Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its only a religious issue when some of the people in charge of taking care of this nation say crazy things like this.
Rep. John Shimkus
"...the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect. Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
We try and hold a scientific debate on what to do about the planet and this guy says basically, the bible told me that god told them that he would not destroy the planet again, and so we cannot destroy the planet and should do whatever we want to it...
Even on religious grounds I do not see how you cannot want to preserve nature. If God created the entire planet, then all those vast forests and reefs and jungles were all his doing. And we spend all our time destroying them, do we think we can create something better than god did???
its only a religious issue when some of the people in charge of taking care of this nation say crazy things like this.
Rep. John Shimkus
"...the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect. Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
We try and hold a scientific debate on what to do about the planet and this guy says basically, the bible told me that god told them that he would not destroy the planet again, and so we cannot destroy the planet and should do whatever we want to it...
Even on religious grounds I do not see how you cannot want to preserve nature. If God created the entire planet, then all those vast forests and reefs and jungles were all his doing. And we spend all our time destroying them, do we think we can create something better than god did???
He's right. When you put it in context, his point is not that he's looking to wave a Bible at everyone...as much as he's saying that the earth is not going anywhere.
its only a religious issue when some of the people in charge of taking care of this nation say crazy things like this.
Rep. John Shimkus
"...the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect. Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
We try and hold a scientific debate on what to do about the planet and this guy says basically, the bible told me that god told them that he would not destroy the planet again, and so we cannot destroy the planet and should do whatever we want to it...
Even on religious grounds I do not see how you cannot want to preserve nature. If God created the entire planet, then all those vast forests and reefs and jungles were all his doing. And we spend all our time destroying them, do we think we can create something better than god did???
It seems to be a fundamentalist religious right issue and I think you nailed the reason right here. It is the dominion over nature idea that leads these people to aggressively try to destroy nature. Fortunately, not all religious think this way - not even all Christians, despite the declarations of the more radical that all those who don't kow tow are "not real Christians."
It is also an issue that many people seem to think they understand but have no clue whatsoever about it. Climate science is one of the most complex sciences there is.
But even if we are wrong about global warming, there are so many reasons (health and financial) to do better with energy use and cleaning the air because we are animals who must inhabit this earth and are negatively affected by the toxins we spread.
But if you want the world to end quickly so you can sit on the right hand of god (i.e., you're dead!) AND punish all the other folks (i.e., you are vicious!), poisoning the world we live on is a good thing.
Well, look on the bright side...there's not much humans can do that would permanently destroy the world. Heck, we could make it so terrible here that we kill ourselves off, and the earth would still bounce back and life would go on. Humans aren't particularly important in the galactic scheme of things.
Humans aren't particularly important in the galactic scheme of things.
I agree and cockroaches will still be here long after we're gone.
I do generally agree that more conservative religious individuals tend to reject the concept of global warming for reasons that are incomprehensible. It isn't even a religious issue but it may just be a mistrust of science.
But even if we are wrong about global warming, there are so many reasons (health and financial) to do better with energy use and cleaning the air because we are animals who must inhabit this earth and are negatively affected by the toxins we spread.
I think that's a good point. I'm not really sure there's anything we can really do about it as we are going into a natural warming cycle. However, it sure can't hurt to get more fuel efficient and put less pollutants into the atmosphere.
It makes me laugh when people speak about the "end of the world". The Earth isn't going anywhere and will be around long after we are gone. What really bugs them is the end of humanity.
I agree and cockroaches will still be here long after we're gone.
I do generally agree that more conservative religious individuals tend to reject the concept of global warming for reasons that are incomprehensible. It isn't even a religious issue but it may just be a mistrust of science.
I could argue that most humanists tend to embrace it because of a willingness to embrace the power of mankind.
What I mean is, I am personally not convinced that we have enough influence on our climate that we can affect it to that level. I agree it's probably getting warmer...but I see no reason to believe it's not a natural cycle of warming/cooling.
Then, of course, there is the idea that 30 years ago people were predicting we'd all freeze to death because the earth was cooling.
A quick search using a popular internet search engine turned up this link about some of the nutty predictions of 1970:
I could argue that most humanists tend to embrace it because of a willingness to embrace the power of mankind.
What I mean is, I am personally not convinced that we have enough influence on our climate that we can affect it to that level.
China has now become the biggest polluter in the world having surpassed the US. We can test the air coming from the east as it arrives in the Pacific Northwest and it's really polluted. We're talking about tons of material being put into the atmosphere from factories, automobiles, power plants and every sort of activity that we're engaged in. It's true that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling that can be traced back far before the effects of the industrial revolution but it's very likely that human activity is adding a new factor in that cycle that the earth has never experienced. I for one think we should act responsibly and do whatever we can to cause the least amount of impact to nature as possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not really sure there's anything we can really do about it as we are going into a natural warming cycle. However, it sure can't hurt to get more fuel efficient and put less pollutants into the atmosphere.
