• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religious conservatives and CAGW

T

Tpaine

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
183
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
 
That's assuming that it's "catastrophic"

If so, that would be only one byproduct of Revelation's end times.
 
WCH said:
That's assuming that it's "catastrophic"

If so, that would be only one byproduct of Revelation's end times.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was catastrophic I said it's predictions are catastrophic. And it's more than one. When you read Revelations you see the four horseman and they represent what CAGW will mean IF it's catastrophic.
 
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Check out Cornwall Alliance – For the Stewardship of Creation


The basic premise is that AGW can't be real because Jesus would never let it happen.
 
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Well obviously sea levels can't possibly rise and flood the earth because...God, Noah and rainbows

Genesis 9
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
 
Threegoofs said:
Check out Cornwall Alliance – For the Stewardship of Creation


The basic premise is that AGW can't be real because Jesus would never let it happen.
Click to expand...

Go to their website and check out some of the recognisable names who signed some of the Cornwall Alliance's declarations and petitions. ;)

Roy Spencer
Timothy Ball
Anthony Watts
Patrick Michaels
Joseph Bastardi
Ross McKittrick
Joseph D’Aleo
William Happer
Craig Idso
David Legates
Steven Mosher
John Coleman
Jim Steele
Neil Frank
Robert Carter
William Gray

Lord Christopher Monckton is also a 'good friend of the Cornwall Alliance'
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Check out Cornwall Alliance – For the Stewardship of Creation


The basic premise is that AGW can't be real because Jesus would never let it happen.
Click to expand...

Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

"We deny, due to God’s faithfulness to His covenant, in which He proclaimed, after the Flood, that He would sustain the cycles on which terrestrial life depends for as long as the Earth endures (Genesis 8:22), that God’s curse on the Earth negates either the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:28) or the robustness and self-correcting resilience of the God-sustained Earth."

"We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship"

These are the sorts of anti-science/pseudoscience lies and deceptions being fed to conservative Christians in the US
Sin, Deception, and the Corruption of Science: A Look at the So-Called Climate Crisis
 
Last edited:
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

I think you mean "Revelation". ;)
 
I have no idea because I have no idea why anybody believes in God or anything that they can't understand or have evidence that it is true.

Thus I believe in the expansion of the universe from 12.5ish billion years ago because I can see and understand the evidence for this. I take on trust that it started 13.8(?) billion years ago because I have a level of confidence in the scientists who do understand it.

I do not understand the IR absorption and re-emission thing so I don't comment on that bit. I do understand sea level rise and can do the very simple sums that show that Greenland's ice is not melting at anything like the rate that it is supposed to be. Thus i know there is a con on.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I have no idea because I have no idea why anybody believes in God or anything that they can't understand or have evidence that it is true.

Thus I believe in the expansion of the universe from 12.5ish billion years ago because I can see and understand the evidence for this. I take on trust that it started 13.8(?) billion years ago because I have a level of confidence in the scientists who do understand it.

I do not understand the IR absorption and re-emission thing so I don't comment on that bit. I do understand sea level rise and can do the very simple sums that show that Greenland's ice is not melting at anything like the rate that it is supposed to be. Thus i know there is a con on.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing your calculations. I don't even know what rate it is supposed to be melting.
 
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit that the predictions in Revelations and in CAGW are both on the same plane of being hysterically faith based and scientifically unsupported.

In that way, they are similar.

As you see it, who, in the CAGW parallel you propose, is the Anti Christ?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I have no idea because I have no idea why anybody believes in God or anything that they can't understand or have evidence that it is true.

Thus I believe in the expansion of the universe from 12.5ish billion years ago because I can see and understand the evidence for this. I take on trust that it started 13.8(?) billion years ago because I have a level of confidence in the scientists who do understand it.

I do not understand the IR absorption and re-emission thing so I don't comment on that bit. I do understand sea level rise and can do the very simple sums that show that Greenland's ice is not melting at anything like the rate that it is supposed to be. Thus i know there is a con on.
Click to expand...

I think the proofs you embrace as proof art about as theoretical as the proofs embraced by the ultra religious for their beliefs. the age of the Universe is likely to be re-determined from however many billion years it currently is pegged at to a new level of billions in science. Both will be justified and subject to change.

However, if these provide you with comfort, I encourage you to embrace them.

