Fumed!!!!!

[Calliso]

The idea that global warming is a lie?
This actually seems exclusive to mainstream USA conservatism, certainly isn’t seen here in Britain and Ireland.

To the OP: you say Mitch Pacwa said History Channell was anti-christian, and you use global warming as an example of this?! Where’s the logic?

Yeah from what I have seen it does seem global warming skepticism is mostly confined to the USA. As for why I donlt know. I seriously doubt though it;s because the rest of the world believes whatever they are told and we are the only free thinkers…

Really though media sources do tend to be biased and they can get info outright wrong too.

 

[edjco]

Now, you see what y’all have done?
I told you not to do it, but you made the OP (and I’m the OP’er) into a debate on global warming. (By the way, I just created a new word: “OP’er”!)
Let me just look back here at a few posts…
First of all, thanks to all of you at the beginning of the thread who helped convince me that I wasn’t a conspiracy theorist.
Then granpaben showed up, and hijacked my thread! The thread, as stated in the OP, was not to discuss global warming, but rather the motives of the History Channel. The two are not even remotely confusable…
Granpaben, you said:
**The idea that global warming is a lie?
This actually seems exclusive to mainstream USA conservatism, certainly isn’t seen here in Britain and Ireland.
To the OP: you say Mitch Pacwa said History Channell was anti-christian, and you use global warming as an example of this?! Where’s the logic?This actually seems exclusive to mainstream USA conservatism, certainly isn’t seen here in Britain and Ireland.
**Ok, so here’s the guy from Louisiana’s take on the subject (now I know we ranked 49th in education, but we kicked Mississippi’s butt!):
**To the OP: you say Mitch Pacwa said History Channell was anti-christian, and you use global warming as an example of this?! Where’s the logic?
**1-Well, it’s apparently not where you are standing. I used their ranking of (alleged) global warming as the number one threat to life on this planet as an example of their lack of candor, not as an example of their anti-Christianity. Mayhaps you should peruse my OP?
2-While I’m not convinced yet either way on global warming, I think that neither you nor I have the intelligence nor the education to declare whether or not global warming is a lie. The reason we don’t is that neither of us is a scientist, and even if we were, scientists themselves do not agree that global warming even exists. Oh, by the way, I forgot, but I am a scientist. Although, my major is only in biology, not economics like some “global warming” experts" that have been touted…
Then, someone named rwoehmkexyz…xxxooo said something about the polar icecaps melting and made a really cute and fuzzy remark about “this is a sign of global cooling? etc.”
Well, he failed to mention that as some icecaps are melting, others are freezing and increasing in mass, which is a definite, empirical sign of global warming…at least, I guess it is?
Now I’m not a proponent of either side. After reviewing the whole “global warming” issue, I’m left with the following conclusions, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong:
1-GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY- In sciencey stuff, there’s laws, and then there’s theories. If something is a law, they call it a law; like The Law of Conservation of Mass, or The Law of Gravity. If it’s not a law, it’s what we in Louisiana call, a theory…I have yet to hear anyone refer to “The Law of Global Warming”.
2- SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE ON GLOBAL WARMING-Now that’s something you could call a law of science: The Law of Scientific Disagreement on Global Warming, or at least that’s what I would call it.
3-THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO DO AGREE THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS, DO NOT AGREE THAT MAN IS THE CAUSE… I can probably just leave you alone to figure out that one for yourself.
4-CHUNKY EX-PRESIDENTS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, AND THEIR THEORIES DO NOT BECOME SCIENTIFIC LAWS BY THEIR MERE REPETITION. You are free to do with that one what you will.
5-NO NATION SHOULD SET IT’S POLICY, AND INDEED STAKE IT’S FUTURE ON A SCIENTIFIC THEORY- for further reading, see “Carbon Credits” and their effect on the soverignty of the US when our industries are penalized financially in order to benefit “carbon neutral” countries like China and India, Mexico and Russia…
6-LET’S GET BACK ON TRACK. THE HISTORY CHANNEL RELATED PEOPLE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING (me…maybe) WITH PEOPLE WHO DENY THE HOLOCAUST (Makhmoud Akhmadinajid).
Oh, one more thing…You said:
**This actually seems exclusive to mainstream USA conservatism, certainly isn’t seen here in Britain and Ireland.
**Well, neither was Hitler’s little “march” across Europe seen the same way we saw it, at least not at first. You must understand, Americans don’t see things the same way as Europeans. In fact, we have a state whose moniker is “The Show Me State”, because they don’t just believe someone’s words, they require fact. That’s sort of how American conservatives are.

