God's Politics

God's Politics


Bill McKibben: Drown Your Neighbor

posted by gp_intern

You can almost hear the desperation creeping into James Dobson’s voice. His attacks on Rich Cizik (and all the other millions of evangelicals working on creation care) are ludicrous. There is not a “heated controversy throughout the world” about whether global warming is real. Instead, worldwide, there’s melting ice, gathering storms, and spreading disease. The U.N. estimates that climate change will produce 150 million environmental refugees by mid-century. And very few of them will have done anything to cause the problem – while we in the U.S. produce a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide. Jerry Falwell talks about the need to preach the gospel. Well, the “love your neighbor” part isn’t going so well at the moment. It’s more like “drown your neighbor” right now.

Here’s the really sad part: this is one of those moments for which the church was born. It will be hard for society to make the changes it needs to make, but our churches can actually remember some reason for human existence other than accumulation. They can summon up the love, hope, and faith necessary to take difficult steps in the years ahead. And it’s starting to happen: at Stepitup07.org, we’ve been hearing from faith communities across the religious spectrum, who are organizing rallies for April 14 to demand real carbon reductions.

Dobson, Falwell, and their ilk are the voice of a Christianity so deeply compromised by its embrace of American materialism that it needs to treat as a threat our brothers and sisters in Christ who come bearing the news of physics and chemistry. Rich Cizik has been faithful in reading the signs of the times, and so it is unsurprising he is under attack. But one way or another, his moral clarity will prevail.


Bill McKibben wrote the first book for a general audience about global warming, The End of Nature, way back in 1989. His new book is Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future .



Advertisement
Comments read comments(55)
post a comment
Brian

posted March 7, 2007 at 7:38 pm


There is no doubt among scientists, astronomers, and economic theorists that what started the trend in degregated global warming was the styrofoam cheeseburger container. Remember those things? Sure you do. Well, there is another crisis hapening before our eyes. Granted, we went from foam to paper wrapped burgers but theoreticians and observers of the sciences overlooked one thing: the cardboard “collar” that often wraps the burger to keep it upright. Recent studies have shown that these paper collars are not disposed of at a rate equivalent to that of its paper wrap counterpart.Here’s what you can do to help: 1. Double up on fries. Skip the burger.2. Tell your clerk to serve your burger w/o the wrap and collar. 3. Set up local drop boxes outside of your favorite burger joint for collecting these unaccounted for paper products. I should add that #3 would be a perfect activity for a seniors group at church. We can do this America! Let’s wake up!



report abuse
 

Elmo

posted March 7, 2007 at 8:10 pm


There may not be controversy over whether global warming is real, but there’s plenty of discussion over whether or not it’s caused by humans, and whether it will cause more extreme or more mild weather. There’s also thickening ice (in Antarctica), and storms and disease have been around for years. Are you blaming the plague or polio or 1918 flu epidemic or the hurricane that hit the Gulf Coast in 1900 on global warming? Jim Wallis and their ilk are the voice of a Christianity so deeply compromised by its embrace of American liberalism that it needs to treat as a threat our brothers and sisters in Christ who come bearing the news of Biblical morality for the church. See how that works both ways? Not that I like Dobson or Falwell…in fact I dislike their theologies, but I don’t think Wallis is any better.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 7, 2007 at 8:15 pm


Another tricky sentence: “There is not a “heated controversy throughout the world” about whether global warming is real.” The letter doesn’t say there is. Let me play the game: I disagree with McKibben’s assertion that drop-kicking babies is the reason “for which the church was born”. If the letter is so manifestly awful, why have four consecutive posts here mischaracterized it?



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm


Bill McKibben wrote: Dobson, Falwell, and their ilk are the voice of a Christianity so deeply compromised by its embrace of American materialism that it needs to treat as a threat our brothers and sisters in Christ who come bearing the news of physics and chemistry. Rich Cizik has been faithful in reading the signs of the times, and so it is unsurprising he is under attack. But one way or another, his moral clarity will prevail. I note that to this point not one liberal poster has addressed my observation that, intentionally or not, Jim Wallis tried to pass off a “summary for policymakers” as the full report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Not so much as a “correction”. Nobody has addressed the question of why governmental reports on global warming, uniquely, have a tendency to release “summaries” so far in advance of the actual report with the actual science. And nobody has addressed the overarching question of whether or not this is an indication that the science has been distorted by politics. Maybe Cizik and company come to us bearing the news of physics and chemistry. And maybe they come bearing the talking points of political operatives who don’t understand the numbers and equations they are spouting. Ironically, it is Sojourners that says that conservatives cannot handle a debate, but it is also Sojourners who insists, unilaterally, that the debate is over. Sorry, it ain’t. Wolverine



