Why Global Warming is not a Fact

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, I am saying that he was not radical in his teaching. But my main point was that he started no radical political movements and espoused no radical political or social causes. He was no liberation theologian.

He was, after all, the Jewish Messiah. He preached only to Jews. His preaching, at the outset, would have made no sense to Gentiles. They were expecting no Messiah. His entire teaching and mission was the fulfillment of the Jewish Old Testament scriptures and traditions, which He quoted extensively in his teaching. He came out of a long tradition going back to Abraham being called as the father of God’s chosen people.

Can’t get much more conservative than that. The fact that he expanded that teaching and perfected it does not mean that he radically changed it. A Jewish convert to Catholicism once said that she felt more ‘at home’ as Jew at a Catholic Mass than at any protestant service, just because her own faith background seemed to be fully incorporated therein.

But this is way off topic.

I agree that he started no movements, started no church, headed no political party etc, but to say he was no radical is to, well, in my opinion, totally ignore the gospels. His treatment of women and others who were marginalized was incredibly striking. He scared the established power so much they killed him rather than allow him to continue. You don’t get much more radical than that. He even elevated children to a place of honor and significance unknown in his world.

And he did act toward and on behalf of gentiles on occasion.

I don’t know as I have ever heard anyone claim that Jesus was conservative! I’m speechless frankly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, maybe it’s my opinion, but I’m sure that soon, they will be talking about the next ice age.

My post was to point out that there is no doubt we are on a “warming trend” and the “climate change” exists. But the term global warming is overused and misused on both sides of the argument.

There are some scientists that contradict global warming. They have many facts of their own, which I personally believe.

There are many scientists that have been kicked out of their jobs because they disputed global warming. Or offered a contradicting explaination to what their superior felt was right.

Oh, and it may be superficial, but the fact that a loon like Al Gore supports this theory makes it shaky at best, in my opinion.

Methinks your quarrel with Al Gore has about nothing to do with global warming. After all, the scientific community as represented by the Nobel committee found his work and that of those who produced his movie more than qualified to receive a prize. this smacks of the usual, I hate him because he’s a democrat and I hate democrats. IN any case, casting nasty ad hominem attacks on the man is hardly called for in this thread and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This denial of global warming usually comes from the recent marrying of some religious with the tenets of the far right. The Christian Coalition really seems to have brought many of these people together and for some reason some Catholics are “buddying up” with those people who have never before been even marginally interested in Catholicism.

THis same dynamic relates to the unconditional defense of the Israeli Government.

It is a dynamic particular to the US.

Your remarks in some sense motivated this thread. I too have long noticed the un-natural relationship that has developed between the evangelical right and a ultra conservative group of Catholics. Un-natural in that most evangelicals find Catholicism as “unChristian” as it can get, and are thoroughly convinced that the whore of Babylon is in fact Rome. The bible belt seems to have joined with the Catholic right over the issue of abortion, and now they seem in synch on most social issues, (mostly do nothing, the lazy don’t deserve it) and are in the business of promoting big business. Odd since they aren’t in the upper echelons of wealth or business by and large, and the left certain has their economic interests at heart.

I do recognize that this issue like many of these is a thoroughly US phenom. My international friends continue to ask me why we are so strange here, as if we don’t have public schools or something. I find it hard to explain, since I find it hard to understand myself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This may be quibbling, but theory and fact are still vastly different. Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported via at least SOME scientific examination or experimentation. Newtonian physics was considered an iron-clad theory, as close to dead-on fact as you can get in the scientific world. Until Einstein came along and showed it to be an extremely oversimplified explanation of matter and gravity.

AGW is barely past the hypothesis stage. It has SOME supporting evidence in the form of temp records, long term CO2 levels and computer models calibrated to produce trends that match recent history. But far less support than Newtonian physics had.

You can call it a scientific theory and you’d be right - barely. I even respect those who consider it the best available theory to explain recent observations (though I’m not sure that says all that much given the dearth of serious investigations of alternative explanations). But calling it a fact just undercuts your own credibility.

To put it simply, I am aware that a theory is not a fact. I am also aware that some half a dozen scientists whom I’ve seen interviewed on various science shows have said that for practical purposes, the average person who knows little or no science may consider it akin to fact on the spectrum. I recognize that is not exact, but it’s closer to truth than it being a mere hypothesis.

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t know as I have ever heard anyone claim that Jesus was conservative! I’m speechless frankly.

Are you saying Jesus would not be a Republican were he alive and voting today?

 

[manualman]

SM, you’re the one who used the word ‘fact’ in the thread title. Right there, you’re baiting people with a charged question. That’s my basic point.

