why is that conservative christians are generally the ones that are doubtful of global warming and do not care to make changes in the overly greedy lifestyles? if they are so religious wouldnt it make sense for them to preserve the one earth that god has given us? it's not like god implied ANYWHERE for us to have one SUV per spouse and do anything to save money at the expense of our surroundings(that is called greed, and last time i checked didnt god try to persuade us not to be greedy?)
Religious Right folks that I know (some are my friends) seem to distrust and go against anything they perceive as "liberal" driven. It's almost like a knee-jerk reaction. Logic and facts often have little to do with it. "Global warming" is a radioactive term to them. On the other hand, Evangelicals who aren't married to Religious Right leaders are breaking off and taking a thoughtful approach of things, issue by issue. As time goes by, more and more people who are conservative Christians will continue breaking away from straight-line (or straight-jacket) right wing dogma on a variety of topics while retaining their positions on issues of basic personal morality. Actually this is old news and has been happening a while. The crashed and burnt Bush presidency has accelerated the process greatly. The Religious Right's heyday is long gone. Even Bush admits "Climate Change" is a major concern.
not bashing believers but their position isn't based on logic. add in conservative, which includes right wing extremists, and you're in an alternate universe. intelligence is suspended indefinitely, no issue can be viewed without the attendant partisan politics and their most vocal adherents place ignorance at a premium. aint calling any names, but the initials ... TraderJorge. simple enough to understand, crapping in your food supply just isn't a good idea ... now try to sell that to a right wing Christian. i guarantee, simplicity is the first thing you'll forsake.
they constantly argue about how clean energy technologies are too expensive when they advocate spending millions each day in iraq. im no treehugger or anything, but i have some common logic that says "Spend money so your own people will benefit from it" and this is the front runner problem that needs bigtime funding.
I think Un-concisously (I have no idea how to spell it). They want global warming to occur, global warming means destruction meaning end of world meaning its the apocalypse as predicted in the bible. They may be all for preserving the earth in their mind and truly believe they want a better healthier earth but hidden somewhere inside themselves they don't even know that they may want global warming to occur.
"The same love for God and neighbor that compels us to preach salvation through Jesus Christ, protect the unborn, preserve the family and the sanctity of marriage, and take the whole Gospel to a hurting world, also compels us to recognize that human-induced climate change is a serious Christian issue requiring action now." http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
Another interesting question: Why is it that the exact same people who were predicting apocalyptic results from the Next Ice Age now predict apocalyptic results from Global Warming, and call anyone who questions their science "court jesters"? http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/NATION02/109190067
Another question, Where are all the ppl jumped on Bill O'Reilly in the other thread? Is it ok to call conservative Christians generally live in "overly greedy lifestyles"? Liberal hypocrisy
you just left a carbon footprint by posting this thread. Our children thank you...the temperature just rose 0.0001 degrees
Did you even read the article you posted? Guy A (James Hansen) made the current claim. A colleague of his (S.I. Rasool) made the other claim. The article you posted only says that Hansen's name is mentioned in the article that Rasool's claim was discussed - not that he agreed with it or made the claim himself. The only connection to Hansen is that the Rasool guy used a computer prograem Hansen had designed. What a pointless and misleading article. Or, if there was a connection, then a terribly written & researched article.
1. Global warming seems to be taking on broad acceptance throughout society, even among conservatives. Even at oil companies, they talk about about it. 2. Conservatives are still more resistant to making changes than Liberals because they are more pro-business. They would like to find the most efficient way to curb global warming without sacrificing economic growth. I wouldn't characterize that as greed. They recognize the considerable human hardship caused by economic decline (unemployment, weak dollar, slowed innovation, etc.). They are also betting that scientific and technological advances created by strong economic performance will more effectively address the problem in the long term than cutting back on economic function (they seem to be betting the same way on social security, and probably everything where it's relevant). 3. That said, sure there is greed in it as well. Individuals seem to prefer to drive an SUV over not, prefer the US to be the economic power instead of China, etc. I think that's human nature, and not just conservatives. 4. Conservatives are more environmentally-friendly than they get credit for. I attended a lecture by a UChicago professor studying attitudes toward the Endangered Species Act, and in surveys he had found conservatives more likely to support habitat protection and more likely to give money to that end. It is likely the countervailing pro-business attitude that makes conservatives take a back seat in these issues. 5. Environmentalism became partisan a long time ago. That has reinforcement effects on conservatives and liberals. Liberals will be more pro-environment because they identify as liberal, and conservatives will resist environmentalism because they identify as conservative. But, that's partisanship, and again it's as prevalent and problematic among liberals as it is conservatives. But, I do think this phenomenon has a huge effect. 6. There is an acceptance curve with new inventions, if we consider here the idea we must do something about global warming an invention. It shouldn't be too surprising that conservatives (being conservative) are less willing to accept new things until they are well-established. This is happening now. 7. It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are ahead of other conservatives in accepting global warming. 8. It also seems to be that there are a lot of people who want something done about global warming and think it is just a matter of decreeing it. There is a lot of work being done to create systems to enable greenhouse gas emmission reductions and other environmental gains that are both efficacious for the environment and sustainable for the long haul. There is some invention to be done, and a number of solutions will have to compete in the marketplace for dominance. Be patient, it's coming. 9. I do think the Bush administration hasn't been the model conservative in finding a sustainable and efficacious solution. But, conservatives will follow their leadership. If there is a Republican president who will move forward on a legitimate global warming bill, he'll have support. 10. I don't think it helps to accentuate the divide between liberals and conservatives on this issue by saying conservatives are illogical and whatnot. The environmentalist movement's victory is now inevitable. Start mending fences and make it easy for conservatives to join in on the solution instead of constantly crowing about how wrong conservatives are.
