# Climate Change "A Natural Cycle"



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This letter to the editor was published in today's Edmonton Journal. It outlines a very opposite view from other scientists on global warming.

A natural cycle

There is a doomsday gloom about the present era of global warming because many people believe that combustion of fossil fuels is accelerating it.

All of the "scientific data" I have seen that pretends to show the rate of global warming during the last 50 years is greater than that during the preceding 50 or 200 years have been "massaged."

For two decades, I have been telling government and industry officials that the average rate of global warming has remained approximately constant since recovery began from the mini-ice age about 300 years ago. The mean temperature now is about the same as it was 1,000 years ago, and is lower than it was 6,000 years ago.

We are in an interglacial period, with its gradual warming over millennia that will be followed by gradual cooling over millennia. The present sawtooth rise of mean temperatures might continue for another 50 years or 500 years, but the duration cannot be changed by human activity.
The politicians are suffering from egotism amplified by willful ignorance.

I suggest that governments and major industries spend their climate research funds on discovering ways to help our societies survive the higher temperatures, the shifting deserts and green areas on continents, and the higher sea levels along the coasts.

But so far nobody listens. We need to find solutions to problems that will begin to arrive during the 21st century.

Gordon Freeman, professor emeritus of chemistry, University of Alberta.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

See, SINC, that does't feed the religious fervour of those who feel guilty about developing a modern industrial culture. I only wish they'd be more interested in punishing only themselves but they're keen on taking everyone else down with them.

When I was in elementary school I got to hear the opinion of learned scientists telling us that we were heading for a big freeze. It wasn't just going to be an incremental return to Ice Age but a wallop, with snow falling and not melting. Six inches of snow would lay down year after year until we were buried!! Pollution was the cause--it stopped the sun's rays from heating our Earth as nature intended. We were to set aside all preconceived notions because the new breed of scientists were ever so much smarter than the previous pack and, as scientists, untainted by politics. _Time of the Great Freeze _by Robert Silverberg was de rigeur reading.

Now I get a whole new story from another group of scientists who are ever so much smarter than the last group of scientists and who are even less tainted by politics--only I'm going to fry instead freeze. 

Now I'm expected to pee my pants like the current group of self-loathers? Sorry.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

next thing i expect from the U of A is that smoking doesn't cause cancer


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> next thing i expect from the U of A is that smoking doesn't cause cancer


They might be on the verge of a breakthrough treatment or cure for it.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153

While the environmental movement, as often as not, seems to be largely driven by the anti-globalization movement, I don't think it would be wise to ignore the warnings coming from the vast majority of legitimate researchers in this field.

The larger problem is that if this research is correct we aren't going to be able to make the drastic changes required to stop what has already started. The changes we make today might make a difference a couple of hundred years down the road but the next century is not really fixable at this point.

The other problem is that even if Canada goes full stop with GHG emissions, we are still responsible for only about 2% of the world's emissions, so how much pain do we want to endure if countries like China, India and the US aren't going to follow?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> When I was in elementary school I got to hear the opinion of learned scientists telling us that we were heading for a big freeze. It wasn't just going to be an incremental return to Ice Age but a wallop, with snow falling and not melting. Six inches of snow would lay down year after year until we were buried!! Pollution was the cause--it stopped the sun's rays from heating our Earth as nature intended. We were to set aside all preconceived notions because the new breed of scientists were ever so much smarter than the previous pack and, as scientists, untainted by politics. _Time of the Great Freeze _by Robert Silverberg was de rigeur reading.


FYI... They were partially right.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Not that you would care or give a rats ass about trying to understand the world outside of what is happening to you on any given day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The key words in that letter are these:

_"The present sawtooth rise of mean temperatures might continue for another 50 years or 500 years, but the duration cannot be changed by human activity.

I suggest that governments and major industries spend their climate research funds on discovering ways to help our societies survive the higher temperatures, the shifting deserts and green areas on continents, and the higher sea levels along the coasts."_

The message seems to me to be, we can't avoid it happening, but we can use technology to ride it out.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Gordon Freeman!! :yikes: 

Like THE Gordon Freeman from Half Life? Holy crap! If he's around then that means trouble can't be far behind.  

:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope, it's this Gordon Freeman:

http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/faculty/freeman.htm


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This is a no-brainer*

If you look at this problem rationally it's quite simple to determine a reasonable course of action, even without becoming an expert in the field yourself.

It seems likely that the vast majority of climatologists are right and this chemist is wrong, however in science there is always uncertainty, and there will always be dissent (I can even find you a few scientists who dispute evolution! (strangely, these folks are mostly chemists... maybe it's the chemicals they breathe)). However let us consider the possibility that climate change is not significantly impacted by human activity. If this is the case, then no efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions will have any impact, but it certainly won't make our problem worse. And if we convert our economy to clean energy, and reduce our environmental impact, wouldn't that be a good thing even if it turns out that there is no emergency?

In contrast, let us consider the alternative, well-supported and widely accepted hypothesis, that human activity has and is affecting the climate. If this is the case then there are two possible outcomes of any efforts we might undertake to reduce our GHG emissions: 1) they could be 'too little, too late' and not have a significant effect, or 2) they could slow the rate of change, reduce the extent of change, and accelerate the rate of recovery. But by all but the most wildly optimistic models, these efforts can only effect the climate several decades to centuries after they've been implemented. So it's a given that we're going to have to find ways of living with global warming in the short to medium term... no one is arguing otherwise.