We all need to find comfort in our lives and if religion provides comfort, that is the only threshold needed to embrace it.
 
code1211 said:
I think the proofs you embrace as proof art about as theoretical as the proofs embraced by the ultra religious for their beliefs. the age of the Universe is likely to be re-determined from however many billion years it currently is pegged at to a new level of billions in science. Both will be justified and subject to change.

However, if these provide you with comfort, I encourage you to embrace them.

We all need to find comfort in our lives and if religion provides comfort, that is the only threshold needed to embrace it.
Click to expand...

I prefer understanding to comfort. But then I am naturally a person more confortable with risk than most.

I understand why the universe is at least 12.5 billion years old. I understand why the earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and can show you evidence that shows undeniably (unless you are lying) that the world is many hundreds of millions of year sold in the rocks within 20 miles of my home. None of this is comforting.
 
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

CAGW to me means "Citizens Against Governmetn Waste" and I doubt many religious conservatives have any problem with that group.

But I presume based on other comments in this thread that you are referred to "Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming." But as a 'religious' (meaning I am a person of faith) conservative, I am not seeing all that much correlation between zealous AGW predictions and Biblical prophecy. I take my cue from Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul that urges us to observe and consider the rationality of things and use common sense instead of knee jerk response to some religious custom or creed. Neither threw out all tenets of their faith, but neither were slavishly bound to that which made no sense.

I think AGW proponents would do well to not be slavish in their devotion to that theory as well nor be pawns to those who tell them what to think about it, but rather use some common sense about it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
CAGW to me means "Citizens Against Governmetn Waste" and I doubt many religious conservatives have any problem with that group.

But I presume based on other comments in this thread that you are referred to "Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming." But as a 'religious' (meaning I am a person of faith) conservative, I am not seeing all that much correlation between zealous AGW predictions and Biblical prophecy. I take my cue from Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul that urges us to observe and consider the rationality of things and use common sense instead of knee jerk response to some religious custom or creed. Neither threw out all tenets of their faith, but neither were slavishly bound to that which made no sense.

I think AGW proponents would do well to not be slavish in their devotion to that theory as well nor be pawns to those who tell them what to think about it, but rather use some common sense about it.
Click to expand...

Isnt is just common sense to listen to the experts in a given field, espeically a complex one like climatology? Or does Jesus like lower electricity prices and less government regulation more than the National Academy of Science opinion?
 
Threegoofs said:
Isnt is just common sense to listen to the experts in a given field, espeically a complex one like climatology? Or does Jesus like lower electricity prices and less government regulation more than the National Academy of Science opinion?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. ALL the experts though and not just the ones whose funding depends on AGW being a reality and serious problem. I am in no position to speak for Jesus, but in my heart I believe he does that.
 
Tpaine said:
I was raised in a very religious household and I would have thought the religious conservatives would have been all over the CAGW because the predictions from it are very close to the predictions made in Revelations. Does anyone, especially the religious conservatives, have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

WCH said:
That's assuming that it's "catastrophic"

If so, that would be only one byproduct of Revelation's end times.
Click to expand...

Tpaine...

The wrong assumption here is that conservatives are willing to sacrifice integrity.

Sure, some are. But not enough.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Absolutely. ALL the experts though and not just the ones whose funding depends on AGW being a reality and serious problem. I am in no position to speak for Jesus, but in my heart I believe he does that.
Click to expand...

So the experts in virtually every significant scientific society basically say that the IPCCs findings are solid and AGW needs to be mitigated now.

These experts generally are not in climatology, but they are looking at the arguments from the climatology field and how they interact with their own field, and are basically unanimous in telling us the science is solid. The experts in climatology (except for the ones who are funded by, naturally the oil, gas and coal industries) are the ones saying the opposite. Because coal companies knew that AGW was reality and a serious problem for them, which is one reason they are going out of business.

I'm glad the Jesus in your heart likes less government. The Jesus in the bible, however was quite clear: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". That means Jesus reallly doesnt care about regulation, unless it interferes with religion.
 
Tpaine said:
I didn't say it was catastrophic I said it's predictions are catastrophic. And it's more than one. When you read Revelations you see the four horseman and they represent what CAGW will mean IF it's catastrophic.
Click to expand...

That's what the 'C' stand for.
 
Threegoofs said:
So the experts in virtually every significant scientific society basically say that the IPCCs findings are solid and AGW needs to be mitigated now.

