This actually continues a long running Warmist meme about Skeptics being religious fundamentalists, which they call “fundies”, not meant to be complimentary, but, hey, Lefties are all sorts of tolerant, eh?
(NPR) Last week, the Obama administration announced historic regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Policies to address climate change have been a tough sell among some Republicans on Capitol Hill, but also in many Christian congregations around the country.
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is also a devout Christian.
Hayhoe has spent the last few years trying to convince other Christians that climate change is real, and that caring about the issue is one of the most Christian things you can do. She told NPR’s Rachel Martin of the difficulties of spreading that message among Christian congregations.
“The people we trust, the people we respect, the people whose values we share, in the conservative community, in the Christian community, those people are telling us, many of them, that this isn’t a real problem — that it’s a hoax,” Heyhoe says. “Even worse, that you can’t be a Christian and think that climate change is real. You can’t be a conservative and agree with the science.”
Heyhoe says what Christians often question about climate change is if God is in control, how could this happen? Another argument she hears is the idea that humans could change climate threatens the sovereignty of God.
“The answer to that is pretty simple: It’s free will,” she says. “God gave us the brains to make good choices and there’s consequences to the choices that we make.”
It’s not about trying to convince people, in this case Christians, that the climate changes, it’s about convincing Christians (and, really most people), that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.
Sadly, what she is also doing is positioning “climate change” as an environmental issue. Christians care heavily about the environment, but “climate change” is not an environmental issue.
Man-made climate change is all BS.
Your emotions are being used against you to further a global controlling agenda. That’s all the “climate change” meme is about.
The same goes for “gun-control”.
One doesnt have anything to do with the other. It is only proof that CAGW are Socialists bent on controlling other people for political gain. Even some so-called “christians” can be socialists.
When you wrap your religion around a worldly political ideology, then you have no godly religion.
And right there, she proves shes only in it for the political ideology. She’s couching her supposed religious beliefs to push a anti-human political governing theology.
Very very few on the realists side believe that the world is static. Those on the CAGW’ers side demand that the world be static. And they choose a point in time for it to be in stasis at. What is sad is that believers are the ones that believe in science. They were the ones that developed science and were persecuted by the state-religion for it.
Amazing how the shoe has flipped.
False question to lead to desired answer. Question is: “If GOD is in control, can we really have a climate disaster problem?”
Grammar much need.
Sorry, that has to do with life choices and sin and whether or not one accepts Jesus as The Messiah and Son of GOD.
It has nothing to do with if we are free to pollute the earth or not with our breathing.
“And they choose a point in time for it to be in stasis at.” — Yes, the climate of the 10,000 years in which all human civilization developed. Mankind is changing the climate in ways not experienced by human civilizations. There is nothing natural about what we are doing.
“Even some so-called “christians†can be socialists.” — An Evangelical Christian who happens to be a climate scientist you describe as a “so-called Christian” and a socialist. Do you really think that no true Christian can accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of AGW?
“She’s couching her supposed religious beliefs to push a (sic) anti-human political governing theology.” — How could anyone think that conservative Christian science deniers are intolerant, lol. (sarc)
“It has nothing to do with if we are free to pollute the earth (sic) or not with our breathing.” — It’s a crowded field, but this may be the dumbest thing you’ve typed. Breathing? Really?
All Dr. Hayhoe is stating is that there exist no religious constraints in understanding science. Relying on scientific evidence is not in conflict with religious beliefs.
you know that is not what she is saying, but that never stopped you from twisting statements in order to maintain your antagonistic ways.
BTW, it does not surprise me that you don’t know what the process of animal respiration entails.
g,
You typed something about our breathing as pollution. If you have a point, why not make it clearly?
Assume the average human burns 2500 calories per day, or 500 g carbohydrate equivalent. If we assume glucose as the average carbohydrate, 1 mole of glucose when burned will yield 6 moles of carbon dioxide. Molecular weight of glucose is 180 g/mole; and of carbon dioxide, 44 g/mole. 500/180 ~ 3 moles glucose burned per day yielding 18 moles of carbon dioxide, or about 800 g or about 2 pounds of carbon dioxide per day.
7 billion humans x 2 lbs = 14 billion lbs carbon dioxide/day
14000000000/2000 = 7 million tons emitted by human respiration/day or about 3 billion tons/year!
Total emissions by burning fossil fuels is 31 billion tons/year.
Note too that human consumption and metabolism of foodstuffs converts CO2 recently incorporated into carbohydrates back to CO2. This is the carbon cycle and kept atmospheric CO2 at about 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years (until about 100 years ago). By burning fossil fuels where CO2 had been locked into hydrocarbons for hundreds of millions of year, we’re releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at such a rate that the carbon cycle cannot accommodate it. Hence, CO2 has shot up to 400 ppm.
You really are inept aren’t you?
So, assume a human eats nothing but sugar.
1 mole of glucose also yields 6 H20 molecules. So what?
And just because you can throw in some incoherent and incompatible molecular physics\chemistry numbers together, does not mean you should.
The average human, expanded to our earthly population, breaths out the damned carbon pollution anywhere from 1 to 2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
So what?
How does regulating carbon in our exhalations prevent volcanoes from polluting the atmosphere with their Carbon or Sulfur? How does preventing what we eat, limit the massive Milankovic cycles?
What about those pesky miniature horses long ago? Or those runt deer roaming around? Didn’t they have something to do with carbon cycles? Or apes? Or any of the marsupials?
Is it always man? Man’s carbon breathing is the thing that will kill this earth?!!? Even though as you believe man is was a part of this carbon cycle from the very beginning, evolved with it? Or do you truly believe that aliens seeded us here and therefore we are an outside influence upon this stable pristine never-changing earth?