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:15 pm


I don’t want to play word games or discuss Dobson, Falwell or any non-scientist about global warming. I want to hear from scientist or others with expertise.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:17 pm


unilaterally, that the debate is over. Sorry, it ain’t. Wolverine What evidence do you bring to the table.



report abuse
 

Esther

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:19 pm


What happened to simply being good stewarts of the planet God gave us to live on? Set aside the controversy of whether the earth has been heating up, and consider all the chemicals humans have been spewing into our water and air supplies over the last few hundred years. Too many animals are being threatened by extinction because humans have prioritized their material profits over the well being of their fellow creatures. Also, think about what each of us is doing to prepare the world for our children’s grandchildren. You and I are contributing something to the planet, and we will have to account for it when we leave here. Perhaps we could blame this mess on our predecessors, but they didn’t know what they were doing so much as we do now. We are making choices about what we do to our environments, conscious or not, whether we admit it or not.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:27 pm


“What happened to simply being good stewarts of the planet God gave us to live on? ” I don’t think anything happened to it. What do you mean? “Too many animals are being threatened by extinction because humans have prioritized their material profits over the well being of their fellow creatures.” Another way to say this is that people care more about their livelihoods than they do about animals. This is correct, and I don’t find it problematic.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:33 pm


PS, I don’t want SoJo or Wallis’s opinion either.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:38 pm


We are making choices about what we do to our environments, conscious or not, whether we admit it or not. Esther Regardless of whether you think the world is getting warmer or not, why anyone not want to reduce polluntants.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:48 pm


Another way to say this is that people care more about their livelihoods than they do about animals. This is correct, and I don’t find it problematic. kevin s.I believe God’s creatures are sacred and don’t think someone’s income is more important unless they are starving.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 7, 2007 at 9:53 pm


If animals are sacred, are we allowed to eat them?



report abuse
 

Esther

posted March 7, 2007 at 10:02 pm


There’s a native American saying that no decision should be made without considering how it will affect the seventh generation. The Indians who practiced that kind of decision-making were being good stewarts. We are reaping the results of all the pollutants our forefathers ‘planted’ in our lands and waters. Our children’s children’s children’s children (etc) will be affected by what we do to the earth now. Kevin, will you make the environment better for your grandchildren, or worse? In other words, are you being a good stewart, or not? And by the way, if taking care of animals wasn’t important, why did God have Noah build an ark to save them??



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 7, 2007 at 10:59 pm


There’s a horse’s corpse out there pleading for it all to stop. I’m excited to see how many more posts denouncing Dobson and Falwell we can get out there this week. — “There is not a “heated controversy throughout the world” about whether global warming is real.” Bill, they never said that, as I pointed out in one of the other twelve posts responding to Dobson and Falwell. They said the existence and its implications for mankind, taken as a singular LUMP (proved by the use of a singular verb… granted, it might be a deceptive lump, but your splitting is just as deceptive)… and believe you me, the implications are a heated controversy.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 7, 2007 at 11:13 pm


Kevin S. I really wish you would take some time to inform yourself on the issues of the human impact on our environment. Esther brought up some really good points, and you didn’t even bother to consider that what she said has a great deal of merit. We ARE poisoning our environment, many times needlessly, and with little regard for the people that live in that environment and for the impact it has on future generations, not only of animals, but of people. Often times we are poisoning the environment because of the almighty buck–in your reasoning, money is much more important than not just animals and plants, but your children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, and so on. If you don’t care about animals and plants, fine. But you should at least care about what kind of world we are leaving our children. To say humankind has been good stewards of the land is to purposely and blatantly refuse to see what is obvious right in front of your face. No one is so blind as the one who refuses to see. And the reason you refuse to see is that if you actually did see, you would realize you need to DO something about it!



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 7, 2007 at 11:23 pm


Plant trees. Lots of them. Now is a good time to do it. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 7, 2007 at 11:33 pm


Carefully examine your personal/family waste stream. Review the choices you made that led up to your mountain of trash. Where does all that trash originate? Do you have a choice to avoid some of it? No? Then what can you recycle? See if you can make your trash barrel take longer to fill. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 7, 2007 at 11:37 pm


You don’t even have to believe in God to act as a responsible steward of the environment. Just follow the Golden Rule. .



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 8, 2007 at 12:51 am


How pithy. I feel so much better now. ;)



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 2:31 am


If animals are sacred, are we allowed to eat them? If people are sacred, are we allowed to kill them?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 8, 2007 at 2:50 am


You apologize to the animal for taking its life so you may live. ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ applies to humans. .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 8, 2007 at 4:28 am


“Kevin, will you make the environment better for your grandchildren, or worse? In other words, are you being a good stewart, or not?” I think I am being a good steward, yes. “And by the way, if taking care of animals wasn’t important, why did God have Noah build an ark to save them??” Taking care of animals is important. “Kevin S. I really wish you would take some time to inform yourself on the issues of the human impact on our environment. ” I have. Thanks. “Often times we are poisoning the environment because of the almighty buck–in your reasoning, money is much more important than not just animals and plants, but your children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, and so on.” Nope. You infused that reasoning into my statements. What I said was the “almight buck”, which is a pejorative way of saying “the means by which we support ourselves” is more important than the continued existence of species for which we have little use. ” But you should at least care about what kind of world we are leaving our children” I do. Again, the question of what government should do to help preserve the environment is an open question. ” And the reason you refuse to see is that if you actually did see, you would realize you need to DO something about it!” Ah, an exclamation mark. And capital letters to boot. What should we DO?



report abuse
 

Esther

posted March 8, 2007 at 5:00 am


Kevin s, the first thing you should do is pray. The next, Listen with all your heart, mind and soul. Then act. Actually this is what we all should do. :-)



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 8, 2007 at 5:02 am


K, W, B, and Mark(not so pithy )P , I’m glad to see you are sticking to your guns, and not letting the lack of information or a coherent argument slow you down. It makes butch’s work of cutting you to ribbons with single meaningful sentences so much easier. Squeaky has provided more substance than all 4 of you multiplied by 10. Still there is something to be said for a kind of boring frequency. McKibben has an excellent article in Mother Jones(Ap. 2007) called Reversal of Fortune. It uses an extensive body of research to very effectively question the myth of unlimited economic growth, and the notion that more money equals more happiness. 1 Example: Japanese income rose 4 fold from 1958 to 1986 with no reported improvement in life satisfaction. Rather, rates of suicide , depression and alcoholism rose.The richest Americans have identical happiness scores with the average Amish. I am condensing and the means of measurement are interesting. Turns out the more you care about and have relations with neighbors, the happier and healthier you are. Sounds like good news.Anyway, keep your eyes open for his articles and books. He is a prolific writer and has a new book called Deep Economy.



report abuse
 

Elmo

posted March 8, 2007 at 5:44 am


Joseph T Kevin, Wolverine, and Mark P provide plenty of information and coherent arguments. Since when is arguing for your opinion a bad thing? Just because we disagree with you doesn’t mean we’re ignoring facts.And before you launch into anymore of your little rants, you need to figure out just where the disagreement is. None of the four of us (is it okay if I include myself i the group?) are against conservation, stewardship of the earth, or things like cutting emissions. We all think that pollution is bad, and we should keep animals (and people) alive and healthy. Where we disagree is that you (that’s a collective you, or y’all, if you’re from the south) think the answer is government regulation, and we think it is personal responsibility. Kevin has mentioned is conservative (in the sense of conserving stuff) lifestyle in a number of other comments and on his blog. If you take a look at the free market, it’s taking care of these problems on it’s own. For example, the monsters on our freeways (SUVs, that is) are on their way to becoming a nonfactor without a gas tax. The American automakers didn’t increase efficiency while the foreign companies did, and now they’re paying the price. If things continue as they are, GM will go out of business, removing the least efficient vehicles on the road (Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, and Hummer) from the market. What’s left will be hyper-efficient gas engines, hybrids, and European diesels. This is just an example of why we don’t need government regulation on these types of things. Anyway, is that enough information and coherence for you?



