Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The priests of global warming
At a recent debate between evangelicals on global warming sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, Joel Belz had hoped for a little toe-to-toe debate. What he heard instead was a lot of tiptoeing . . . sweet-spirited and nuanced disagreement rather than any significant ethical or biblical differences on the topic. The problem? There weren’t enough theological liberals present.
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top24 Comments to “The priests of global warming”
And there is surpirise that if one does not bring to the table stong proponents of the alternative viewpoint that the argument will in general be tepid?
Global warming is first and foremost a scientific issue with objective data to be reviewed. What is fasicnating is that for those who review the data the only real questions appear to be:
1) how fast is the earth warming
- the data can support mutiple interpretations here, buyt all agree that the earth is warming
2) how much humans are contributing to the warming
- varying from none to the dominant contributor
Amusingly no one argues that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere will cause global cooling.
All agree that CO2 contributes to warming as a general mechanism.
Pretty much all agree that we should work hard now to drastically reduce fossil fuel usage, both for global warming reasons, but also for economic and strategic reasons.
With so much agreement, I find it amusing we continue to argue rather than taking action.
Deck chairs anyone?
Report comment to moderator
I’m always stunned when people argue that the truth of scientific facts depends on whether you are “conservative” or “liberal.”
This isn’t a political or religious issue. It’s one of science. If politics enter at all, it’s on the matter of what to do about it, not whether it’s happening.
Report comment to moderator
I suspect the difference between theological divisions (conservative/liberal) and those regarding global climate change have to deal with the differing hermeneutics. The latter discussion places a far greater emphasis on scientific method and the role of observable (and measurable) evidence — even if some of the overarching narratives remain tentative.
Here, the conservative insistence, per Belz that “we may or may not know..” comes across as a kind of a willful agnosticism, the like that one meets when dealing with theological sectarians. However well intended, it is simply not part of the mainstream, and as like, not right either.
Report comment to moderator
#3 “comes across as a kind of willful agnosticism…”
As a long-time radical agnostic, I am disdainful of these Johnny Appleseed come lately agnostics.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Belz is disingenuous when he characterizes theological conservatives as healthy skeptics motivated by intellectual curiosity who only wish to test dubious assertions. The fact is, climatologists test their data and their assumptions all the time. Conservatives make assertions about climate too, and have political or theological reasons for doing so. History hasn’t told us much about dancing angels, but we are going to find out how useful the conservative contribution has been.
Report comment to moderator
The reason there is only one view expressed in this thread is most people understand the data.
We know for a fact that extremely wide temperature fluctuations have been occurring on this planet forever.
We know this. This fact is not up for debate.
We also know for a fact, that the temperature on other planets in our solar system also happens to be on the rise. This is a fact, also not up for debate.
Now, I’m no climatologist, but Stevie Wonder could see that our CO2 emmissions can’t be responsible for the temperature on other planets.
This is why no one but Gore-bots posts on these topics, anymore.
The notion that man is responsible for global warming is too ridiculous to even address.
And yet, I have.
And I feel ridiculous
But, I can’t get the last six minutes of my life back, anyway..so I post
Report comment to moderator
If politics enter at all, it’s on the matter of what to do about it, not whether it’s happening.
Wrong. The global warming fanatics are making it political so they can get government money.
Report comment to moderator
Wait a minute. How can such a pedestrian outfit as the Institute for Religion and Democracy question the wisdom of Al Gore, a graduate of Harvard, former VP of the U.S., who had a presidential election stolen, and winner of the Nobel Prize. These naive folk have no idea of the power of argument from authority, however mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
I’m curious as to why there has to be a “liberal” and a “conservative” side to this issue? The real division is between science and skepticism is it not?
Also, one must understand that IRD is not considered an honest broker when it comes to presenting both sides fairly. That more than likely explains either the non-invite of liberals or the decision by liberal to stay away from the “debate”.
Report comment to moderator
Hilarious. It’s the liberals who are always saying that the debate is over and their side has already won.
