A Closer Look At The Global Warming Deniers

[LTS TRN 2]

The Bush administration is waging a virtual war on the environment enabling industries to decimate forests, divert water, pollute national parks, and release CO2 and toxins into the atmosphere.
This disregard for the environment reflects core values of the theocratic right, a movement strongly allied with big corporations. The theocratic right should not be confused with Evangelicals, a group that covers the entire political spectrum.

The Texas Republican Party Platform, a document that reflects the goals of the theocratic right, opposes efforts to regulate industry by affirming a belief in "a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation." It calls for abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and reaffirms "the belief in the fundamental right of an individual to use property without governmental interference." It also opposes conservation easements administered by nonprofits.

On April 17, 2005, the New York Times published an article about the Constitution in Exile movement. Their judicial philosophy extols the absolute rights of property owners which is also reflected in the Texas GOP Platform.

America's Providential History, a best-selling textbook that is popular in Christian schools and the Christian homeschool movment teaches history from a "Biblical worldview." It explains that property rights are God-given:

Scripture defines God as the source of private property...Ecclesiastes 5:19 states, 'For every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them'...Also in I Chronicles 29:12, 'Both riches and honor come from Thee'. (pps 187-188)

From God Hates Environmentalists, Bill Berkowitz, June, 2001:

For years, Religious Right groups have anchored their views on environmental issues in Genesis 1:28. "Because nature is wild," explains Nina George Hacker in Concerned Women for America's Family Voice, "we [humans] were given the authority to 'subdue' it for life's necessities."

This editorial from the New York Times -- Destroying the National Parks, (August 29, 2005) illustrates the impact of the theocratic right on our national parks.

Mr. Hoffman's rewrite would open up nearly every park in the nation to off-road vehicles, snowmobiles and Jet Skis...

Mr. Hoffman would explicitly allow the sale of religious merchandise, and he removes from the policy document any reference to evolution or evolutionary processes. He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management...

...In short, this is not a policy for protecting the parks. It is a policy for destroying them.

To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004.)

James Dobson of Focus on the Family represents the ideals of the theocratic right:

A few days after Justice Sunday II antigay crusader James Dobson and Focus on the Family launched an attack on Christianity Today magazine. The reason was Andy Crouch's article, "Environmental Wager," that urged Christians to become concerned about and active in fighting global warming. Dobson and FOF believe global warming is "junk science," despite the fact that virtually every reputable scientist in the world supports the idea. It's hard not to, given the overwhelming evidence. But Dobson's bible-based environmental science is not new.

On October 8, 2004 Dobson and FOF issued their "Must Read Election Message":

Three Focus on the Family executives - including founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson - have signed on to an open letter to the American people stressing the importance of relying on biblical values in selecting candidates on Election Day.

The sixth item on their list read, in part:

Natural resources: God put human beings on the earth to "subdue it" and to "have dominion" over the animals (Gen. 1:28)... . The Bible does not view "untouched nature" as the ideal state of the earth, but expects human beings to develop and use the earth's resources wisely for mankind's needs (Gen. 1:28; 2:15; 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4)... . We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who will allow resources to be developed ... more

Deregulation of industry lies at the heart of the Religious Right agenda. The Washington Post has published a three-part series detailing how the Bush administration is systematically dismantling the regulatory functions of government in ways that are not obvious and receive little public debate. The lifting of regulations by the Bush administration is devasting to the environment and public health.

The first article from the Post is called Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory Thrust, OSHA Made More Business-Friendly, August 15, 2004.

The second article, August 16, 'Data Quality' Law Is Nemesis Of Regulation talks about the health threat of a law to deregulate chemicals.

The third article, August 17, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change explains how Bush administration rule changes are devastating the environment.

A study reported on CNN News, The Unborn babies carry pollutants, provides striking example of why regulations are important. Click here.

Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot to Head "Super-Powerful" Public Safety Office ThinkProgress.org, July 6, 2006

The American Legislative Exchange Council represents a marriage of the Religious Right and big corporations. Founded in 1973 by conservative activist Paul Weyrich and a handful of state legislators, ALEC initially positioned itself as a counterweight to liberal foundations and think tanks, focusing on social issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment.

