Global Warming...Is It Just Me?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rwam

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
188
Location
Glen Carbon, Illinois
Okay, so I'm not sure if this is just me, or what. But.....it seems to me that a lot of conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist Christians I know scoff at the idea of 'global warming', 'Earth Day', 'environmentalism', etc.

As someone who cares about the planet and wants to be a good steward of our natural resources, this baffles me. I cannot find anything in the Bible that tells me to be otherwise.

So, here's the conclusion I've come to: The whole issue of Global Warming, or being good ecological citizens, tends to run along political party lines. People who say "There is no such thing as Global Warming...only tree-hugging liberals believe in it" tend to be political conservatives. People who buy into the global warming thing tend to be political liberals. If true, this is fine. I think the problem I'm having is that it seems like most fundamentalist/evangelical Christians are in the 'conservative republican' camp. However, I'm baffled at why this issue seems to bleed into religious denominations...if anything, in fact, I would think that the more you thought the world was created by Someone, the more likely you'd be to be an environmentally friendly person and care about the planet.....right?

Am I making any sense? And if so, has anyone else wondered the same thing?

DISCLAIMER: I'm neither a tree-hugger or tree-hater. I recycle stuff and think spending tax-payer money on the environment probably shouldn't be our nation's highest priority.
 

Windsong

Registered
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
I don't know. I'm Christian, conservative, and Republican and I think global warming exists. To me, it's existence doesn't hinge on politics, but with simple cause and effect. I've never thought it bled over into religious denominations before. We use certain fuels and chemicals that combine in certain ways with others which causes (after a long chain of reactions) the global temp to rise.
While I think we ought to investigate cleaner buring fuels, I agree that the tax money could be better spent.
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
Rwam, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I'm a liberal non-Christian who cares greatly about the enviroment. Heck, if hugging a huge, ancient tree would help to save its majestic life, I'd hug away.

One of the ways that coal is mined nowadays is to strip a mountain of its trees, toss the trees down the slopes, blow off the peak with explosives, dig out the coal, and then make huge slush ponds out of the clean-up wastes. If that isn't ungodly, I don't know what is. But political conservatives don't seem to care about such things, especially if they somehow get in the way of lowering taxes.
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,661
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Global Warming has nothing to do with environmentalism or caring for the planet. It has to do with hysteria and exaggerated and unfounded shrill gloom and doom rhetoric.

I care about the environment, but I think the whole global warming movement is nonsense.
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
Global Warming has nothing to do with environmentalism or caring for the planet


That's rather an odd statement. Trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has "nothing to do with environmentalism"? Monitoring changes in the environment has "nothing to do with caring for the planet"?

Ice caps are melting. Endangered animals are losing their habitats. Are you suggesting that ignoring these realities is a better way of "caring for the planet" than trying to address them?
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
Global Warming has nothing to do with environmentalism or caring for the planet. It has to do with hysteria and exaggerated and unfounded shrill gloom and doom rhetoric.

I care about the environment, but I think the whole global warming movement is nonsense.

I could not disagree with you more, but there certainly are many, many people who do agree with you.
 

Arisa81

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
4,363
Reaction score
532
Location
Canada
Website
pacificpurple.blogspot.com
I don't know about global warming. I hear about it, but it's not something I have studied at all to know if it could be true or not.

What I do think is that we need to take care of our planet to the best of our ability. Not only for our planet, but for the health of people all over the world.

So, I figure if it takes people freaking out over global warming to do things right, so be it. Again, I am not someone who's really looked into global warming other than what I hear on the news and such.
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,661
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Are you suggesting that ignoring these realities is a better way of "caring for the planet" than trying to address them?
No. I'm saying the term "global warming" is a polarizing term and shouldn't even be used.

If you want to care for the planet, do it. If you want to reduce pollution, do it. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, do it.

We should be doing these things because we like living here and want to keep living here and we'd like to give our children a nice place to keep on living on.

