Is Global Warning A Hoax!

[marjon9 6]

Why is it that those who would describe themselves as "Christian conservatives" are almost invariably skeptical of environmental protection measures, and almost always tending to side with business interests over protecting the environment? I'm really curious.

It's probably true that we don't have all the answers yet on global warming. But intuitively, wouldn't a "conservative" "religious" person be expected to err on the side of protecting (conserving) god's creations, instead of erring on the side of the interests of big oil, coal, timber, and chemical corporations?

When I see this connection between "Christian conservatives" and pro-business politics, a connection which is pretty undeniable, it causes me to wonder what it means to be a Christian conservative. Is it about a relationship to god, love of god's creations, self inspection and personal growth? Or is it about big business, personal wealth, and a legislative agenda?

Speaking for myself, I just know that it is hard to see the human agony associated with drought and pollution. It's hard to see numerous species of helpless animals going extinct from lack of habitat - animals that depend on us (me) for their survival. It's hard to look at stunningly beautiful Appalachian landscapes after they have been ravaged by strip mining for coal. Yes, it is true, we don't yet have all the answers in relation to global warming and environmental protection. But if I am going to "err" on one side or another, until I know the final truth I'm going to err on the side of environmental protection. If that makes me a whacky godless liberal, then so be it.

[gadgetlady 4]

Why is it that those who would describe themselves as "Christian conservatives" are almost invariably skeptical of environmental protection measures, and almost always tending to side with business interests over protecting the environment? I'm really curious.

I hope I can satisfy your curiousity! I don't claim to speak for all Christians, but I'll tell you my POV on this issue. And it has nothing to do with greed or love of big corporations.

Recently I was at an aquarium with my kids and we were reading one of the signs about a habitat that was on display. The sign talked about how this particular coral had been around for "millions of years" (to which my children have been trained to say "blah blah blah" whenever they hear it) until man came along and endangered the coral. I pulled my children aside and told them while they were reading the various signs around the aquarium they would notice a trend: "Nature is good. Man is evil. Worship nature."

Although said in jest, this really captures the essence of what I don't particularly care for about the various environmental movements. I do believe that we need to be good stewards of God's creation, but I don't believe in worshipping said creation to the exclusion of our needs, God, and reason.

Two events in history stick out in my mind. I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. Both were wrong. God's creation has an amazing ability to heal itself and to adapt, and I think it is amazingly arrogant of us to think that we can have that much of an impact on it. Does that mean I think we should litter willy-nilly, be deliberately wasteful, and trash the planet? Of course not. A good Christian also understands that all of that which he has was given to him. God calls us to practice good stewardship. Just as Weyerhauser always replants new forests to make up for the forests they cut down, any practically-minded person understands that you can't just hunt all of the ducks into extinction.

Have there been fool-hardy moves in the past? Yes, there have, both on the part of corporations and individuals -- and environmentalists, by the way. Did you know that there are more trees in North America today than there were when the first Europeans landed here? Much of environmentalism involves an alarmist attitude and I, for one, am tired of their efforts in trying to scare me into behaving the way they want me to and into buying their products. Al Gore stands to make a fortune on "green" technology. Furthermore, most environmentalists are tremendous hypocrites. I used to have an employee/friend who was marching to save the wetlands that she lived right on the edge of. I asked her what she thought used to be in the place where her house now stood, before development. Obviously, wetlands.

1 Corinthians 4:7 says, "What do you have that you did not receive?" Once we realize everything we have is a gift from God, we should understand we need to treat it with care. But there is a big difference between care and the blind, ridiculous worship of nature.

[anonemouse 1]

Two events in history stick out in my mind. I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. Both were wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031219073313.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5653/2082

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Publications/injuredresources.cfm

[gadgetlady 4]

I didn't say there was NO environmental impact. You'd have to be an idiot to think a spill of that kind would have no effect. What I said was that it didn't have the catestrophic, disastrous, long-term effects that were predicted.

The first article you posted says, at one point: As a result, many species suffered long-term loss, he said. For example, chronic exposure to the oil in mouths of streams boosted mortality among incubating pink salmon eggs for at least four years after the spill.

