The Black Republican

I was thinking much the same thing. I've told my kids that the next time someone tries to argue with them about Global Warming, they should excuse themselves from the conversation by saying they're Catholics, not pagans.

It is typical that when REPUBs are presented with scientific fact, they excuse themselves from the conversation. Funny also that being for a majority of the scientists in theis world re: Global Warming makes one a Pagan. Not so....but thanks for playing....

Also, Capitalism shows that it is this resort's right to display whatever reading material they choose inside the lodging quarters. If you don't like it, don't stay there.

If you try to insert religious dogma into a governmental policy, then it is completely unAmerican. Scientific assertions based on strong proof is not a religion. These scientists are more credible than both you and me combined. Fact is fact.

However, any radical, unscientific approach to environmentalism is what it is....a radical group or thought. These scientists and meterologists are quite qualified. The reform they suggest may be a radical sweep of changes within policy or energy consumption, but to classify them within the ranks of radical religious extremists is a mishap of thought.

Sorry Walter, but as I said I can't argue about this subject since it's against my religion to bow down before your pseudo-science "god".

In fact, I should remind you that the consensus here at TBR is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and I might just have to delete any future comments by you if you refuse to accept this simple and well-established fact. It's incontrovertible, and you're wasting precious time we can't afford to lose or even more than 40 million babies will be aborted in the next 30 years. You can do this - for the children - right?

(Even if you do decide to fast and repent, say an act of contrition and make a declaration of faith, please do us a favor and spell-check your work first, or Sister Mary Margaret and her ruler will be paying you a visit. You don't want that.)

I can't wait for global warming, it sounds hot. Besides, when the ice caps melt the Arabs can use the water to farm instead of bombing those who are making due in this too-cool climate we now attempt to survive in.

Oh, and btw, "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the laws of the USA [Ed: most of them, at least - Chris], so Walter, it is unAmerican to insist that we should not talk about government policy and religion in the same discussion.

This comment was filed from a location other than the resort mentioned above, in fact all of my posts, comments, and utterances will be originating from locations distinct from the above referenced resort.

Signed,

Proud To Be A Carbon Based Life-Form

Oh Walter, where do I begin? First, you are spot-on correct about a few things:

Capitalism shows that it is this resort's right to display whatever reading material they choose inside the lodging quarters. If you don't like it, don't stay there.

I could not agree more! I am actually very happy to see evidence that you are such a staunch capitalist. And I am not arguing that the owner of the hotel should not be allowed to do this. Quite the contrary. The hotel owners choice to do this just shows a desire to appeal to the prevailing beliefs and local mores. But the same argument you are making holds true for a restaurant owner who wishes to allow smoking in their establishment, does it not? If you don't like smoking, don't eat there. And what about the recent moves by the government to force restaurant owners to eliminate trans-fats? Shouldn't the choice of whether to use trans-fats be that of the restaurant owner and, by extension, the restaurant patrons? Again paraphrasing you - If you don't like trans-fats, don't eat there. There are many other examples of anti-capitalist efforts as well. Tell me Walter, what test do you use to determine when anti-capitalism is good and when it is bad?

Scientific assertions based on strong proof is not a religion.

Again, I whole heartedly agree, but I find it telling that you have conflate scientific assertions with scientific facts in order to try and prove your point. Making an assertion about an issue does not make that assertion a fact - it makes it a theory. And theories are expressly posited so that they can be tested and refuted if possible. A theory can remain nothing more than an often tested assertion for years, decades, even millennium: The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of relativity, the Quantum field theory, and yes, the Theory of Global Climate Change. The process of testing and questioning and challenging the supposition made within a theory is called the scientific method. The problem is, proponents of the theory of Global Climate Change are attempting with ever more arrogance to stifle any and all descent. They eschew any contrarian views. They want and work tirelessly to get governments around the world to declare Global Climate Change a settled fact. Tell me Walter, what kind of scientist would actively work to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific method? Were he or she doing so regarding something you disagreed with I have no doubt you would (rightly so) classify them as a Charlatan. Actually, you pretty much said that yourself:

...any radical, unscientific approach to environmentalism is what it is....a radical group or thought.