As for your condescending comments regarding conservatives, the answer is plain to see. Fundamentalists and faithful catholics have a lot of major differences. But in spite of how far apart we are in theology and understanding of Church, both groups recognize a growing Culture of Death when they see one. Both groups hold as a core value that there IS a Creator, He DID establish a Natural Law, Sin is real and has inherently fatal effects on the human soul, and humanity DOES need a savior because on our own, our sinfulness is such that we aren’t able to sustain a civilization as interdependent as ours without the intervention of Grace. Abandon the Grace, lose the civilization.

How could we NOT unite against those who seek to say the wrong is right, good is evil and up is down?

As for action and effectiveness, your comments are outright slanderous. Religious conservatives are VASTLY higher than average in their charitable giving to all sorts of endeavors. To describe as ‘do nothing’ any opposition to a government nanny state in lieu of traditional means of PERSONALLY helping those in need is ludicrous.

Indeed, many conservative politicians are in the pocket of big business. But IMO, that is offset by the fact that many leftist politicians are in the pocket of corrupt big labor AND uphold the continued killing of a million innocents a year. If that costs me a few thousand, its a worthwhile investment.

All this is a derail of course, but you need to expect it when you toss out snide comments of your own.

 

[rpp]

Are you saying Jesus would not be a Republican were he alive and voting today?

Now we know why He came when He did!

So what political Party would the King of kings be in? And who cares how He would vote, His vote is the only one that counts.

 

[JimG]

I agree that he started no movements, started no church, headed no political party etc, but to say he was no radical is to, well, in my opinion, totally ignore the gospels. His treatment of women and others who were marginalized was incredibly striking. He scared the established power so much they killed him rather than allow him to continue. You don’t get much more radical than that. He even elevated children to a place of honor and significance unknown in his world.

And he did act toward and on behalf of gentiles on occasion.

I don’t know as I have ever heard anyone claim that Jesus was conservative! I’m speechless frankly.

Catholics would disagree that he “started no church.” The fact remains that salvation history began with Adam, and the covenant was begun by God with Abraham, and with the Jewish people, out of whom arose the Messiah, himself a Rabbi. When asked which was the greatest commandment, Jesus quoted the Old Testament scriptures, in which he was well versed. The perfection of the old covenant in the new is radical in the sense of getting to the root of things, yet conservative in that it was a continuation, not a break, in salvation history.

 

[Strategery]

For me there’s no religion involved at all.

I’m an environmental scientist, and I’m appalled that we’re now implementing preventive measures against something where there is no conclusive evidence of there being a problem. Furthermore, it’s stealing resources away from environmental problems that we know we have, and we know how to deal with.

 

[manualman]

“Started no Church”

What version of the bible are you reading? Does it have 12 apostles? Pentecost? Does it include the Great Commission? What do you CALL that, if not starting a Church?

 

[Feanor]

I thought we were talking about global warming.

 

[rpp]

I thought we were talking about global warming.

I was. The main problem I have with global warming is that is will cost me more to freeze the water to make ice cubes for my shot of scotch! A dismal prospect indeed!

 

[Feanor]

I was. The main problem I have with global warming is that is will cost me more to freeze the water to make ice cubes for my shot of scotch! A dismal prospect indeed!

Now you’re talking MY language. I wonder if Jesus would have liked scotch. I bet He would have gotten a kick out of the ice!!

OK- Sorry for the interruption. . .

 

[StAnastasia]

Now you’re talking MY language. I wonder if Jesus would have liked scotch. I bet He would have gotten a kick out of the ice!!

He would have been a Talisker man, or Ardbeg at least.

 

[The_Stig]

It’s OK, people who have lost their jobs show a tendency not to give a hoot.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are you saying Jesus would not be a Republican were he alive and voting today?

Oh good grief. I cannot imagine Jesus being either frankly. Jesus is a tad bit about the bickering of national politics I surely believe.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SM, you’re the one who used the word ‘fact’ in the thread title. Right there, you’re baiting people with a charged question. That’s my basic point.

Don’t you think “bait” is a rather strong word? I used it in the common sense not in the technical and have explained that.

As for your condescending comments regarding conservatives, the answer is plain to see. Fundamentalists and faithful catholics have a lot of major differences. But in spite of how far apart we are in theology and understanding of Church, both groups recognize a growing Culture of Death when they see one. Both groups hold as a core value that there IS a Creator, He DID establish a Natural Law, Sin is real and has inherently fatal effects on the human soul, and humanity DOES need a savior because on our own, our sinfulness is such that we aren’t able to sustain a civilization as interdependent as ours without the intervention of Grace. Abandon the Grace, lose the civilization.

A number of Roman Catholics have told me that they cannot join with groups they find theologically wrong on any issue, even when they have common interests. That is why I find this coupling unnatural and bizarre.

How could we NOT unite against those who seek to say the wrong is right, good is evil and up is down?

I recognize that you are united in finding some issues without the possiblitity of having serious and well meaning differences.