Four years isn't catestrophic in my book. And for people who believe in evolution, it's nary the tick of a second hand.

[anonemouse 1]

I didn't say there was NO environmental impact. You'd have to be an idiot to think a spill of that kind would have no effect. What I said was that it didn't have the catestrophic, disastrous, long-term effects that were predicted.

No, this is what you said. You literally said that they were wrong about the environments never being the same.

Two events in history stick out in my mind. I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. Both were wrong.

[gadgetlady 4]

You literally said that they were wrong about the environments never being the same.

Are you saying they will never be the same? Because it seems to me the catastrophic problems predicted never came to light in either situation. Mussel beds that won't recover for 30 years, again a drop in the bucket for those of you who believe in millions of years, isn't "never being the same". And really, in the grand scheme of things, one small area of impaired mussel beds isn't the end of the world.

[TommyO 5]

It's great to hear that although you are fine with the Valdez oil spill or the Kuwait oli field fires you agree we shouldn't liter or kill all the ducks. Next time you take the kids on a field trip make sure you teach them about ignorance, that way when people start to laugh at them every time they speak they will understand why.

[marjon9 6]

I hope I can satisfy your curiousity! I don't claim to speak for all Christians, but I'll tell you my POV on this issue. And it has nothing to do with greed or love of big corporations.

Recently I was at an aquarium with my kids and we were reading one of the signs about a habitat that was on display. The sign talked about how this particular coral had been around for "millions of years" (to which my children have been trained to say "blah blah blah" whenever they hear it) until man came along and endangered the coral. I pulled my children aside and told them while they were reading the various signs around the aquarium they would notice a trend: "Nature is good. Man is evil. Worship nature."

Although said in jest, this really captures the essence of what I don't particularly care for about the various environmental movements. I do believe that we need to be good stewards of God's creation, but I don't believe in worshipping said creation to the exclusion of our needs, God, and reason.

Two events in history stick out in my mind. I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. Both were wrong. God's creation has an amazing ability to heal itself and to adapt, and I think it is amazingly arrogant of us to think that we can have that much of an impact on it. Does that mean I think we should litter willy-nilly, be deliberately wasteful, and trash the planet? Of course not. A good Christian also understands that all of that which he has was given to him. God calls us to practice good stewardship. Just as Weyerhauser always replants new forests to make up for the forests they cut down, any practically-minded person understands that you can't just hunt all of the ducks into extinction.

Have there been fool-hardy moves in the past? Yes, there have, both on the part of corporations and individuals -- and environmentalists, by the way. Did you know that there are more trees in North America today than there were when the first Europeans landed here? Much of environmentalism involves an alarmist attitude and I, for one, am tired of their efforts in trying to scare me into behaving the way they want me to and into buying their products. Al Gore stands to make a fortune on "green" technology. Furthermore, most environmentalists are tremendous hypocrites. I used to have an employee/friend who was marching to save the wetlands that she lived right on the edge of. I asked her what she thought used to be in the place where her house now stood, before development. Obviously, wetlands.

1 Corinthians 4:7 says, "What do you have that you did not receive?" Once we realize everything we have is a gift from God, we should understand we need to treat it with care. But there is a big difference between care and the blind, ridiculous worship of nature.

There is one area that I do agree with you, and that is I also can't stand hypocricy, whether it is practiced by corporate plunderers, environmentalists, or anyone else.

But other than that I do think your point of view is downright scary. You say, for example, that there are more trees now than when the Europeans first arrived, and that Weyerhouser is a good steward of the environment because it replants the forests it cuts down. Weyerhouser takes virgin forests with highly complex ecosystems and a huge variety of species of plants and animals, and replaces them straight rows of genetic mutant trees that are bred to grow twice as fast as normal trees. And in your mind, this adds up to being a good environmental steward. This point of view to me is scary.

You also argue that it is "amazingly arrogant" for us to believe that we can have an impact on the earth. Just reading that raises the hairs on the back of my neck. Would you consider it an "impact on the earth" if we wiped out Amazon rain forests, for example, and took with it countless totally unique species of animals and plants? And you train your children to joke "blah, blah, blah" about the destruction of the corral reefs? Have you ever seen a corral reef?

