according to White.

White would also argue that Christianity is greatly responsible for the advent of Western science and technology.  Modern technology has clearly been one of the main sources of environmental difficulties.

The Judeo-Christian notion of nature is that it is not sacred like God.  Man, however, is believed by this group to be made in God’s image, and can therefore shape nature as God would.

There are some who would disagree with this application of Christianity...”

Considering the anti-Christian and mostly Marxist’ viewpoints in our universities, where this is often the “subjective” views of many IPCC scientists, why am I not surprised at their conclusions?

Chris keep trying to use the argument of “conspiracy theory” and I’ll say once again there is no conspiracy here. This is a difference in cultural outlook and today is often anti-science. Some call it post modernism.

From http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm

To quote,

“The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological.