Yep...i was starting to get "blue brains".
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter John R
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
STOP!!
We need to stop hijacking this thread. But I guess the bright side of a thread hijack is the bump back to the limelight...
Don't be fooled by the big oil global warming denial propaganda machine.
The Bush administration has also altered scientific testimony to contribute to this misinformation tactic.
Please see article below.
http://environment.newscientist.com/
Insight: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
19Jan07
REMEMBER the days when tobacco companies denied there was a link between smoking and cancer? Litigation put an end to that, but the tactics live on elsewhere. The US Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that misinformation and denial continue when it comes to global warming. This time it's the world's biggest company, ExxonMobil, that has been fingered as the bad guy.
UCS, a non-profit organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has published a 68-page report accusing ExxonMobil of exaggerating uncertainties over the causes of global warming. UCS says ExxonMobil has done this by funding 43 bodies critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom based in Washington DC, in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicizing has been shown to be wrong. "They gave life to views discredited by the scientific community," says the report's main ..
The Bush administration has also altered scientific testimony to contribute to this misinformation tactic.
Please see article below.
http://environment.newscientist.com/
Insight: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
19Jan07
REMEMBER the days when tobacco companies denied there was a link between smoking and cancer? Litigation put an end to that, but the tactics live on elsewhere. The US Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that misinformation and denial continue when it comes to global warming. This time it's the world's biggest company, ExxonMobil, that has been fingered as the bad guy.
UCS, a non-profit organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has published a 68-page report accusing ExxonMobil of exaggerating uncertainties over the causes of global warming. UCS says ExxonMobil has done this by funding 43 bodies critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom based in Washington DC, in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicizing has been shown to be wrong. "They gave life to views discredited by the scientific community," says the report's main ..
I think the point is not to be fooled by any propaganda machine, regardless of who is greasing the wheels. Silencing voices on either side of the debate is wholly contrary to the scientific method.
"One who hugs trees too long...may get splinters."--Chinese proverb
I'm impressed! Someone actually speaking contrary to environmental propaganda! :clap_1:
Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.
We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.
We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.
For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.
IMHO we had all better start working together on this before it is too late.
Please see article below.
CLIMATE CHANGE UNITES SCIENCE AND RELIGION
17 January 2007, NewScientist.com news service, Phil Mckenna
excerpts:
"Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have....
"The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors."......
"Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem."........
the complete article is below http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10975-climate-change-unites-science-and-religion.html
Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have.
Speaking at a press conference in Washington DC, members of the newly formed group expressed concerns about planetary threats caused by humans including climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinction.
The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors.
The statement, sent to President George W Bush and Congressional leaders urges fundamental change in public policies and states that ?business as usual cannot continue yet one more day?.
Deep reverence
The group was spearheaded by leaders of Harvard University?s Center for Health and the Global Environment in Boston, Massachusetts, and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an umbrella group that encompasses 45,000 churches, and represents 40% of the Republican Party?s supporters. The NEA announced their green intentions in early 2006, but now members from both organisations are calling for a united front on environmental issues.
?We share a very deep reverence for life on earth, whether that life was created by God or evolved over billions of years, it exists, is sacred to all of us, and is being endangered by human activity,? said Eric Chivian, Director of Harvard?s Center for Health and the Global Environment.
?It doesn?t matter if we are liberals or conservatives, Darwinists or Creationists, we are all under the same atmosphere and drink the same water and will do everything we can to work together to solve these problems.?
"Creation care agenda"
Reverend Richard Cizik, NAE's vice president for government affairs, says that by working together the two groups can have a larger impact.
?We have formed a partnership which we think has the power to reach far and wide and be very persuasive in promoting a creation care agenda,? Cizik says. ?We are driven by an overriding sense that we cannot fail, we must not fail, there is too much at stake.?
Having met for the first time at a retreat in late-November 2006 in Thomasville, Georgia, the group now plans to meet with Congressional leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties on Thursday to encourage action on environmental issues.
Inconvenient truth
Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem.