 

[didymus]

Please list those things that would place us with “the rest of conservatism.”

Pro death penalty.
Pro gun rights.
Anti-welfare.
Anti-immigration.
Generally anti-tax, anti-government, esp. Federal government.

Not to say any of those is wrong or that I even disagree with all of them – and no, none of those positions necessarily contradicts Catholic teaching, but come on, CA is a very conservative place. Sometimes I come here & I fell like I’ve wandered into one of those “Are the Republicans secretly commies or just dupes?” clubs.

 

[Redbandito]

Pro death penalty.
Pro gun rights.
Anti-welfare.
Anti-immigration.
Generally anti-tax, anti-government, esp. Federal government.

Not to say any of those is wrong or that I even disagree with all of them – and no, none of those positions necessarily contradicts Catholic teaching, but come on, CA is a very conservative place. Sometimes I come here & I fell like I’ve wandered into one of those “Are the Republicans secretly commies or just dupes?” clubs.

This is quite the caricature. For starters, republicans are not commies. Communism is the political arm of Marxism which is the philosophy of the left. Generally the left votes democrat.

Second, conservatives aren’t just proguns, they’re pro constitution. Since the second amendment provides for the right to bear arms, conservatives support it.

Third, we’re not anti-immigration. Nice try. We’re anti ILLEGAL immigration. Or in other words, pro rule of law.

Fourth, we’re not anti-welfare, we’re anti-government sponsored welfare at the federal level since art one section eight of the constitution does not provide congress with such authority. That being said the average coservative is much more likely to donate money or time to charitable causes. This is true charity rather than kind that comes from gov coercion through taxes.

Finally we are not anti government. We are simply anti-BIG government.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Pro death penalty.
Pro gun rights.
Anti-welfare.
Anti-immigration.
Generally anti-tax, anti-government, esp. Federal government.

Not to say any of those is wrong or that I even disagree with all of them – and no, none of those positions necessarily contradicts Catholic teaching, but come on, CA is a very conservative place. Sometimes I come here & I fell like I’ve wandered into one of those “Are the Republicans secretly commies or just dupes?” clubs.

Your reasons amaze me, in that they are very ill informed, short on analysis and grasping for true fact. The post directly after your reply gave some pretty good answers. I would like to add some of my own. By the way, I do consider myself to be conservative and while I an an Independent, I must admit that I have never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate.

1. I am an ex-policeman, and now happen to be against the death penalty, except in certain circumstances which were well enumerated by Pope John Paul II. I simply asked myself if I am for it, would I be willing to pull the switch. My answer was no. If I am unwilling to do so, I could not in good conscious ask others to do the same.
2. Yes, I am pro gun rights. I have a good collection, and one of my favorite pastimes is to go to the pistol range. I do this because I do not like golf. Never have. As Redbandito pointed out, we do have an amendment to our constitution allowing this. You must realize that either they all stand or all go. There is also one that guarantees freedom of religion. Note, it says freedom of, not freedom from. If The freedom of Choice Act, passes, that will be a huge legislative act infringing upon freedom of religion. If you are not familiar with it, I suggest you do some home work.

3.I am not anti welfare. I am against people using the system who are able bodied but have an entitlement mentality.

1. I am not against migration. If that were the case, my grandparents would not have been able to come over from Poland. I am against illegal immigration. This itself gets into much more, which I will not go into.
2. I am not anti tax. I am against spreading the wealth by taking from one to give to another. I am not anti government, as we all know where we would be without one. It has done a wonderful job of protecting us during the last 8 years.

I will add just a few more things that conservatives are against which you failed to list. Most of us are against these because of religious beliefs. They include being against, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic (Not adult) stem cell research, and cloning.