ALEC gives business a direct hand in writing bills that are considered in state assemblies nationwide. Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations -- including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute -- the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy, supplying precooked McBills to state lawmakers. Since most legislators are in session only part of the year and often have no staff to do independent research, they're quick to swallow what ALEC serves up. In 2000, according to the council, members introduced more than 3,100 bills based on its models, passing 450 into law.( Ghostwriting the Law, Mother Jones, Sept.Oct. 2002)

On March 1, the Public Trust, a coalition of public interest organizations reported that the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" is among the bills promoted by ALEC,

In a move worthy of Orwell's Big Brother, the Washington state legislature is being asked to fund a law enforcement database of "eco-terrorists" that would in fact track citizens engaged in lawful environmental advocacy - including signing a petition to save old-growth forests, attending a rally for clean air, or simply joining a group like the Sierra Club or Defenders of Wildlife.

An impending sense of "end times" is good news for that portion of the Religious Right that sees destruction of the earth as fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy. Those who don't seek "end times," blame resource depletion on environmentalists who view natural resources as limited. Secular society "lack(s) faith in God's providence and consequently, men will find fewer resources... The Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth." (America's Providential History.)

The Earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof - Psalm 24:1

The term "Religious Right" is not synomous with "Evangelical." In contrast to the Religious Right, the Evangelical Environmental Network assumes responsiblity for protecting and restoring the environment stating: "Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation."

And the Religious Right is not a monolithic bloc. While legislators pushing the religious right agenda receive remarkably low scorecards from the League of Conservation Voters, James Dobson of Focus on the Family who is one of the most powerful figures of the Religious Right, actually signed an "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in safeguarding a sustainable environment.

Froim The Greening of Evangelicals, Washington Post, February 6, 2005:

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Another article from the Washington Post on the same day discusses a letter from people of faith to the Bush administration: 'God's Mandate': Putting The White House on Notice, Washington Post, February 6, 2005
The Religious Right's War On Nature
From Robert Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stones magazine, (12/3/03):

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.

Air, Water, Land, Energy and the Global Climate: Bush's Stamp

"For two years, it has come in bursts, on issues from arsenic to wetlands: the unfolding of what President Bush, as a candidate, promised would be a new era of environmental protection. Whether rejecting a treaty on global warming, questioning Clinton-era rules on forest protection or pressing for changes in landmark environmental laws, Mr. Bush has imposed a distinctive stamp on a vast landscape of issues affecting air, water, land, energy and the global climate. (The New York Times, February 23, 2003.)

It's no secret that the Bush White House and Republican National Committee serve the interests of polluting industries in exchange for big campaign contributions. But there's more to the story.

As is well known, Bush and the Republicans have been generously funded by business foes of regulation. According to a Public Campaign and Earthjustice report, mining, timber, oil and chemical industries have contributed more than $44 million to Bush and the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the last three years. Less well-known is that Bush's opposition to regulation is part of an electoral strategy designed to win the votes of coal, timber and oil-producing states. These include the eastern swing states of West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, as well as traditionally Republican states in the West and Southwest.

House Panel Receives Detailed Spending Plan for '06, Washington Post, May 6, 2005:

Federal land conservation and environmental programs would bear the brunt of budget cuts next year under budget limits sent to the House Appropriations Committee's spending panels yesterday.

The Bush administration announced on December 23, 2003, that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest in the country, would be exempted from a Clinton-era rule, potentially opening up more than half of the 17 million-acre forest for more development and as many as 50 logging projects.

On January 24, 2004, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton cleared a plan to open 8.8 million acres of Alaska's North Slope to oil and gas development. The plan will be used to manage a northwest part of the government's 23.5 million-acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which geologists believe may contain 6 billion to 13 billion barrels of oil. The plan threatens the health of Arctic tundra, ponds and lakes that are home to wildlife and migratory birds, and will probably produce enough oil for six months only.

Two riders attached to the Senate Omnibus bill, December, 2003, would weaken air pollution rules and weaken protections for dwindling fish species.



This is the battle. Sane people versus the lunatic Christer/Corporate planet haters.

Whose side are YOU on?

[Wolfman]

sure

[Sirfindafold]

I'm gonna spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green.