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm


Dobson and Falwell represent people who believe in the Bible. The GlogalWarmingites and their ilk . . ., are people that do not believe in the Bible and also hate Christians. Yeah, sounds like a great committe. And those 150-million environmental refugees will be fed, clothed and housed by Evangelical Christians like Falwell and Dobson . . .. . . while Lefties celebrate another awards ceremony in Hollywood.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm


Donny: Once again you are simply wrong. I believe the Bible and I love God’s people and His Church. But I also believe that global warming is something we should be concerned about. It’s really easy to lump all the people you don’t agree with as unbelievers in order to dismiss their concerns, isn’t it? Must make you feel real good to know that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And to my knowledge you haven’t replied to my post on an earlier thread regarding your basis for calling Jim Wallis a heretic. What do you know about his faith commitment? Have you read or heard that he denies fundamental doctrines of the faith, like the Atonement, the Incarnation, or the Trinity? Peace,



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:03 pm


Esther: Kevin s, the first thing you should do is pray. The next, Listen with all your heart, mind and soul. Then act. -Sure. Just don t forget that listening with your mind means prudent consideration, not rash action. — Joseph T: I’m glad to see you are sticking to your guns -Which guns? The only gun I ve pulled in this thread is the don t deliberately misconstrue Dobson s statement. Is that really so tenuous of a position? — Donny, All you provided was slander. Please stop demonizing those who disagree with you; your vindictive Crusade reflects badly on the conservative position.



report abuse
 

Pacific231

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm


Donny’s newest non-sequitor: Dobson and Falwell represent people who believe in the Bible.



report abuse
 

Pacific231

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm


Mark P: Asking a “coulter christian” like “Donny” to stop slandering is like telling a crystal meth addict to stop cold turkey.



report abuse
 

Glenn White

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:25 pm


For scientists’ views about global warming, the American Meteorological Society has issued a statement strongly supporting the idea of global warming as a result of human activity and as a very serious problem. Go to their web site to see the statement. The American Association for the Advancement of Science also has issued a similar statement. The National Academy of Sciences of the US has as well, as has the national science academies of several other countries. Reports on global warming can be found on the National Academy of Sciences’ web pages. The IPCC itself is a collection of several hundred scientists. The scientists I know on it are serious scientists and very capable. For a dissenting point of view, google on Richard Lindzen. He is an MIT professor, extremely bright and has had a distinguished career as a scientist. There is a rigorous debate on the effect of global warming on hurricanes that is by no means settled.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:37 pm


The Debate is NOT over. Mountain snow-caps are receding – really. Look at Japanese Art over the centuries and you will see that Mt Fuji’s cap looks different over the past 2000+ years. The Sea Levels are rising – we are going to flood Florida – are you sure. Why are they experiencing so many sink-holes that one of the major causes is the drop in the water table in FL. Greenland Ice-cap is receding at a rate of about a football field a day – no-way. If that were true over the past 2 years it should have lost almost 50 miles along the ice-cap, satellite photos do not support that theory. No – I as a person that does not buy into Gore’s Goop on Global Warming (%^& I mean climate change) do not wish to keep polluting the earth. But let us make changes based on proven science and provide industry the ability to make changes so that they pollute less but can still do business so that people who need jobs don’t loose them.In the 70′s it was the ‘coming Ice Age’ what is it going to be in 2015? I think that we just need to realize that when chicken little says that sky is falling – somebody just hit them with a spit-ball. later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:40 pm


Pacific231 | 03.08.07 – 10:12 am | #Or asking B. Clinton or Teddy Kennedy to stop sexually harassing innocent women. wink – wink. .



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 8, 2007 at 3:59 pm


Pacific231: Named yourself after that Honegger piece, right? You wrote: “Donny’s newest non-sequitor: Dobson and Falwell represent people who believe in the Bible.” I wouldn’t say they don’t believe the Bible–at least they believe some of it. In fact, I think both have a grasp of the most important themes, too. I just think they’re limiting their understanding of its teachings. And Falwell in particular seems to have a foot-in-mouth problem. But that’s not directly related to his beliefs. Peace,



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 8, 2007 at 4:02 pm


“Squeaky has provided more substance than all 4 of you multiplied by 10.” Not really, he misread (a bit intentionally, I think) my reasoning, and went on and on about the implications of (his misreading of) my reasoning for our children, our children’s children and etc… I was thinking about why Sojourner’s devoted four posts to this letter. Why not simply advocate for what needs to be done? Why use this conflict to fight a proxy war over the environment.It seems as though even Sojo is not settled as to the appropriate course of action. They can’t advocate Kyoto, because the Democratic senators voted against it. They can’t reall advocate policies that will drive people to purchase Japanese cars, because the UAW would oppose them. So what is the solution that they are advocating? Will criticizing Dobson for criticizing Cizik save the environment? Is that what we are called to do?



report abuse
 

chuck

posted March 8, 2007 at 6:53 pm


This all a waste of time. No one is going to change their way of living in enough numbers to make any difference and even God will not be able to save the career of any politician who tries to make them.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm


chuck | 03.08.07 – 1:58 pm | #We can make them change if we would encourage them and make if financially worth it for business to do so. But Gore and Company just want to scare people and put restrictions on industry that would cause some of them to go out of business. Gore wants us to believe that he is on a moral higher ground than the rest of us. But face it – he has made a lot of money on this issue over the years. Why not pass legislation that would get corporations a tax break for improving their businesses so that they are more ‘green’. No – I believe that Gore will impose fines on them that will go into areas that will give his agenda more money over the years.This can be done to the benefit of all involved. Just do not see it work that way with Big Al at the wheel. Later – .