I just posted the original article. If you do a little digging around the web, you'll find that even though Hansen wasn't working on Earth climatology, he praised Rasool greatly for his work. His about-face actually happened in 1976, when he predicted that Methane and N2O could cause global warming. The real issue with Hansen, though, is that his research always tends toward the catastrophic. Which oddly enough, will get you research money from the political "environmentalists". Here's a blog that tells you much more about him: http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm. Oddly enough, I went to high school with George Deutsch, his intern that's mentioned in this blog. I'll see if I can find out any first-hand information.
Remember...there's no money and nothing to be gained from supporting environmental causes. http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm "A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups. But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event."
When voters realize that their electricity bills will double if Al Gore were in charge of climate policies in the USA, then I think people will weigh the benefits AND COSTS of environmental protection. Half of our electricity in the USA is generated from coal-fired power plants. Half. Tell Grandma that your social security check won't be enough to pay all her bills in a carbon-tax world and let's see how many polar bears and caribou she cares about. All of this environmental talk doesn't have any subtsance to it until we see what all the policy ramifications are for our wallets and standard of living. Scientists everywhere maintain that Al Gore grossly exaggerated his EnviroHippie docudrama. Are our policy makers dumb enough to make policy on his sensationalist stances? We already paying for the environmental lunatic fringe's desires at the pump, seeing as though they won't allow America to produce its own natural resources in Alaska and parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Let's see if the EnviroKooks can reach into our pockets and take more from us in the form of higher electricity bills. I don't know about you, but mine are high enough.
As per most topics on this board, reactions depend upon whose knee the hammer falls -- knee jerks occur on both left and right legs. (I refuse to test anything in the middle. )
like all new technology, there is initial cost, but FUNDING is what will drive prices down. i hate this narrow minded thinking of right wing nut jobs like you
So true, but I was trying to stay on topic and address his question. I guess whenever something critical is asked about a position on the left or right, counter-accusations must be made in the same thread to balance things out. Whenever I used to ask one of my close friends a critical question or make a critical statement about Bush, he would always answer "But Clinton..." I teased him about it so much he stopped and doesn't want to discuss politics any more.
As a scientist, I've asked for substantiation for this before and never received it (of course). I didn't really enjoy that movie, but Gore did not alter scientific data. (If you want to talk about altered data, that's another topic, and it involves the current administration, sadly.) I attended a talk last night by Stanford's Stephen Schneider, a climatologist with every credential you could want, a member of the National Academy, a member of the IPCC, and an advisor to the last six Presidential administrations, including Reagan, and both Bushes, mind you. check him out if you like (though he's no web designer, obviously) He is all about the science, and he says the effects are not exaggerated. In fact, he revealed that the most recent data from Greenland is *beyond* even the most pessimistic models. The ice is melting there faster than expected. He said the only critics left, the only people saying that humans are not affecting this trend, are the "Professor Limbaughs" of the world. I am happy, however, to see Jorge starting to abandon the "it's not happening" path and talk about the reality: our lifestyle will have to be on the table if we want to fight the trend. Take a cold, cold $ view for a moment. Maybe we don't want to alter our energy sector and the short term GNP, but we'll have to also calculate the economic cost of rising sea levels, reduced snowpack in mountains (i.e. water supplies), etc, etc. If you take a view that moves beyond economics, then there are even more compelling reasons to take this seriously. Good news in our country, according to Schneider: an increasing number of cities, and now states, have adopted emission and energy-use standards that are more stringent that Kyoto. Many corporations are doing so, and (oh my gawd), saving money in the process. A bipartisan group in Congress is currently working on a new, smart climate bill. Every candidate but Thompson will most likely have aggressive climate policy on their 100-days agenda -- so it will not matter too much which party wins. Good news in the world, according to Schneider: Kyoto has totally worked. That means, awareness is up, world-wide, and the level of significant discussion between nations has really picked up. All that aside, the thread title is really misleading, if you ask me. rhester's post is perfect for the strawman argument about religious believing one thing or another about climate.
