Today's member of the "Inhofe 400" truly epitomizes the expertise and credibility of the group of experts that the good senator has assembled to demonstrate the obvious flaws in the theory of human-induced global warming.
He is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Chris says this about global warming:
My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.
Wow! (And note to Chris: ever heard of a paragraph break? Look it up)
Ordinarily, I would also provide an analysis of publications in the peer-reviewed literature and other credentials relevant to climate change. In this case, I don't think that's necessary.
I have this image of Inhofe sitting in a smoke-filled office, chomping on a stogie, sleeves rolled up, as he scans the Internet to collect his 400 experts. Sweat pours across his brow as he assembles the "dream team" of men and women who will destroy global warming. Then he runs across Chris Allen and it's love at first sight. He says to his staffer Marc, "I like the cut of this guy's jib. I think he has what it takes to be one of my 400." Inhofe leans back in his chair with satisfaction. "Put him on the list," he screams. And the rest is EPW history.
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 4:01 am
30 Dec 2007
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at cohiba.eagle.ca.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message ...
38.101.200.49 does not like recipient.
This is what I tried to send:
Dear Mr. Allen,
I see you saying,
My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture...
It does not.
... It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on...
Obviously one way He can control what's going on is through what we do.
His servants include people who, through fossil fuel taxation, live partly off petroleum and natural gas revenues, and in some states coal revenues, yet still warn us that the CO2 from these is already altering the climate and will do so much more severely if their rate of use greatly increases, or if it continues at the present rate for many more decades.
I share your concern that some of these people advocate increased taxes on fossil fuels.
That's exactly the wrong thing to do. Those who make the laws must profit LESS from fossil fuel burning. That is to say, fossil fuel taxes must come down, to as low as taxes on other basic commodities such as salt or gypsum.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 4:14 am
30 Dec 2007
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
trock Posted 4:35 am
30 Dec 2007
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 5:02 am
30 Dec 2007
My suspicion is that those counter-arguments will not be found in theology, because religious arguments can't be disproven. Instead, I think we would be better off trying to bring Chris Allen types down to earth.
For example, perhaps we could ask: Mr. Allen, if God wanted to do something about global warming, might He cool the planet with an enormous volcanic eruption? (Which is one known method: cf. Mt. Pinotubo). And if Allen says yes, the next obvious question would be: how soon do you think He will act to set off such an eruption?
And Allen types answer that he couldn't possibly know, then the logical response would be -- why do you then assume that temperatures will not rise to dangerous levels, as scientists around the world project it will?
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:25 am
30 Dec 2007
Otherwise why would He have given us the Bush administration?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:36 am
30 Dec 2007
So gents, strap on an eye patch and a cutlass and practice your mumblety-peg. Ladies, back into tube tops in innapropriate weather and sundresses the thickness of light gauze. Otherwise it's hurricanes and tornadoes for all of us. Mix up some grog and man the yardarms. Everybody mix freely and get real friendly.
As long as we'er making stuff up we might as well make FUN stuff up. Well, fun for me anyway.
Argh matey.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 8:02 am
30 Dec 2007
Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! In mine ears said the LORD of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant. Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah.
Okay, I'll admit that it doesn't directly mention global warming. However, land use is important and is one of the ways that humans are destroying God's earth. Don't believe it? Try Revelation.
excerpt from Revelation 11:18
(God will) destroy those who destroy the earth.
That someone who was destroying the earth (particularly the nations of the world as previously elucidated) means that it can be destroyed and by humans.
So, in other words don't trust someone (Chris Allen) who claims that God is the ultimate authority but obviously is unwilling to put the time into understanding scripture.
As for the concept of prayer on Grist, I wouldn't mind a prayer of the week, but to be perfectly honest a blog is a lousy place to discuss religion. Inevitably people get angry and instead of giving the other side the benefit of the doubt each side will attack whatever they feel to be unjust to their opinion/worldview.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 10:51 am
30 Dec 2007
-John Mashey
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 12:27 pm
30 Dec 2007
Our treatment of the planet and all its inhabitants seems like a pretty good litmus test for who gets into heaven. Forgive me if I get it wrong but didn't Christ say that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to achieve the kingdom of heaven?
Permalink
bigcitylib Posted 8:47 pm
30 Dec 2007
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 11:31 pm
30 Dec 2007
""Every faith tradition has teachings that are directly on point [to climate change]," Gore told the packed audience, which included former first daughter Chelsea Clinton.
"The Book of Revelation [says] God will destroy those who destroy his creation," Gore said, noting that some evangelical Christian leaders have expressed concern about climate change. "Whatever works," Gore added, prompting applause and laughter. "
Permalink
trock Posted 3:00 am
31 Dec 2007
Even a global warming denier can track the pattern in a drop of 98 percent in 6 years as significant. What's going to happen in 6 more years, down to 12?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:34 am
31 Dec 2007
Medical doctors/interns/nurses
Not really qualified in medical science
Business
Ficticious
Fraudulently signed by movie stars ;D
Pretty much that was merely 19,000 people.
Not climate experts, not even PhD's outside of climate science. Just people.
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 8:34 am
31 Dec 2007
http://www.creationcare.org/
http://www.theregenerationproject.org/
http://www.quakerearthcare.org/InterestGroups/OtherAreasB ...
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/22800
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 2:21 am
01 Jan 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:32 pm
01 Jan 2008
The Global Warming "treefort" is starting to collapse and so I can see why you guys would be whining about it.
My Log
Permalink
zack1 Posted 3:32 pm
03 Jan 2008
I will assume that you will take Sir John Houghton (of IPCC fame) to the cleaners next, yes?
Said Sir John:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/april/16.77.html ...
"But we should also be concerned about the rest of creation. We were put in the Garden in Genesis 2 to care for creation and to look after it. That was the mandate God gave to the first humans. We need to look at the integrity, the stability, and the continuation of the rest of creation very seriously."
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/houghton/lecture4.htm ...
"Christians and other religious people believe that we've been put on the earth to look after it. Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own: for these reasons we should be good gardeners. But in many ways we are not being good gardeners."
------------------------------------------------
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/houghton.htm
"There is a Christian imperative for this: to care for the earth (meaning to serve, and not to lord it over the earth) is spelled out in Genesis. Jesus' view is that we should be servants both to the earth and to our fellow humans. But we have not been looking after the earth. This lack of will is a spiritual problem as described by St Paul ('I know what I want to do but I don't do it...). Even a recent meeting of (not all Christian) people about climate change on the island of Patmos declared that not to care for the earth is a SIN."
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:18 pm
03 Jan 2008
I don't think Houghton is in for any criticism. There is a big difference between looking to religion for guidance about how to act vs. saying, "I don't have to worry about this because God will take care of it."
Houghton is simply expressing his preferences for action, which are informed by religion. Nothing wrong with that.
Chris Allen, on the other hand, is saying that the science must be wrong because God wouldn't let it be right. That's quite different. If you went to a doctor and he told, "You have terminal cancer, but don't worry, God won't let you die because he created you," you'd think he was a nutbag. And you'd be right.
Permalink
zack1 Posted 4:55 pm
03 Jan 2008
Both are using their religious beliefs to justify action (or inaction) in regards to our effects on climate.
Permalink