So from the completely selfish POV of the old guy who's not going to live to see any of the potential benefits, and who doesn't give a damn about the world his grandchildren have to live in, there's really no reason to worry. This is especially true if you're an apocalyptic Christian, who's expecting Jesus to return any day now to take the faithful away, which is apparently George Bush's position on the subject.

However, for those of us not suffering debilitating mental illnesses, and possessed of some sense of altruism and social responsibility, the potential to reduce the damage that has been done, and contribute to its repair, even if we won't live to see the benefits personally, should be pretty compelling. This is even more obviously the rational course of action when you consider the possibility that the few remaining eccentrics that dispute the athroprogenic causes of climate change might be wrong, and that we may be squandering what could be our last chance to save our civilization. To paraphrase Gimly in the Lord of the rings, when faced with a choice between certain death and a slim chance for survival, you obviously take the slim chance. 

Our situation is somewhat different from the protagonists of Tolkein's great story, in that we don't know for certain what the cost of failure is, although the potential for catastrophe is obviously huge, and we don't know what our chance of success is... it may not even be slim. But to argue indefinitely, while the time for action passes us by is clearly the hight of stupidity and cowardice.

Even if the worst case scenario comes to pass, and, after heroic efforts to curb our deleterious impacts on our climate and ecology, our civilization is unable to undo the damage we've done and we go extinct, wouldn't that be better than to sit around polluting our way into oblivion, never even having tried to save ourselves?

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Nope, it's this Gordon Freeman:
> 
> http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/faculty/freeman.htm



It's worth noting that this fellow's expertise is not in the field of climatology. His opinion on these issues is no more significant than that of any other guy on the street.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> The other problem is that even if Canada goes full stop with GHG emissions, we are still responsible for only about 2% of the world's emissions, so how much pain do we want to endure if countries like China, India and the US aren't going to follow?


This is a problem with any 'Tragedy of the Commons' scenario. And it has been well demonstrated that the only way out of such a trap is to act in good faith. We do our part, and trust that others will do theirs. If they don't we get screwed, but there's no other way to win.

I've actually done TotC exercises with friends. With friends you trust, it's very easy to win, but with strangers, competitors, or enemies, it's almost impossible. The key here will be convincing a significant population *around the world* that we're all on the same side here... humanity wins or looses together in this one, so national interests will have to be secondary.

It's almost certainly true, and from my POV philosophically just, that the developed world will have to pay a higher price, but that's just the way it is.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> This letter to the editor was published in today's Edmonton Journal. It outlines a very opposite view from other scientists on global warming.



I just noticed that this was published as a 'letter to the editor' rather than as a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Now I wish I hadn't replied. Jeez... any half-wit can send any thing they want to the Journal's editors, and it'll get published if it'll sell advertising or otherwise fill space that isn't sold to advertisers.

This is a complete non-issue.

Wake me up when someone publishes such a scientifically indefensible position in Nature.

Cheers


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Wake me up when someone publishes such a scientifically indefensible position in Nature.


And wake me up when someone publishes a scientifically _inarguable_ position along these lines.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Even if the global warming problem is nonexistant - and I believe it's a big problem - we are beholden to the whims of backward, unstable governments that sell us oil. Yes, I know Canada has its own supply, but it's not enough to sustain the demands of the world market, and most of the easily available oil comes from the Middle East. If that's not enough - oil is peaking, or nearly so. We're gonna run out of it by the next century. How many good reasons do we need to cut our consumption? 

We have a multiple choice situation here. You can pick your favourite reason not to guzzle fuel.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe rising commdity prices would be the best cure for oil dependence. If it is as short a suppy as you say, it will become unaffordable soon.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

we don't need a lot of good reasons
the oil barons that put bushco in the white house want to extract every penny they can from oil before they are forced to invest in any other technology

and as long as it takes millions of dollars to run for u.s. senate and president, there will be politicians taking their bribers, errrr, donations

does anyone really expect dubya, a former oil man, to really heed to the need of the little people, i.e. the overwhelming majority of u.s. citizens?

just look at the lies and now the mess in iraq

wars and oil go hand in hand like judas and 30 pieces of silver

bush will be remembered as the president that destroyed america's (note spelling) image around the world and his amerika became a true imperialist state

just watch the movie "Syriana" to have a look at how big oil influences political decisions in the u.s.

i'm surprised that the statue of liberty hasn't bowed her head in shame

oh and for those still counting, WMDs found in Iraq is still ZERO

war is going on 1/2 trillion dollars over 3,000 dead u.s. tens of thousands of dead iraqis and yet as long as the super bowl was on tv, nobody really cares

SUV commercials still going strong even though sales may be declining

the u.s. consumer is not being taught to conserve energy, just being taught to look the other way when their leaders lie, just as long as gas is plentiful, even if it costs more, because nothing says "i'm important" like a gas guzzling SUV


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I just noticed that this was published as a 'letter to the editor' rather than as a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Now I wish I hadn't replied. Jeez... any half-wit can send any thing they want to the Journal's editors, and it'll get published if it'll sell advertising or otherwise fill space that isn't sold to advertisers.
> 
> This is a complete non-issue.
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing out a very good point. SINC, I suggest you go read the multitude of credible sources on this issue. That is, those published in mediated sources. Or go watch Al Gore's movie, because he makes the point nicely:

Of the 600+ articles written about global warming in the past number of years, there has been a whopping total of *zero* that disagreed with it. Simply put, all the evidence points to the fact that, even if it is natural, humans are *accelerating* it.

But, if you're willing to put the lives of *hundreds of millions* of people at risk to prove otherwise, go right ahead.

Or you can read a credible paper and admit that we as human beings have a responsibility to do something.

