Conservative, Evangelical Republican - Climate change, it's real

[avb3]

Interesting read.

And please read it all before commenting, as it is relevant to address the points he makes, especially about conditioning.

http://thestewardsjourney.com/as-a-c...n-though-it-is

[expmler]

So he rails on about "conditioning" all the while being conditioned to believe in a supreme being without any scientific proof.

If you don't believe the science of climate change you have been "conditioned."
"Climate change is real"

You must believe in God despite the lack of any scientific proof.
"God is real" not because science says so, because he has been conditioned to believe so.

[avb3]

Yeah, his faith thing I can't get too enthralled about, as many who read my posts in the past note.

Regardless, he makes good points, because many of the evangelical base their view on climate change as a result of their religion.

[canadiantdi]

I find it strange that he talks about having theological training, and taking a Biblical standpoint... but then doesn't quote any scripture.

We obviously pollute and I can't see that changing unless we ditch all technology and go back to living off the land. Having greener technology would be dandy but I just don't see it saving the world. An earth full of people who grow their own food, build their own homes, travel with their feet... is not gonna happen. Humans are naturally lazy and we ain't given up our segways lol

[RustyRick]

My 2C worth posted to his page:
I have no problem in a position of a Christian environmentalist (Right wing) Probably all significant damage done to the environment is due to man's greed and selfishness.
1) However the cost of protectionism has gone way beyond realistic. For example: Crude oil is fertilizer. Crude oil is basically and largely nitrogen derived from plant and animal decay. (someone told me that) Thus it is bio-degradable. It came from the earth. So it's organic! In fact as an old trucker from years back saw oil spills in the ditch that hugely increased the grass/vegetation growth many fold in subsequent years. My daughter went to the National Science Fair with her samples of oats growing on differing amounts of crude oil verses no crude oil. However now when there is an oil spill the world comes unglued. Alarmists are given press time and all stops are pulled ate the terrible disaster. Crap God designed the earth to heal itself. I heard a scientist say that on Paul Reagan's talk show when talking alarmed at the oceans ElNenio He said "The earth seemed to be healing itself". da really - dummy

2) However you can't. And you eluded to God's sovereignty - well if you know the Bible you can't miss that he is in control of everything for his glory. He's either in TOTAL control or not. 3) You said "and we are responsible for the warming of our planet". You have NO OBJECTIVE proof of that. Nor does anyone else. If the catastrophic melting ice packs were going to cause ocean front property in Arizona then our Warf / shipping docks of the world would show evidence of it. Not happening. The earth has always gone through massive climate trends long before the industrial age.

3) Water is never lost as industry uses it. It can't be destroyed. Just changed nature (liquid or gas) However I think we should be alarmed at the un-calculable amount of water flushed down the proverbial toilet for fracking. That I think is a travesty. Oil and gas void is filled with our fresh water. Now that is a lost commodity.

4) The whole carbon emission tale is another load of ..... One volcano spew's more carbon into the air in one day than the continent of the*North America. Our little dinky impact is insignificant. However I DON'T take that for license. Let's just focus on the important and be balanced. Glorifying God alone. **

[Wild&Free]

A good read.

[rugatika]

As with all things evangelical, whether they be religion or environment, the key is balance.

I don't agree with his premise that right wingers have been conditioned to see environmentalism as a left winger's domain. I DO however, see environmental EXTREMISM as a left wingers sole domain. (there will always be exceptions to the rule)

As someone who grew up in a pretty right wing household, I was also someone that spent MANY days walking fields, out in the bush picking blueberries, saskatoon's and chokecherries, skiing etc and floating on a lake in a canoe fishing. The connection to, and respect for the environment was always made clear by my conservative parents. Having said that, we live in a modern age, and there must be pragmatic exceptions made. If we want heated homes, and practical methods of transportation to our favourite fishing hole, affordable food and housing, then there is going to be conflict with the environment. What's the proper balance has always been the question for me.