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 8, 2007 at 10:19 pm


It’s not a matter of *making* people change. It’s more a matter of making people *want* to change. That takes leadership, which is in short supply these days, IMO. For most Americans, making people want to change means giving them financial incentives to change, either positive or negative. I won’t discuss these incentives now; I’ve exhausted the topic on other threads. I’m certainly open to other ideas as well. ’nuff said for now,



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 8, 2007 at 10:22 pm


Yes, yes the miracle of the deregulated marketplace giving us a growing market in slavery, INCREASED toxic emissions under Bush, Enron, huge increases in children working long days in factories, and rising Carbon levels. The world is careening toward a cliff and your answer is to take the brakes off the table as an option.Your “government is bad” rap is not a subtle message we have not yet understood. It is wishful thinking on a global scale. It is also getting real boring.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 8, 2007 at 11:26 pm


Yes, yes the miracle of the deregulated marketplace giving us a growing market in slavery, INCREASED toxic emissions under Bush, Enron, huge increases in children working long days in factories, and rising Carbon levels. The world is careening toward a cliff and your answer is to take the brakes off the table as an option. The legacy of Milton Friedman. .



report abuse
 

Chris Tompkins

posted March 8, 2007 at 11:49 pm


Bill, Thanks for continuing to put this issue on the forefront of both Christian and Non-Christian publications. We are fighting a battle against a nation that would rather consume to their death than discipline themselves. Admitting we are wrong is the hardest step to take, and unfortunately we are not even past that yet. Keep up the fight, keep providing the facts, and keep sharing your love for God’s creation with the rest of us. Thank you! For some of my photo work contributing this issue see http://www.bethel.edu/~tomchr/essay/Start.html



report abuse
 

MacO

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:26 am


Also posted on one of the other discussion boards… For a reasoned counter-argument, and a contribution to ‘the debate’, see the Channel 4 (here in the UK) broadcast called, provocatively, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This was on tonight at 9pm, UK time. It was alleged that the political (even religious) group-think of ‘green’ and ‘rich’ Westerners was poised to deny the world’s poor some tangible social/economic development progress that the West already enjoys – particularly relatively cheap and reliable electricity supplies. This denial of health/ welfare that we collectively enjoy, to others in need, was compellingly targeted as double-speak by the West’s emerging policy. I am sure there is a counter argument; however as a former practitioner in energy-efficient social housing for low income families in the UK; this argument has a ring of truth to it. My projects were dogged by what I would now call middle-class bullshit about the effectiveness of the new green technologies to deliver anti-poverty strategies. I now work in more traditional economic development, and am already finding that key sustainabity flagship-projects are as yet more aspirational and good PR for a green future than actually, measurably better. i.e. more faith than science! My worry is that this is becoming a new institutional religion not a faith.For myself, having left the world of James Dobson, it would be a shame to end up there again by another name. Orwell s Animal Farm is great reading for Pre-Evangelicals, Evangelicals, Post-Evangelicals and Post-Post-Evangelicals alike. The C4 programme further alleges that there is an evidenced fallacy within this ‘deep green/ anti-industrialist’ theology; the evidence base for a direct linkage of global warming evidence to humanly produced green house gases. i.e. what is the proof or even weight of evidence that our perception of global warming is more than a natural cycle. C4 had some surprising expert witnesses ready to say that the alleged causal link is itself just hot air. This is not my own position, just what the C4 programme presented. Again it had a ring of truth to it – and why I would value a debate and a weighing of scientific evidences (including ‘full disclosure’ of research funding sources and faith positions).



report abuse
 

Joy

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:29 am


Esther I loved your comment about Noah. C.S. Lewis said something similar. He thought God had instructed Noah to build the ark and care for the animals as a way for Noah to come to love the animals and to try and always seek what was best for them. He even theorized that Noah might have become so enthused about the animals he would have stayed up at night with them just to see how they were doing and learn more about them. We need more people who are both dedicated to the gospel message and passionate about preserving and protecting god’s beautiful world.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 2:20 am


