Poor at Center of Evangelical Debate On Global Warming

"By making energy less affordable and accessible, mandatory emissions reductions would drive up the costs of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose especially harmful effects on the Earth's poorest people."

Let's ask the victims of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, USA, or earthquake survivors in Sichuan, China, or the surviving families of those who were killed in the Thailand tsunami, or the people who made it through the cyclone in Myanmar, what they think of this statement.

Try telling them global warming isn't real, and that the real threat today is increased energy costs.

Why are people so opposed to taking action? Energy sources have been changing since the beginning of human civilization - what is it that has people so adamant about sticking with oil?

How surprising, a disagreement among religious leaders. These two were bred by conservative think tanks to disagree with fact, and their goal is to refute scientific evidence about anything that contradicts their own world of make believe.

Anyone expecting otherwise from these "leaders" is mistaken. Bet the mortgage that whatever scientific facts are identified, they will conveniently misconstrue them.

Dobson is one worthless dude whose anti-fact and anti-science views are quite 14th century, the other I'm less familaiar with. Both would make the world a better place if they had their mouths sewn shut.

Global warming is a result of the scientist's data being changed by His Noodly Appendage. Also, studies have shown that the rise in the average global temperature is a direct effect of the shrinking number of Pirate since the 1800's.

James Dobson is a polytheist: money and power are his twin gods.

He is as far from the right hand of God as I can imagine an individual to be. I would sooner see him shouting his eternal devotion to Satan than hear one more of his outrageous lies.

The problem is not global warming but GLOBAL IMMORALITY.

Everybody dies and although it's a good thing to care for our bodies, the MAIN work of the church is to HEAL THE SOUL.

Also, this abhorence for oil is an OVER-REACTION. Whether we like it or not, OIL will be a thing of the past. It will become obsolete.

Even before "global warming" became a catch phrase, I never liked fossil fuel from the beginning coz it produces dirty and poisonous exhaust fumes.

This panic about global warming is the thing we should fear about and not the use of fossil fuels itself. As I've said, it will be obsolete soon.

What you guys should think about is how to contain those people who will be affected if oil becomes obsolete.

THAT SHOULD BE YOUR MAIN CONCERN.

Comments such as those from Legendarypunk only furthers the divide between all groups in the global warming debate. First of all, earthquakes in China, or anywhere else, are not caused by global warming. I suggest reading articles on plate techtonics. Additionally, no reasonable meteorologist would say that huricanes and cyclones are caused by global warming. An arguement may be made that the frequency or number of higher intenisity storms may be a result of global warming, but the past several years have only seen a small increase in the number of storms not in the number of intense storms. Katrina was a mid-range category 3 huricane, a quite "normal" storm. The devasting effects on the population of New Oleans was however man-made. The sequestering of poor and marginal income families in cheap and dangerous below sea level sections of the city was the real reason for the debacle. Ineffective local and state government allowed the crisis to occur and ineffective and poor federal reponses allowed the situation to worsen. This situation was caused by economics not global warming, hence keeping energy costs low and jobs plentiful can keep people from having themselves placed in such vulnerable condictions. Also electing local officials that have respect for all humans and who would not allow the marginal income earners from being treated so shabbably would also help a lot.

Peolpe are not against taking action if the actions are reasonable. And reasonable is rather a subjective term. The other thing is that no one has defined what the normal average earth temperture should be. It has been shown that millions of years ago the earth's temperature was much warmer than it is today. Dinosaurs walked the earth within a few hundred miles of the earths poles. Something that if they were alive today they certainly couldn't do. Who is to say that those temperatures are not the "right" temperature for the earth?

Also no one has said that if we over-correct or over compensate and make the earth too cold that they will be willing to put more carbon gases into the atmosphere to warm us back up. Those who don't beleive that the climate changes that are occuring are man made have as much evidence as those who say it is, therfore the stalemate.

The SOCIAL UPHEAVAL would be greater than the "trouble" you would get from a degree rise of the earth's temperature. That is assuming it will rise.

Religion has no direct role to play in issues like this. We're talking about science, which requires rational thought about objective data. Taking a "biblical approach," as Dobson suggests, to climate change is like taking a romantic approach to gravity or applying GAAP to Christianity.

If people are sitting in pews, they are confused to begin with, or they wouldn't be investing in something that has no basis in reality and for which not one shred of evidence exists. Religion is for scared little people that have to have something that gives their lives meaning. They have to have some reason to believe that the most degredous form of life on the planet is, in some way, special. Enter religion. Made in the image of he who created the universe. Yep, that's special alright, rediculous, but special.

As for global warming, it is something that happens naturally, but there is no denying that certain things will exacerbate the condition. You know, like billions of humans producing greenhouse gasses, and introducing things into the atmosphere that would never get there naturally.