But don't tell people about this "global warming" thing that half the people don't even believe in because the discussion will turn to arguments about that and nothing will ever get done.
 

windyrdg

New kid, be gentle!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
526
Reaction score
89
Location
So Oregon Coast looking at the ocean
Website
capearagopress.com
A disclaimer: I don't believe in Global Warming and feel it is hype created by people who a) want to control the way others live, or b) have a vested interest.

Now for some thoughts...It is not accepted as confirmed science. The press chooses to publicize only one side. Less than thirty years ago Time Magazine had a cover devoted to "Are We Facing a New Ice Age." Man's live span is not long enough to give him a relaible view of anything that's happening to this planet's environment. (Yeah, I know if you dump 100 pounds of toxic chemical in a lake the fish will die. That's a micro view and GW requires a macro view spanning eons.) Volcanos spew out more pollutants than all the industires and cars put together. And last, but not least - God created feedback loops that keep the entire universe humming along quite nicely. Does anyone imagine that He would be stupid enough to give man the power to permanently alter the planet?
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,882
Location
Texas, usually
No. I'm saying the term "global warming" is a polarizing term and shouldn't even be used.

I understand where you're coming from: it IS a polarizing term, and can possibly get in the way of progress.

If you want to care for the planet, do it. If you want to reduce pollution, do it. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, do it.

I agree. The problem, though, is that individuals "doing their part" for the environment can only get us so far. We really need change on the industrial level, and unfortunately, that requires changes in policy and/or financial incentives. That's why scientists are constantly studying pollution and its effects on the environment and making those findings known...to effect policy, and, barring that, to change the minds of those doing the polluting.

We should be doing these things because we like living here and want to keep living here and we'd like to give our children a nice place to keep on living on.

Of course.

But don't tell people about this "global warming" thing that half the people don't even believe in because the discussion will turn to arguments about that and nothing will ever get done.

(bolding mine)

"Half the people" isn't at all accurate if you are referring to scientists. In fact, there is near unanimous agreement concerning the dreaded GW (not the president, the other one) amongst scientists.

Really, though, my question is: how can we get the industrial sector to slow their pollution without discussing the effects of that pollution?

There must be a way.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,882
Location
Texas, usually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Of course, Wiki isn't the end-all-be-all, but in this case, its sources are very good. There's also this:
Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

gotten from here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

another snippet
The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated.
(bold, underline mine)

And there's this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/

Here's another good one:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

It's strange that with this much consensus amongst scientists, people would still resist changes that stand to - at the very least - remove a few of the toxins from the air that they and their families breathe. Even if there's no climate change, how is this bad?
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,111
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I could not disagree with you more, but there certainly are many, many people who do agree with you.
And most of them are extremely conservative. OP's original question is a good one, and entirely baffling to me as well.

As for some Evangelicals, however, I think that the same mindset that denies evolution bleeds over into denying global warming. Which also makes no sense. The rejection of evolution depends on scriptural interpretations and belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. But even if you accept that, is there any scriptural doctrine that deals with climate change and man's ability to destroy the planet he was entrusted with? I'd like to see it.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,882
Location
Texas, usually
A disclaimer: I don't believe in Global Warming and feel it is hype created by people who a) want to control the way others live, or b) have a vested interest.

Exxon had quite a bounty out for a while, thousands of dollars for any scientists willing to step up and deny global warming. (I linked an article referencing this in my last post...last link, I think). I have heard, though, that they dropped that and their official position is that global warming is real and needs to be addressed.

I have to ask what science you base your views on.

Now for some thoughts...It is not accepted as confirmed science. The press chooses to publicize only one side.

A google search of reputable scientific organizations tells me differently.

Less than thirty years ago Time Magazine had a cover devoted to "Are We Facing a New Ice Age."

One of the possible outcomes of global warming IS an ice age. That said, far more is known about climate change now than 30 years ago. You should really check out the current scientific views concerning global warming.

