Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 3:49 PM
29 online now:
CosmicChimp, GDR, JoeT, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Taq (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 121 of 177 (595931)
12-11-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:32 AM


Lets take a look at some graphs to see what the weather has been doing for the recordable past

And as for the year 2010 well July was the second warmest on record and the average jan-july was the warmest on record.

So from where do you get ideas like: "the earth is cooling now, there is no global warming... and all the other crap you spit out."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 122 of 177 (595938)
12-11-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:32 AM


Permanent global depression on an unprecedented scale.
You finishing out your life in a rathole cabin, like "environmentalist" Theodore Kaczynski.

How's that for "down side"?

Ok i will grant that this impossibility is actually possible. Look at it a noter way.

If global warming is wrong and we take action what happens:

- Your ludicrus argument of a global depression well we had a few of those and always came out of them
-Better air, helth, cheper power.

If global warming is wrong and we take no action:
-Things stay the same or get a bit worse because of smog and such stuff no real biggy everybody is happy with lung cancer

If global warming is right and we take action:
- Well lets say our illogical impossible argument stands we get a depression but air is better, we can still feed people on a large scale, no large human migrations from the worst struck locations by climat change ....

If global warming is right and we do not take action:
- Since we applied your worst scenario that has no basis in reality let us apply the worst case scenario that has some basis in fact.
- Coastal cities dissaphere
- Massive migrations to slightly more livable places
- weather patterns that make the monsunes look like summer rain
- The loss of fertile lands do to weather changes bring starvation
- Starvation and overcrowding bring disease
- The global economy does not go to a depression it suths down Completely.....

Now with 2 options to choose from doing something about global warming or doing nothing and not knowing if global warming is happening or that it will only knowing the consequences of your actions what would you choose. No action and the possibility of the end of civilization as we know it, Action and the possibility of a global depression.

And still i would like to know from where do you get the idea of a global depression if you start building solar plants insted of coal plants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 123 of 177 (595956)
12-11-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by frako
12-11-2010 5:34 AM


I see no reason for a global depression if green power is sponsored insted of fossil power.

The only depression I can see from this, would be the lowering of the windfall profits of the fossil fuel companies.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by frako, posted 12-11-2010 5:34 AM frako has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 124 of 177 (595990)
12-11-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:32 AM


BarackZero writes:

Permanent global depression on an unprecedented scale.
You finishing out your life in a rathole cabin, like "environmentalist" Theodore Kaczynski.

How's that for "down side"?

You'd rather have the global depression that will (not could, will) follow the rapidly approaching end of viable fossil fuel energy, with no more gas for your SUV's, no industry, and the whole industrialized world busted down to a smoldering third world slag heap? Who's gonna be living in the shanty-towns in the woods then?

And just to touch on one of the AGW denier talking points that you brought up, please don't whine about how all those evil billionaire environmentalist hippies who have all the power in this country have ruined the economy by blocking more oil drilling in ANWR. Did you know that if you sucked out all of the recoverable oil that might be available in ANWR - 'cuz no-one knows for sure - that you'd have less than half of what already exists in the US oil reserves? It wouldn't even be available until 2018, would take about 20 years to extract most of it, and it would be about enough to feed the US's current consumption of oil for - wait for it - maybe a year and a half? Yeah, that would solve everything, wouldn't it?

You want to know what "Drill, baby, drill!" really means? It means "We're going to fuck up one of the few remaining remaining places that we haven't fucked up already for no real reason, just because we can. So fuck you, hippies!"

Honestly, AGW deniers and the ilk seem to want to treat this planet like drunk frat boys who've trashed the first floor of the house and burned most of the furniture in the fireplace, but hey, there's no problem, there's gotta be some more stuff upstairs to toss on the fire, and why not shit on the carpet here while were at it?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:32 AM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:36 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 125 of 177 (596137)
12-13-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ZenMonkey
12-11-2010 11:16 PM


ZenMonkey:
quote:
You'd rather have the global depression that will (not could, will) follow the rapidly approaching end of viable fossil fuel energy, with no more gas for your SUV's, no industry, and the whole industrialized world busted down to a smoldering third world slag heap? Who's gonna be living in the shanty-towns in the woods then?

