How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

a reply to: jrod

In 2013, Cornwall (with assistance from the Heritage Foundation) launched the Resisting the Green Dragon campaign, which the sociologist Antony Alumkal calls “a case study in the paranoid style, using rhetoric that is extreme even by Christian Right standards in order to scare laypeople away from [environmentalism].” The campaign included both a book, written by physicist and “lay theologian” James Wanliss,” and a 12-part DVD series starring luminaries of the evangelical right, all laying out the case that green Christian movements are born of a “spiritual deception” that puts the needs of nature before people—a demonic worldview that requires an explicitly Christian response.

Wow! When I was a Christian we were taught that nature was also a product of god and should be honored equally. Now these awful people are trying to justify destroying something according to their religion is also god's creation. This is some sick # and is EXACTLY what is wrong with the Christian religion these days. Too many political heads trying to shape the religion away from its core message.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Jrod is just upset because someone has an opinion and viewpoint that is different than the formal opinion of the UN, the IPCC, some scientists AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

He wants anyone who disagrees in jail and laws made to ensure that no one is allowed to talk about or have an opinion that differs from the government.

Free speech is only free when its speech that is "approved".

He is giving us an article that tells the same old story.

Environmental NGO's, climate scientists, the UN and the IPCC are "pure" and innocent. Their only goal is to "save" us and if you give them enough money, you will survive.

Corporations are all evil. Their only intent is to rape the planet for profit. They are the enemy and if we don't come together under the environment NGO's, we are all doomed

Governments are all weak, incompetant and corrupt. ONLY THE UN, the IPCC and the environmental NGO's can save us and they are the only ones we should listen to. All others are committing "crimes against humanity". Any defense of their motives that they may present is only further proof of their guilt.

I still have an issue with the data and how it's collected.

So I will remain a skeptic until I can find satisfactory answers.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: butcherguy

This topic, climate change denial refers to those who refuse to accept man's role in it. This is widely accepted, you are just trying to grasp straws to denounce the article.

Between the rising CO2 and CH4 levels, deforestation, topagraphy changes via diverting rivers, building dams, ect..one has to be ignorant to proclaim our species is not impacting the overal climate on this planet.

As far as AGW, the evidence is out there from the number of record highs vs record lows, revord setting hurricane seasons, warm water fish migration, ocean heat content levels, ect.

The problem is so many ignore the evidence, scream tax scam, reference Al Gore, and among a few other standardized fall back arguments proclaim the climate changed in the past therefore it must be natural and not caused by humans.

It is sad that so many on ATS embrace ignorance over evidence.

And I say that you tend to lump everyone that disagrees with you under a misnomer.
You are denying that.

a reply to: TheRedneck

While we might differ on opinions, at least you add the discussion with good points.

The sea level does appear to be rising though.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Sea-level rise isn’t just happening; it’s accelerating. And some areas of the United States—like Florida—are seeing “hot spots” where the ocean can creep up six times faster than average.
Those are the findings of two new studies published yesterday, which have potentially troubling implications for urban planners trying to address sea-level rise. They also help explain why residents of Florida and North Carolina have seen sharp increases in coastal flooding in recent years.
Sea levels in the Southeast—between Cape Hatteras, N.C., and Miami—rose dramatically between 2011 and 2015, according to a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters. The spike in sea levels is driven by a combination of natural factors that is exacerbated by human-caused sea-level rise.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That is an absurd post.

Don't like what I post, then bring evidence that contradicts what had been posted. Attacking me and claiming you know what I want has no place in an intellectual discussion.

I am anti big government, live freely, and want others to live free and think for themselves. In the past I have destroyed global warming enthusiasts in a debate. However because I examine the evidence, have a meteorology background and try to place evidence over emotions nd confirmatiom biases, I have come to the conclusion that AGW is real and action is needed. I started to care when CO2 levels hit 400ppm.

You just muddy the waters, essentially making false statements against me. Why you do this baffles me. It is quite immature.

a reply to: jrod

You are brave for posting this.

