'God would not allow Earth to be destroyed by global warming', no need for regulation

Remove all ads!

Sure, but when 153 million Bangladeshi will have to move to some place where they'll have their feet dry, and where they can grow something to eat again (salt water and agriculture don't mix all that well), that'll make some noise. The Dutch are also acutely aware of sea level rise. Likewise, the relocation of Florida constituents because of rising sea levels will make some noise. As things are I consider it rather unwise to invest in beach front property in Florida. Alas, someone tell the Floridans.

Same here.

~*~​

It is a couple of things IMO. First, I'd have to do some research on that guy, but here it is, painted with a broad brush: (a) I do believe that the guy is sincere as far as his religion goes - since he is so fond of quoting Genesis:

Shimkus is a protestant; such reading of the bible is popular among American protestants; (b) he is certainly pandering to those of his constituents believing in biblical Literalism or biblical inerrancy; (c) he is probably also a recipient of coal end energy lobby money (and if I had a coal mine, I'd probably also fund such people, and the preachers who preach so very convenient doctrine - philanthropy, you know) and (d) he can probably easily reconcile all that.

PS: Whether my broad brush assessment is accurate or not - there must be something driving the sentiment as expressed by - Evangelicals less worried about global climate change and White U.S. evangelicals most skeptical on climate change.

~*~​

If if could be regulated, it would be far less of a problem. You speak of regulating emissions

 

What a kind God who will save the high-ground dwellers and punish those evil men who live in coastal area.

Is he also going to stop the next asteroid to crash into Earth?

I think human life will be wiped out utterly by something like that before we can drown ourselves from global warming, but still doesn't mean I want to ignore environmental issues. Our society is so unbelievably wasteful (bottled water anyone?) that we should be picking up our game, regardless who God decides to randomly save.

 

To Mr Shimkus: My bible also contains stories and lectures about stewardship and wise management. You seem to have forgotten those.

If Mesmero means that we should not "waylay nature's plans" and try anything to keep the world as it is now, I agree, I guess. Also, I don't think we should speed the process.

While I do not fully agree with the lyrics in the song below, I do believe God might feel like this sometimes:

 

My friends, he's not as stupid as you make him out to be. He's pandering to a voting base. Simple as that. He's neither the first nor the last politican to make dumbass claims to fire up the crowd.

 

I don't believe he's pandering to his voter base. His voter base is a lot of farmers (who are concerned with global warming) and some fairly liberal areas.

 

You sound like John McCain.

 

This crossed my desktop. This topic has been smashed around the boards by many in times past, with many people stating that the "Founding Fathers" were not Christian at all and tried quite hard to keep Christianity out of the body politic. This fellow has some quotes that seem to contradict that. Is he a ballsy liar hoping no one will check his quotes for veracity ( a la Michael Moore?) Is he using them out of context? Hack and slash, my anti-Christian friends!

For the record, I think the guy is a bit of a sanctimonious douche.

 

I've been on these boards a few times and never heard that. If you mean to say that some of us have commented that the Founders attemtped to keep "religion" out of politics, you may have a good point, since some of us have made that point, and in the end that is what happened at the Constitutional Convention and the addition of the Bill of Rights. I think that some of us have tried to point out that the "Founders" were many people, with differing points of view on many issues, including religion.

In this instance, the writer has picked out quotes that seem to help support his case. We see the same thing with people in religion who try to point out specific quotes in a Holy Book to attempt to craft a theme or narrative out of a few quotes. That is an incomplete picture in most instances. It's all about piont of view and context. But in the end, religion and politics have been two different spheres in American life, including politics. Christians, Jewish people, Muslim people, etc, can all live comfortably in the US, at least to some extent, because of this.

 

Ragusa, I know you don't like to admit it, but you do know that I'm a rational, reasonable human being. Hell, if you've payed attention, you even know I believe in evolution.

Actually, if you interpret Revelation literally, God's probably going to send a few asteroids.

YES!!! +++++ So many 'conservative Christians' neither conserve nor heed the teachings of Christ and His Father on this topic. The world is ours, but as stewards, not owners. Wise and faithful stewards are rewarded at the end of their stewardship. Foolish and unfaithful stewards face punishment. With a stewardship of this scale, 'punishment' is baaad.