Your call.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

> wars and oil go hand in hand like judas and 30 pieces of silver


Wasn't he pardoned or something a while back? Cleared of wrong doing.



> i'm surprised that the statue of liberty hasn't bowed her head in shame


Well she's French and she's stuck in a stinky US harbor, how much lower can she really feel about herself eh? 

-------

Natural cycle? We'll never know, because we're here polluting the hell out of everything so we have absolutely no idea what the planet would do on 'her' own. 

No doubt there are cycles of climate change, that only makes sense, but anyone that can say with a straight face that they honestly don't think we are contributing to way in which it's happening and the rate is a complete moron. 

I wonder if Freeman is bringing the Striders with him? Bastard!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Demosthenes X said:


> SINC, I suggest you go read the multitude of credible sources on this issue. That is, those published in mediated sources. Or go watch Al Gore's movie, because he makes the point nicely:
> 
> Of the 600+ articles written about global warming in the past number of years, there has been a whopping total of *zero* that disagreed with it. Your call.


I call Bullsh!it. 

Your fractured statement: "there has been a whopping total of *zero* that disagreed with "it" demonstrates the impossible. There are many who disagree with "it", whatever that is??


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC,

Do you feel that your views better reflect the views of the majority? You always claim that many agree with you. Who are these others? 

Just curious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Demosthenes X said:


> But, if you're willing to put the lives of *hundreds of millions* of people at risk to prove otherwise, go right ahead.
> 
> Your call.


I'll accept most of the risk, thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC,
> 
> Do you feel that your views better reflect the views of the majority? You always claim that many agree with you. Who are these others?
> 
> Just curious.


No, not the majority. Simple though. Many = more than a few.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Well one thing I know and that is that true to human nature and predictability, we'll all do too little too late and who ever is around in the next 100 years will be cursing the sh#t out of us. 

Suck it up, we blew it. Everyone between the ages of say 80 and 20 should just say a collective, "Sorry we f%^ked the planet up, best of luck." 

Guess that sounds negative... Humans are morons, we make _nuclear bombs_ for f$%k sake, there isn't much of a defense for us. Maybe the cockroaches will do a better job. :lmao:


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> This is especially true if you're an apocalyptic Christian, who's expecting Jesus to return any day now to take the faithful away, which is apparently George Bush's position on the subject.


That is hardly a fair comment, evangelicals (ie. people who typically believe in the rapture) have long been concerned about the environment and are considered one of the few voices with clout in the Bush administration making noise about it.

I've been attending an evangelical church since 1993 (mental illness apparently suits me) and from back then right up until today there has been concern.

Here are some recent articles on this subject:

Some statistics

Scientific American

The Evangelical Climate Initiative


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SUV commercials still going strong even though sales may be declining
> 
> the u.s. consumer is not being taught to conserve energy, just being taught to look the other way when their leaders lie, just as long as gas is plentiful, even if it costs more, because nothing says "i'm important" like a gas guzzling SUV


The Canadian consumer is just as bad if not worse. A recent survey quoted in the Globe states that, when choosing a car, environmentally-friendly ranks somewhere at the bottom of about 24 factors.

A lot of Canadians say that they are concerned about the environment but they won't do anything about it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

IronMac said:


> A lot of Canadians say that they are concerned about the environment but they won't do anything about it.


There is a severe disconnect between what the editorial boards of newspapers are trying to convince Canadians they already believe and reality.

Part of the problem here is the willingness of GHGers to try to exploit the recent spate of warm January weather for example. They now have to contend with an extremely cold February which has pretty much killed their PR for this year--not with the clever people who write for newspapers, but with people.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Attention all members - past or present (you know who you are):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> That is hardly a fair comment, evangelicals (ie. people who typically believe in the rapture) have long been concerned about the environment...


I apologize. It is obviously true that many Christians are concerned about the environment (indeed, some of the most active environmentalists are apparently motivated by the belief that God is highly displeased with how we've treated His creation), and I didn't mean to imply that Christians were at fault.

However, from what I've read about the inner circles of the Bush administration, there is a strong apocalyptic influence, which argues not only that we can't prevent global catastrophes like climate change and wars, but that such events are prophesied in the bible, and should be welcomed (or caused) as a herald of the 'End Times.' The fact that this sort of person has his 'finger on the button' and is directly responsible for causing a war in the most religiously sensitive and inflammable part of the world is extremely disturbing to me, and most rational people around the world.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'll accept most of the risk, thanks.


Obviously that's your prerogative. However, it is not your prerogative to accept these risks on behalf of the other six-and-a-half-billion of us.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I call Bullsh!it.


I heartily encourage a vigorous debate when there is any hope of a reasonable discussion. However, you can't just 'call bullsh!t' and then hassle someone about their grammar. As much as I completely agree with you on the grammar issue, you've got to make a counter point.

Where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies that dispute the role of human activity in climate change? I'm pretty sure you could find some if you go back into the literature far enough... back in the late 1990's there was still some reasonable doubt, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything recent that makes such a case, and this is the point: The scientific community has come to a consensus on the issue. And if you have any experience with the scientific community, you'll know that consensus is extremely rare. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, critical, argumentative, and make their living by proving their peers wrong. The only time you get a consensus is when every avenue of alternative explanation has been played-out. 

This argument is over. Humans have changed the climate.

There is, however, still lots to learn about how much we've changed the climate, how much we can do about it, what the best approaches to fixing it might be, and, probably most importantly, how we can adapt to the change that's happening.