Your errors are many.
1. You pretend that creating an immediate and permanent global depression is preferable to what you CLAIM is a later, certain-to-follow global depression.

2. Your fearful claims have been regurgitated throughout the past several decades, first by the Club of Rome. You DO remember them, don't you? "We're all gonna starve, we're all gonna starve!"

3. Jimbo Carter, far left-wing lunatic, said we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the 1990s.
Hello! McFly. Anybody home?

Let's move on to your next bit of gobbledy-gook.

quote:
And just to touch on one of the AGW denier talking points that you brought up, please don't whine about how all those evil billionaire environmentalist hippies who have all the power in this country have ruined the economy by blocking more oil drilling in ANWR. Did you know that if you sucked out all of the recoverable oil that might be available in ANWR - 'cuz no-one knows for sure - that you'd have less than half of what already exists in the US oil reserves? It wouldn't even be available until 2018, would take about 20 years to extract most of it, and it would be about enough to feed the US's current consumption of oil for - wait for it - maybe a year and a half? Yeah, that would solve everything, wouldn't it?

That sure does move back that "third world slag heap" you were predicting, doesn't it.
Moreover, there are considerable reserves in Canada stored in oil shales. Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.

Please contact your pals at the Club of Rome to learn how and why technology will let us down. Again. Luddites like them and you are not to be believed. They've/you've been so wrong so many times in the past, why should they/you be believed now?

quote:
You want to know what "Drill, baby, drill!" really means? It means "We're going to **** up one of the few remaining remaining places that we haven't ****** up already for no real reason, just because we can. So **** you, hippies!"

How vulgar and unscholarly of you. But at least you're consistent.

quote:
"Honestly", AGW deniers and the ilk seem to want to treat this planet like drunk frat boys who've trashed the first floor of the house and burned most of the furniture in the fireplace, but hey, there's no problem, there's gotta be some more stuff upstairs to toss on the fire, and why not shit on the carpet here while were at it?

1. I have never been in any fraternity.
2. Pollution is far worse in third world countries than it is in the United States.
3. Your god, Al Gore, is one of the world's worst examples of abusing resources.
4. Your fellow environmentalist cohort, Theodore Kaczynski, burned through $50,000,000 of resources while killing and bombing and maiming before he was captured in a rathole shack in the woods. On his table was a dog-eared copy of Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance.

You should be very proud of Ted, as well as the many enviro-wackos who have:

A. Burned Hummers at dealerships
B. Spiked trees, to injure lumberjacks
C. Burned down ski resorts
D. Burned down new housing projects
E. Attempted to destroy electric power poles
F. Driven their cars into towns solely in order to commit property destruction to further their/your extremist causes

and on and on.

My favorite environmentalist wacko comment comes from Cheryl Crow. While attracting hordes of sycophantic lemmings who collectively drove thousands and thousands of miles to her concerts, Cheryl told them the way to protect the environment is to use a single sheet of toilet paper. Next time you have a massive and soft bowel movement, try that, Al Gorian. Just use a single sheet of bung fodder. That should save Mother Gaia, you betcha.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-11-2010 11:16 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2010 12:40 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 127 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 3:37 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 129 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-13-2010 7:54 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Tupinambis, posted 12-14-2010 12:24 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 177 (596138)
12-13-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:36 PM


Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.

Ah, I see. Technological pollyannaism is ok when you do it.

Your god, Al Gore, is one of the world's worst examples of abusing resources.

Why is it that when we show you science, you reply with celebrities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 127 of 177 (596163)
12-13-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:36 PM


2. Pollution is far worse in third world countries than it is in the United States.

Environmental Performance Index* 2008

----- ------------------------- --------
1 Switzerland 95.5
2 Norway 93.1
3 Sweden 93.1
4 Finland 91.4
5 Costa Rica 90.5
6 Austria 89.4
7 New Zealand 88.9
8 Latvia 88.8
9 Colombia 88.3
10 France 87.8
11 Iceland 87.6
12 Canada 86.3
13 Germany 86.3
14 United Kingdom 86.3
15 Slovenia 86.3

I went to 15 to include my country

35 Ireland 82.7
36 Uruguay 82.3
37 Georgia 82.2
38 Argentina 81.8
39 United States 81.0

And there you have the us on the 39 th place

47.3
143 Chad 45.9
144 Burkina Faso 44.3
145 Mali 44.3
146 Mauritania 44.2
147 Sierra Leone 40.0
148 Angola 39.5
149 Niger 39.1

And the last few.

