Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said global warming isn’t just a matter for politics and science but also an issue of morality and faith.
“The Bible tells us that when God created the earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that earth, to exercise stewardship over His creation,” the Illinois senator said in an interfaith forum Sunday in Des Moines, Iowa.
“We are not living up to this responsibility when we continue to pollute the air even though we know that it causes almost a third of all childhood asthma cases in this country,” Obama said. “We are not acting as good stewards of God’s earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet.”
Obama’s comment came two days after former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to promote awareness of the dangers associated with global warming. On Saturday Obama said the award was well-deserved.
Obama said Gore’s “voice and his vision have awakened the conscience of America to the urgency of this threat, and now we must take bold action so that our children inherit a planet that is cleaner, safer, and more peaceful for generations to come.”
And it takes faith to believe in global warming, too! How many remember the recurring ice age flap in the 1960’s and how humanity was going to survive by moving to the tropics? Ice core data suggest many periods of temperature fluctuation.
We ARE called to be faithful stewards, regardless.
Actually, I agree with the candidate’s comments — this is a faith issue in that it goes back to the stewardship we have been given by our Lord.
But this is very problematic for the modern Democratic party and many (most) in the republican party who think that there must be a strict separation between policy and faith. According to these people, once something is a faith issue (or even coincides with being a faith issue), it is no longer a legitimate issue for the public square.
Well, (and the elves will probably strike this), I have given a name to the new “religion” of Global Warming, and the apocalyptic end of the world being taught.
Its called: ALGORISM, and requires faith in the idea that man knows more than God, and can distroy what God created..
Bah Humbug
Gloria
Grandmother,
I christened the so-called human caused climate change as “GORBAL Warming” some time ago.
I heard the horrible, nasty comments the people at Faux News made about V.P. Gore when he won the Nobel Prize for Peace. I see that they are “ditto’d” here. No matter what you feel about V.P. Gore we ARE to be stewards of the earth. If you think man CAN’T destroy creation just read some history. The Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969 is just one of many, many stories of destruction. Maybe a nod to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is foolish and blind to say man can’t destroy the earth.
Gloria & libraryjim – remind me to never borrow sunblock from you
Nice to see Obama & the Pope agree: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2066711,00.html
#5 and #6, I am glad to know that God is on my side in my advocacy for more nuclear power, one of the greenest forms of energy around.
So who said we are not in favor of stewardship of the earth? You jump to some mighty high conclusions, friend. I’m actually quite an advocate of Christians as conservationalists. I recycle, I reuse as much as possible, I love backpacking and hiking in natural settings, I join with my son’s boy scout troupe in coastal cleanups twice a year, etc. I firmly believe that conservation is a fulfillment of God’s command to ‘care for the garden’ and Jesus’ re-iteration to love your neighbor as yourself. (Can’t love my neighbor if I don’t support his having clean air and water).
I just don’t advocate going off on a tangent giving the government a ton more power and control over our lives based on an unproven, highly contested THEORY that has more than a few detractors. Any time a proponent of one theory says “The debate is over, if you disagree with our conclusion, then you need to sit down and shut up so we can get on with the business of saving the Earth”1 that makes me run like crazy to see what the other side is saying. And from what I’ve seen, the other side (Natural Cycle) makes a lot of sense.
But I’ve said all this before, and you know it.
1) Al Gore, Earth in the Balance. also CNN News interviews.
troupe = troop. sorry. 🙄
Oh:
[i]Maybe a nod to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is foolish and blind to say man can’t destroy the earth. [/i]
The last I checked, these two cities were still there. Even if they weren’t, the EARTH where they stood would still be there. We destroyed nothing there except what men had built there in the first place.
The Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969
By the way, have you checked out the condition of [url=http://water.usgs.gov/owq/cleanwater/success/cuyahoga.html]the river recently[/url]? Far from destroying it, even with the fire and pollution, it’s fairly clean now, and a habitat for many types of fish:
Noticeable environmental improvements have already been recorded in the Cuyahoga River. A 1998 larval fish study documented usage of the river as a navigation channel for Lake Erie fish migration. Follow-up studies in 1999 confirmed these results and documented the presence of steelhead trout adults.
It’s nice to see the same morons who showed the implements of torture to Galileo, because his scientific position conflicted with theirs, are back again.
Hey, stewardship of the earth is a faith issue. Great. Got it. No disagreemnet here. Where we disagree is on what the condition of the world is and what’s causing it.
Got any divine revelation on that to back up your theories?
Didn’t think so.