Joy, which CS Lewis work is that from? Sounds interesting.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted March 9, 2007 at 2:41 am


right on elmo, brian and kevin. can you believe this guy mckibble? where does he get his “so right” stuff? just like wallis, he is so steeped in his own self that he has no tolerance for divergent ideas or opinions. there are so many of these save the world with science guys. and why do they think that the united states government can do anything about a global climate change? what about the rest of the world governments? the consumption ofenergy in this country is what keeps an awful lot of other countries going. where do i find the statistics that show what effect cutting carbon emmissions in this country will have on global climate change. when you are marching for global warming, bill, i hope you don’t get mugged, murdered or raped in the big city because they turned off the street lites and stopped using police cars. oh….and take a warm blanket its cold out there.



report abuse
 

Unsympathetic reader

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:36 am


moderatelad: “In the 70′s it was the ‘coming Ice Age’ what is it going to be in 2015?” Did you bring that up in other posts or was it someone else who mentioned that red herring?



report abuse
 

Andy Gellum

posted March 9, 2007 at 6:53 am


Everyone seems quick to say “scientist this, and scientist that.” The problems is that there are just as many on the other side saying global warming is part of a natural cycle. Florida was indeed under water at one time. Have we forgotten that 3/4 of the U.S. was once completely covered in ice (called the ice age). Glaciers have not always been glaciers. They formed at one time or another (check it out and you will find this to be true – don’t take my word for it) Yes, we need less pollution, no arguement there. Yes, we need to be good stewards of the resources that God has given us, no arguement there either. Tackle the issues head on. Less pollution and better use of resources. Coming up with a theory is just that…. A THEORY. There is no way to conclusively show that we are causing global warming. If that were true how do we explain every other major climate shift that has been “scientifically” proven to have happened?



report abuse
 

Andy Gellum

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:00 am


One last comment. Just because James Dobson has a differing opinion does not mean “he is attacking” Rich Cizik. Read his comments very carefully and cease using such terminology. You are spinning a situation into something that isn’t. Saving the Earth is always secondary to simply saving souls. Maybe if we did that we might not see so much stuff going on in the world today.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:14 pm


Andy: Calling for someone’s job, even provisionally (see the debae on this topic on another thread) reads like an attack to me. FWIW,



report abuse
 

Unsympathetic reader

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:38 pm


Andy Gellum writes: “Coming up with a theory is just that…. A THEORY.” Gravity is just a theory, too. So are the germ theory of disease and theory that solar eclipses are caused by the moon blocking the sun. In science, the explanatory linkages between phenomena are all *theories* (FWIW: Causality is an axiom in all these theories). The question is: “How compelling is evidence and how well do things fit a theory?” Does human activity contribute to global warming? That theory is pretty darn strong. How much is that effect and what are the outcomes? That’s harder to nail down but the range of possible outcomes is becoming better refined.



report abuse
 

Cliff

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm


>There is no way to conclusively show > that we are causing global warming. If > that were true how do we explain every > other major climate shift that has > been “scientifically” proven to have > happened? There is no way to conclusively show that I dropped a rock on your foot. If that were true, how do we explain every other rock that has fallen without me dropping it? See the problem? Cheers, Cliff



report abuse
 

Joy

posted March 9, 2007 at 10:29 pm


Mark P I can’t remember for sure whether Louis wrote about Noah in Mere christianity or his autobiograghy surprized by Joy. I recently read both.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:19 am


Unsympathetic reader | 03.08.07 – 11:41 pm | #That has been mentioned in several posts in the past – not just me. Later – .



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:31 pm


I find it interesting that Brian McLaren (and by association many of the other author’s on Wallis’ page) is a leader in the ‘emerging church’, of which I consider myself to be a part of. Some of the things that attracted me to this ‘conversation’ was a willingness on the part of Christians to engage in open and thoughtful dialogue with others of perhaps differing mindsets and orthodoxies – as long as Christ was at the center then the conversation was wide open. This is what is so artfully expressed in Wallis’ and McLaren’s books. Now I see these same leaders stepping back into the rigid style of defensive rhetoric that so pervaded my earlier fundamentalist heretage; “My way is the right way, if you don’t agree then you are in some way intrinsically defecient.” We need to remain open to all discussion. Contrary to what has been written on this website, the debate is far from over and no one has the last word. These 85 or so comments would certainly suggest so.



report abuse
 

MacO

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:32 pm


The UK web-site reference is http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/ UK readers get another chance this programme next week and form their own views. G rdan M Artair



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.