Oh, and by the way, with every other theory I have ever heard of or discussed, the physical number of scientists that believed a theory to be true has never been used to assert that the theory is absolute fact. Even Einstein theorized that his theory of relativity would someday be proven to be incomplete or somehow in error. Why is it then that those who believe in the theory of Global Climate Change demand with such fervor that it be accepted as absolute fact? Or is it that they do not need proof, because they have faith in the rightness of their beliefs?

Wow... accepting an idea partly on facts and partly on faith? Sounds a bit "religious" to me, Walt. And that is my point. Environmentalism and Global Warming, while supported by many facts, is also relying on some pretty substantial leaps of faith as well - not the least of which is that humans have the means and ability to control the weather, affect global climate, or permanently alter the planet. Nothing wrong with having environmentalism as a belief system, mind you, if that is what you choose to do. Just don't try to claim that such a belief system is not a pseudo-religious, where God is replaced by Gaia, Heaven is replaced by nature, Jesus Christ is replace by Al Gore, and Satin is replaced by George Bush.

Can ANYONE explain to me why 'global warming' is also happening on Mars when no humans live there? Can anyone explain to me how we're supposed to cap emissions of WATER VAPOR (the chief greenhouse gas) that is constantly being created by 75% of the surface of the PLANET? Walter? Beuller? Beuller?

Before I begin....I have to state Steve that your response was very intelligent and I appreciate that in a debater.

First, your response re: Capitalism. I do believe in Capitalism, but like all systems that works within a Democracy, there must be "checks and balances". New York City, the beloved city I live in, has chosen to ban smoking in restaurants and ban trans-fat from foods. Why? Both are scientifically proven as being dangerous and could potentially cause irreversible damage.

Our mayor (a Republican) has passed the restaurant/bar/closed public arena smoking ban because of the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke. Ever been to an NYC bar or restaurant....most are timy. Not as big as a mid-west restaurant like Western Sizzlin. Also, 2nd-hand smoke is proven to cause damage to those exposed. He now supports the city health officials' ban in trans-fat for same reason -- health risk.

I ask the same Capitalistic question to you...using your words....you stated "don't like trans-fat, don't eat there"....I state, want to use trans-fat, relocate your restaurant out of NYC. GUESS WHAT! Restaurants make way too much money in NYC to relocate their restaurant. NYC is the restaurant capitol of the US. So restaurants have remained and have followed regulations inputed because of health-risks.

Having Global Warning reading material instead of a Gideon Bible is not a health risk and therfore is not subject to a ban as your examples have faced.

Religion is a way of life sustained by a firm belief and executed with zeal. Now...we could say that of either side of Global Warming -- because like Einstein, they are theories, but unlike Intelligent Design...these are theories based upon scientific fact. Once emotion enters in the argument, then it is extremism. Let's stick with your scientific process. Part of your scientific process is the absorbtion of data.........

Why does the Bush Administration block all Global Warming reports? I am not aware nor have ever seen examples of your scientists who have been the subject of descent -- but google "Bush Blocks Global Warming" and you will see the "descent" you speak of. 9000 scientists have signed a statement stating

"Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy....this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences....The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."
LINK

In addition, nine of the top 10 warmest years globally have occurred since 1995 and multiple studies show that the high average temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the last decade are unprecedented over the past 2,000 years.

"'Carbon dioxide and methane levels are both well outside the range of natural variation, according to a
1999 study of ice core records dating back 420,000 years by the National Center for Scientific Research
in Grenoble, France. Carbon dioxide levels are more than 20 percent higher than during historical peaks
(warm periods), and twice as high as during ice ages; methane levels are double their historical peak
levels, and about five times higher than during ice ages.' Associated Press, June 10, 1999 "Scientists:
Ice core sample attests to warming climate"

These are facts. Einstein knew to take a fact and then create a theory. Scientific process. YOu take the facts listed and then match it with human activity -- it's not a "substantial leap of faith" (using your words).