Many of the Founding Fathers were thoroughly Christian. Many others were not. Several others are still matters of debate. All came from a society where two religions had tried to use government to force their wills on everyone, resulting in bloody civil war for generations. All of them remembered that as one of the central figures they had rebelled against. They kept this in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

 

I'm sure you know I'm not God so your guess is just as good as mine.

Maybe, maybe not. Or perhaps he would inspire some brilliant scientists at NASA to send Bruce Willis to deal with it.

That can fit in with the "promise of God". Who knows, you might have hit the jackpot.

 

I don't get this hype with Global Warming.
I truly believe, that before Global Warming would probably kill us (or most of us),
anyone of the following reasons would be responsible for a quicker wipeout:
Atomic Warfare, some comet like the one who hit Jupiter a few years ago, a new Ice Age (ha there you have it you GW prophets ^^) just to name a few.

 

The human race could wipe itself out or sharply reduce its numbers on this planet quickly with a nuclear war.

But that is why we, and many other leaders, don't want a major nuclear war to happen.


Global Warming is likely happening.

Which is why many leaders want us to deal with that too.


Just because one type of harm could happen quickly doesn't mean it is a wise idea to let another type of harm happen slowly. If asked if they wanted to be shot (quick) or poisoned (slow) I suspect most people would say neither as both would harm or kill them.

 

Look - it doesn't actually matter or not whether global warming is real. There are 100s of other obvious environmental issues that obviously need to be addressed.

Polluted waterways are bad, whether or not they cause global warming

Wiping out the rainforest forever is bad, whether or not is causes global warming

Mountains of plastic bottles are bad, whether or not they cause global warming

Over-dependence on finite sources of fossil fuels is bad, whether or not it causes global warming

Stop arguing about global warming and get on with trying to find more sustainable ways of living!

 

I'll add to that list, HB, as I have before. Sulpher dioxide emissions into our atmosphere are bad, whether they come with CO2 emissions or not. CO emissions into our atmosphere are bad, whether they come with CO2 emissions or not. Lead and mercury leaking into our ground water from fly ash is bad, whether they come with CO2 emissions or not.

Down with Coal! Up with Nukes*!

*The reactor kind, that is.

 

But where to with the nuclear waste that will assemble?
You see, nothing is perfect...

 

Recycle the nuclear waste in breeder reactors until it's only a tiny fraction of what it was. Not perfect, but much better than what we use now. Additionally, start work on an effective thorium breeding system. Thorium is much safer and more abundant than uranium, but it takes a little help to get it to a very usable form for reactors.

 

All the resistance (and its abuse by the extreme left) against the nuclear waste transport through Lower Saxony here in Germany is all too fresh to me.
Point taken, nuclear power system is very effective but nevertheless the waste that will arise if small in comparison or not, will radiate for thousands of years.
I think that is the point of criticism concerning nuclear power, who can assume responsibility for a so long period of time. Consider the Pharaos had theoretically produced nuclear waste: the waste would still be there, but the pharaos albeit once a 'high culture' are long gone.


And to go back to global warming.
It is a lot abused by political agendas of different kinds.
A growing number of scientists point out that a new Ice age might as well be possible, and that the topic GW is too much hyped.
I won't say that it should be denied, but there is too much non-scientific hype around it.
I know a student of geology and he told me of some opinions in the academic world and that a growing number of scientists are very critical concerning the assumption of a new global warming.
They rather point out, that throughout history of earth there have been significant periods of time with extreme situations in both sides, warm and cold, a natural development in nature.

I think too much people refuse to accept change.
Greenland , for example, once was covered by less ice than nowadays, and the vikings used to settle in that period.
But now, if the ice frontiers pull back, we suddenly get frightened and call 'global warming!'

 

True - and it's not like anyone was claiming that none of the Founders were Christian. In fact, I'd go so far to say that most of those who were religous at all, were Christian.

No nothing is perfect, but I think nuclear waste can be effectively managed. We have Yucca Mountain afterall...