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> However, from what I've read about the inner circles of the Bush administration, there is a strong apocalyptic influence, which argues not only that we can't prevent global catastrophes like climate change and wars, but that such events are prophesied in the bible, and should be welcomed (or caused) as a herald of the 'End Times.' The fact that this sort of person has his 'finger on the button' and is directly responsible for causing a war in the most religiously sensitive and inflammable part of the world is extremely disturbing to me, and most rational people around the world.


I don't think that the invasion of Iraq was the result of pressure from certain circles of the evangelical community, and shame on those who either endorsed it or did not speak out loudly against it, but rather the neo-cons (in the original meaning of the term) wanting to test the theories they developed in the Project for the New American Century.

The key people surrounding Bush when he invaded Iraq were not evangelicals but rather Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, all of who signed that document.

They were the ones who drove this war.

PNAC Statement of Principles

PNAC's statements on Iraq and the Middle East

The scary thing is that they continue to believe this idealogy despite what has happened in Iraq.

The Republican Party represents a coalition of interests with the major ones being the big business lobby, PNAC and, unfortunately, a good chunk of US evangelicals. These groups don't always like each other but some of the leaders involved feel that they need to work together in order for everybody to get what they want...another reason why evangelicals should not be involved.



> However, from what I've read about the inner circles of the Bush administration, there is a strong apocalyptic influence, which argues not only that we can't prevent global catastrophes like climate change and wars, but that such events are prophesied in the bible, and should be welcomed (or caused) as a herald of the 'End Times.'


I think the laymen's view of this belief gets skewed by the more extreme elements. There are few hard and fast beliefs that a person must have in order to considered an evangelical, at least in the common usage of the term, however, a belief in the literal and physical return of Christ is considered one of them (I can hear some anglican evangelicals grumbling about this).

To be honest, in many churches, including mine, we have had to develop strategies in dealing with what we often refer to has "hobby theologies". 

Essentially, after a person moves past the "born-again" phase of things, the primary goal of evangelicalism becomes the pursuit of holiness which can best be summed up by "love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and with that, to love your neighbor as yourself". Striving to live like this makes the 10 commandments look like a piece of cake.

The problem is that some people get off that track and fall into hobby theologies that divert their attention from the actual goal. Some examples of hobby theologies include: prophecy, creationism, apologetics, the pro-family movement, counter-cult ministries, healing, signs and wonders, etc...

All of these have a place in evangelicalism, however, a hobby theologian puts an unhealthy emphasis on one or more of them.

These people make wonderful media subjects because they have such strong convictions about them and aren't afraid to tell the world.

The problem is that if you put one of these people in a Bible study on pretty much anything, they have a way to skew the whole group into a discussion on their particular hobby theology.

This does two things: 1) it undermines other topics critical to the pursuit of holiness and; 2) brings a lot of division to the group because evangelicals don't agree on these issues (ie. I am not a creationist).

As I mentioned above, in order to maintain church (local) unity, many have developed strategies for dealing with hobby theologians who come in and can disrupt and even destroy a healthy church. People who spend day and night reading about Bible prophecy and nothing but fall into this group.

Most of these people don't think they can influence the end times but rather spend a lot of time reading current headlines into Bible prophecy and coming up with odd formulas from various collections of numbers in the Bible or the material composition of a statue mentioned in the Old Testament.

The only threat they represent is to church unity when they start trying to convince people that the rapture will occur on May 12, 2010 at 3:00pm (3:30 in Newfoundland). Then the arguments start over can we really know, what are valid signs, isn't the rapture supposed to happen after the tribulation, etc...

The group of people you are concerned about, those who believe that we can willfully bring on the end times with current government policy are a very small subgroup of an already small hobby theology.

If these people have any influence over Bush, I would be very surprised.

I think the concern arises when the media shines the spotlight on a unhealthy and unbalanced church that has a pastor who endorses this kind of thing and has attracted a collection of people who think this way.

When the media shows up at one of these churches and starts talking about evangelicals, influencing the end times and shows a church packed full of people, I can see where it might cause concern for those who don't regularly attend an average evangelical church.

James Dobson, a psychologist who was an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for fourteen years and who worked for 17 years in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, and his Focus on the Family organization, have some clout with Bush, but the people you mentioned are too small and fringe to have that kind of influence.

Big oil and PNAC are the boogeymen of the US middle east policy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> If these people have any influence over Bush, I would be very surprised.


I hope you're right, but I'm worried. A little googling will net you a lot of discussion of the influence apocalyptic fundamentalist Christians have with the current administration.

Just off the top of the search I just did:



> National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.


(from: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html)

Or:


> But for an influential group of Christian fundamentalists -- White House allies that garner not only feel-good meetings with the President's liaisons to the "faith-based" community but also serious discussions with Bush's national security staff -- an attack on Iran is just what God ordered.


(from: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46753/)



zoziw said:


> I think the concern arises when the media shines the spotlight on a unhealthy and unbalanced church ...


Personally, I think this whole issue deserves a lot _more_ media attention, not less.



> Big oil and PNAC are the boogeymen of the US middle east policy.


I agree with you here... but I think the radical Christian Right is eagerly and actively involved in these disastrous policies as well.

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

While the Assembiles of God and, here in Canada, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, are both evangelical groups, the church referenced in the Village Voice article is the United Pentecostal Church which is not a part of evangelicalism. We regard that church as a heretical cult.

The Apostolic Congress is a UPC group, not an evangelical group.

They have about 1 million members in North America and are largely isolated from evangelicalism, which as somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million members last I had heard. If Bush is taking his marching orders from these people, he is even worse than I thought.

