God will save us from climate change

[GostHacked]

obviously, the, 'what 'God' has to do with any of this', is how positions are being influenced by religious belief.

As well as political influence on those same positions.

Referencing the article was principally to outline the competing aspects within the Republican member Shimkus' own acknowledged evangelical influence; i.e., his position contradicts the advocacy of his own faiths spiritual leaders.

I call that an appeal to authority. Because if the data is not from NOAA (with the disclaimer) then it's ignored. No data should be ignored, all data should be tested and compared.

the position statements bible cited references would appear germane in the context they are applied by the spiritual leaders; i.e., to the positional claim that 'Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem'.

the position statements other cited references are equally germane in the context they are applied; i.e., to the positional claim that 'Human-Induced Climate Change is Real'... where the statement cites references to such organizations as, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the G8 Joint Science Academies Statement, the American Geophysical Union, etc.

Obviously things change. So what you are claiming not about AGW may be germane down the road.

Edited November 11, 2010 by GostHacked

[Oleg Bach]

Hate - creates global warming - Hate creates garbage that is NOT contained - Hate will kill all of us...stop respecting those that come from the lineage of hate.

[waldo]

I don't quite understand what God has to do with any of this. Also the article you quoted, also quotes the bible as some kind of evidence. As in the other thread, politics and priests need not get involved in the scientific process. Essentially you can write off that article as any kind of evidence to support the concept of AGW.

obviously, the, 'what 'God' has to do with any of this', is how positions are being influenced by religious belief. Referencing the article was principally to outline the competing aspects within the Republican member Shimkus' own acknowledged evangelical influence; i.e., his position contradicts the advocacy of his own faiths spiritual leaders.

the position statements bible cited references would appear germane in the context they are applied by the spiritual leaders; i.e., to the positional claim that 'Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem'.

the position statements other cited references are equally germane in the context they are applied; i.e., to the positional claim that 'Human-Induced Climate Change is Real'... where the statement cites references to such organizations as, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the G8 Joint Science Academies Statement, the American Geophysical Union, etc.

As well as political influence on those same positions.

I call that an appeal to authority. Because if the data is not from NOAA (with the disclaimer) then it's ignored. No data should be ignored, all data should be tested and compared.

Obviously things change. So what you are claiming not about AGW may be germane down the road.

WTF! This was a straight commentary on the contradiction between Shimkus' self-avowed theological based influence on his denial of AGW climate change and the actual position statement on climate change put forward by the spiritual leaders of his Evangelical religion. Your personal interpretations of "evidence" being put forward rests entirely within the contents of that position statement and has nothing to do with someone pointing out the contradiction's between Shimkus and that position statement. If you have difficulty with the position that the Evangelical spiritual leaders have taken, I'd suggest you vent your spleen in that direction.

[waldo]

Shimkus: "capping CO2 emissions is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress — impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened"

[GostHacked]

WTF! This was a straight commentary on the contradiction between Shimkus' self-avowed theological based influence on his denial of AGW climate change and the actual position statement on climate change put forward by the spiritual leaders of his Evangelical religion. Your personal interpretations of "evidence" being put forward rests entirely within the contents of that position statement and has nothing to do with someone pointing out the contradiction's between Shimkus and that position statement. If you have difficulty with the position that the Evangelical spiritual leaders have taken, I'd suggest you vent your spleen in that direction.

You missed the point that I made. To really get to the bottom of this whole AWG business, religion and politics need to step aside and let the scientists do their work.

[waldo]

You missed the point that I made. To really get to the bottom of this whole AWG business, religion and politics need to step aside and let the scientists do their work.

your naivety expounds! The separation you yearn for is well and continues within the science domain proper... your "getting to the bottom of it" reflects the consensus within that science domain proper. Everything else... is just... everything else.

[GostHacked]

your naivety expounds! The separation you yearn for is well and continues within the science domain proper... your "getting to the bottom of it" reflects the consensus within that science domain proper. Everything else... is just... everything else.

I completely disagree with your assessment. Because reality does not agree with your assessment.

