HL Climate Change Thread: Fare the well old world

[throughthefire]

rip america

 

[the cac mamba]

where are all of the idiots in HL who say 'atheists are such lames, why do you have to go after religious people, just let them believe'

id just like to say, fukk anyone who believes in that stupid ass book

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

where are all of the idiots in HL who say 'atheists are such lames, why do you have to go after religious people, just let them believe'

id just like to say, fukk anyone who believes in that stupid ass book

"why you care about religion so much! it doesn't effect you!"

 

[badvillain]

I thought he articulated his point well and I would never identify as being from the right and having a belief in a God; but I believe roughly the same thing about our climate. And he didn't force-feed that religon bullshyt, he said if "you're a believer in God".

The climate is changing, but it's always been changing; we have a data pool of only the past hundred-and-fifty years or so, which is a needle in a haystack of the actual life of this planet.

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

YOU SHOULD GO OFF OF WHAT IS IN THE QURAN SINCE THE QURAN IS STILL THE EXACT WORDS OF GOD, OVER 1400 YEARS AFTER REVELATION.

 

[acri1]

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study

By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 16:49 EDT

The United States has failed to take action to mitigate climate change thanks in part to the large number of religious Americans who believe the world has a set expiration date.

Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change.

“[T]he fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly.

The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent. (This suggests there is a significant overlap between those three variables and belief in the “Second Coming.”)

“t stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised,” Barker and Bearce explained.

That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.

Though the two researchers cautioned their study was not intended to predict future policy outcomes, they said their study suggested it was unlikely the United States would take action on climate change while so many Americans, particularly Republicans, believed in the coming end-times.

“That is, because of institutions such as the Electoral College, the winner-take-all representation mechanism, and the Senate filibuster, as well as the geographic distribution of partisanship to modern partisan polarization, minority interests often successfully block majority preferences,” Barker and Bearce wrote. “Thus, even if the median voter supports policies designed to slow global warming, legislation to effect such change could find itself dead on arrival if the median Republican voter strongly resists public policy environmentalism at least in part because of end-times beliefs.”

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study | The Raw Story


Self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaIlbXXbE1U[/ame]

 

[The Real]

This is insanity, and one case in which I don't prioritize respecting the freedom of belief of religious people. People who think like this are a danger to the rest of us, and their crackpot ideas should not be permitted to lead all of us into ruin.

 

[Blackking]

This is insanity, and one case in which I don't prioritize respecting the freedom of belief of religious people. People who think like this are a danger to the rest of us, and their crackpot ideas should not be permitted to lead all of us into ruin.

You sound like a very judicious person. Most of America is religious and most of America believe in some sort of climate change... I don't believe the most of the Christians here actually think that humans have no harmful effects on the environment and that those effects don't effect the climate.

Most people who believe in climate change , aren't calling up their senators and congressmen.

i will say that your points against the freedom of speech of Christians is unwarranted due to the fact that legislation aimed at the heat-trapping gases linked to climate change have been proposed and voted on by religious people.

Obviously the lack of push is due more to people being concerned with more immediate needs and issues - which is human nature. The few people in politics who debate it are elected by the people for reasons not related to climate change.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

I think alot of demons see their time coming to an end so they want to just leave the game in shambles. If God is going to end the world, helping preserve the climate isnt going to stop it. Sad, these men really believe efforts to help the climate, actually get in Gods way. Not my Almighty.

 

[The Real]

You sound like a very judicious person.

When it comes to the future of the planet/human species, then yeah, I guess so.

Most of America is religious and most of America believe in some sort of climate change... I don't believe the most of the Christians here actually think that humans have no harmful effects on the environment and that those effects don't effect the climate.

So? As the article says, an actual university study found that for many people, certain specific religious beliefs (not religion in general) led to dangerous views on climate change. That's what I'm commenting on.

Most people who believe in climate change , aren't calling up their senators and congressmen.

Ok, but that is a separate issue.

i will say that your points against the freedom of speech of Christians is unwarranted due to the fact that legislation aimed at the heat-trapping gases linked to climate change have been proposed and voted on by religious people.

So? Again, why are you talking about religious people or Christians in general? I'm clearly not. I am saying that if you are a religious person who believes that climate change is unreal or not a problem because of something in a religous text, then I don't respect your views and I don't think they should be prioritized as beliefs to protect, especially when they influence others.

Obviously the lack of push is due more to people being concerned with more immediate needs and issues - which is human nature. The few people in politics who debate it are elected by the people for reasons not related to climate change.

I'm not sure that's obvious at all, but regardless, it's totally irrelevant to the issue in the article. No one said that the lack of push was mostly due to religious fanatics.