Here is an example of the kind of stuff we put out regarding the UPC.

UPC

While this article seems aimed at scaring people not familiar with evangelical christianity, it doesn't make any sense and constantly confuses and combines groups of people who don't work together.

Consider this section:



> The Apostolic Congress dates its origins to 1981, when, according to its website, "Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door to Apostolic Christians into the White House." Apostolics, a sect of Pentecostals, claim legitimacy as the heirs of the original church because they, as the 12 apostles supposedly did, baptize converts in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ronald Reagan bore theological affinities with such Christians because of his belief that the world would end in a fiery Armageddon. Reagan himself referenced this belief explicitly a half-dozen times during his presidency.


Someone not familiar with evangelicalism might not notice that this is a bait and switch. First they talk about the Apostolic Congress and Apostolic Christians, then in the next paragraph they talk about Ronald Reagan's theological affinities for such "Christians" because of his belief in the final judgement. The switch is that Reagan's views on this were evangelical, not UPC, and not zionist.

Another important section is this one:



> When Pastor Upton was asked to explain why the group's website describes the Apostolic Congress as "*the* Christian Voice in the nation's capital," *instead of simply a Christian voice* in the nation's capital, he responded, "There has been a real lack of leadership in having someone emerge as a Christian voice, someone who doesn't speak for the right, someone who doesn't speak for the left, but someone who speaks for the people, and someone who speaks from a theocratical perspective."


Evangelicalism is an umbrella group that no one individual can speak for (although some might claim to), the UPC however, believes they are the only real church because of their baptism formula and that is why he used the phrase "The Christian voice" instead of "A Christian voice".

This is exactly the kind of article I warned about in my last post where the media focuses on one group, confuses things and causes fear for people who aren't involved with evangelicalism.

As for the other article, I was actually going to mention John Hagee as the primary example of the media focusing on one guy with one church and then making it seem bigger than it is. I mean, the UPC has a million members and this guy has 18,000.

Hagee has his fans, but they are small in comparison to the overall evangelical church. If you want to worry about him, go ahead, but I wouldn't.

The reason so many evangelicals feel the media is biased against them is because these kinds of articles are everywhere but you rarely hear about the mainstream evangelical church.

Check out http://www.sojo.net for the more mainstream view.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> While the Assembiles of God and, here in Canada, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, are both evangelical groups, the church referenced in the Village Voice article is the United Pentecostal Church which is not a part of evangelicalism. We regard that church as a heretical cult.


Good for you (and I mean that in an entirely un-ironic sense). The point is that these wackos appear to have a huge amount of political power, and wether they are 'main stream' Christians or a 'heretical cult' is more-or-less irrelevant. If the guy with his finger on the button controlling nuclear annihilation of our civilization is listening to fringe lunatics or orthodox representatives, all that matters is weather or not he pushes the button.



> Hagee has his fans, but they are small in comparison to the overall evangelical church. If you want to worry about him, go ahead, but I wouldn't.


I'll continue to worry about him as long has the US president, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowicz and the rest of the Hawks in charge of current US foreign policy appear to be listening to these lunatics. If you, or your church, can do anything to rein-in your more radical fringe, believe me, I and the rest of the world would be most grateful.



> The reason so many evangelicals feel the media is biased against them is because these kinds of articles are everywhere but you rarely hear about the mainstream evangelical church.


You have my sympathy. But more importantly, you might reflect on the meaning of 'mainstream'. If 'X' is how a given group is perceived by society, but 'Y' is how the majority of the group behaves/believes, what is 'mainstream'?

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Good for you (and I mean that in an entirely un-ironic sense). The point is that these wackos appear to have a huge amount of political power, and wether they are 'main stream' Christians or a 'heretical cult' is more-or-less irrelevant.


Unfortunately, this is where our talking point breaks down. If we all look the same to you than I am not sure where to take this.



> You have my sympathy. But more importantly, you might reflect on the meaning of 'mainstream'. If 'X' is how a given group is perceived by society, but 'Y' is how the majority of the group behaves/believes, what is 'mainstream'?


How did the people behave the last time you were at an evangelical church?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Good for you (and I mean that in an entirely un-ironic sense). The point is that these wackos appear to have a huge amount of political power, and wether they are 'main stream' Christians or a 'heretical cult' is more-or-less irrelevant. If the guy with his finger on the button controlling nuclear annihilation of our civilization is listening to fringe lunatics or orthodox representatives, all that matters is weather or not he pushes the button.


For the outcome, sure, but for the treatment and dialogue about broader groups, no. It does matter whether the "bad" behaviour is Mr. X belonging to broader group Y, or just Mr. X the SOB (no offense to his mother) -- ie. does it matter what much broader group he's in? Tough call. 

Think about applying this to any other identified groupings: Muslims, Aboriginal chiefs, Canadian leaders etc. It is important to always keep in mind the distinction of the person (and what they are considered to be a part of) versus what referring to the grouping encompasses.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> If we all look the same to you than I am not sure where to take this.


I don't think it's fair to ask me, or the rest of society to get to know the subtleties of your religion better. If the groups that are causing the problems are, in fact 'heretical cults' rather than part of your church, I would suggest that it's your job (in the broader sense, meaning all of you in your church) to communicate that to the rest of society.

When these folks talk, they always mention the tens of millions of 'good Christians' that agree with them.

It's rather like my Catholic friends telling me that they disagree with just about everything the Pope says, and don't consider the Pope as their representative in any way. So how many Catholics does the Pope represent? My Catholic friends say 'not many' but I'm sure he'd argue that he represents all Catholics by definition (and I'd actually agree with him... if you mostly disagree with what the Pope says and does, maybe you aren't really a Catholic).