If you want to look at co2 polution The US ranks nuber 2 on the whole quantity of co2 released. China is in first place but if you look at the co2 per person the US wins by far 20 tones per person while china has 5 tones per person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7934
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 128 of 177 (596165)
12-13-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by BarackZero
12-11-2010 12:29 AM


Wrong saturation. I meant the saturation of absorption by greenhouse gases. After all of the IR radiation in the region has been absorbed by water, which of course is substantially the same as that of carbon dioxide, there is nothing left to absorb, is there. That "saturation."

Given the fact that satellites are used to map the Earth using IR I think it is obvious that absorption is nowhere near saturation.

1. No, 1.5% weight to weight is not remotely "always near saturation."

Then why does it precipitate out?

2. Your pretense that older molecules are somehow different from newer ones is blatantly anti-scientific.

I never said that they were different. What I said is that the halflife of any molecule of water in the atmosphere is measured in days to weeks. Therefore, water vapor can not drive temperature. The only way to increase the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is to first increase the temperature. Water vapor follows global temperatures.

And you still haven't answered my questions. What happens when you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Do you trap more heat, the same amount of heat, or less heat?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by BarackZero, posted 12-11-2010 12:29 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 129 of 177 (596210)
12-13-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:36 PM


Uh, no.
BarackZero writes:

1. You pretend that creating an immediate and permanent global depression is preferable to what you CLAIM is a later, certain-to-follow global depression.

Ever hear of peak oil, the point at which the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached? By some estimates, we've already passed it; even the most optimistic estimates say that we have at best less than 10 years before production levels start their inevitable decline. All the readily available oil is already gone. You can keep scraping for shale, I suppose, but there's a point at which the costs of extracting and refining what's left are going to exceed any acceptable selling price. Regardless, what part of non-renewable resource do you not understand?

Besides, you have yet to demonstrate how developing alternative energy resources is going to have a negative impact on the world economy. The petroleum industry is going to collapse at some point no matter what. (Non-renewable resource, remember?). Would you rather have alternative energy sources already in place by the time that happens, or should we wait until the price of crude goes up to $300 a barrel and the trucking industry collapses? Guess what happens to the economy when the deliveries stop?

Also, did you ever hear of the concept of phasing in these new energy resources? Is anyone seriously suggesting that we all immediately turn everything off and start farming with digging sticks and heating our homes by burning dung? I think it might just be possible to start small and gradually shift over to other sources of energy as oil use declines. You think?

Also, do you think that the southwest might see some economic benefit by investing in mass solar power production? Plenty of sun down there, but not so many jobs, I hear. Likewise the plains states. Plenty of room for windmills out there in wheat and corn fields, but not so many jobs right now. Would you rather invest in the technology to get those renewable resources on the grid, or invest in ways to squeeze a few more drops of crude out of the rocks?

BarackZero writes:

3. Jimbo Carter, far left-wing lunatic, said we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the 1990s.

What Carter said was that if we didn't start making changes in our energy consumption and use of petroleum products, that we'd become inextricably dependent on foreign oil. He was absolutely correct.

Today a little over half of the oil that the US consumes comes from other countries. And while we might assume (for the time being, anyway) that Mexico and Canada are our friends, are Venezuela and Saudi Arabia such great supporters of the US and its interests? With China growing more and more oil-hungry every day, we need those foreign producers more than they need us.

President Carter was correct, and you are wrong.

BarackZero writes:

That sure does move back that "third world slag heap" you were predicting, doesn't it.

Moreover, there are considerable reserves in Canada stored in oil shales. Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.

Thank you for so artfully missing my point.