All I can say is, your attempt to satisfy my curiosity about why Christians are anti-environment was not at all successful. All you did is show me that there are people on this earth who are so misinformed about environmental issues that there is very little hope for saving the earth.

[gadgetlady 4]

It's great to hear that although you are fine with the Valdez oil spill or the Kuwait oli field fires you agree we shouldn't liter or kill all the ducks.

That's not what I said AT ALL. I am not "fine" with the oil spill or the oil field fires. Both of those incidents were tragic. What I was saying is that I don't believe the "doom and gloom" environmental predictions that this thing or that thing will ruin the world. When I was young, I was warned over and over of an impending ice age. Now I'm being warned of an impending heat wave. Scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow. I certainly don't believe they can predict it in 100 years.

[gadgetlady 4]

And you train your children to joke "blah, blah, blah" about the destruction of the corral reefs? Have you ever seen a corral reef?

Either I didn't write what I said well or you didn't read it. What my children say "blah blah blah" to is "millions of years". We don't believe in evolution or that the earth has been around for millions of years, so whenever they hear that phrase that's what they say.

As to the destruction of "corral" reefs, I didn't know such a thing existed. I don't quite know how a horse pen can make a reef. I'd love to see one.

Coral reefs, however, I have seen. They are beautiful. And I didn't step on them.

[marjon9 6]

As to the destruction of "corral" reefs, I didn't know such a thing existed. I don't quite know how a horse pen can make a reef. I'd love to see one. quote]

That level of debate is surely likely to advance the discussion. Sorry I mistyped that word.

[gadgetlady 4]

As to the destruction of "corral" reefs, I didn't know such a thing existed. I don't quite know how a horse pen can make a reef. I'd love to see one. quote]

That level of debate is surely likely to advance the discussion. Sorry I mistyped that word.

Well, see, here's the deal. I don't think you mistyped it. You spelled it that way twice; therefore I think you didn't know how to spell it correctly in the first place. And it seems to me that someone who is very concerned about coral reefs would know how to spell the word.

Of course calling me ignorant, misinformed, and scary brings this debate to a much higher level. I'm just giving back what I received.

[marjon9 6]

When I was young, I was warned over and over of an impending ice age. Now I'm being warned of an impending heat wave. Scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow. I certainly don't believe they can predict it in 100 years.

Most would argue that scientists are doing far more than predicting the weather when they discuss global warming. In the last relatively brief period of time human beings have dumped enormous volumes of waste products into the atmosphere and the land and the sea. These create measurable effects. Scientists may be wrong about the exact date the earth will get warmer, but that does not detract from validity of the scientific observations and the evidence of changes to the environment.

Just because a few people erroneously predicted a coming ice age in a couple magazines fifty years ago does not justify closing your eyes and ears to all science relating to environmental destruction, overfishing, extinction of species, etc. That "ice age" thing is a red herring. Just because some people were wrong about that then does not mean that every other environmentalist is automatically wrong about everything else forever.

[anonemouse 1]

Are you saying they will never be the same? Because it seems to me the catastrophic problems predicted never came to light in either situation. Mussel beds that won't recover for 30 years, again a drop in the bucket for those of you who believe in millions of years, isn't "never being the same". And really, in the grand scheme of things, one small area of impaired mussel beds isn't the end of the world.

No, I'm not. Im saying that you were wrong in saying that the environmentalists were wrong about there being no lasting effects of the oil spill and oil fires. You posted an incorrect statement and I corrected you. That's it.

[anonemouse 1]

And about the forest thing...

All forests are not equal. All forests do not have the same attributes, the same species inhabiting them, the same environmental "credibility", etc. A hundred acres of homogenous 20 year-old trees that are planted an equal distance apart does not come close to equaling a hundred acres of virgin old-growth forest or a hundred acres of virgin rainforest. When you cut a rainforest, what grows back isn't rainforest. Sure, you'll get trees and plants, but those species that comprise the rainforest don't grow back without the very specific conditions that real rainforest provides. There are a lot of animal species out there that live only in old-growth forest and nowhere else. They don't live in 40 year-old second-growth forest. They don't live in super-homogenous man-made forests.