Man's live span is not long enough to give him a relaible view of anything that's happening to this planet's environment.

Luckily, there are records older than man. Such as the patterns in the permafrost. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? You know, the one that got that big award...?




The question, though, was why does this issue seem to put "liberals" on one side and "conservatives" on the other? How does this tie to religion?

Maybe it has to do with your belief that your God isn't "stupid" enough to let people alter the planet permenantly. Maybe others agree. I don't know, but I think that people *have* altered the planet permenantly, and think that that in no way reflects on the intelligence of your God.
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
I agree entirely with what rugcat and monkey just said, but I'm sure at least half of you disagree entirely. Has there ever been a time when we've been more angrily polarized, both politically and religiously? And both within our nation and without?
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,661
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
"Half the people" isn't at all accurate if you are referring to scientists. In fact, there is near unanimous agreement concerning the dreaded GW (not the president, the other one) amongst scientists.

Really, though, my question is: how can we get the industrial sector to slow their pollution without discussing the effects of that pollution?

There must be a way.
The unanimous agreement is that "global warming" is happening.

The discension is whether MAN is causing it or if it is a natural and cyclical fluctuation.

And as far as I know, the industrial sector HAS been cleaning things up. I was there on that first Earth Day back in the 70s. I remember what the rivers and air was like. I remember standing on street corners and getting dizzy from the car exhausts. Cars are way cleaner now than ever before. We've come a long way, baby.
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
The unanimous agreement is that "global warming" is happening.

The discension is whether MAN is causing it or if it is a natural and cyclical fluctuation.

There's very little dissent within the community of climate scientists that the current trends are, at least in part, affected by pollution. See here, for instance. The "scientists" touted by anti-global-warming folks are mostly economists, physicists, and others with scientific training marginally (at best) connected to the scientific concepts at hand.

And as far as I know, the industrial sector HAS been cleaning things up.

In some countries, yes. I'm 43 and I remember when air pollution in the US was even worse than it is today.

However, as other countries industrialize rapidly without controls in place, the ecological disaster spreads.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,882
Location
Texas, usually
The unanimous agreement is that "global warming" is happening.

Read again that second quote on post #11.

I've actually heard people deny that global warming exists at all, based on the fact that it was a cold day where they lived. :)

I also asked a good friend of mine, who was Christian, about Global Warming. He didn't think it was caused by people, and although he believed that man was meant to be a steward to the Earth, he wasn't overly concerned about pollution. He believes that the world will end when God intends, and not before.

Perhaps that explains the divide mentioned in the OP?

I don't know. But I think that reducing pollution is a good thing. Cause, yanno, until the world ends, we gotta live here.
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,661
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Read again that second quote on post #11.

I've actually heard people deny that global warming exists at all, based on the fact that it was a cold day where they lived. :)
I was refering to your comment that it's universally agreed upon by SCIENTISTS.

And really, we're experiences 20 inches of snow today. Kind of hard for me to relate.
However, as other countries industrialize rapidly without controls in place, the ecological disaster spreads.
I can't worry about what other countries do. That's how we got involved in Iraq.

ETA: But in keeping with the OP, yes, most conservatives (not necessarily Christians) do not believe in global warming. Or if they do, they deny it because most conservatives believe in government non-interference. And if they admitted global warming existed, that would open the floodgates to all sorts of environmental regulations that would hurt business.
 
Last edited:

JoNightshade

has finally arrived
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
4,140
Website
www.ramseyhootman.com
I'm a Christian, I'm conservative, and I think this whole "Global warming crisis" is absurd. But it really has nothing to do with my political affiliation or my religion. Some points:

1) Do I believe the earth is getting warmer?
Yes, I do.

2) Do I think something should be done about it?
No, I don't.

3) Why not?

- Western society is so egocentric that we think if we suddenly stop polluting, we'll save the whole world. Anyone been to China lately? The densest US and EU cities are public parks compared to these places. If we do have a serious, globe-threatening problem on our hands, there's no way we can ever convince China, India, and the host of overpolluted third world countries to change in time. Not unless we go to war. Anyone? Didn't think so.

