Quantcast
Religious Right 'Gets' Global Warming (Wrong) Print E-mail
Written by Rob Howard   
Monday, 19 May 2008

Last week, a coalition of some of the nation's most influential and most conservative religious leaders launched a thinly-veiled campaign to forward global warming skepticism and derail the Lieberman-Warner Senate bill, which would establish a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.

The We Get It campaign aims to collect 1 million e-signatures to -- according to the its Web site -- "show that [Christians] are united behind Biblical perspectives on the environment and the poor." Conveniently enough, the campaign has been endorsed by global warming skeptic extraordinaire Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and cites his office's propaganda-style website.

The three-minute video that is essentially the only thing on the "We Get It" site implies that attempts to mitigate climate change are to blame for all the rising energy and food prices that hurt poor people.

You'd think these guys would have a little more faith in mankind's power to change the world.
Comments
Add NewSearch
Steve Thorngate - Mankind's power     | 199.199.206.xxx | 2008-05-20 11:15:05
"You'd think these guys would have a little more faith in mankind's power to change the world."

Well, no--the whole theological energy behind this sort of conservative Christian anti-enviro sentiment comes from the idea that the world is too bad to be meaningfully improved, that an apocalyptic escape from it is the only thing to hope for. In this worldview, "mankind" has little power to do much of anything good.
Reply | Quote
1 1
James - Global warming is BULL!   | 68.10.101.xxx | 2008-05-23 18:54:38
I used to believe in global Warming till I did the research for it. Theres 3 or 4 to 1 scientists saying global warming isnt man made. 98 is the last year of warming! The sun went through warm spells (increased solar Flare activity) as it also does. Mars and other planets increased temps as well. Note that theres no SUV's on Mars. CO2 isnt a Pollutant, Its absolutly needed for the production of oxygen. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale Oxygen. Please dont mis-constrew what Im saying here. I believe we need to be good stewards of the planet and the real pollution needs to be reduced or done away with completely like mucury, lead, Dioxins, PCB's, etc. CO2 isnt one. You wait and watch this is going to be a global carbon tax that the United Nations is going to collect. Its a Global Tax that they have wanted for so many years and are very close now. Also consider this. In the 70's-80s even earlier it was global cooler (ice age) arent you glad we didnt do all those things they suggested back then which was what. Pump CO2 Into the atmosphere!!!! Please do your research and look it up. Dont listen to teh media which is owned by the few that will benifit from the Global warming scare such as MSNBC, NBC which are owned by GE. GE is the biggest rewarded one of them all. Think about they scare everyone into Green and Run to GE which partly egged on the scare. Please research everything for yourself.
Reply | Quote
3 10
Pointy-Hatted Geek - Oh, something is bull, that's   | 75.170.14.xxx | 2008-05-24 18:42:21
I don't think anyone ever said anything about getting rid of all carbon dioxide. Anyone who paid attention in third grade science knows that plants take it in, and if I had to guess, I'd say that the people in charge of these things got at least that far. However, we have rather more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than we need; therefore, it seems like a good idea to do something about it. Also, you probably shouldn't be criticizing people when you can't even seem to manage simple skills such as using correct grammar and spell-checking. ("Mis-constrew"?) I found at least six errors in the first two sentences of your comment, and I really wasn't trying very hard. Also, if there are only "3 or 4 to 1 scientists" who say that global warming is nonsense, I'd say that you don't have a very solid case, considering that there are an awful lot more scientists who say it's real.

8
Reply | Quote
5 1
Joe - Full of it Bull   | 202.83.81.xxx | 2008-05-26 22:54:18
As a scientist I can advise that I am yet to see a credible alternative theory to Greenhouse anywhere in the literature and unlike your good self I am well read in the subject. When we study the evidence global warming is the most likley hypothesis that fits the facts, thats science. No big conspiracy, no real contoversy at all, just the facts. That is quite clearly the consensus of scientists around the world. In the light of new evidence or well thought out alternative theories that may change but it has not happened yet. Read more, a lot more, and use some disciplined critical analysis before you make such silly statements. You don't have to believe in Global Warming (belief has nothing to do with it) but if you oppose it you must do so with credible arguments and alterative hypothesis, not the kind of foolish jabbering you have produced. If you don't have the knowledge, and clearly you don't, please refrain from pedalling your propaganda in such a forum.
Reply | Quote
4 1
guido - who are you kidding?   | 96.33.77.xxx | 2008-05-27 18:24:58
you used to believe in global warming until you looked it up...Sounds like you looked up on the deniers' website and bought their propaganda, without researching the science...Even your own "facts" are wrong...Seven of the past ten years have been the warmest on record. Look it up.
Reply | Quote
1 2
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
 

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

Hi, We're EnviroWonk

Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.

So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.

Weekly Updates

RSS

rss