As for action and effectiveness, your comments are outright slanderous. Religious conservatives are VASTLY higher than average in their charitable giving to all sorts of endeavors. To describe as ‘do nothing’ any opposition to a government nanny state in lieu of traditional means of PERSONALLY helping those in need is ludicrous.

AGain, I have been told time and time again, that conservative catholics are by and large against any government programs designed to remove poverty and other social ills. They have said to me, that personal charity is sufficient for those who “really” need it, and they of course define that group a good deal more narrowly than does the government. I have been told that our goal is not to erradicate all these ills in the first place, since Jesus said, “the poor you will always have.” This seems to suggest that charity is a personal need to achieve salvation through good works, and thus, we can’t allow them to run out.

Indeed, many conservative politicians are in the pocket of big business. But IMO, that is offset by the fact that many leftist politicians are in the pocket of corrupt big labor AND uphold the continued killing of a million innocents a year. If that costs me a few thousand, its a worthwhile investment.

I guess we each adopt the demon we wish to. Big labor is not very big actually, not any more. And it is unfortunate that you ascribe the usual abortion remarks to one side only. The point is, as many on the other side don’t give a darn about that issue either, but it is useful for them to appear so. They will of course easily travel to countries wherein their children and wives can obtain the needed abortion if necessary. I really object to the idea that abortion is dropped into every discussion whenever one needs to “score” a point.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“Started no Church”

What version of the bible are you reading? Does it have 12 apostles? Pentecost? Does it include the Great Commission? What do you CALL that, if not starting a Church?

We are not going there, since that is another entire thread. Obviously we disagree. But most biblical experts would say that the remarks about “church” are later additions not in the original gospels. But in the short, to send folks out to teach my teachings is in no way to establish a church per se. Jesus was quite clear that the faith he was born into was to be adhered to as I recall. That doesn’t sound a lot like starting a new church to me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It appears to me, that no one thinks there is a religious component to their determination that global warming is either not true, or not proven to their satisfaction. It appears to be more in line with one’s overall conservative approach to life in general. I thus consider this thread at an end. Thank you all for participating. Perhaps some issues should be started on new threads, but that would be up to someone else. Again, my thanks.

 

[manualman]

Don’t you think “bait” is a rather strong word? I used it in the common sense not in the technical and have explained that. PERHAPS IT IS A STRONG WORD. I SHOULD HAVE TERMED IT DIFFERENT. MY POINT IS THAT YOU TIPPED YOUR HAND IN THE VERY QUESTION. POOR POLLING PRACTICE.

A number of Roman Catholics have told me that they cannot join with groups they find theologically wrong on any issue, even when they have common interests. That is why I find this coupling unnatural and bizarre.
WHOEVER THEY ARE, THAT’S NOT VERY CATHOLIC. CATHOLICISM HAS ALWAYS SIFTED THE CULTURE AT LARGE, KEPT THE GOOD AND REJECTED THE WRONG.

I recognize that you are united in finding some issues without the possiblitity of having serious and well meaning differences.

AGain, I have been told time and time again, that conservative catholics are by and large against any government programs designed to remove poverty and other social ills. They have said to me, that personal charity is sufficient for those who “really” need it, and they of course define that group a good deal more narrowly than does the government. I have been told that our goal is not to erradicate all these ills in the first place, since Jesus said, “the poor you will always have.” This seems to suggest that charity is a personal need to achieve salvation through good works, and thus, we can’t allow them to run out.
ACTUALLY THE PROBLEM IS THAT GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS DESTROY CHARITY. TRUE CHARITY OPERATES ON MULTIPLE LEVELS. 1. IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE POOR AND OPPRESSED. 2. IT CHANGES THE HEARTS AND LIVES OF THE GIVER VIA PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE GIVEE. 3. IT IS RECEIVED VERY DIFFERENTLY BY THE GIVEE WHO CLEARLY RECEIVES IT AS A GIFT OF LOVE. WHEN GOVERNMENT DISPLACES INDIVIDUAL CHARITY, #2 AND #3 ARE LOST AND ALL HUMANITY IS POORER FOR IT.

I guess we each adopt the demon we wish to. Big labor is not very big actually, not any more. And it is unfortunate that you ascribe the usual abortion remarks to one side only. The point is, as many on the other side don’t give a darn about that issue either, but it is useful for them to appear so. They will of course easily travel to countries wherein their children and wives can obtain the needed abortion if necessary. I really object to the idea that abortion is dropped into every discussion whenever one needs to “score” a point.

I’ll readily admit there are pro-abortion Republicans. And I won’t vote for them. Perhaps labor corruption and waste seem minor to you. I work with construction trades daily. Trust me, the productivity lost to this nation over stupid turf rules and old-boy networking is staggering. I would have been a proud union backer in 1915. Today they care nothing for the rank and file. The professional managers have swindled the dues paying members to nearly to death. THAT is why they are on the ropes. Unions done right would be a huge benefit to this country.