- OF COURSE the earth is warming up. The geological record of the entire planet provides abundant evidence that earth has gone through countless cycles of heating and cooling. Scientists estimate that one reason for the poverty and chaos unleashed in the middle ages was a mini-ice-age that resulted in a dearth of crops. Today, you can go to Yosemite National Park and take a tour. The guides will point out all of the enormous landmarks created by RECEDING GLACIERS. That's right, the Yosemite valley was once entirely covered in ice. That MELTED. Did the cavemen have a hissy fit when that happened? No. Which brings me to my next point:

- Where on earth do modern scientists get this idea that nothing on the earth is supposed to change? This idea of conservation (which as only come about in the last hundred years or so) has morphed from "let's make sure we preserve natural habitats and species" to a fanatical "NOTHING MUST CHANGE." Scientists flip out every time some animal's habitat is altered in any way at all. While I agree that we shouldn't go around bulldozing our environment, this attitude is just silly. If you believe in evolution, the fundamental building block of nature itself is change. Everything is in a constant state of change and upheaval and re-creation. Climates change. Landscapes change. Species adapt or perish. This is the way of life. And we're part of it. We can't remove ourselves from nature. We can't STOP it.

Finally, let's say that humans are the major cause of global warming. Let's say the earth is in danger. What do I think we should do about it?

Migrate. To other planets. In the past couple of centuries, we've mapped every nook and cranny of the globe. We, as a race, need new frontiers to explore. The only one I see is up.
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
I'm a Christian, I'm conservative, and I think this whole "Global warming crisis" is absurd. But it really has nothing to do with my political affiliation or my religion. Some points:

1) Do I believe the earth is getting warmer?
Yes, I do.

2) Do I think something should be done about it?
No, I don't.

3) Why not?

- Western society is so egocentric that we think if we suddenly stop polluting, we'll save the whole world. Anyone been to China lately? The densest US and EU cities are public parks compared to these places. If we do have a serious, globe-threatening problem on our hands, there's no way we can ever convince China, India, and the host of overpolluted third world countries to change in time. Not unless we go to war. Anyone? Didn't think so.

- OF COURSE the earth is warming up. The geological record of the entire planet provides abundant evidence that earth has gone through countless cycles of heating and cooling. Scientists estimate that one reason for the poverty and chaos unleashed in the middle ages was a mini-ice-age that resulted in a dearth of crops. Today, you can go to Yosemite National Park and take a tour. The guides will point out all of the enormous landmarks created by RECEDING GLACIERS. That's right, the Yosemite valley was once entirely covered in ice. That MELTED. Did the cavemen have a hissy fit when that happened? No. Which brings me to my next point:

- Where on earth do modern scientists get this idea that nothing on the earth is supposed to change? This idea of conservation (which as only come about in the last hundred years or so) has morphed from "let's make sure we preserve natural habitats and species" to a fanatical "NOTHING MUST CHANGE." Scientists flip out every time some animal's habitat is altered in any way at all. While I agree that we shouldn't go around bulldozing our environment, this attitude is just silly. If you believe in evolution, the fundamental building block of nature itself is change. Everything is in a constant state of change and upheaval and re-creation. Climates change. Landscapes change. Species adapt or perish. This is the way of life. And we're part of it. We can't remove ourselves from nature. We can't STOP it.

Finally, let's say that humans are the major cause of global warming. Let's say the earth is in danger. What do I think we should do about it?

Migrate. To other planets. In the past couple of centuries, we've mapped every nook and cranny of the globe. We, as a race, need new frontiers to explore. The only one I see is up.

I would argue that your being a conservative Christian has everything to do with your viewpoints, because you're saying the same thing that most conservative Christians say when it comes to these topics. Bush himself couldn't have said it better.
 