Even if you tapped ANWR to its fullest, it would still only be a drop in the bucket compared to the US's current rate of oil consumption. And again, petroleum is ... wait for it ... a non-renewable resource. You can be as clever as you want in squeezing oil out of shale, it's still going to keep costing more and more to do so, and the supply of available petroleum is going to run out sooner or later. Do you want to wait until then before you look for alternative sources?

BarackZero writes:

Please contact your pals at the Club of Rome to learn how and why technology will let us down. Again. Luddites like them and you are not to be believed. They've/you've been so wrong so many times in the past, why should they/you be believed now?

Can you explain how making advances in new technology and creating new, more efficient sources of energy is being a Luddite?

BarackZero writes:

How vulgar and unscholarly of you.

Perhaps, but essentially an accurate description of the world view of the AGW-deniers, forest-burners and strip-miners of the world. Considering the way that you consistently label anyone who cares about the environment as an eco-terrorist, I'd say that you can be counted as one of that crowd.

BarackZero writes:

1. I have never been in any fraternity.

a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] - noun: (from Greek – analogia, "proportion". 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.
2. similarity or comparability.

BarackZero writes:

2. Pollution is far worse in third world countries than it is in the United States.

Pollution is worse in third world countries in proportion to how much they use fossil fuel technology, especially outdated technology. Last time I checked, solar panels and wind-mills were a lot cleaner than coal-burning plants.

BarackZero writes:

3. Your god, Al Gore, is one of the world's worst examples of abusing resources.

What is it with your obsession with Al Gore? Did he turn you down for a date in high school or something?

And really? The former next president of the United States is a worse abuser of resources than, for example, the companies responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, currently vanishing at a rate of 1 1/2 acres a second, mostly to keep McDonalds and KFC stocked with cheap meat? I would wager that a single tour by the Rolling Stones burns a lot more fuel than Mr Gore has in the last ten. Or, maybe a little closer to home, who do you think has been putting in more time in first class these days, Al Gore or Sarah Palin, who put in at least 2300 miles just in the first week after she decided she didn't have time to be governor anymore?

But really, give this whole Al Gore thing a rest. Please.

BarackZero writes:

4. Your fellow environmentalist cohort, Theodore Kaczynski, burned through $50,000,000 of resources while killing and bombing and maiming before he was captured in a rathole shack in the woods. On his table was a dog-eared copy of Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance.

ad ho·mi·nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-] –adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I hardly think that Ted Kaczynski is all that representative of environmentalists as a whole, do you? No wait, you really do, don't you?

Do you also blame J.D. Salinger and/or Jodi Foster for John Hinkley popping Ronald Regan with a .22?

BarackZero writes:

You should be very proud of Ted, as well as the many enviro-wackos who have:

A. Burned Hummers at dealerships ... etc.

Again, the exception, not the rule. You're talking about very rare, random acts. Exactly how many car dealerships got burned down in the last month?

BarackZero writes:

F. Driven their cars into towns solely in order to commit property destruction to further their/your extremist causes

You'd respect these mythical "eco-terrorists" more if they took the bus instead of driving?

BarackZero writes:

My favorite environmentalist wacko comment comes from Cheryl Crow. While attracting hordes of sycophantic lemmings who collectively drove thousands and thousands of miles to her concerts, Cheryl told them the way to protect the environment is to use a single sheet of toilet paper.

joke [johk] - noun
1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act

The point that Crow was making is that lots of small acts can add up. Which is true.

Thanks for playing. We have some nice gifts for you on the way out.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 2828 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 130 of 177 (596246)
12-14-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:36 PM


Technology?
quote:
BarackZero-
That sure does move back that "third world slag heap" you were predicting, doesn't it.
Moreover, there are considerable reserves in Canada stored in oil shales. Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.

Please contact your pals at the Club of Rome to learn how and why technology will let us down. Again. Luddites like them and you are not to be believed. They've/you've been so wrong so many times in the past, why should they/you be believed now?


I find your blind faith in future technology as a way to defeat the laws of physics quite amusing.

Lets get a few things straight: Coal and Oil are NON-RENEWABLE. Meaning when you use them, they're gone.
Still with me? Good.

So, when you use non-renewable resources they're eventually going to run out. If you're almost completely dependent upon said non-renewable resource for almost every aspect of your life and suddenly said resource RUNS OUT, well then you're pretty fucked.