First of all, when did Christians start caring about he poor? You could of fooled me considering the growing number of poor in this country. The largest chunk of that being children. The number of poor increases right along with the size of these disgraceful "mega-churches". A million dollars to build a church and a paltry handout to the poor.

"Biblical fact based.....?" That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Someone should ask James Dobson why his personal fortune has grown while his charitable contributions have waned. Not very Christian.

Of course climate change is real. It's a documented occurrence that has already happened more than once on this planet. That is fact based. The last major climate change ended 10,000 years ago. That may be the problem right there since most Evangelicals believe the Earth didn't exist 10,000 years ago. So right away Evangelicals have no place in a scientific discussion.

Christian leaders who want to defend "GOD's creation" from climate change are heroes. Slightly misguided heroes, but heroes none the less. It's funny. Evangelicals care nothing for the poor till they can be a political tool. Something to hide behind while they make their baseless, cowardly quotes.

Dobson and Land are huge Republican contributors. So is "Big Oil". Common interests for these bedfellows. If they want their politician to persecute the gays, overturn Roe v. wade, then they have to support them on climate change. Simple as that.

DANOH50-- you're argument is baseless. Your logic is insane. Dinosaurs walking near the poles? You realize the entire make up of the Earth was different at that point in time right? Also, THERE WERE NO PEOPLE! Let the poles melt. Let the sea level rise. Many of the places we now live were underwater at that time. Didn't mention that did you? So you're cool with losing 100's of cities and millions of lives? if it gets too cold we'll warm it back up? Are you insane? You have no idea how the earth's atmosphere, climate, etc. works. if we put more carbon in the atmosphere then less sunlight will penetrate the surface. Once all the heat the gas has trapped has dissipated we will still be in a rather long cold spurt. READ A BOOK.

Religion has no business even commenting on scientific affairs. Your only science is "GOD did it". What an insulting article and even more insulting post.

As an atheist I am disturbed at the Manichean hostility to religion on display in most of the comments posted so far. The rise of Evangelicals who believe in doing something for the poor and the environment is a positive development that deserves respect and praise. Christians who ACT like Christians are good people, people we should work with and encourage.

I am puzzled by the poll results, however. So do 66% of Evangelicals (90% X [100%-27%]) deny global warming yet want to take a more active role in caring for the environment? How is that possible? Either the polling is not sensitive enough or there are a large number of people who hold contradictory beliefs.

It’s telling when the poor are used by the likes of Mr. Dobson as a rhetorical device. The growing rejection of such insidiousness by the evangelical community is a heartening development. Thankfully it appears that Religiosity will not eclipse patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels.

KYOPUT wrote:
"DANOH50-- you're argument is baseless. Your logic is insane...READ A BOOK."

Which part of the following did you find baseless?

DANOH50 wrote:
"The devasting effects on the population of New Oleans was however man-made. The sequestering of poor and marginal income families in cheap and dangerous below sea level sections of the city was the real reason for the debacle. Ineffective local and state government allowed the crisis to occur and ineffective and poor federal reponses allowed the situation to worsen. This situation was caused by economics not global warming, hence keeping energy costs low and jobs plentiful can keep people from having themselves placed in such vulnerable condictions."

The passage is absolutely true, and greatly complicates our "best" or "most moral" response to climate change (whether you believe it to be mostly, partly, or not at all man-made).

"I am puzzled by the poll results, however. So do 66% of Evangelicals (90% X [100%-27%]) deny global warming yet want to take a more active role in caring for the environment? How is that possible? Either the polling is not sensitive enough or there are a large number of people who hold contradictory beliefs"

Well, it's actually kind of *part* of their beliefs. Blame and and idea of 'judgment' tend to be more important than systemic causes, ...they'll vote for the GOP even when it hurts the poor, then personally feel 'giving' when they hand out a bowl of soup.

In terms of the environment, they can't admit the ideology's going wrong, and causing impending disaster, but that doesn't mean they think they're bad people who don't want to help.

They'll decry the consumerism and greed of the society they keep *demanding,* (and blame everyone else for it) but actually don't personally really want to think they live in greed and excess, most of em.

It's kind of a contradiction, but ...a consistent one? There could actually be a lot of practical common ground here on the 'Let's not waste stuff,' part, even if they'd rather choke on exhaust than ever concede an 'evil environmentalist' was right or anything.

Good enough to be getting on with, though, if we really wanna do something.

I mean, that's really the thing: we've been hung up for decades on the notion from the Right, 'It's not my fault!' when we could have been going, 'OK, this pollution and runaway consumption can't be good, at the very least, what do we do?'