Edited November 11, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

I completely disagree with your assessment. Because reality does not agree with your assessment.

I've had my fill of your personal denier reality... quota long exceeded. What was that you were saying?

[GostHacked]

I've had my fill of your personal denier reality... quota long exceeded. What was that you were saying?

No worries. God will save you.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No way! Really??

God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative

Well it's a damned good thing this Republican got in, now isn't it? Good thing it wasn't some crazy person.

Why do I have the feeling this guy wouldn't mind a catastrophe? Maybe he thinks Jesus will be coming back.

[TimG]

Why do I have the feeling this guy wouldn't mind a catastrophe? Maybe he thinks Jesus will be coming back.

It would but him good company with all those alarmists begging for another 'katrina' in order to scare the masses into supporting their policies.

[dre]

No I said these two guy's opinions were equal. I happen to mostly agree with Shimkus but that is because I have looked at practical realities of reducing carbon emissions and concluded it is a waste of money and resources given the uncertainties regarding the effects of climate change.

I picked Al Gore because he is a politician, like Shimkus, who is a driven by a religious ideology. I responded to you because you focused on "Abrahamic" religions as a source of religious pessimism. I wanted to point out that eco-evangelicals like Gore who constantly preach about the end of the world are just as bad - if not worse than "Abrahamic" religions when it comes to religious pessimism.

No I said these two guy's opinions were equal. I happen to mostly agree with Shimkus but that is because I have looked at practical realities of reducing carbon emissions and concluded it is a waste of money and resources given the uncertainties regarding the effects of climate change.

Thats because youre looking at climate change in a vacuum.

But its only one reason for a set of policies that would have the effect of reducing CO2. If we reduce CO2 by reducing FF energy use we will accomplish other important policy initiatives as well. Environmental, economic, and geo-political.

A well crafted set of policies will address all three of those concerns and reduce the cost of energy in the long term.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Thats because youre looking at climate change in a vacuum.

But its only one reason for a set of policies that would have the effect of reducing CO2. If we reduce CO2 by reducing FF energy use we will accomplish other important policy initiatives as well. Environmental, economic, and geo-political.

A well crafted set of policies will address all three of those concerns and reduce the cost of energy in the long term.

Don't forget the national security issues that would be resolved by updating our ancient electricity infrastructure.

[Shady]

I'm not sure who's worse. The zealots insisting that there's a God, or the zealots insisting that there's such a thing as climate change. At least the God related zealots only ask you to change your life. The climate related zealots use force.

[TimG]

A well crafted set of policies will address all three of those concerns and reduce the cost of energy in the long term.

Actually, any policy based on the premise that CO2 must be reduced is harmful and will ultimately increase the economic, environmental and geo-political problems assoicated with energy use. If you really care about such things you be asking for policies that focus directly on the objectives you stated.

And Yes - I realize that you did not say specically that CO2 should be the premise but given the political context a failure to reject CO2 reductions as a policy drivers ensure it will be the main policy driver because of the number of people who are obessed with CO2. A good example is CCS: incredibly expensive and potentially dangerous but money is being dumped into this technology which would be better used elsewhere. The low carbon fuel standard is another absurdity which simply increases the amount oil imported from unstable regimes.

Edited November 12, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Don't forget the national security issues that would be resolved by updating our ancient electricity infrastructure.

Again, the obsession with CO2 is actually increasing the vulnerability of our electrical infrastructure by forcing grid operators to deal with unreliable sources like wind. If you really cared about the national security issues associated with the grid you would call for policies that dealt with it directly instead of expecting it happen as a side effect of a completely unrelated policy.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Again, the obsession with CO2 is actually increasing the vulnerability of our electrical infrastructure by forcing grid operators to deal with unreliable sources like wind. If you really cared about the national security issues associated with the grid you would call for policies that dealt with it directly instead of expecting it happen as a side effect of a completely unrelated policy.

Even though many energy companies have now come out and said wind energy and other renewable is actually good for the grid. Wind is very predictable. It's also very easy to set-up judging by the huge amounts that have been installed.