[The Seer]

I'm gonna spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green.

Lawn abuse

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm gonna spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green.

You know, I have to give credit to this poster. Or troll...or whatever the hell he is.

Dude has been posting the same four lines for the past seven years. Talk about fucking staying in character.

Dedication.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Dude has been posting the same four lines for the past seven years. Talk about fucking staying in character.

Back in SC3, I got him to flame with me for all of about 5 posts. Never figured out who the owner was, but I remember he was funny... even "out of character."

[Dasher]

You know, I was scrolling through all of the forums at this joint seeing if anything new had been added, and what do you know? I spotted a Political Forum.

Should we ask Santa to bring you a bigger frontal lobe for the holidays? Or maybe some fucking eye glasses?

[Justa Heel]

Rack LTS for making the dittoheads melt, as usual.

[Plato]

Dash,
He's on the special list if ya know what I'm sayin.


<slips on his new kevlar vest and antler covers.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Rack LTS for making the dittoheads melt, as usual.

I know!!! This thread turned into a SFAF/Reindeer discussion... exactly as he planned it.


RACK him.

[Justa Heel]

Rack LTS for making the dittoheads melt, as usual.

I know!!! This thread turned into a SFAF/Reindeer discussion... exactly as he planned it.


RACK him.

Yup dittotards' pathetic (and faggy) diversion from their inability to handle the facts.

So I'd say, yep, exactly as he would have predicted.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

I can't imagine a bigger loser than a troll who sucks LTStards dick. Congrats on hitting a new low.

[Justa Heel]

I can't imagine a bigger loser than a troll who sucks LTStards dick. Congrats on hitting a new low.

I can -- someone who wants to be accepted so badly he joins a mindless circle-jerk pileon ON THE INTERNET. BWAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

I can't imagine a bigger loser than a troll who sucks LTStards dick. Congrats on hitting a new low.

I can -- someone who wants to be accepted so badly he joins a mindless circle-jerk pileon ON THE INTERNET. BWAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Wow, you're really bad at this. We've got gay & dumb so far, what's next?

[Justa Heel]

I can't imagine a bigger loser than a troll who sucks LTStards dick. Congrats on hitting a new low.

I can -- someone who wants to be accepted so badly he joins a mindless circle-jerk pileon ON THE INTERNET. BWAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Wow, you're really bad at this. We've got gay & dumb so far, what's next?

It's impossible to be bad at doing nothing -- flail away and I can just keep laughing.

You've always been a weak pussy, don't bother trying to save face now.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Yup dittotards' pathetic (and faggy) diversion from their inability to handle the facts.

So I'd say, yep, exactly as he would have predicted.

Whenever I troll, I always grade myself on how many I replies I get vs how many replies I make. Whenever a topic of mine derails into me being virtually ignored, I'd say that is a bad thing.

BODE him because he's eating his own shit in the corner (by himself) and no one is even looking at him eating his own shit (by himself)... and he predicted it? Wow. That's a new one.

You are trolling better than he is right about now (you got a couple replies at least)... but still, it's not really saying much. You both played the lowest common denominator card. It's not that tough to club a baby seal... if he puts the weapon in your hand and begs for it. You follow?

[Donder]

You've always been a weak pussy.

Stick an octopus up there; beak side out.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

It's impossible to be bad at doing nothing

You've proven the impossible.

-- flail away and I can just keep laughing.

Tards like you always laugh when they've been made fun of, it's all you can do.

You've always been a weak pussy, don't bother trying to save face now.

Epic smack tard, thats was really some outstanding stuff. Don't forget to claim 'bode in your next post.

[Blitzen]

I'm gonna spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green.

That post is so full of shit you'd better be careful or you'll burn your herbs.
Fertilize in moderation.

- Blitzen
North Pole Depot
Garden Dept.

[Rich Fader]

LT2, we've had overnight lows in the forties here in Rivertucky the last few weeks, and we had a couple of nights in the mid-thirties. You were saying?

[Jesus H. Christ]

You know, I was scrolling through all of the forums at this joint seeing if anything new had been added, and what do you know? I spotted a Political Forum.

Should we ask Santa to bring you a bigger frontal lobe for the holidays? Or maybe some fucking eye glasses?

yes

and sometimes when there's a million lines of c/p text it's better to just post a link.
