These experts generally are not in climatology, but they are looking at the arguments from the climatology field and how they interact with their own field, and are basically unanimous in telling us the science is solid. The experts in climatology (except for the ones who are funded by, naturally the oil, gas and coal industries) are the ones saying the opposite. Because coal companies knew that AGW was reality and a serious problem for them, which is one reason they are going out of business.

I'm glad the Jesus in your heart likes less government. The Jesus in the bible, however was quite clear: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". That means Jesus reallly doesnt care about regulation, unless it interferes with religion.
Click to expand...

The experts you choose to believe are certainly in agreement with you. I have read extensively what those have had to say about it and I have read extensively what those who disagree with them have had to say about it. And I give equal weight to opinions on both sides, even though those who are not being paid to have that opinion should be considered more credible on the subject. I would be more convinced in AGW if those pushing that theory allowed any dissent of any kind from the scientists in their midst. And if there wasn't repeated evidence of how information is skewed to favor AGW.

And none of that really has anything to do with Jesus or religious conservatives.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Tpaine...

The wrong assumption here is that conservatives are willing to sacrifice integrity.

Sure, some are. But not enough.
Click to expand...

I wasn't assuming anything. I was just asking for thoughts on why the religious right doesn't see the parallel between the predictions of Revelations and the predictions of CAGW.
 
Tpaine said:
I wasn't assuming anything. I was just asking for thoughts on why the religious right doesn't see the parallel between the predictions of Revelations and the predictions of CAGW.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to me that they don't take any possible event as a sign. Funny that in that regard, the alarmists are less rational the the religious zeolots. It seems no matter what happens in climate, someone says "It's because of AGW."

Pretty sad that there are more who claim they hold dear science, are less rational than those who are Christian fundamentalists.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The experts you choose to believe are certainly in agreement with you. I have read extensively what those have had to say about it and I have read extensively what those who disagree with them have had to say about it. And I give equal weight to opinions on both sides, even though those who are not being paid to have that opinion should be considered more credible on the subject. I would be more convinced in AGW if those pushing that theory allowed any dissent of any kind from the scientists in their midst. And if there wasn't repeated evidence of how information is skewed to favor AGW.

And none of that really has anything to do with Jesus or religious conservatives.
Click to expand...

So the National Academy of Sciences is not really believable? Nor is the Royal Society, or the endless list of other, generally extremely well respected scientific societies? In fact, I dont think you could name an international or national society in the general sciences that would be considered to be above any of the ones on that list.

But, you have 'read extensively' and know that the worlds scientists are in on the scheme to 'favor AGW', yet either dont know what you know about how the information (that they gather - not you) is skewed, or are covering up the fact that its not (but apparently not covering it up well enough, since denier blogs are advertising it). That can only lead to one conclusion.

Its a CONSPIRACY!

P.S. Youre in the wrong section of the forum.
 
AlbqOwl said:
CAGW to me means "Citizens Against Governmetn Waste" and I doubt many religious conservatives have any problem with that group.

But I presume based on other comments in this thread that you are referred to "Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming." But as a 'religious' (meaning I am a person of faith) conservative, I am not seeing all that much correlation between zealous AGW predictions and Biblical prophecy. I take my cue from Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul that urges us to observe and consider the rationality of things and use common sense instead of knee jerk response to some religious custom or creed. Neither threw out all tenets of their faith, but neither were slavishly bound to that which made no sense.

I think AGW proponents would do well to not be slavish in their devotion to that theory as well nor be pawns to those who tell them what to think about it, but rather use some common sense about it.
Click to expand...

I really do try not to be rude but I get a little annoyed when religious people who are slavish in their devotion to their religion preach to me about being slavish in devotion to anything. I think that if I am slavish to anything regarding science it is regarding evidence, not some theory.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, it seems to me that they don't take any possible event as a sign. Funny that in that regard, the alarmists are less rational the the religious zeolots. It seems no matter what happens in climate, someone says "It's because of AGW."

Pretty sad that there are more who claim they hold dear science, are less rational than those who are Christian fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen the scientists at least are very careful to point out that for a single event they don't have enough evidence to say it was AGW or not because they don't want to be accused of exactly what you are saying. I'm sure that's not true for everyone that accepts AGW. However recently I have started seeing scientific studies of specific events that are showing that although AGW did not cause the event it made it worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom