Sunbeam wrote:Perhaps some of us worship the created more than the Creator.
I hope not. Some of still think God's direction to care for his creation is still valid. Some think we should love the people the Creator made and should work to prevent wars, famines, more direct causes of suffering and megadeaths.
Some of us agree, but don’t think “carbon credits” and other political schemes actually help care for God’s creation. The most important part of God’s creation is people, and especially the innocent. If one cannot take care of innocent babies then one certainly can’t tackle problems like global climate change.
I don't think every issue has to be about abortion. People have different opinions about when meaningful human life begins. Christians have taken many stances over the centuries. I agree with you that children should be protected from conception, but respect those who have come to another conclusion. Many of those who do not believe unborn children need protection are much better than a lot of the "pro-life" group when it comes to issues like poverty and health care for those who are breathing.
Carbon credits are often for things like planting trees. Counteracting deforestation is helpful even if you aren't concerned about CO2 levels.
People, people, don't take what someone said and reword it to say something they didn't say and build on that non-said thing as if it was a said thing and argue with them on that premise.
JimFoxvog wrote:People have different opinions about when meaningful human life begins. Christians have taken many stances over the centuries. I agree with you that children should be protected from conception, but respect those who have come to another conclusion.
Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that some people's "opinions" mean they openly advocate for murdering children.
On the flip side, there definitely are different opinions about climate change - and that's not a clear-cut moral issue like murdering children is. Yet the push of those who advocate for anthropogenic global warming is that their opinions must be forced on all of us, with lifestyle changes and carbon taxes levied against all of us, and then denouncing us as "science deniers" and so forth.
Many of those who do not believe unborn children need protection are much better than a lot of the "pro-life" group when it comes to issues like poverty and health care for those who are breathing.
By what standard? The pro-life people I know and associate with do a great deal to care for the needy in many different ways.
Josh, this is the global warming or warning thread, murdering children doesn't have to be brought into every thread, even if we are trying to get this thread to 100 pages. Many of us agree with you on that particular issue.
2 weeks ago, Anak Krakatau (Child of Krakatoa) had a particularly nasty eruptive explosion. If it behaves anything like its parent, Krakatoa, we could be in for another mini Ice Age. Then we'd have to start yet another thread on global cooling.
[video][/video]
I do not read Breitbart nor use it as a source, but I came across a link to this article and wanted to share it. It brings two points out that I agree with. I can not find other media covering this, so I have to use Breitbart.
However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.
“If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.
In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.
But the fact remains that there is not one science or environment correspondent attached to any mainstream media publication prepared to do their due diligence on global warming scare stories. They are all so wedded to the alarmist consensus that they scarcely even bother to alter the press release.
Finally, do not expect this humiliating retraction to be given anywhere near the prominence afforded the original story. This is how the climate scare machine works: the hysteria is only ever ratcheted upwards, never dialed down.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
that is until ten to fifteen years later when all the dire predictions do not happen and they dream up some new ones to keep the ball rolling.
Global warming advocates and TV preachers have a lot in common. For some reason the one is reviled and the others are heroes.
A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.
Dr. Gernot Wagner from Harvard University is an author of the paper. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering "... would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years."
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