So, if we are warming the earth destructively, that’s a faith issue and we should take resposibility. Whether that “if” is in fact true is NOT a faith issue. It’s a matter of opinion, and those who claim it is a matter of faith are no better than the Inquisitors.
There, how’s that for claiming the high ground and ruling one’s opponents out of order?
Just because you don’t buy into Al Gore’s questionable theories doesn’t mean that you are not serious about environment stewardship. Actually, I kind of like Al Gore’s method of using private jets to fly to conferences to speak about global warming and lowering our carbon output.
It is not the USA that is the biggest culprit in today’s global warming. It is the emerging markets of China and India along with a lot of the 3rd world where polution is not regulated like it is in the US, Canada, and Europe.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Christopher,
HUH????
Divine revelations??? Lay off the Nyquil, bro, you’re all woozy.
Fortunately, God gives enough in the Bible for us to take care of the earth seriously. And He gives scientists knowlege and wisdom to show me in their studies of the Earth and its history, that climate change is a natural cycle that has happened many times in the past. We are only 150 away from the ending of the last ‘mini-ice age’. Of course the earth is warming up after that! It’s not a human issue, it’s a Solar System thing, operating just as God designed it to operate.
sorry, should be:
We are only 150 [b]years[/b] away from the ending of the last ‘mini-ice age’.
Maybe I’d better lay off the “Halls”. 🙄
libraryjim…let me try to explain this to you. We are capable of many sorts of mass destruction, unchecked pollution and nuclear bombs being just two examples. We are also capable of stopping destructive behavior, the cleanup of the Cuyahoga and the restoration of Hirshima and Nagasaki being examples. The Zone of Alienation surrounding the Chernobyl reactor is still in effect w/ no estimated time for lifting the ban on people being inside the zone excluding those contracted for specific reasons and specific timeframes. I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make (which was actually in response to #3’s statement [i]can distroy what God created.. [/i]) We can and do destroy but we don’t have to and we can turn destruction around.
I agree w/ Phil Snyder that [i]It is not the USA that is the biggest culprit in today’s global warming. It is the emerging markets of China and India along with a lot of the 3rd world where polution is not regulated like it is in the US, Canada, and Europe. [/i] And our friends to the south in Mexico have horrible air pollution. The first thing I smelled when I got off the plane in Mexico was car exhaust. The old stinky exhaust prior to catalytic convertors. Man, that stuff stinks!
So, let’s tackle pollution from a human to human standpoint and stewardship concerns.
But the fact is human caused climate change has NOT been proven to be a fact. I am not willing to give government control over my life wily-nily on that basis.
Global climate cycles:
1) `Medieval Warm Period’ (AD 700 – 1300)
2) `Sporer Minimum’ cool period (AD 1300 – 1500)
3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 – 1560)
4) `Little Ice Age’ (`Maunder Minimum’) (AD 1560 – 1830)
5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 – 1870)
6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 – 1910)
7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 – 2000)
So far, anthropogenic climate change does seem to have more hallmarks of a religion than a science. Let’s get a good old-fashioned public debate going, instead of one side shouting down the other with “THE DEBATE IS OVER!”, when it hasn’t been allowed to start!
By the way, mass destruction may be in the works for human life, but not for the earth. We won’t probably can’t destroy the earth like the death star destroyed Alderaan.
[i]We won’t probably can’t destroy the earth like the death star destroyed Alderaan. [/i]
LOL!
I am still trying to figure out why Mr Gore’s theories about the weather earned him a [i] peace [/i] prize. How does it help the cause of peace, if the next Moslem suicide-bomber delivers his explosives using a Prius?
Criteria of the AFSC Nobel Peace Prize Nominating Committee:
1. The candidate’s commitment to nonviolent methods.
2. The quality of the candidate as a person and of her/his sustained contribution to peace.
3. The candidate’s work on issues of peace, justice, human dignity, and the [b]integrity of the environment.[/b]
4. The candidate’s possession of a world view and/or global impact as opposed to a parochial concern.
Jim, who needs Nyquil when there’s Scotch?
But that’s nothing compared to what AL Gore and the geniuses that thought his fictional horror movie worthy of a peace prize have been smoking.
Christopher,
I’ll drink to that!
#21 Revamundo –
So, now we know why they awarded the Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat! He didn’t fit into any of the other categories, but he sure was an environmentalist, conserving water by not bathing.
The comments in 20, 22 & 23 remind me of how conservatives reacted to Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, it is so satisfying to see commenters who routinely tout Benedict XVI as a conversative omit any mention of his comments and hijack a post on Obama to attack Gore.
Wildred, your comments reflect…how did you put it….raw venom, sputtering hatred, apoplectic wails.
Heavens, kids. Let’s all take a breath and count to ten or something.
The Bible talks about Global Warming in Chapters 19 and 20 of the Book of Revelation. Also various parts of the Gospels, as I remember.
Natural events such as the eruption of Krakatoa seem to be more destructive of and cause more climate change to the earth than anything man can do. I’m not sure how Sen. Obama fits such natural occurrences into his theology or understanding of Global Warming.
being aware of false prophets is a faith issue (for me anyways).
Libraryjim…the link below will take you to some important information that refutes your assertions in post #17. Not that I expect you to believe it but in hope that you might open your eyes a bit.
[url=http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/index.htm]United Nations Environment Programme – World Meteorological Organization[/url]
[b]What Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change?[/b]
The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as deforestation and various agricultural and industrial practices, are altering the composition of the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. These human activities have led to increased atmospheric concentrations of a number of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone in the lower part of the atmosphere.
[b]How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity?[/b]
Four lines of evidence prove conclusively that the recent buildup of carbon dioxide arises largely from human activities.
The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) differ in their characteristics from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions. Coal, oil, and natural gas were formed deep underground tens of millions of years ago, and the fraction of their nuclei that were once radioactive has long ago changed to non- radioactive carbon. But the carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources on the Earth’s surface retains a measurable radioactive portion. As carbon dioxide has been emitted through fossil fuel combustion, the radioactive fraction of carbon in the atmosphere has decreased. Forty years ago scientists provided the first direct evidence that combustion of fossil fuels was causing a buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby diluting radioactive carbon in the atmosphere by measuring the decreasing fraction of radioactive carbon-14 captured in tree rings, each year between 1800 and 1950.
Secondly, scientists began making precise measurements of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and at the South Pole in the late 1950s. They have since expanded their observations to many other locations. Their data show convincingly that the levels of carbon dioxide have increased each year worldwide. Furthermore, these increases are consistent with other estimates of the rise of carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity over this period.
A third line of evidence has been added since 1980. Ice buried below the surface of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps contains bubbles of air trapped when the ice originally formed. These samples of fossil air, some of them over 200,000 years old, have been retrieved by drilling deep into the ice. Measurements from the youngest and most shallow segments of the ice cores, which contain air from only a few decades ago, produce carbon dioxide concentrations nearly identical to those that were measured directly in the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. But the older parts of the cores show that carbon dioxide amounts were about 25% lower than today for the ten thousand years previous to the onset of industrialization, and over that period changed little
Bob carlton is funny. He makes me laugh.
Obama makes me snore.
Bob Carlton for President!
Rev,
I’ve probably been in more discussions on Climate Change than you’ve been in forums. I’ve seen all the propaganda from human cause (Anthropgenic) folk and I’ve countered with other scientific studies. For every one on the Anthro side, there are more coming out (after being stifled for such a long time) on the natural cycle side. None of the anthro side arguments sound very convincing after being blown away by some of these other sites.
for example, a very good [url=http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html]site[/url] created by fossil experts for West Virginia, uses graphs and charts to show HOW the anthro side has skewed the information.
some others
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260
is a good one from the Heartland Institute praising Michael Crichton’s book, “State of Fear”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet;=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
This one says rising temperatures actually peaked in 1998.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002281821_antarctica20.html
states that the Antarctic ice cap has been growing steadily thicker for the past 111 years.
This is one of my favorites:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
a report from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that states CO2 levels are benign and cannot be proven to have had any effect on the environment.
and finally:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365g.html
and
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Both of which were written by scientists (one a physicist) who strongly critique the findings of the human cause proponents, especially the use of the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph.
I hope these help open your eyes a bit that there really is no consensus on the subject, and debate in the public square is sorely needed!
Christopher,
um
wow
i am speechless
an un-natural state for me
SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, a magazine I have read since age 13, has a section entitled “Signs of the Apocalypse” in the front section of each issue
Bob Carlton for President!
a certain sign of the Apocalypse
libraryjim,
a reasoned arguement that includes this phrase:
Michael Crichton’s book, “State of Fearâ€
whaaaaaaaaaaa ?
It’s true. The plot may be thinner than water, but the foot and end-notes as well as the annotated bibliography at the back is worth it’s weight in gold. That’s what the article is refering to, not the story.
Check out DOCTOR Michael Crichton’s [url=http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html]speeches[/url] (transcripted) and [url=http://www.michaelcrichton.com/videos.html]videos[/url] on the topic at his web site.
By the way, where ever did the idea come from that if one is against anthropogenic climate change theory, then one cannot be a conservationalist / environmentalist or in favor of less pollution, renewable energy, etc.? That’s certainly not the case.