[TimG]

Even though many energy companies have now come out and said wind energy and other renewable is actually good for the grid. Wind is very predictable. It's also very easy to set-up judging by the huge amounts that have been installed.

ROTFL. Just the other week I was in a conversion with a few engineers responsible for implementing the renewable energy standards in the US. "Good for the grid" is not what they said. The most positive comment made was - "the government is going force this on the grid whether we like it or not. We will just have to make it work". The implication being "making it work" will cost a lot of money that will have to be extracted from rate payers or tax payers.

Wind is not economically viable as long operators demand subsidies.

Edited November 12, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Actually, any policy based on the premise that CO2 must be reduced is harmful and will ultimately increase the economic, environmental and geo-political problems assoicated with energy use. If you really care about such things you be asking for policies that focus directly on the objectives you stated.

And Yes - I realize that you did not say specically that CO2 should be the premise but given the political context a failure to reject CO2 reductions as a policy drivers ensure it will be the main policy driver because of the number of people who are obessed with CO2. A good example is CCS: incredibly expensive and potentially dangerous but money is being dumped into this technology which would be better used elsewhere. The low carbon fuel standard is another absurdity which simply increases the amount oil imported from unstable regimes.

Actually, any policy based on the premise that CO2 must be reduced is harmful and will ultimately increase the economic, environmental and geo-political problems assoicated with energy use. If you really care about such things you be asking for policies that focus directly on the objectives you stated.

All of those things can be usefull stimuli in driving change, and its not true that any policy that has co2 reduction as part of one of its goals will increase economic problems.

For example CO2 alarmism has driven huge ammounts of investment in things like automobile technology, and battery/electric technology. Those advances will allow us to eventually use less gasoline. The fact is that there is is way more smart people and way more resources brought to bear than there every was before.

That doesnt mean that every co2 policy is good. But the real danger to the economy lies in doing nothing... and AGW has been usefull to "bump" us away from that bad position.

[Oleg Bach]

Nature is God's representative on earth. Nature will save us - even if it is to destroy us in part...Not wanting to come across like some new ager ---- Hate destroys - love builds and sustains - Those who hate should have all power revoked - In fact they should get off my f**king planet - The destroyers are of no use to nature or God - or man ..they are a silly mistake.

[Slim]

RE: The original post

The only thing that makes my head hurt more than Canadian politics... is American politics.

[dre]

RE: The original post

The only thing that makes my head hurt more than Canadian politics... is American politics.

They actually call it POLITAINMENT down there.

[Pliny]

No way! Really??

God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative

Well it's a damned good thing this Republican got in, now isn't it? Good thing it wasn't some crazy person.

He is pointing out that Barrack Obama is not a God and won't be healing the planet all by himself, as he believes.

[Guest TrueMetis]

ROTFL. Just the other week I was in a conversion with a few engineers responsible for implementing the renewable energy standards in the US. "Good for the grid" is not what they said. The most positive comment made was - "the government is going force this on the grid whether we like it or not. We will just have to make it work". The implication being "making it work" will cost a lot of money that will have to be extracted from rate payers or tax payers.

Wind is not economically viable as long operators demand subsidies.

Really? Well Xcel Energy disagrees

"It was good for the system," Xcel's Prager said, referring to the utility's mix of energy sources, "and it was good for the customer."

My link

So does this guy.

(skip to 4:25 though there is a lot of other good stuff in there if you want to watch the whole thing)

Edited November 13, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

ROTFL. Just the other week I was in a conversion with a few engineers responsible for implementing the renewable energy standards in the US. "Good for the grid" is not what they said. The most positive comment made was - "the government is going force this on the grid whether we like it or not. We will just have to make it work". The implication being "making it work" will cost a lot of money that will have to be extracted from rate payers or tax payers.

Wind is not economically viable as long operators demand subsidies.

Wind is not economically viable as long operators demand subsidies.

You could say the exact same thing about nuclear energy or virtually any source.

Wind and solar are in their R&D and proof of concept phase which is exactly when a technology SHOULD be subsidized.