JoNightshade

has finally arrived
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
4,140
Website
www.ramseyhootman.com
I would argue that your being a conservative Christian has everything to do with your viewpoints, because you're saying the same thing that most conservative Christians say when it comes to these topics. Bush himself couldn't have said it better.

Well, you're certainly free to your opinions. I've gotten pretty accustomed to people writing my viewpoint off becaue of my religious beliefs.

ETA: Incidentally, the majority of the Christians I hang out with ARE concerned about global warming. Our opinions differ.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,111
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
There are certainly cycles in climate. The worrisome thing is that by all measurements, the pace at which it's now happening is unparalleled and seems likely to be due to man's influence. It may well tip the balance to a degree where the earth will not recover, at least not in the lifespan of humankind.
Finally, let's say that humans are the major cause of global warming. Let's say the earth is in danger. What do I think we should do about it?

Migrate. To other planets. In the past couple of centuries, we've mapped every nook and cranny of the globe. We, as a race, need new frontiers to explore. The only one I see is up.
What a great idea! Trash our own planet and leave the stinking mess, then expand through the galaxy, leaving polluted and dying planets in our wake.

If there's anyone else out there, they're not going to be too happy with us. If indeed, we are God's only intelligent creation, I would imagine He's not going to be too happy about that either.
 

JoNightshade

has finally arrived
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
4,140
Website
www.ramseyhootman.com
What a great idea! Trash our own planet and leave the stinking mess, then expand through the galaxy, leaving polluted and dying planets in our wake.

Yeah, cuz that's what I said. Just because I think we should move off world, I advocate wholesale environmental destruction and don't believe in personal responsibility or environmental stewardship.

There's no actual reason I own a hybrid or anything. Guess I'll stop recycling.
 

otterman

Word Voyeur
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
544
Reaction score
93
Location
Lothlorien
Jo, I'm really disappointed. The point is we are causing the change. To suggest this is some evolutionary process that we must accept is ludicrous - almost as ridiculous as saying that we can't do anything about it. We have removed ourselves from nature and that's why we are facing this crisis. And it is a crisis, one that will destroy us with the glaciers and the other species that some of us look down on as "resources" to be exploited. What is really amazing is that people are still so greedy and egotistic that they are willing to sell the future of their children, all other innocent life, and the only place in our universe we know of that can support both for their own comfort and short-term gain.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,976
Reaction score
1,880
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
I have an uncle who's a born again Christian. He's a very blue collar kind of guy, grew up in a blue collar family of mill workers. He never went to college, and worked in a mill himself as a young man, as well as being a volunteer fire fighter in his small New England farming town. He's also an avid outdoorsman and a hunter, getting licenses every year for turkey season and deer season. In addition to all of this, he also tends a magnificent garden in the back yard every year, growing prize pumpkins and squash. The wall of his den is covered with dizens of blue ribbons from many years of entering his pumpkins and squash at the local fair each autumn. He has blue bird houses in the garden, and regualrly bird watches with a set of binoculars from the back porch. There's also a brook running through the back yard that he has landscaped himself. As his wife says of his gardening and his affinity for the outdoors: "He loves to play in the mud."

Back in his mid-20's, he went to the state police academy to become a state cop. And when he graduated they said: "You can either be a state highway patrolman, or a state game warden [aka an environmental police offcier]." With his great love of the outdoors, he naturally jumped at the chance to be a game warden, and he recently completed 40 years of service and is now retired.

He is VERY aware of the environment, and subscribes to magazines about wildlife and watches the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, etc. And also his many years of training as a game warden meant he had to take throughout his career formal classes on wildlife and on how to handle the various species in his jurisdiction (racoons, eagles, deer, etc). The kinds of phone calls that would come in to his office or even sometimes at his private home included please for help whenever someone might hit a deer down the road, or maybe someone knocked down an old barn and discovered a nest of baby owls, or a bear wandered onto someone's property, or else a racoon had got loose in someone's house. He also was --because of his job-- in regular contact with various science professors (the ones who specialized in zoological studies) from the local universities. Sometimes he was asked by those professors to assist with animals in the area.