My point is, these religious 'leaders' gain political influence largely as a function of the votes they represent. So if a given leader does not represent you, but identifies himself as leader of a religious group to which you belong, I think it's incumbent on you to make it abundantly clear to society at large that this guy represents nobody but himself! I know that's what you were trying to do with one of your earlier posts, and I'm not accusing you of any failure here personally, but your church has, in my admittedly limited experience, a rather widely perceived association with the extremists who are apparently trying to manipulate global politics in such a way as to cause wars.

If the politicians who were getting leaned on by these guys knew that they only represent a few thousand lunatics, rather than the millions of voters they claim to, they might not get such a warm reception. Of course the broader problem appears to be that the politicians themselves are members of these 'heretical cults.'

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Think about applying this to any other identified groupings: Muslims, Aboriginal chiefs, Canadian leaders etc.


This is exactly the problem. When a significant number of individuals behave in unacceptable ways and loudly proclaim that they are not only a member of a specific religious group, but that their unacceptable behavior is motivated by this religious belief, the religion has a problem (even if the individuals causing the problem are a minority). Do you know any Muslims? How do they feel about trying to travel, especially in the US these days?

The 'mainstream' evangelical Christians may be just as peaceful as 'mainstream' Muslims, but both groups have an image problems due to some politically powerful extremist elements within (or splintered off from) their churches. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but, if it's true that these extreme groups are small populations, I think it would be most worthwhile for the 'mainstream' churches to be countering the public claims of the leaders of these extreme groups when they claim to have millions of followers.

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> The 'mainstream' evangelical Christians may be just as peaceful as 'mainstream' Muslims, but both groups have an image problems due to some politically powerful extremist elements within (or splintered off from) their churches.


Again, I think you are over-estimating these groups and their influence on the White House:



> David Kuo is an evangelical Christian and card-carrying member of the religious right, who got a job in the White House in the president’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He thought it was a dream-come-true: a chance to work for a president whose vision about compassionate conservatism would be matched with sweeping legislation to help the poor.





> In his book, Kuo wrote that White House staffers would roll their eyes at evangelicals, calling them "nuts" and "goofy."
> 
> Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, "Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places."
> 
> Specifically, Kuo says people in the White House political affairs office referred to Pat Robertson as "insane," Jerry Falwell as "ridiculous," and that James Dobson "had to be controlled." And President Bush, he writes, talked about his compassion agenda, but never really fought for it.


CBS

Bush and the White House just play these people to try to win votes. Again, big oil and PNAC are the authors of the current Middle East policy, not evangelicals.



> I'm not sure what can be done about this, but, if it's true that these extreme groups are small populations, I think it would be most worthwhile for the 'mainstream' churches to be countering the public claims of the leaders of these extreme groups when they claim to have millions of followers.


We warn people about them constantly, the World Evangelical Alliance has condemned Pat Robertson several times, most recently when he talked about the US assassinating Chavez.

The UPC has been on our watch list since they first started up decades ago and a lot of evangelicals want to know how John Hagee managed to make $1.5 million dollars off of his "non-profit" organization in 2005.

We call these people to account constantly but it doesn't get reported (it isn't really news because we do it all of the time) and these people refuse to join the organizations that we have created to keep people accountable.

Ted Haggard is a recent example of what happens when someone who is part of a group like the National Association of Evangelicals does something they shouldn't. He got busted, was stripped of his ministry and was, quite literally, told to leave town (Colorado Springs) and pursue secular work from now on. He has.

I wish we could get everyone to a position of accountability but it is a voluntary thing, we can't force them and they are making too much money by staying outside of the mainstream.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> I call Bullsh!it.
> 
> Your fractured statement: "there has been a whopping total of *zero* that disagreed with "it" demonstrates the impossible. There are many who disagree with "it", whatever that is??


Good job on responding to the argument, there. Oh, wait... however, need I point out that "it" refers to the aforementioned subject, "global warming"? Apparently so.

But then, you knew that full well. You just decided your own baseless, sampleless claim of "bull****" was more weighty than a scientific study.

To assuage your fears, here's the word from the horses mouth:



> "There was a massive study of every scientific study in a peer reviewed written on global warming for the last ten years and they took a big sample of 10% - 928 articles - and you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming and that it's a serious problem? Out of the 928? 0."
> 
> -Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth 1:13


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I wonder if these hippies still believe in global warming? :lmao:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I wonder if these hippies still believe in global warming? :lmao:


Vandave,

There's a simple explanation here. That picture was taken back in the mid seventies when the "inconvenient truth "O" the day" was that we were heading into another iceage. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## macpablo (Jul 3, 2002)

It's the polar bears fault


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> There's a simple explanation here. That picture was taken back in the mid seventies when the "inconvenient truth "O" the day" was that we were heading into another iceage.


While I appreciate the irony as much as the next person, it's important to remember that there never was any scientific consensus about the prospect of an impending ice age.

Sorry to spoil your joke.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> While I appreciate the irony as much as the next person, it's important to remember that there never was any scientific consensus about the prospect of an impending ice age.
> 
> Sorry to spoil your joke.
> 
> Cheers


That's odd. When I went to school in the 1950s, we were constantly told by our science teachers about the impending return of the ice age. It was the accepted science of the day. I guess you aren't old enough to know that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's odd. When I went to school in the 1950s, we were constantly told by our science teachers about the impending return of the ice age. It was the accepted science of the day. I guess you aren't old enough to know that.


