Reply With Quote
Might just be my neck of the woods. Those East Texas folks are kinda loopy.
I grew up in a rural town. They never were, and still aren't bat crazy for Robertson.
Might just be my neck of the woods. Those East Texas folks are kinda loopy.
I have a feeling NW Texas is probably no more crazy (in fact even less crazy) than rural Churches in the deep South.
Here are more stats:
36% of America thinks global climate change is a hoax
25% of America thinks jeebus will come down for the rapture sometime during their lifetime
25% seems a bit low, tbh. Doesn't mean they he to Robertson et al.
And considering that Christians make up about 78% of the population, those figures seem small in context.
It means they're as bat as Robertson, as a matter of fact they're more bat cause they actually believe the he says whereas he just says it so he can make it rain with det hing money.
And I'm sorry but believing the story of Noah's Ark actually happened is just as stupid and crazy as anything Robertson has said, but for whatever reason everyone has just accepted it as a normal belief, kinda like the way people accept the fact little kids believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
I have never given a penny to Pat Robertson and I classify myself as an agnostic Christian. Why is climate change an all or nothing argument? You either have to believe that evil man caused climate change or you don't believe in science. What kind of thinking is that? What if you think that climate change is a natural process/occurrence and man's involvement is minimal? I personally go with the natural process at ude toward it. With that being said, I do believe that using cars and other fossil fuels probably do hurt the environment but not to the extent that Al Gore and The Day After Tomorrow say they do.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/ho...n-origins.aspx
10Ms of "Christians", esp ignorant, uneducated Repug "Christians", aka "the base", are new earth anti-evolution creationists.
So what should be done to people that are uneducated, Christian Republicans? Should they be executed? Anyone that disagrees with you should die right?
^ That's exactly what a chauvinist believes in imho.
Oh look, a Christian who denies man-made climate change. What a shocker.
Eh - not all rural towns are the same obviously, but i've driven through a lot of the "heartland" and some towns are ing crazy when it comes to religion and politics. I believe rural america thinks we 1) abort babies at will, 2) don't support Israel at all, 3) want to take away everyone's guns. Maybe those towns just have people who think that and are vocal, though. But billboards abound on those subjects in so many small towns. Definitely a much higher concentration of people like that in rural america.
Don't agree with this at all.
FWIW I think that political leaning has more to say about opinion on climate change than religion. I bet you liberal Christians believe in climate change at a rate similar to that of other liberals.
That wasn't the conversation DOK and I were having. It was more along the lines of televangelists and country club churches.
I would agree.
Liberal Christians are cafeteria Christians. Hating gay people and hating science are quintessential Christian ideals.
The only true Christians in America are the Westboro Baptists tbh, they're the only group that doesn't cherry pick the parts of the bible they like/don't like. They interpret the entire bible verbatim and accept that they aren't very popular because of it.
I disagree with their beliefs, but I respect their intellectual consistency when it comes to the bible.
Anyone see this?
link: Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
A few quotes:
Abstract
This paper examines the framings and iden y work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of
climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their at udes towards
regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we
reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational
and their professional ins utions. In understanding the struggle over what cons utes and legitimizes
expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality
and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment
of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to
the understanding of ‘defensive ins utional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related
industries, government regulators, and their professional association.The proportion of papers found in the ISI
Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from
75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright
disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008).The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with
Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening,
that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic
framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate
change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’
cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally
caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on
their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modelingThe last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest
number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply
with Kyoto’.This research is funded by the Canadian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Science and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Fellowship, Killam Foundation Fellowship, Alberta
Innovates – Alberta Water Research Ins ute, and Engineers Canada. Earlier versions of this paper were
improved through presentations at EGOS Colloquia in 2009 and 2010 and ETH Academy on Sustainability
and Technology in 2011. All remaining mistakes and oddities are the authors’ responsibility.
It's not about believing in AGW so much as it is believing in catostrophic AGW.
And we aren't even keeping up with the mildest model predictions.
Yep, I saw that too.
That is one large turnout!
Agreed.
I'd say at least 95% of us who argue against the alarmist viewpoit is because we believe they overplay the anthropogenic effect. I have never met anyone who is an actual denier.
So Manny...
What do you think of the two papers I linked in post #45?
Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIIIWhen a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.
Mas. Yevamoth 61b[Again non-Jews are referred to as "cattle."]All Israelites will have a part in the future world... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