His knowledge of animals and wildlife --even exotic species from around the world-- is amazing. We were all watching the Millioanire game show one night, and the question was "Which bird has the broadest wing-span: eagle, condor, albtross, or heron?" And he --a man who barely graduated high school and who pretty much never knows any answers to any quiz shows question ever-- shouted out "CONDOR!" (And he was right.)

His monthly (or is it quarterly? I don't remember) subscription to International Game Warden Magazine includes in-depth articles about the activities of game wardens all over the world, such as game wardens in Africa who protect the elephants and lions etc, and the wardens in Australia who protect the kangaroos, crocodiles, coalas, etc. (And there's always a special tribute in every issue to those game wardens from around the world who get killed in the line of duty, sometimes due to an attack by a ferocious animal, and sometimes due to the homicidal aggressions of illegal poachers. Poachers in Africa, Canada, and Florida seem to be the most notorious for not only resisting arrest but actually attacking and even killing game wardens.)

My uncle is a Christian, AND a blue collar sort of a "good old boy" (albeit a Northern/Yankee vartiety of good old boyhood) and he is absolutely convinced that global warming is a reality. He didn't ALWAYS believe in it and actively scoffed the idea for years. But for him, the turning point came when he was reading the enviromental studies about how polar bears are losing alarmingly high percentages of body weight each year due to the rapid diminishment of their ice-based environments. And that data was further bolstered by articles in Internation Game Warden Magazine about the current concerns being voiced by Canadian game wardens over the plight of the moose and caribou who are likewise suffering as their not-so-snowy-anymore environments rapdily change for the worse every year. My uncle is indeed a believer now.




Meanwhile, I had been hearing for years (decades actually!) from various Christians that global warming was a myth. So I have likewise witnessed this blind and defiant denial amongst Christians that the OP speaks of. Why were so many (at least in MY circles) Christias almost universally convinced it was all a lie?

I must concur with the OP: I believe it was a sad case of guilt by association.

The traditional bastion of environmental concern has always been a particularly ill-liked (ill-liked by many conservative American Christians) segment of the political left: the save-the-whale, save-the-snail-darter, crystal-wearing, tree-hugging, vegetarian, new-age crowd (I realize this is a sweepig generalization, but that sort of broad-sweeping dismissiveness is part of the problem here). So if THEY are the ones who are the primary proponents of this global warming stuff .... then seeing as how they're most assuredly wrong about their crystals, and wrong about their priority of valuing a snail darter over an unborn fetus, and wrong about that whole "harminic convergeance" thing (anybody here remember "harminic converegeance"?), and wrong about reincarnation (according to the Christian viewpoint), then surely they are also wrong about this global warming nonsense.

My blue collar uncle always had little tolerance for the crystals and the Birkenstocks and the harmonic convergeance. He got annoyed during more than one of his own private hunting vacations and left the forest in angry silence whenever a team of anti-hunting activists would show up wearing their orange vests and loudly scare away the deer. He would read in furious tears about lumberjacks in the Pacific Northwest who would lose their limbs or maybe even their lives because their chain saws had riccocheted off of a porcelein spike driven into a tree by an anti-deforestation activist. He rolled his eyes at the commune down the road where about thirty hippies lived together in a 200 year-old, 10-bedroom farmhouse. And he very diplomatically kept his mouth shut and focused on the conversation at hand while attending a business-as-usual meeting with a local university professor who was obviously wearing a crystal or two herself.

So I share the same theory as the OP that because these claims of global warming wafted PRIMARILLY from the same ranks as all of the above sorts of people --people that my uncle found either amusing, pathetic, or criminal-- my uncle naturally marginalized their doomsaying claims, right along with their harminic convergeance .........

.......... he and about 40 million other American Christians ............

.......... for the past 30 years ..............








........... but then he read the data on the polar bears.











.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.