Technology is NOT going to make non-renewable resources renewable. Renewable sources of energy may help with the issue but I personally have serious doubts that they will completely displace fossil fuels. I have some hope in nuclear fusion, but that's just about it.

Look up the "Impossible Hamster" to get a better visualization of the dilemma you're simply ignoring. Technology will not allow for indefinite, exponential human growth. It's a PHYSICAL LAW. Granted, this thread isn't discussing human growth specifically but simply doing nothing regarding our society's interdependence on oil only exacerbates the problem.

Also, about that shale in Canada. The EROI on any type of oil shale is very low. When I say very low, I mean VERY LOW. Anywhere from 1.7:1 - 2.1:1

Oil Shale is, at best, a MARGINAL resource. It is nearly impossible to rely on it: really a resource needs an EROI of 3:1 to be of real practical use. Corn-based Ethanol has an EROI of about 1:1 and is thus completely worthless. Oil in America when first discovered had an EROI of about 100:1 for some perspective.
So yes, they may be a lot more oil out there but most of it is NOT WORTH EXTRACTING. In accordance with the "Best First" principle our best, most profitable oil reserves have been or will be depleted. Whats left when all is said and done is, indeed, a lot of unused oil worldwide, but would incur a loss to extract.

Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by frako, posted 12-14-2010 6:17 AM Tupinambis has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 131 of 177 (596271)
12-14-2010 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Tupinambis
12-14-2010 12:24 AM


Re: Technology?
Um what is EROI?

Other then that i get it, an example would be slovenias oil we used to extract it and there is still lots left tough for some reason nobody wants to do it anymore because there is no profit in it or was no profit do to the increase in oil prices maybe someone will start again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Tupinambis, posted 12-14-2010 12:24 AM Tupinambis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Tupinambis, posted 12-14-2010 10:40 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 2828 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 132 of 177 (596316)
12-14-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by frako
12-14-2010 6:17 AM


Re: Technology?
quote:
frako-
Um what is EROI?

Other then that i get it, an example would be slovenias oil we used to extract it and there is still lots left tough for some reason nobody wants to do it anymore because there is no profit in it or was no profit do to the increase in oil prices maybe someone will start again.


EROI is an acronym for "Energy Return on Investment". Some people prefer EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Investment) but its pretty much the same thing. It's how much energy you get out of an energy source versus how much energy you needed to put into it in order to extract that much. EROI of 3:1 means you get 3 barrels of oil out of a well for every 1 barrel expended to extract, process, and transport it (the sum of all the energy used in order to get it to your gas station, power plant, etc). The units aren't always barrels of oil but it works as an example.

Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by frako, posted 12-14-2010 6:17 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1464 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 133 of 177 (597561)
12-22-2010 12:48 PM


So, if you believe in jesus you have to want to destroy the planet.


Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 3:14 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 12-22-2010 4:05 PM Taz has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 134 of 177 (597584)
12-22-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Taz
12-22-2010 12:48 PM


So, if you believe in jesus you have to want to destroy the planet.

Yea these bible stumping fanatics believe that the world is in gods hands and nothing we do will change the planet to something he does not want.

I surly do hope this video is a fake tough i do not doubt that there are fanatics like that all around the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Taz, posted 12-22-2010 12:48 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by misha, posted 12-23-2010 1:17 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 135 of 177 (597590)
12-22-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Taz
12-22-2010 12:48 PM


Evangelical earth killers playing defense
Several years ago I started a thread asking why evangelicals were lacking among those concerned about the environment. I think Jazzns started another in my absence.

Some weeks (or months, who knows?) later, I had to note the growing interest in environmentalism among young evangelicals, as well as some splintering on the issue at the leadership level.

The good news in the video is that it was produced in response to this ongoing turnaround. You will note, near the end, where she expresses dismay that even some of the faithful have been seduced into caring about the environment.

I know this video effort, and all the other efforts of her ilk, are dismaying. Nonetheless, I have seen a generational shift among evangelicals, evidenced in my own Bible Belt family in the Midwest.

Hope.


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Taz, posted 12-22-2010 12:48 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taz, posted 12-23-2010 1:14 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019