I think we are pretty close to striking a good balance right now (when you consider the number of people on the planet), with some exceptions here and there. You can look at any open pit mine for example and make the point that it's a blight on the area, but what lasting damage is it doing is the question and what are the benefits? Do we want to pay $2 or $3 for a liter of gas or do we want the oil sands? (I don't know what the exact correlation is...so numbers may not be representative...just making a point). How many raptor/bird deaths are acceptable to be using wind power? How much money do you want to pay for a 2x4?

As with many things, it's easy to get to that 80 or 90 percent "goodness" level, but achieving that last 10 or 20% on the road to perfection starts getting prohibitively expensive.

Where's the balancing point, who gets to pick it and who gets to pay for it?

If we as a human race want to have a zero or minimal foot print on the planet, we need to start by reducing the number of humans on the planet...significantly. How willing are we to make a serious effort on that front? Not very, I suspect.

I think "envrionmentalists" often make the mistake of assuming that since you're a conservative, or if you understand that trees need to be cut down to build homes, or holes need to be drilled to drive a tour bus, then you are "against" the environment.

Just remember, every pot field is taking up habitat from animals.

I read the whole article. What do I win?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by RustyRick

My 2C worth posted to his page:
I have no problem in a position of a Christian environmentalist (Right wing) Probably all significant damage done to the environment is due to man's greed and selfishness.
1) However the cost of protectionism has gone way beyond realistic. For example: Crude oil is fertilizer. Crude oil is basically and largely nitrogen derived from plant and animal decay. (someone told me that) Thus it is bio-degradable. It came from the earth. So it's organic! In fact as an old trucker from years back saw oil spills in the ditch that hugely increased the grass/vegetation growth many fold in subsequent years. My daughter went to the National Science Fair with her samples of oats growing on differing amounts of crude oil verses no crude oil. However now when there is an oil spill the world comes unglued. Alarmists are given press time and all stops are pulled ate the terrible disaster. Crap God designed the earth to heal itself. I heard a scientist say that on Paul Reagan's talk show when talking alarmed at the oceans ElNenio He said "The earth seemed to be healing itself". da really - dummy

2) However you can't. And you eluded to God's sovereignty - well if you know the Bible you can't miss that he is in control of everything for his glory. He's either in TOTAL control or not. 3) You said "and we are responsible for the warming of our planet". You have NO OBJECTIVE proof of that. Nor does anyone else. If the catastrophic melting ice packs were going to cause ocean front property in Arizona then our Warf / shipping docks of the world would show evidence of it. Not happening. The earth has always gone through massive climate trends long before the industrial age.

3) Water is never lost as industry uses it. It can't be destroyed. Just changed nature (liquid or gas) However I think we should be alarmed at the un-calculable amount of water flushed down the proverbial toilet for fracking. That I think is a travesty. Oil and gas void is filled with our fresh water. Now that is a lost commodity.

4) The whole carbon emission tale is another load of ..... One volcano spew's more carbon into the air in one day than the continent of the*North America. Our little dinky impact is insignificant. However I DON'T take that for license. Let's just focus on the important and be balanced. Glorifying God alone. **

Good post.

If I recall my scinece studdies correctly, oil was formed from organic deposits was it not? Wouldn't it then be organic as well?

Ever dumped too much chicken manure on a garden?

Anyone know what Oil Gator is?

OIL GATOR is produced from recycled, chemically modified cellulosic fibers. It contains all the necessary ingredients (nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorous) to enhance biodegradation of hydrocarbons by indigenous bacteria.

Who knew, there is bacteria that eats oil, the hydrocarbon kind of oil!

Honestly I think the whole thing is silly. I think we have much bigger fish to fry and no one wants to think about them.

I think Western societies will self destruct long before Global warming becomes an issue. And I think we do more damage to the planet by our altering the planet to suit our needs, then any so called damage any amount of global warming will ever do.

I'd like the global warming alarmists to explain what an ice age was and how come there are signs of a tropical environment existing long ago in what is now the Arctic.