------------------------------
Oh Mary ! Time for my foot rub

[LTS TRN 2]

look, guys, the article talks about the REAL motivation behind the denials. I have nothing to do with it--except to try and wake you up.

Did you really know, that is, about the corporate Christers who regard the earth as a layover at best on the way to Jesus land? Good folks in high places like James Watt and James Inhofe? And if you don't think that religious fanatics at the helm of environmental regulating efforts is a serious matter, than perhaps you should be sneaking yet another peek at Britney's gash. Just look at it and forget the world, as it were--because that's your speed.

[ChargerMike]

...and to the tree hugging, Algore humping, the sky is falling, green peace contributing environmentalist whacko's...

..did I bother to read it? Helllll no! I cut and pasted the sucker just like Larry the shrubber in trn2 did...



Debunking Modern Climate Myths
Volume 5, Number 52: 25 December 2002
14 Fallacies
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. Its focus is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content and what the consequences of that phenomenon might be for earth's climate and biosphere.

In broaching this subject, de Freitas focuses on certain key questions: Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? Finding answers to these questions, he says, "is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science," and it is these several fallacies or misconceptions that he addresses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Fallacy 4: Global temperature has increased over the past two decades. Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies cited by de Freitas, has increased so dramatically that much - if not all - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the urban heat island phenomenon.

Fallacy 5: Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming. No way, says de Freitas; climate models predict significant warming of the lower atmosphere, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record. Hence, the only data set that provides a truly global perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides "direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis."

Fallacy 6: Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past. This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by de Freitas, who cites the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.

Fallacy 7: There are reliable forecasts of future climate. No credence can be given to this claim, says de Freitas, until the models making the forecasts have been verified, which likely will not happen anytime soon. In fact, he notes that "earth's atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years." The reason? "Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters."

Fallacy 8: Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway. First of all, as de Freitas has noted, there may not be any warming currently occurring. Second, as he has demonstrated, much of what may be occurring may be natural. Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.

Fallacy 9: Global warming will produce a rise in sea level. Again, not so, according to de Freitas. For one thing, he notes there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century. Plus, he cites the work of many scientists who suggest that warming could result in greater snowfall over the polar ice caps, transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets and possibly halting sea level rise.

Fallacy 10: Global warming will result in more extreme weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth, as de Freitas demonstrates. Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.

Fallacy 11: IPCC's predictions are reasonable. In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently unreasonable. Over half of their predictions, according to de Freitas, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing twice as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.

Fallacy 12: Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models. It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, as noted by de Freitas, (1) "observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models," (2) so fantastically less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.

Fallacy 13: There is a consensus that greenhouse induced climate change is a major threat. Quoting de Freitas, "scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers." To believe such a group would reach a consensus on so complex an issue is ludicrous in the extreme. Indeed, de Freitas' own paper, with its many references, is ample proof that true science is alive and well ... and dissenting.

Fallacy Fourteen: The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto's effect on temperature "would be imperceptible," writes de Freitas. "So," he continues, "in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary." To which we say ... Amen!

[Bizzarofelice]

...and to the oil company hugging, Limbaugh humping, the smog is diminishing, GOP contributing fundamentalist whacko's...

you're all tools for continuing to suck every drop they have to squeeze into your oh-so-eager mouths.

[bbqjones]

if i were humping rush limbaugh, which im not (at the moment), what would hugging big oil and smooching with no smog and fingerbanging twenty five dollar checks to the GOP have to do with WATCHING PORN ALL NIGHT LONG WHILST YOUR WIFE IS AWAY????

makes no sense at all.

[LTS TRN 2]

[quote="ChargerMike
Debunking Modern Climate Myths
Volume 5, Number 52: 25 December 2002
14 Fallacies
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. quote]

Uh, Charger, this is EXACTLY the kind of industry-sponsored blow-job "research" stats and studies that are the basis of the FAKE DEBATE. Gee, EVERYTHING this guy has determined directly favors the oil industry's aims. Seriously, did you just fall off a potato truck?

And, babs, as usual you say something's bullshit, but can't back it up at all. You've really hit bottom.

WW