Instead, there's been a lot of clinging to the notion that as long as there's a possibility blame can't be assigned, it must be righteous, and either everything'll be OK or the world will just end and Jesus will appear...

Never was about 'blame,' in that sense, though.

Except maybe in terms of who we ought to continue to listen to.

What do you expect from people who also believe in Sarah Palin, the tooth fairy and that we should change the Constitution to "take this nation back for Christ"?

Poor Jesus.

I too welcome the Evangelicals into the fight against climate change.

But they are coming a bit late, and with a huge problem. They've preached hatred toward gay Americans for so long that they've alienated many mainstream Americans, whom they must now work with. And their fight against gays was so filled with lies and distortions that they have little credibility.

danoh50 worte: "... earthquakes in China, or anywhere else, are not caused by global warming. I suggest reading articles on plate techtonics."

How so? Why not consult the Bible, which might attribute earthquakes to Divine wrath, which also wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah or sent the Flood and spared Noah. Of course, the same literalists will excuse any supposed conflict between mamon and God, provided the ministers get a portion of the silver. Believers might be hard to persuade to cut CO2 consumption based on some theories reliant on science or ethics, but be easy to persuade to drive hybrids or moderate the thermostat if that cuts fuel bills. Mamon prevails, except when holy wars turn fiscal fundamentalists into fools.

I am a chemical engineer (Drexel Univ, 1977) and work for a large design company. I interact with many engineers. Engineers in general have a good background to evaluate government science policy. If you were to poll engineers well over 90% would say man made global warming is likely untrue. Close to 100% would say if it were true there is nothing man could do to effect it at this point. Find an engineer ( a real one, not just one you make up in your head for thebenefit if this forum) and ask him or her.

Hey Mike452,
University of MD Aerospace Engineering 1983, Masters Operations Research GWU 1994.

I think global climate change is real, and I think the cause is largely (70-90%) the result of human activity, specifically the release of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere by the burning of fossile fuels. An aggravating factor is a reduction in forest area over the last 30 years.

There is a lot that can be done, but it will take decades before the effect of changed policies are felt. Given the two causes above, the changes that need to be made are obvious: reduce CO2 emissions, and increase green cover.

Your statement "If you were to poll engineers well over 90% would say man made global warming is likely untrue." is based on nothing, as far as I can tell, and a matter of personal opinion rather than science. You must be in management.

A "biblical, fact-based" approach to science? Surely this is ironic. Who cares what Evangelicals pronounce on science? Do religious fanatics care what I think of their ridiculous spiritual beliefs?

The restriction of carbon emissions is only one aspect of the necessary human response to global warming. One often-overlooked (or deliberately omitted) factor is the conversion from carbon fuel energy systems to alternatives, which is a critical and mandatory shift of technological paradigms across society.

No fully developed plan to address global warming will recommend simply to stop using carbon fuels and let everyone do without energy. The only realistic solutions will include further development and deployment of alternative energy systems to address both the general need for energy and our national need for new, cutting-edge technologies and the businesses which bring them to market. Energy independence, jobs, economic recovery, and more could be the by-products of tackling the problems of global warming with our eyes open and minds engaged.

The carbon fuels industries stand to lose the most from a society-wide conversion to alternatives, so it's not surprising that they oppose recognizing the underlying problem which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the change is necessary. Like the tobacco companies in days gone by, they seek to pursuade consumers that their products are not responsible for the obvious problems being observed. "The science is flawed," they claim. Keep on smoking, it's not really bad for you.

If Dobson & Co. are denying human causation of global warming, it probably means that "someone" has given them a financial incentive for adopting this as their stance. There's no logical reason for people actually concerned about the poor and humanity in general to oppose a transition to alternative energy systems.

Why am I not surprised that the "We Get it" campaign leaders are conforming to and embracing material wealth as well as avoiding sacrifice? This is the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior taught and did.

Sacrifice and rejecting the material and fleshly desires of this world have been and always will be the "great moral issues of our time."

We all need to live with less. This is the only way to confront the problems facing the world. And, when it get toughest and you really don't feel like following through the only thing that will make you do it is a sincere faith.

Hey DPC2003,

Thanks for your response. I hope we can discuss this civily.

You use the words "I think". Why do you think this? Honestly I have not seen a fact based agrument that comes close to convincing me that the world should spend trillions of dollars on this. Do you deny that some credible experts would not agree with you? Do you think the team with the most "experts" wins a debate on a scientific issues?

You say "There is a lot that can be done". I agree as long as these things make economic sense or are consistent with national security goals.