Anecdotal classroom science and an issue being addressed by Governments and industry really are two separate things non?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

SINC, He also isn't old enough to have known about the weather of the 1930's. For a whole decade the weather patterns were turned on edge. There were massive heat waves and droughts. Ferocious hurricanes raged. Tornadoes ripped through the US and Canada. Folks were flooded out and swept out to sea. For folks living back then it was the verge of the end of the world. Except.... it wasn't.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

adagio said:


> SINC, He also isn't old enough to have known about the weather of the 1930's.


Nope, I'm not old enough to know first hand about any of that, and no one is old enough to have any personal knowledge of the climatic data that has been analyzed by thousands of professional scientists, debated, questioned, re-analyzed every conceivable way, only to consistently and unequivocally force the same conclusion. That's the beauty of science... my opinion, your opinion, my personal experience, your personal experience, etc. are all irrelevant. All that matters is the data and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from it. 

Unfortunately, in this case, the data is clear, and the conclusions are inescapable: the climate is changing, and human activity is at least part of the reason.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

adagio said:


> SINC, He also isn't old enough to have known about the weather of the 1930's. For a whole decade the weather patterns were turned on edge. There were massive heat waves and droughts. Ferocious hurricanes raged. Tornadoes ripped through the US and Canada. Folks were flooded out and swept out to sea. For folks living back then it was the verge of the end of the world. Except.... it wasn't.


Yep, my Dad grew up in the dirty thirties and both he and my Grandfather told me many stories and showed me many pictures of the very tough climate times they endured.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Unfortunately, in this case, the data is clear, and the conclusions are inescapable: the climate is changing, and human activity is at least part of the reason.


It's funny. I can't imagine why people are rejecting this. No matter the science and who is right/ wrong, cutting industrial emmisions, using/ relying less on fossil fuels can only be a good thing. 

Just because it's cold doesn't mean global warming is a crock (unless of course you're Jetho Bodine). Just because it's mild doesn't mean anything either. 

The data is all that matters. Also than gigantic hole in the ozone layer...

Trying to avoid change and not wanting to accept the truth seem to be classic human traits.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Local regions of the planeet have experienced drought and flood for various causes and many of them were also human aided - deforestation, poor agricultural practices.



> Dust can also be an important component of precipitation formation, the particles serving as condensation nuclei for water vapour. But in too high concentrations, dust particles may also inhibit precipitation by partitioning the available water vapour too thinly amongst the droplets. [For more on dust and precipitation, see Making Clouds and Rain.]
> 
> Recent research by scientists from Israel's Hebrew University and the Weizmann Institute has revealed that excessive dust may actually amplify the process of desert formation. Human activities -- such as grazing and agricultural cultivation -- which expose and disrupt the topsoil, increase the dust burden in the air. As more dust reaches the clouds, they in turn produce smaller rain drops that grow more slowly and thus yield less rainfall over their lifetime. This process can exacerbate drought conditions and contribute to the further or continued desertification of the region.


Agriculture practices changed after the 30s to ameliorate the damage in the west.
Flooding is very often a result of poor forest cover management - these are local conditions and can amplify larger changes such as El Nino generated weather patterns.

What is occurring now is a warming of the entire planet - unevenly and we're mostly or entirely the cause.
We've pumped GHG in and changed the planet's albedo and also pumped a hell of a lot of aerosols in to the atmosphere whcih was for a few decades disguising the GHG impact.
We got cleaner air and a hotter planet.

Once more who cares the percentage - if ghg gets above 550 ppm which at this point looks VERY likely - it will be a planetary catastrophe and the biggest headache the effects are accelerating well beyond what was projected even a couple years ago.

NOTHING but good can come from reforming our energy use to be as close to carbon neutral as possible.
The planet willl be able to sustain the huge swings - civilization and our companion species are on different time scales and rightg now the time scales are very very short to make significant change to a sustainable energy use.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> It's funny. I can't imagine why people are rejecting this. No matter the science and who is right/ wrong, cutting industrial emmisions, using/ relying less on fossil fuels can only be a good thing.


I can imagine why. Possible reasons: 

Recognizing anthropogenic climate change might mean that each of us bear some responsibility for the situation we're in. It might mean that because of this we may have to make some changes to the way we live our lives that are inconvenient, or maybe even expensive in some way. 

We may have money invested in things that rely on a lot of fossil fuel use and something like a carbon tax might mean we could have to pay for some of the costs to the environment of this use. 

We may also have some emotional attachment to the use of fuels that releases carbon into the environment, for instance we like big vehicles with big engines, or we like to cut down lots of trees and burn them in our woodstoves or fireplaces. A neighbour who likes to take his massive fifth wheel trailer on the back of his Super-duty wide-axle, F-350 4X4 down south every winter refers to those who care about climate change as "doom and gloomers".

We may not care much about those that are younger than us or the potential lives of our children or grandchildren.

We may be responsible for a large corporation whose continued profitability is threatened by action to reduce greenhouse gases. If we are to do our job we have to maximize that profitability in every way possible, which may include providing many millions in funding to those who attempt to deny anthropogenic climate change or in attempting to lobby and get money into the hands of politicians who will support attempts to stop or stall action on global warming.

There are a lot of possible reasons, not many of them very defensible, IMO.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Another possible reason, less logical:

We may have a reflexive, knee-jerk rejection against any and all ideas promoted by those we consider to be looney lefties, hippies, or tree-hugging eco-terrorists. Now that scientists have finally unequivocally validated the concept of anthropogenic climate change and those rejecting the idea are seen as cranks, not to mention that even respected economists are warning that the future costs of doing nothing will be huge, we don't want to admit, even grudgingly, that those people we distrust may have been right about something.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Personal and corporate financial/lifestyle interest will always mix things up, but before that the seed was always there from the standard (left to right, typical of the extreme ends) distrust of mobilised groups of experts that lean against something that one wants to believe (energy bad, UN bad, government bad, U.S. bad, etc.). 