Do I believe global warming exists? I believe it probably does exist.

Do I believe it will change the planet as we know it. Yup.

Do I believe we should do what we can, within reason, to reduce our impact on this planet and on global warming. Of course.

DO I believe we can stop Global warming? Not if science is right. After all, it happened long before we came into the picture and if science is right it has happened more then once.

I remember the energy crisis of the 1970s. Scientists told us we would run out of oil by the year 2,000. Then there was the Y2K crisis. And that is only two of the most recent crisis experts and scientists have manipulated us with.

Just the other day I was listening to a scientist talk about how government scientists are being muzzled by our government.

Just how much can we trust science?

Science gave us 24D, thalidomide, urea formaldehyde insulation, asbestos, and any number of other products that science said, at the time, were safe for us to use.

Now science gives us Roundup, Target, and a massive host of other man made chemicals to make our lives better, supposedly.

Science and industry work hand in hand. One can not exist without the other.

Very little science is done simply for the sake of knowledge. The overwhelming majority of scientific discovery has an agenda. An industrial agenda.

Industry pays the bills and industry makes the rules. We are told that science is unquestionable. What a great marketing tool!

Think about it, who can afford to do a proper study on the causes and effects of Global warming?
A professor who earns $80,000 a year? How about a student with no income, or maybe a politician who earns a couple of hundred thou a year?

Why would they and how much research could they pay for?

A one month expedition to the high arctic to collect ice samples can cost in the millions.

Just how much can we trust science?

And in the mean time, who's going to do something about the creeping increase in corruption throughout western governments?

How are we going to eliminate crime? What are we going to replace all those chemicals with? Who is willing to give up their place on this planet so there will be more room for a more natural environment?

Who among us is willing to park their SUV and ATV to help preserve the environment?

Why are we worried about a warmer planet when there may be nothing left in a few hundred years but man made structures, paved parking lots and man made recreation areas?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by rugatika

As with all things evangelical, whether they be religion or environment, the key is balance.

I don't agree with his premise that right wingers have been conditioned to see environmentalism as a left winger's domain. I DO however, see environmental EXTREMISM as a left wingers sole domain. (there will always be exceptions to the rule)

As someone who grew up in a pretty right wing household, I was also someone that spent MANY days walking fields, out in the bush picking blueberries, saskatoon's and chokecherries, skiing etc and floating on a lake in a canoe fishing. The connection to, and respect for the environment was always made clear by my conservative parents. Having said that, we live in a modern age, and there must be pragmatic exceptions made. If we want heated homes, and practical methods of transportation to our favourite fishing hole, affordable food and housing, then there is going to be conflict with the environment. What's the proper balance has always been the question for me.

I think we are pretty close to striking a good balance right now (when you consider the number of people on the planet), with some exceptions here and there. You can look at any open pit mine for example and make the point that it's a blight on the area, but what lasting damage is it doing is the question and what are the benefits? Do we want to pay $2 or $3 for a liter of gas or do we want the oil sands? (I don't know what the exact correlation is...so numbers may not be representative...just making a point). How many raptor/bird deaths are acceptable to be using wind power? How much money do you want to pay for a 2x4?

As with many things, it's easy to get to that 80 or 90 percent "goodness" level, but achieving that last 10 or 20% on the road to perfection starts getting prohibitively expensive.

Where's the balancing point, who gets to pick it and who gets to pay for it?

If we as a human race want to have a zero or minimal foot print on the planet, we need to start by reducing the number of humans on the planet...significantly. How willing are we to make a serious effort on that front? Not very, I suspect.

I think "envrionmentalists" often make the mistake of assuming that since you're a conservative, or if you understand that trees need to be cut down to build homes, or holes need to be drilled to drive a tour bus, then you are "against" the environment.

Just remember, every pot field is taking up habitat from animals.

I read the whole article. What do I win?

Good post for sure.

[Sneeze]

My kids can't swim in the Lakes and reservoirs of Southern Alberta because of REAL pollution and all the environmental left can do is rail about Carbon Dioxide killing the bee's and evangelicals.