As you can see, we do not all fit into your small, preconceived idea of what we are suppose to be. I place your comments about Republicans and “commies” into this small preconceived category.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[milimac]

I saw that episode this weekend. I was already rolling my eyes at how they presented end-of-the-world scenarios in the most titillating ways possible. Then came the number one end-of-the-world scenario, global warming. What a shoddy piece of journalism. The viewer is lead to believe that only extremely anti-environment redneck morons would not believe that there is a clear consensus that global warming is not only occurring, but it’s also man-made, and will be catastrophic if we don’t act now (which also assumes we can do something about it). The scientists who are doubtful of any of thes points are compared to holocaust deniers and the scientists in the 50’s who expressed doubt that smoking is a health concern. I believe they said the number of “dissident” scientists who aren’t on board with the man-made global warming “consensus” was about a dozen. (As a side note, why don’t they mention the number of scholars who think the Da Vinci Code is credible compared to the number who think it laughable? In this case, where there truly is very little dispute of the facts, the oddball conspiracy theorists are made to look credible, and the ridiculous conspiracy theories are played up to make you think there’s still serious scholarly debate surrounding the issue.)

The woman interviewing Al Gore had such a deep look of fearful concern that it could very well win her a soap opera Emmy. The only way they could have produced a more effective piece of global warming propaganda would have been if they were less obvious about it. They must really count on being seen as a trustworthy source of global warming information for the majority of their viewers. For me, it only diminishes their credibility on everything else.

History Channel is to history as the National Enquirer is to news. I find some of their programs entertaining, but I’ve come to the point where I can trust them to twist, distort, and exaggerate to make a more titillating story. And if it’s a religious topic I usually skip it altogether and grab a video from Steve Ray’s site for better documentaries.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

History Channel is to history as the National Enquirer is to news. .

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this analogy. I love it.

 

[cor5755]

I just watched the series the HC did on the 7 deadly sins. It is the little things they do and say that knock down the Catholic Church. One example was a woman in the confessional and a priest hearing the confession with a snear on his face. Whenever they do a program on religion, watch for the small details in the program that either attacks the Catholic Faith or Christianity as a whole.

 

[kesa82]

It is a huge money making scam that plays on first-world guilt-

GE has NBC put on a week of “green” programs where the stars you idolize tell you how much more they’d like you if you’d help them save the planet.

Or how about the UN? They’re using “climate change” as the underlying excuse to start an international tax aimed at global wealth redistribution. Of course, as they redistribute money from one nation to another, some of it will need to go to operating costs- you know, like multi-million dollar salaries, and multi-million dollar paintings on the cielings of their conference rooms, and multi-million dollar apartments in major cities for their delegates to relax in while they’re flying around the world -]on permanent vacations/-] doing important work.

Yes, they love me. they care about me.
So they are going to invite me to dinner, right?
They are going to loan me 20 bucks, right?
They are going to go on a date with me?
They are going to kiss me? Hug me? Marry me?

Ok, that’s too much. I agree.
So, they are at least going to send me a christmas card this year?

Now I see ; their love and concern never seems to include… specifically… me, or him, or her.
But, of course, the trouble is my self-centered selfishness, not in the clear and obvious ambiguity in their humanitarian claim.

 

[grampben]

Can someone please explain why saying Global Warming is a serious crisis makes the History Channel anti-catholic?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Yes, they love me. they care about me.
So they are going to invite me to dinner, right?
They are going to loan me 20 bucks, right?
They are going to go on a date with me?
They are going to kiss me? Hug me? Marry me?

Ok, that’s too much. I agree.
So, they are at least going to send me a christmas card this year?

Now I see ; their love and concern never seems to include… specifically… me, or him, or her.
But, of course, the trouble is my self-centered selfishness, not in the clear and obvious ambiguity in their humanitarian claim.

In all sincerity, I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

 

[milimac]

Can someone please explain why saying Global Warming is a serious crisis makes the History Channel anti-catholic?

I don’t think the original post was meant to demonstrate that, although the anti-Christianity is pretty obvious if you view the religious programming on History Channel or Discovery.