The underdog loudly decrying the "institution" and "consensus" appeals to many, instead of just looking at the info. Plucky little guy that he always is. Plus, the underdogs as individuals, look numerous relative to an institution, made up of many individuals but not out there one-by-one. That can apply to any such issue. The underdog may be right or wrong, but the cheering doesn't seem to be based on that too often.

This specific issue was not a "lefty" issue. It was a scientific issue. But, from very early on, it has been intertwined with politics from all sides. That is slowly shaking out of the system with the science being stronger as well as growing knowledge on what our options look like. This has been disappointing for many (deniers, anti-nuke crew, etc.).

The deniers and oil barons had their agenda, just as the, "looney lefties, hippies, or tree-hugging eco-terrorists" did. Global warming science was the football.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> This specific issue was not a "lefty" issue. It was a scientific issue.


I never said it was, if that's why you're responding and I agree it is and always has been a scientific issue. I was simply enumerating possible reasons for those who would deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change and distrust of those _*perceived*_ as extreme lefties or lefty/greenies is actual reason for some. It is also true that it has been a tactic of many of the "deniers" to attempt to make this association.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Just clarifying, GA. Thanks for your additional clarification. Some may think this was a lefty-push issue (arguably quite the opposite). Maybe I just converted a denier somewhere (along the lines of your argument for the denial)! Now I can get into secular heaven (Vegas).

Once this lot of deniers is gone, the nuclear deniers and wealthy lifestyle deniers, electric grid deniers and others that delay mature solutions to this mess (ie. take into consideration the context) need to melt away to help push forward progress. Then we could immediately move on to GMO deniers, stem cell research deniers etc. So many deniers to denounce, so little time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Indeed.....so little time. 

Marie Antoinette's attitude comes to mind.
Ma Nature sharpens her guillotine in the meantime.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Some may think this was a lefty-push issue (arguably quite the opposite).


Indeed, I've often said that if the Conservatives were actually conservative, I wouldn't have much to disagree with. In fact, I might actually vote for them.

Although I've always been an advocate of socialized health care, and I've never seen a viable model where by the free market can protect the environment or other sorts of 'commons', I'm actually a big fan of the free market in the realms where I've seen it function effectively, and I'd like to see a world where the government plays as small a role as possible. So I could be a conservative if the Conservatives would show some inclinations to conserve.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah small c is clearly lacking.

What irks me to no end is the same bunch that gets their shorts in a knot about minor league threats can't see the one real threat that is serious.
Some one said once that a serious threat would bring humanity together........guess they were wrong.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> What irks me to no end is the same bunch that gets their shorts in a knot about minor league threats can't see the one real threat that is serious.
> Some one said once that a serious threat would bring humanity together........guess they were wrong.


I think an acute threat might do it. If Cylons showed up or something.

But I've been daydreaming about writing an SF story about how humans get their act together, clean up the envrionment, ride out global warming and finally overcome all the conflicts about who's imaginary friend is the best, only to be wiped out by a meteor strike beejacon 

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems a comet is more likely given that completely unexpected visitor last month and the power they pack.


*Kreature from the Kuiper Belt* ....good movie title. 

••••

What I don't get is that if say NL for instance has to abide by pollution standards for the ocean that are very tight why say Alberta ( and of course this applies to all GHG and other pollutant sources) can freely go ahead and dump incredible amounts into the atmosphere.



> Legislation and Control
> The United States has enacted extensive federal legislation to fight water pollution. Laws include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1988. In the United States in 1996, nearly $10 billion was spent on water and wastewater treatment alone. International cooperation is being promoted by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultive Organization (IMCO), a UN agency. Limitation of ocean dumping was proposed at the 80-nation London Conference of 1972, and in the same year 12 European nations meeting in Oslo adopted rules to regulate dumping in the North Atlantic. An international ban on ocean dumping in 1988 set further restrictions.


Why is there a double standard here.

Clearly it puts NL at a trade disadvantage....bring in the lawyers Sue da bastids.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Why is there a double standard here.


Better lobby groups.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Indeed.....so little time.
> 
> Marie Antoinette's attitude comes to mind.
> Ma Nature sharpens her guillotine in the meantime.


Not quite my take.

I think "Ma Nature" - the moniker itself a quaint anthropomorphic convention (invention?) meant to give comfort to humans, with our fragile notion of our perceived place in this world - is actually quite indifferent to the fate of **** sapiens. Rather, it is we who are building the guillotine and who are obligingly sticking our necks on the chopping block. We are physically capable of taking action to reduce, arrest and then correct the destruction of our (mostly) hospitable environment, but apparently the wisdom to do so is lacking. We apparently prefer to bicker over partisan politics and religion - and entertain ourselves with the bright baubles of our technological era. And then of course there are the hordes of people for whom even the above is quite impossible; they concern themselves with finding enough to eat another meal, to find a well to drink from - or to miraculously avoid getting killed for yet one more precious day.

Sometimes I find myself imagining that if the planet _could_ have a say in the doings of man, it would be applauding whatever steps man is taking to rid the planet of its pestilential existence. But then of course I'd be anthropomorphizing about the planet. That's perhaps one of the biggest problems with our species: we tend to think everything is about us.


----------