Seriously, has anyone seen any data (engineers work with data) that shows how many tons of CO2 emissions(say vs a 1990 base line) the world must limit itself to in order to solve the problem? Do we need to get to 50% of 1990 emissions? 90%? 110? Don't we need to have some idea of this? Or should we just "do what we can". If we waste money for no benefit wouldn't that be a tragedy given all of the world's needs?

Your statement: "Your statement "If you were to poll engineers well over 90% would say man made global warming is likely untrue." is based on nothing, as far as I can tell, and a matter of personal opinion rather than science. You must be in management."

My response: It is my conclusion after talking to many such folks. And you do not need to condescend.

I'd like to hear your best, but polite, answers to my questions above. I am not trying to put anyone on the spot. Often it feels like that in the written word, but please do not feel that way. Also, please excuse my spelling. If anything it proves that I am an engineer.

Mike542:

Here's a start on global warming data:
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

all these arguments,all the questions- it's really self defeating to think about cost because climate change will be devastating to everyone. How foolish to worry over how we will need to changes out lives to deal with climate change when climate change will be dealing with us.

If rev. Dobson doesn't want to admit who is causing climate change, he is a fool indeed.

spidey2 offers this advice:"This panic about global warming is the thing we should fear about and not the use of fossil fuels itself. As I've said, it will be obsolete soon."
as soon as I pick myself up off of the floor where I am rolling around laughing, I'll point out how like an ostrich he is.

danOH5O wrote:"Katrina was a mid-range category 3 hurricane, a quite "normal" storm. The devastating effects on the population of New Orleans was however man-made."

Katrina was a category 5 that became a Cat 3, and considered well above a "normal" hurricane. I don't know where you read this but you're very wrong. And while the damage in NO certainly can be blamed in huge part on the failure of the levees, Katrina cut a swath through several states (ask Mississippians and Alabamans).

global warming is real- and we can't go by what the government scientists say because the Bush Administration has played politics with them and has suppressed information and data to suit its own purposes. Feel free to google that administration scandal- it was just one among many.

Arminius,

Sorry but the site you directed me to is way too simplistic. I could build a model to explain any trend. In Excel is is called the curve fit function. Takes 3 minutes.

Mike542,

I did say that the site was a start. The data for those graphs had to come from somewhere, I just wasn't into making a long search.

Anthropogenic global warming is not in doubt, debatable, or controversial - ask knowledgeable experts such as within the IPCC and not a chemical engineer or any other “scientist” who does not specialize in the scientific disciplines related to climate change.

Unfortunately faith maliciously strips many believers of the responsibility to understand anything more profound than a set of myths began in the bronze age. It’s easier to sit in a pew and become beguiled by the seductive logic of fiction; To believe in a revealed truth reiterated time and again by self declared authority figures who tell you, in so many words, “we will do your thinking for you” and “It’s dangerous to think for yourself”. It’s hard for anyone with a “herd mentality” to come to terms with the reality that he has abdicated his personal responsibility and substituted knowledge for a belief that is a reflection of superstition and myth, a pitiable image of intellectual laziness.

“Aude sapere” - Dare To Know. Acquiring knowledge is work: active, lively, dynamic, vigorous. Active learning is not for indolent sloths who prefer predigested packets of beliefs that require no thought and are easily swallowed with minimal fuss or bother.

For one to admit a confidence in science is anathema to the fundamentalist evangelical religious belief because scientific knowledge calls into question what religion professes to know as a certainty. Nothing frightens apologists for Christianity more than the fear that scientific knowledge will lead to disenfranchising their claim of authority and ownership of “certainty”. Religious apologists strive to blur the line between science and religion in order to abate concerns, objections and questions - to keep one from looking for answers beyond the tunnel vision dogmas of faith. For anyone to admit a confusion between two world views, one of faith and one based on empirical evidence, should be an admission of embarrassment, but it is, in fact, the most powerful mind control weapon in the religious arsenal.

Has anyone ever thought that the things that are spoken of in the Book of Revelation could very well be brought on by our own actions?

Not just our environmental actions but also our economic actions and our social actions.

As I have said, "It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows" and also "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof".

God gave us free will and look what we have done to our world and to our brothers and sisters, which we all are whether we like it or not or if we even believe it or not.

God by becoming One of Us, Jesus, God-Incarnate, became the Brother of ALL OF US.

God's Plan, which is for ALL OF US to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ESMITH4102 wrote:
'Anthropogenic global warming is not in doubt, debatable, or controversial - ask knowledgeable experts such as within the IPCC and not a chemical engineer or any other “scientist” who does not specialize in the scientific disciplines related to climate change.'

Indeed it is in doubt, debatable, and controversial (to various degrees). If it were not so, scientists (including IPCC authors and editors) would not be studying and discussing these issues in their daily seminars, classes, and published research.