The warming wacko's spend a lot of time whining about CO2, but ask them about the Ferruginous Hawk or the Swift Fox and they can't figure out how to tax them back into abundance.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

My kids can't swim in the Lakes and reservoirs of Southern Alberta because of REAL pollution and all the environmental left can do is rail about Carbon Dioxide killing the bee's and evangelicals.

The warming wacko's spend a lot of time whining about CO2, but ask them about the Ferruginous Hawk or the Swift Fox and they can't figure out how to tax them back into abundance.

Some corrections.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a greenhouse gas

Bee colony collapse is a real and present concern.

"In an annual survey released on Wednesday by the*Bee Informed Partnership, a consortium of universities and research laboratories, about 5,000 beekeepers reported losing 42.1 percent of their colonies in the 12-month period that ended in April. That is well above the 34.2 percent loss reported for the same period in 2013 and 2014, and it is the second-highest loss recorded since year-round surveys began in 2010."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/14...to-worsen.html

We better worry about bees; they are responsible for a huge amount of our food and crop production.

The points made in the article about conditioning.... Did you read them. Please do if you have not.

[expmler]

I read it twice now, and I still find it odd that he can talk about conditioning to support his view on global warming and fail to acknowledge that his whole God based position is based on 100% conditioning.

He then goes on to condition his followers that global warming is true with a God based argument.

Science only works because of the presence of skepticism. He dismisses this scepticism as conditioning which would reduce science to a belief.

I wonder if we applied science to the existence of God, he would admit that his lack of skepticism was due to conditioning.

[Boogerfart]

Although I seldom agree with avb3 on much he's right about conditioning. This is a easy article to nitpick from any viewpoint but the point of it is real. We often react without taking the time to truly ponder the deeper meaning of what's going on. All people (myself included) need to make a effort to actually stop and think BEFORE we act or react, just because you respect someone or like what they said doesn't make it true. We need to think for ourselves and find our own answers rather than parroting someone else.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Some corrections.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a greenhouse gas

.

Didn't Obama appointee Lisa Jackson and the EPA declare CO2 a pollutant? I think it was a few years ago or so.

[Talking moose]

Rugs first post is bang on.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Rugs first post is bang on.

What about my second post?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by rugatika

What about my second post?

I don't know the answer to post #2. It very well could be a dandy post!

[scalerman]

From one perspective or another we are all "conditioned" to think one way or another. Our thought processes and belief systems are all based on the things we have read, observed, experienced, heard etc. My world view is my world view just as yours is your own. To say that one is wrong as opposed to another is I guess the reason we have threads like this one.
If you believe that the world is billions of years old then the current "global warming" should be of no consequence as it has happened countless times in the past according to science. The simple fact that mere humans are the alleged cause of it is of little interest to nature as it will be sorted out in the future when there is a massive die off from the lack of water, heat, lack of food... I'm sure you see where this is going. I am old enough to remember when the scientists were convinced that we were headed for another ice age. Now we are going to kill ourselves with global warming? Again back to the billions of years theory- scientists have a very small snippet of verifiable recorded weather and climate data to try to predict long term weather trends. Avowing that a certain thing will happen based on as little hard evidence as science currently has is irresponsible to say the least. They still can't tell you what the weather is going to do tomorrow let alone next week but we are expected to take these long term predictions seriously? There is no more nor no less water or carbon on this earth than there was whenever it was that it all began. We have not magically created more of one and less of the other. Better stewardship of the resources that we do have is never a bad idea. That part of the discussion I am very much in favor of. Just my $0.02 worth.

[Jalan]

Originally Posted by RustyRick

4) The whole carbon emission tale is another load of ..... One volcano spew's more carbon into the air in one day than the continent of the*North America. Our little dinky impact is insignificant. However I DON'T take that for license. Let's just focus on the important and be balanced. Glorifying God alone. **

I hear this a lot. Volcanoes are a very small portion.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php