#31 Revamundo,
The explosion of Krakatoa produced several hundred years worth of ‘greenhouse gases,’ lowered the global temperature 1.2 degrees for a year, caused 13 days of global darkening, created three years of vivid sunsets, and killed millions of animals. Yet, within five years, the majority of effects had been cleaned up by the actions of the earth itself. Until the Global Warming theorists can explain how huge natural events, that are many times the size of human activity, are exempt from the theory, it will be difficult to take the theory seriously.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/asia/question879.html
RevK…yeah, I just saw that show on the History Chanel too.
libraryjim…pretty presumptuous but not unexpected.
Revamundo,
I didn’t see the show on the History Channel. How was it?
Right.
For me Al Gore lost all credibility after his alarmism in the 90’s. E.g. his false claim of an ozone hole over N. America,as the “worst crisis” facing the Earth.
Little reported is that a major source of CO2 is the uncontrolled coal mine fires in Asia. Some of these have been burning for decades. Reportedly they produce more than all the vehicles in the US.
In all the discussions about global warming and greenhouse gases, rarely is it pointed out that CO2 is well down the list and only comprises a small fraction of greenhouse gases. Moreover, it is also rarely noted among the alarmists that anthropogenic CO2 is only a small portion of atmospheric CO2. So we are focusing on only a small fraction of a small fraction. Why are we not focusing on the more preponderant factors?
Why is there so little critical inquiry into the origin of the Kyoto Treaty’s premise, that had nothing to do with the environment. Rather, it was originally thought to be a method to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third. Until they discovered that poor countries might actually end up paying the rich ones. Perhaps that was why it was rejected unanimously by our Senate.
Finally, an interesting comment is that any problems will be caused not by the CO2 produced but by human action that degrades the Earth’s ability to heal itself.
These factors, among many others, persuade me that this debate is far more political than scientific. Especially when considering the generally low level of scientific knowledge among the populace and the mainstream media that make it easy to stampede them with dire, Chicken Little predictions of imminent catastrophe.
You CAN predict global warming and what to do about it, but in order to do so, you have to follow a very complicated AlGorithm.
There’s a prize for the (politically) correct answer!
Aparently cow farts account for a greater proportion of global warming gasses than cars.
I wonder how much warming is due to brain farts.
Then, of course, there is the question of what to do about this purported anthropogenic warming.
The culprit accused is carbon dioxide, and the difficulty is that it is absolutely impossible to burn anything — from pine-scented beeswax candles to Appalachian coal — without producing carbon dioxide. That’s what burning [i]means[/i]. So it’s not a matter of “cleaning up” smokestacks, as it was with the effort to reduce particulate emissions a couple of decades ago; you have to completely shut down the plant. Converting the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen — as growing plants do — requires more energy than burning it produced in the first place (of course).
Aha! “Sustainable Energy Sources.” Well, sure. Except that hydro is already at an asymptotic level of exploitation in this country — our most energetic river, the Columbia, for example, now has one turbine for every 11 feet of drop; geothermal can only be used in certain (rare) locales; wind power is unreliable, hideously expensive, produces immense visual and noise pollution, chops up wild birds, and in the production of the huge amounts of steel and concrete needed actually results in more pollution per watt than any other form of power generation; solar only works in daylight and disfigures vast open areas for a relatively small output. Nuclear power is a great idea, but the politicians so far won’t allow for any reasonable means of waste disposal.
Since energy consumption is so closely linked to standard of living, reducing worldwide fossil fuel use by, say, 10% would be the equivalent of enduring a severe depression — permanently! An inconvenience in the developed world, catastrophic in the developing countries. And — since the climate system displays incredible (and mostly unknown) degrees of feedback and inertia — this Herculean effort and mass suffering could all be for only the most trivial gains, since the increased CO2 is already there and under any possible scenario the concentration would continue to increase, though at a slightly slower rate. So we might go through all this only to find that Miami in a hundred years is only under 71 inches of water instead of the alarmists’ predicted six feet.
A faith issue indeed. To buy into the hype, we need to have faith not only in the science (not to mention the alarmist bureaucratic summaries of it and the incoherent reporting of these summaries by clueless journalists), but in the politicians who will be given enormous — nearly total — control over every economy in the world if the recommended measures are implemented. And of course, our selfless genius politicians and bureaucrats have such a wonderful record of solving pressing social problems …
If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to the CO2 “go away” and it will cast itself into the sea (carbon dioxide sink, by the way). Hey, here’s a whole new point of contact with evangelizing the world. See, faith workds!