I am so fed up and disgusted with the politicizing and manipulations --- yeah Al Gore is a wanker. and so are the paid pawns getting rich preaching the gospel of endless fossil fuel use.

Duh, yes the earth has undergone huge cycles of warming and cooling.
Can we not observe and draw our own conclusions?!
Human beings are ripping up this planet, spewing crap into the atmosphere, and crap into the oceans.
Humans are damaging the planet and endangering everything that lives here.

Call it by whatever name you want - this tangled argument keeps us from waking up to the big picture and holding the big players accountable. as individuals, sure we can each recycle, compost, drive less, use less...so on and so on, but we need to demand better solutions.
A working internal combustion engine was invented in 1859 ---- can we not do better than that, all these years later???
I believe alternative technologies have been invented, more than once, and I believe that technology has been repressed by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ---- and they are happy to chum the waters and keep everyone fighting about it.
We must do better. Our kids and grand kids need us to grow up and work together.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: butcherguy

As far as AGW, the evidence is out there from the number of record highs vs record lows, revord setting hurricane seasons, warm water fish migration, ocean heat content levels, ect.

None of what you listed is evidence of AGW.

a reply to: UKTruth

That was not the point of this post. There are countless posts on ATS that address the evidence, many that you have participated in. No point wasting paste to repost what has been posted.

Re-read the title of the article, and maybe actually the article(or at least skim through since most dont have the patience to read a multpage article).

It is about how evangelicals(no all but ones who influence elections) have been duped into suporting anti-environment actions.

CO2 levels is evidence of human induced climate change. Warm water fish migrating further north while ocean temperatures have risen is evidence of a warming planet. The fact many more record highs(and high lows) than record lows have recorded in the past decade is also strong evidence forva warming planet.

The evidence is there, some willfuly ignore it.

originally posted by: SeaYote
a reply to: jrod

I am so fed up and disgusted with the politicizing and manipulations --- yeah Al Gore is a wanker. and so are the paid pawns getting rich preaching the gospel of endless fossil fuel use.

Gore was worth about $2-Million dollars when he left public office(from what I've read); he is now worth about $300-Million (again, from what I've read). Both sides get stupidly rich off of this divisive, politicized topic.

Human beings are ripping up this planet, spewing crap into the atmosphere, and crap into the oceans.
Humans are damaging the planet and endangering everything that lives here.

Agreed, and it's certainly disproportionate concerning the amount of people damaging versus trying to keep it as clean as possible. The problem lies with the claims and beliefs that many espouse concerning the conclusion that our government is going to be able to fix that problem. I will always argue that it starts with the stewardship of the individual, and that the government "solutions" are only going to cause more problems and keep the imbalance.

as individuals, sure we can each recycle, compost, drive less, use less...so on and so on, but we need to demand better solutions.

Something of note is that we HAVE made massive strides concerning pollution and waste, especially when compared to, say, the late 19th Century, which is cited by many as the point in time where we because our destruction. We have better solutions--exponentially better, in many cases. I'm not saying that things still can't get better, but I don't think that the types of innovations necessary are going to come from forced indoctrination (as both sides try to do) or wishy-washy government policies (that can and do change every four to eight years). The individual is the only constant that one can rely upon.

I believe alternative technologies have been invented, more than once, and I believe that technology has been repressed by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ---- and they are happy to chum the waters and keep everyone fighting about it.

I agree, but I doubt that we agree upon the same solution or reasons why some techs or companies have failed in the past. Let's just suffice to say that federal subsidizing of private industry tends to always end in failures (and I'm talking direct money transfer, not the empty argument that tax credits are akin to subsidization). Government interference into the private sector has done a lot to stifle innovation and the willingness of people to pursue new technologies and companies. I think that's one reason why the internal combustion engine, while much improved upon since 1859, is still king when it comes to transportation, and I think that it'll still be around for a long time. I think the bigger concern lies with finding better fuels to make these engines combust.

