Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History'

Jim Flom wrote:
"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote...
To be fair, one has to look beyond the authority and at the facts that led
to his conclusion. That man's sensibilities are so finally tuned as to
record a reading of imminent disaster on the doomometer is a mere spit in
the ocean when considering the grand scale of the history of the Earth.
Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use them
as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree temperature
rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just didling in the
noise.

Global warming is the new helmet thread.


LOL!

Steve

wrote in message ...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sci...atest_scam.htm

I hope he's never introduced to Asher who would murder him in a second to
protect his extremists views of a runaway global environmental catastrophe
that is unstoppable unless he and Al Gore are given large amounts of money.

On Nov 10, 11:57 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use
them as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree
temperature rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just
didling in the noise.

You know that 600 foot long container ship that hit the Bay Bridge a
couple of days ago? That thing has tremendous momentum and can neither
turn nor stop on a dime. That collision was set up many, many minutes
before, when a 1/2 degree change in heading could still have made a
difference.

On Nov 10, 2:49 am, wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sci..._weather_chann...

Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being. Thus, even a discussion
of costs and benefits of amelioration is (and I kid you not) a form of
idol worship.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 10, 11:57 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use
them as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree
temperature rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just
didling in the noise.

You know that 600 foot long container ship that hit the Bay Bridge a
couple of days ago? That thing has tremendous momentum and can neither
turn nor stop on a dime. That collision was set up many, many minutes
before, when a 1/2 degree change in heading could still have made a
difference.

Like I've said before, the cancer patient complains of a runny nose.

Phil H

On Nov 10, 3:36 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Nov 10, 11:57 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use
them as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree
temperature rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just
didling in the noise.

You know that 600 foot long container ship that hit the Bay Bridge a
couple of days ago? That thing has tremendous momentum and can neither
turn nor stop on a dime. That collision was set up many, many minutes
before, when a 1/2 degree change in heading could still have made a
difference.

Like I've said before, the cancer patient complains of a runny nose.

A runny nose can be a very serious symptom to a leukemia patient, or a
cystic fibrosis patient. The thing that expertise (sometimes) bestows
is knowing when it's serious and when it's not, and if it's worth
treating. What shouldn't be an issue is arguing about whether the nose
is runny or not.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 10, 3:36 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Nov 10, 11:57 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and
use
them as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree
temperature rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just
didling in the noise.

You know that 600 foot long container ship that hit the Bay Bridge
a
couple of days ago? That thing has tremendous momentum and can
neither
turn nor stop on a dime. That collision was set up many, many
minutes
before, when a 1/2 degree change in heading could still have made a
difference.

Like I've said before, the cancer patient complains of a runny nose.

A runny nose can be a very serious symptom to a leukemia patient, or a
cystic fibrosis patient.

Or too much pepper in your soup.

The thing that expertise (sometimes) bestows
is knowing when it's serious and when it's not, and if it's worth
treating. What shouldn't be an issue is arguing about whether the nose
is runny or not.


There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil H

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in message
. ..

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Actually there's no argument that the last decade has shown an increase in
global temperatures. There is plenty argument that it is significant in any
way.

On Nov 10, 4:59 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

On Nov 10, 3:32 pm, wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:49 am, wrote:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sci..._weather_chann...

Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being.



Dumbass -


Elements of the religious right claim that.

There are other elements that claim the opposite.

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb5.html

The Greening of Evangelicals
Christian Right Turns, Sometimes Warily, to Environmentalism

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A01

SEATTLE -- Thanks to the Rev. Leroy Hedman, the parishioners at
Georgetown Gospel Chapel take their baptismal waters cold. The
preacher has unplugged the electricity-guzzling heater in the
immersion baptism tank behind his pulpit. He has also installed energy-
saving fluorescent light bulbs throughout the church and has placed
water barrels beneath its gutter pipes -- using runoff to irrigate the
congregation's all-organic gardens.

Such "creation care" should be at the heart of evangelical life,
Hedman says, along with condemning abortion, protecting family and
loving Jesus. He uses the term "creation care" because, he says, it
does not annoy conservative Christians for whom the word
"environmentalism" connotes liberals, secularists and Democrats.

"It's amazing to me that evangelicals haven't gone quicker for the
green," Hedman said. "But as creation care spreads, evangelicals will
demand different behavior from politicians. The Republicans should not
take us for granted."

There is growing evidence -- in polling and in public statements of
church leaders -- that evangelicals are beginning to go for the green.
Despite wariness toward mainstream environmental groups, a growing
number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a
responsibility mandated by God in the Bible.

"The environment is a values issue," said the Rev. Ted Haggard,
president of the 30 million-member National Association of
Evangelicals. "There are significant and compelling theological
reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right."

In October, the association's leaders adopted an "Evangelical Call to
Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every
Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in
safeguarding a sustainable environment.

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to
steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we
are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000
member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate
resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has
an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of
environmental degradation."

Signatories included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical
leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck
Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Some of the signatories are to
meet in March in Washington to develop a position on global warming,
which could place them at odds with the policies of the Bush
administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's vice
president for governmental affairs.

Also last fall, Christianity Today, an influential evangelical
magazine, weighed in for the first time on global warming. It said
that "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses
that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards
changes that protect our environment."

The magazine came out in favor of a global warming bill -- sponsored
by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) --
that the Bush administration opposed and the Republican-controlled
Senate defeated.

Polling has found a strengthening consensus among evangelicals for
strict environmental rules, even if they cost jobs and higher prices,
said John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied
Politics at the University of Akron. In 2000, about 45 percent of
evangelicals supported strict environmental regulations, according to
Green's polling. That jumped to 52 percent last year.

snipend