Report comment to moderator
Never mind global warming man, we’re killin’ the WHOLE UNIVERSE!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
I feel like Charlton Heston did when he found the Statue of Liberty stickin’ outta the sand, but without the apes and loincloth. Repent, the end is near! Maybe.
Report comment to moderator
Oh man, it get’s better, or should I say worse. This eco-nut has to be the biggest yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Now I warn you, this is sad. These women are messed up. I warn you now. Here goes.
Some of my favs from the article;
1.Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
2.At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
3. Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.
“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet – and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”
And some crazy men too;
While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.
“We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised,” says Sarah.
“In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby.”
I’m actually relieved as well. At least they won’t be able to pass this on to their children.
Report comment to moderator
link from #11
“the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.”
Sweet fancy Einstein!
These people have thought their way right out of cognizance.
“New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos”
First, Dark energy does not exist. The concept was created to explain why “science” was wrong about the rate of the expansion of the universe. The term did not exist until they discovered that the expansion rate is still accelerating.
That is their unraveling. They just refuse to admit that some of our “laws” of science are based on assumptions made by humans limited to what humans can perceive. It’s really about defending their own faith more than trying to find truth. When something comes along that contradicts a theory that they have claimed to be immutable law, they have to invent something else (like dark energy) to explain why they were wrong.
Science is becoming more and more just another bogus religion.
This guy has some interesting thoughts on the structure of most modern scientific thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion
Report comment to moderator
“I’m curious as to why there has to be a “liberal” and a “conservative” side to this issue?”
There isn’t. There weren’t any liberals or climate scientist present. If you look over the comments, you see liberals get blamed anyway. Jerky knee syndrome is incurable.
Report comment to moderator
It would appear that warming of planets other than earth to solar effects, is not widely accpeted or demonstrated:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
I think it fair then to ask for the data which some are using to suggest a general warming of the solar system as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
Heat wave on Pluto! Methane melting! Pluto not a planet! Random Name making stuff up!
Report comment to moderator
LOL to Random
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner —
Remember, scientists get very large sums of money from the Templeton Foundation for saying nice about religion. In this case, deism. Which ain’t enough, is it?
As I understand his op-ed piece, Davies says contemporary science is faith-based religion and bogus science because it doesn’t explain how the laws of the universe originated. He reasons that if you can’t explain the origin of something, you accept its existence irrationally and upon faith, by appealing to an unknown “agency.” Nonsense.
The fact that science makes assumptions about the operation of physical laws doesn’t mean scientists are exercising faith. Einstein assumed that the laws of physics are the same in different frames of reference. But that theory was tested and validated, not “believed.” As soon as Davies builds a theory for the origins of the laws of physics within the universe itself, scientists will replicate and accept it. Religion won’t, however.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn –
How can global warming have priests if it doesn’t have enough theologians to show up at a conference?
Remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Your people could be called fortune tellers and voodoo practitioners. The skeptics say, there’s nothing wrong with carbon emissions that can’t be solved by the wealth that we’ll get from more carbon emissions, which will enable us to afford the air conditioners, the urban parks and water features, the sea walls and u-haul trailers, and the plywood and huricane evacuation routes which we’ll need as our climate warm up.
Report comment to moderator
How can global warming have priests if it doesn’t have enough theologians to show up at a conference?
That doesn’t make any sense. A church is defined as a gathering of two or more believers — not by its ability to send representatives to conferences.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, I’m not sure your statement is accurate in America.
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article14814.html
Report comment to moderator
hmachitwo post 21,
an excellent catch!! I have been looking for this reference for several years!!
Report comment to moderator
from#21
“an organization of ordained ministers”
This “reqirement” makes the IRS’s definition of a church unconstituitional.
Report comment to moderator
Happy to be of service, Musing.
Mr. Meaner, I don’t make the rules, I just link to them. Think about it though, do you really want Musing and I to be able to have tax exempt status by declaring ourselves a church? Who would pay for your unnecessary wars??
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!