I think the post is just to show that if you think that History/Discovery Channel is some unbiased source of information and presents a fair balance of viewpoints where a balance truly exists, you won’t find it in many cases, as with the global warming issue, and especially regarding programs having to do with Christian and Catholic beliefs. The more exciting or controversial viewpoint will be the one presented most favorably, no matter what sort of consensus there may be, and no matter what the topic.

As far as the global warming issue, they would do better to use their channel to have a meaningful discussion of the issue from both sides. I think the Acton Institute does a good job of presenting the questions that should be asked and giving actual facts, rather than letting Al Gore’s “the debate is over” go unchallenged, equating skeptics to holocaust deniers, and showing pictures of cute forlorn-looking polar bears.

So, not necessarily intentionally anti-Catholic in this case, just dumb, which is unintentionally anti-Catholic.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So, not necessarily intentionally anti-Catholic in this case, just dumb, which is unintentionally anti-Catholic.

You are toooooo generous.

 

[vz71]

Can someone please explain why saying Global Warming is a serious crisis makes the History Channel anti-catholic?

It doesn’t. It makes the History Channel lose credibility.

The History Channel wants to lay claim to illustrating historical fact.

Global Warming is neither historical or fact.
At best it is unproven opinion, at worst it is a lie of the worst kind.

 

[Hislittlelady]

I find the History channel, which I watch very frequently, to be very enlightening as to what’s going on today in the world, and I don’t take it personally, nor do I believe everything they make claim to because first comes God and then comes the facts they present. I compare if there’s a connection and if there isn’t, then I don’t take it seriously. For example as to what I’m trying to say, they are predicting the end for the year 2012.

Well I can believe that their prediction of a comet coming close to earth could very well be valid, but as to predicting it to be the end of all mankind, that I will not believe. They can’t make that kind of prediction. Only God can, and we have no idea how the end will come anyway. We do know that Jesus will come down from the clouds with trumpets and many angels and every knee shall bend. How can this happen if the world is totally destroyed. It’s a great channel to watch, providing you know just enough how to differentiate between your Catholic faith and science.

Many times I’ve heard them say things totally contrary to any Christian doctrines or even claiming the earth came into the existence by the ‘big bang.’ Why couldn’t it? I consider if, and that’s a big IF, it were so and the universe came into existence with the big bang, most certainly God could have done that by merely speaking the word and the universe forming like a giant explosion. Who really knows. One thing I feel so true in my heart is that God made the universe. To say otherwise sounds very foolish to me. It doesn’t make any sense in my mind to deny God created this universe.

The HC is very good, providing you watch with great caution. Be extra careful about Nostradamus too. He played around with Alchemy, a dangerous practice little I know about it, but it does deal with the dark arts I believe.

:coffeeread: :winter: :snowing:

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

What does Monster Quest have to do with history, anyway?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What does Monster Quest have to do with history, anyway?

I see this more as entertainment than true fact.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Many times I’ve heard them say things totally contrary to any Christian doctrines or even claiming the earth came into the existence by the ‘big bang.’ :

Laura,
Don’t you know that the big bang is fact. God spoke and BANG, there it was

 

[Eucharisted]

A few years ago I gave up on the idea that The History Channel and the Discovery Channel present well-documented facts. In addition to the problems others have mentioned, it seems their programming is often timed to coordinate with the latest movies.

With high-school and college textbooks doing revisionist or selective history, and media such as the History Channel touting the latest politically-correct, unsubstantiated, garbage, there are few places to turn for “just the facts, ma’am.”

It’s even harder for people to accept the facts as facts because you get taught otherwise. It’s like with masturbation and contraceptives: it’s sin to do it, but everyone - it seems - says otherwise. I’m very glad the Catholic Church exists in a world of darkness.

 

[milimac]

Laura,
Don’t you know that the big bang is fact. God spoke and BANG, there it was

Interesting that the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest and the theory was originally dismissed as something being made up to support the Christian teaching that God created the world. Now, most scientists subscribe to some version of the Big Bang theory. You probably won’t hear much of that sort of history on the History/Discovery channel – unless of course the priest was a dissident priest – then that would be one of the first things to come out. And yet the false idea that the Catholic Church is opposed to science continues to perpetuate…