Today?s announcement follows the showing of An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore?s documentary on global warming, in thousands of churches across the US in recent months.
Scientists signing the letter included Harvard biologist and author of The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, Edward O. Wilson. It was also signed by leading climate scientist James Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming in December 2005.
Related Articles
* Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125711.300
* 30 September 2006
* Review: An Inconvenient Truth
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125592.100
* 08 July 2006
* Evangelicals and environmentalists united
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19025454.700
* 01 April 2006
Weblinks
* Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard
* http://chge.med.harvard.edu/
* National Association of Evangelicals
* http://www.nae.net/
* An Inconvenient Truth
* http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk
Please see article below.
CLIMATE CHANGE UNITES SCIENCE AND RELIGION
17 January 2007, NewScientist.com news service, Phil Mckenna
excerpts:
"Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have....
"The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors."......
"Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem."........
the complete article is below http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10975-climate-change-unites-science-and-religion.html
Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have.
Speaking at a press conference in Washington DC, members of the newly formed group expressed concerns about planetary threats caused by humans including climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinction.
The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors.
The statement, sent to President George W Bush and Congressional leaders urges fundamental change in public policies and states that ?business as usual cannot continue yet one more day?.
Deep reverence
The group was spearheaded by leaders of Harvard University?s Center for Health and the Global Environment in Boston, Massachusetts, and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an umbrella group that encompasses 45,000 churches, and represents 40% of the Republican Party?s supporters. The NEA announced their green intentions in early 2006, but now members from both organisations are calling for a united front on environmental issues.
?We share a very deep reverence for life on earth, whether that life was created by God or evolved over billions of years, it exists, is sacred to all of us, and is being endangered by human activity,? said Eric Chivian, Director of Harvard?s Center for Health and the Global Environment.
?It doesn?t matter if we are liberals or conservatives, Darwinists or Creationists, we are all under the same atmosphere and drink the same water and will do everything we can to work together to solve these problems.?
"Creation care agenda"
Reverend Richard Cizik, NAE's vice president for government affairs, says that by working together the two groups can have a larger impact.
?We have formed a partnership which we think has the power to reach far and wide and be very persuasive in promoting a creation care agenda,? Cizik says. ?We are driven by an overriding sense that we cannot fail, we must not fail, there is too much at stake.?
Having met for the first time at a retreat in late-November 2006 in Thomasville, Georgia, the group now plans to meet with Congressional leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties on Thursday to encourage action on environmental issues.
Inconvenient truth
Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem.
Today?s announcement follows the showing of An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore?s documentary on global warming, in thousands of churches across the US in recent months.
Scientists signing the letter included Harvard biologist and author of The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, Edward O. Wilson. It was also signed by leading climate scientist James Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming in December 2005.
Related Articles
* Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125711.300
* 30 September 2006
* Review: An Inconvenient Truth
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125592.100
* 08 July 2006
* Evangelicals and environmentalists united
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19025454.700
* 01 April 2006
Weblinks
* Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard
* http://chge.med.harvard.edu/
* National Association of Evangelicals
* http://www.nae.net/
* An Inconvenient Truth
* http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk
Last edited:
Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.
We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.
We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.
For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.
Dan, I agree that labeling people as tree huggers and hippies is counterproductive. All I was trying to point out was the rather chilling fact that there is an attempt to silence dissenters who feel they have credible data that counters the popularly accepted theory of global warming. When mass hysteria replaces rational thought process, you end up with situations like this:
Lighten up! Geez. Let me state that I too think the Earth may be going through a warming cycle (cycles that have occured for thousands of years). Its the "politics" and the arrogance that "man" is the major factor in affecting these cycles that's hard to swallow. I'm all for conservation and helping to make our air and water clean but for every "study" you show me that man is responsible for "global warming", I can show you the contrary. The fact that many call a rebuttal (on either side) propaganda does not make it so.Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.
We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.
We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.
For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.
Besides, I procrastinate. I'm just now getting prepared for the coming "Ice Age" the "experts" were touting in the 70's.