But like I said in my first paragraph, both sides giddily chum the waters of divisiveness, so to pretend in the end that one side is worse than the other is irrelevant in the quest for honesty and true innovation.
We must do better. Our kids and grand kids need us to grow up and work together.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: DanDanDat

How much did Al Gore's new movie cost to make-it is all propaganda.

The earth is not going to be the same temp this year as last. It is constantly changing. Always has, always will.

how much are texaco paying for negative press?

a reply to: jrod

While we might differ on opinions, at least you add the discussion with good points.

Why, thank you.

The sea level does appear to be rising though.

Key word: "appears."

If I were living in an area that was subsiding (for whatever reason), it would "appear" to me that the sea was rising. We as a people tend to think of land as solid, involatile, eternal. It's not. Land is continually shifting, albeit ever so slowly, up or down, side-to-side, and occasionally reminds us of that fact with a sudden movement we call an "earthquake." We can't predict it, can barely track it because we simply don't know what pressures and forces lurk in the ground beneath our feet.

But still, it's there. And the movement is usually so slow that we don't notice it day to day.

If sea level rises, it will rise everywhere. There may be a few locations where the land rises at the same time, but the massive preponderance, much greater than the sporadic reports we get on it today, will be that sea level is rising almost everywhere. If that happens, I will be happy to fall in line with the concern over sea level rise, just as I am happy to admit that yes, the Arctic is melting. At one time I questioned that as well. Science. Question everything until you can verify through multiple sources and have some sort of explanation, no matter how undeveloped, that explains the why. In the case of the Arctic, the Bering Current has warmed and the Jet Stream is sporadically shifting. I don't know why that is happening (yet), but I don't need to to acknowledge Arctic warming.

But to return back to the thread subject: No argument about who pays for what or who wants to tax who has anything to do with the science... only with the motive behind the statements made. And nothing is more disingenuous than to accuse the other side of doing what your side has been doing to a much greater degree.

TheRedneck

Here is an article in The Scientific American saying that sea levels have dropped.

Are they lying?

originally posted by: butcherguy
Here is an article in The Scientific American saying that sea levels have dropped.

Are they lying?

Funny article. They still claim sea levels are rising, but when sea levels are low it's because Australia got a lot of rain one year, so that's where all the water went.

a reply to: jrod

Here is the deal, it's imperative that we stop using fossil fuels. The world will end quickly if we don't stop. We must stop!
OK, I'm with you, I'm ready to stop. But I need to get places, and nobody seems to have an alternative?

The AGW scare tactics have gotten so bad that it's hard to take them seriously, even if they are correct. Wolf was mentioned quite a few times already. So with more rhetoric and doom, you will likely get push back. Message isn't horrible, but the delivery sucks ass.

Oh, and don't forget to ridicule everyone who doesn't lick the boots of the AGW pope.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, for those two years, they dropped over twice the amount that they had been rising. It must have rained like hell down under..... and they kept it all out of the rivers.

a reply to: butcherguy

I beginning to realize that debating against man-made climate change is like arguing with the wife.

Even if you're right, you're going to be wrong.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And nothing is more disingenuous than to accuse the other side of doing what your side has been doing to a much greater degree.

...whch is precisely why you guys should put something up by now. Get it?

It's a decent OP and I didn't see anyone from "your team" digging up some facts, actually adding to the debate. All they came up with was Al Gores demands and the carbon trade scam, which isn't even close to manipulating public opinion.

There's your hungry strawman, waiting to be fed. I'm listening.

Provide me a pragmatic solution with a clear calculation of risk vs reward and ROI; that doesn't make the rich richer and the pore porer and I will support climate change mitigation.

Until then this is all just mental masturbation. Two groups of people trying to convince others how big their penises are, and how we should all worship it.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Provide me a pragmatic solution with a clear calculation of risk vs reward and ROI; that doesn't make the rich richer and the pore porer and I will support climate change mitigation.

Until then this is all just mental masturbation. Two groups of people trying to convince others how big their penises are, and how we should all worship it.

Yea, I think you said it better.