And this is not a place for vague intuitions, breh. You're talking about a university-level study by experienced researchers, not some random pundits speculating about reasons behind things with no evidence.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Most people who believe in climate change , aren't calling up their senators and congressmen.

wrong

most people who believe in climate change, live in districts that already accept the science behind it

calling up their congressman is just reinforcing the status quo

 

[Blackking]

wrong

most people who believe in climate change, live in districts that already accept the science behind it

calling up their congressman is just reinforcing the status quo

most American's support climate change and most districts already accept the facts that support it.

Calling up your congressman doesn't just reinforce the status quo. lol, what kind of agenda are you on??? So the status quo is a bunch of senators and congress people fighting against climate change legislation? Or are you not that simple and realize the reason why bills like American Clean Energy and Security Act fail because of lack of push by constitutes, debate amongst environmental groups - some saying the bill was too weak to support. If Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth can't support it because of simple details, how can you expect the average American to push and champion it?

The reality is that there are some initiates that have been passed. But , most people aren't ranking it as one of there main concerned because there are issues they feel more directly affect their life. Things began as social issues/concerns before they become policy.

It doesn't take every constitute to call for something to be an issue.. and their are believers in climate change in each district. People have only been bringing it for a few decades, and the average person just started thinking about in the 2000's... I think it's just a matter of technology... as our technologies evolves more to detect and show climate change - our technology will adapt to help curb it.

lol@ America being divided up between districts who support science of climate change and those district that don't... Most districts are religious so that would be irreverent even if true. I'm not a Christian, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most Christian do not support Tea party politics.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

most American's support climate change and most districts already accept the facts that support it.

The total # of climate change supporters does not matter. That's not how laws get passed.

The total # of supporters has to have an electoral advantage over the opposition (at the state level and federal level).

Add in filibuster actions at the fed level, and having a simple majority doesn't even matter anymore.

Calling up your congressman doesn't just reinforce the status quo. lol, what kind of agenda are you on??? So the status quo is a bunch of senators and congress people fighting against climate change legislation?

You're not reading my sentence in its proper context.

Or are you not that simple and realize the reason why bills like American Clean Energy and Security Act fail because of lack of push by constitutes, debate amongst environmental groups - some saying the bill was too weak to support.

The bolded is definitely something @BarNone thought I was supporting that I'm sure he would gladly take up with you.

I'll just add, that as the gun debate shows, you can huff and puff all you want. But if the candidate wasn't voted in for the specific pledge/promise, and their position in office isn't threatened, the house ain't blowing the fukk down.

If Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth can't support it because of simple details, how can you expect the average American to push and champion it?

You're arguing multiple things here.

The motivation behind these opinions are not equal. Therefore you cannot use one failure as an example for another. You admit it yourself:

- "most people aren't ranking it as one of there main concerned because there are issues they feel more directly affect their life"
- "debate amongst environmental groups - some saying the bill was too weak to support."

It doesn't take every constitute to call for something to be an issue.. and their are believers in climate change in each district.

You're absolutely 100 and 10 (yes I spelled it that way) missing the point.

So to round it out. Yes there are believers in climate change in each district. But do those believers hold a distinct advantage to get a climate change congressman in office? If yes, that guy is already in there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the general foundation of gerrymandering and swing state voting.

 

[Blackking]

The total # of climate change supporters does not matter. That's not how laws get passed.

The total # of supporters has to have an electoral advantage over the opposition (at the state level and federal level).

Add in filibuster actions at the fed level, and having a simple majority doesn't even matter anymore.



You're not reading my sentence in its proper context.



The bolded is definitely something @BarNone thought I was supporting that I'm sure he would gladly take up with you.

I'll just add, that as the gun debate shows, you can huff and puff all you want. But if the candidate wasn't voted in for the specific pledge/promise, and their position in office isn't threatened, the house ain't blowing the fukk down.



You're arguing multiple things here.

The motivation behind these opinions are not equal. Therefore you cannot use one failure as an example for another. You admit it yourself:

- "most people aren't ranking it as one of there main concerned because there are issues they feel more directly affect their life"
- "debate amongst environmental groups - some saying the bill was too weak to support."



You're absolutely 100 and 10 (yes I spelled it that way) missing the point.

So to round it out. Yes there are believers in climate change in each district. But do those believers hold a distinct advantage to get a climate change congressman in office? If yes, that guy is already in there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the general foundation of gerrymandering and swing state voting.

So y bring up belief? The main issue to me seems to be the way we district and the electoral college. Environmentalist may blame Christians or big oil companies and the auto industry, but the truth is the impassivity of the American people with this issue is to blame.