And scientists do claim it as a fact. “We are altering the climate, says Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
at a rate ten to sixty times the natural rate of change.” YOu can see what Schneider and hundreds of other scientists are claiming as fact at LINK

Melting ice caps, bird migration patterns extremely altered, hurricanes, record-breaking heat.....I think what you are waiting for is an event that devastates this planet so much as your proof. Bush used the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" argument as a means for war and you fell for it. Yet this won't move you. Bush had access to evidence though investigations, but much like the Global Warming reports, Bush doesn't believe in probing a probability that may be a truth (i.e. human contribution causes Global Warming -- Iraq does not have weapons that would cause harm to our National Security).

Jesus Christ is not replaced by Al Gore. I think the National Religious Partnership for the Environment signed by a collection of religious leaders would disagree (or do you dare call them Pagans, Chris....how about Theodore Cardinal McCarrick
Archbishop of Washington, DC Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee United States Catholic Conference of Bishops...he signed on and he's pretty up there. That Pagan! hee hee hee).

Nobody replaces God...but Man can assist God and assist fellow-man (which seems to be Christ-like....after all Jesus said in the CATHOLIC bible [not King James] that God is Charity. Here's a link to Global warming a bigger threat to poor Christian Aid is also an assistant in this report (those PAGANS).

Chris -- I do accept that Jesus was our savior. I do not need religion to inform me of that. A spiritual sense and practice is good enough for me. But I'm curious....are you one of those Christians that believe that gays and jews are going to burn in hell?

Furthermore, I support the ban recently passed but do not support a total ban on abortion. If you are stopping a cellular building process in the beginning, it is not murder. IT IS the interruption of a building process of CELLS. Also, I cannot understand how one who is so for EVERYONE getting pregnant and so against assisting babies and their families if they happen to be poor. Do you support a stronger social welfare FOR THE CHILDREN?

RICHARD -- Combine politics and religion all you like in conversation, but religious laws and state laws are seperate. Laws are supposed to protect ALL people who do not cause harm -- not satisfy a collection of church-goers and their agenda on the topic how life should be led in "their" eyes.

DAN -- I admit that I have no answer re: your Mars question.

At last we agree, religious laws and "state" laws are separate in this country. Further, as a legal matter, "state" laws supercede religious laws. So, as an example, if a religion condones killing, while the "state" law forbids killing, the religious law should not be obeyed, as the "state" law trumps the religious one.

But that example is of a rule of conduct. While the appropriate element of religion to this discussion is faith. Not science. Science requires verifiable results which can be repeated by other scientists with the same result. At this point the science is not in. Yes, there are some scientists who believe man-made global warming exists, and there are some who do not believe. It does not matter which side has a larger number of proponents, science is not a popularity contest, (ask Galileo), sometimes there is only one voice calling out the truth while the rest of the world is in opposition.

So, right now, "global warming" is an act of faith, not science. And, Steve is right, it is the religion du jour of the left.

Walter, I was not aware the Chris was, "for EVERYONE getting pregnant"; I'm certainly not going to go along with that request. No way am I getting pregnant!

Of course, for me, a male carbon based life form, pregnancy is not a real concern. But, for those who can become pregnant to behave in such careless fashion that they get pregnant and abort the baby, repeatably, (as my sister did), I have no regrets about telling them they murdered their children.

And, I am not convinced by your attempt to minimize the killing by calling it "the interruption of a building process of CELLS.". The same could be said if an adult is murdered, for we all keep building, and rebuilding, ourselves, one cell at a time, until we die. The building process is what we mean when we say life. You fail to acknowledge that a distinct life form is created when the sperm enters the egg; after that meeting the celluar building process has its own intelligence, and that intelligence designs and directs the building, and rebuilding, process which you recognize as life in humans. That intelligence is life, "the interruption of a building process of CELLS", is the interruption of a life. Albeit a life in the earliest and quite vulnerable stage of its existence. But, don't be fooled, just because it is easy to kill at that point in its life doesn't mean that it isn't alive. It is, and one day science will prove it, until that day you can take my word for it, even if all the rest of the world disagrees.

Exhibit A: Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming

Exhibit B: Gore believes in Creationism, too

I discuss how the two issues have intertwined in this thread at Dean's World.