• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change: Evangelical Scientists Say Limbaugh Wrong, Faith and Science

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
16,972
Reaction score
7,434
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

Climate Change: Evangelical Scientists Say Limbaugh Wrong, Faith and Science Compliment One Another

Rush Limbaugh doesn't think we exist. In other words that evangelical scientists cannot subscribe to the evidence of global warming.

Specifically, during a recent segment on his radio show Limbaugh stated, "If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming."

Talk radio personalities often make hyperbolic statements. It is what their listeners expect and want to hear. But in this instance, Rush's uninformed rhetoric is demeaning to Christians who care deeply about what humans are doing to God's Creation and ignorant of the consequences that future generations will face if we don't respond quickly to the challenge of climate change.
<snip>
Voices like Rush Limbaugh might be entertaining, but they can also become stumbling blocks. We're speaking out to remind people that Rush is neither a scientific authority nor a religious expert. People of faith know climate change is happening and believe God calls us to action.

Katharine Hayhoe is the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and the founder and CEO of ATMOS Research. She has a Ph.D in atmospheric science.

Thomas Ackerman is the director of the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. He has a Ph.D in atmospheric science.
 

jag2594

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
971
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

Since when has any sane person believed anything el religion has to say on climate?
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

was it God or was it Man that was responsible for the last major climate change?
because you do know it has happened many times before over the millennium
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
was it God or was it Man that was responsible for the last major climate change?
because you do know it has happened many times before over the millennium

The Christians being talked about in this thread "know" that God has caused the climate to change in the past, but that the current climate change is man-caused and is far and away more rapid than when god does it. As such, they believe god has called us all to action on AGW.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
16,972
Reaction score
7,434
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
was it God or was it Man that was responsible for the last major climate change?
because you do know it has happened many times before over the millennium

Yes, I do know that - however, there are major differences between the changes seen and measured today and those that have occurred in the past. An study recently published on the subject of ancient climate change and its causes points out how it might have happened in one instance.

Somewhere under the forests, soil and bedrock of southern Quebec lie the ancient, undiscovered traces of an enormous meteor strike so catastrophic that it helped change the Earth’s climate and alter human history.

At least, that’s what Dartmouth University geochemist Mukul Sharma argues in a newly published paper, which could lead to an explanation of one of the most baffling episodes in our planet’s history.

“The whole idea is controversial,” he said. “There’s a correlation between a climate event and a meteor, but what is the cause? How did it all play out?”

Sharma has long been fascinated by a period about 13,000 years ago called the Younger Dryas, during which the Earth suddenly reversed a warming trend and cooled radically for more than a millennium.

The verifiable fact that climate has changed in millennia past has little to do with the fact that our climate is changing today.
 

jag2594

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
971
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
was it God or was it Man that was responsible for the last major climate change?
because you do know it has happened many times before over the millennium








It was man...
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
was it God or was it Man that was responsible for the last major climate change?
because you do know it has happened many times before over the millennium

Depends on if you count the Dust Bowl or not. That was man's fault.
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

I am sorry but I read that and all I kept thinking about was Christian Metal... You know Heavy Metal music for those who still want to be a good christian. Had a friend back in the 90's who listened to it almost exclusively for years. He was a great friend, but hard to understand sometimes.

This read gave me the same vibe. Kind of like placatting to a certain group who may feel the guilt of climate denial seeping into their religious guilt. People can only handle so much guilt I suppose.. Anyway, the problem is I don't recall Rush Limbaugh being a religious figurehead..

I don't listen to him none of my like-minded friends do either. Matter of fact most of the more liberal types I know, actually talk more about and know more about him and what he says than any of my conservative friends do. I'm sure some conservatives listen to what he has to offer, but I'd venture to guess the number of liberals listening to him is actually higher. They think he is the way to find out what conservatives think, or they get sent to a link or read a quote posted on a liberal site and get curious..

All I know for sure is he is a Fat guy who liberals love to claim I get my science from. But my co-worker who claims to only watch Democracy NOW! for his news, somehow knows the topic of his show daily..
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The verifiable fact that climate has changed in millennia past has little to do with the fact that our climate is changing today.

That's a rather astounding statement. You insist that processes that operated to change the climate in the past are not in operation today? How?

What caused the Roman and Medieval warm periods and why are those factors not going on now?

What caused the increase in global temperatures between 1895 and 1946 and why is it not going on now?
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

An evagelical is certainly the best sort of person to talk about AGW. After all, it's basically a religion.

There are plenty of Chrisitians who are skeptical of AGW; these two certainly don't speak for all Christians just as Limbaugh doesn't speak for all Christians. Nor do they speak for all atmospheric scientists.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am sorry but I read that and all I kept thinking about was Christian Metal... You know Heavy Metal music for those who still want to be a good christian. Had a friend back in the 90's who listened to it almost exclusively for years. He was a great friend, but hard to understand sometimes.

This read gave me the same vibe. Kind of like placatting to a certain group who may feel the guilt of climate denial seeping into their religious guilt. People can only handle so much guilt I suppose.. Anyway, the problem is I don't recall Rush Limbaugh being a religious figurehead..

I don't listen to him none of my like-minded friends do either. Matter of fact most of the more liberal types I know, actually talk more about and know more about him and what he says than any of my conservative friends do. I'm sure some conservatives listen to what he has to offer, but I'd venture to guess the number of liberals listening to him is actually higher. They think he is the way to find out what conservatives think, or they get sent to a link or read a quote posted on a liberal site and get curious..

All I know for sure is he is a Fat guy who liberals love to claim I get my science from. But my co-worker who claims to only watch Democracy NOW! for his news, somehow knows the topic of his show daily..

Limbaugh lives in their heads rent free.

I seldom listen to Limbaugh either. He has gotten to be too humorless and angry any more. It's impossible to use most of his ideas because they are too far out. For example, I haven't been listening but I'm confident that he's saying that the Syrian debacle is a deliberate attempt on Obama's part to destroy our national security and military. Yes, I'm pretty much correct.

Endlessly attributing bad faith to political opponents gets tiresome, and Limbaugh is especially weak on science and technology.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just the agricultural practices not the fact it quit raining and the wind blew like Hell.

At first perhaps, a regular drought. However, eventually the agricultural practices contributed to the fact that it still didn't rain and the lack of rain raised temperatures which could cause the wind to blow harder. When the agricultural practices changed, those things also changed. It could be a coincidence, but it's a hell of a coincidence.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since when has any sane person believed anything el Rushbo has to say on climate?

Unfortunately, they seem to be boarding the AGW train just as others are getting off.:peace

[h=2]Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors[/h] Posted on September 3, 2013 by Anthony Watts
UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21[SUP]st[/SUP] year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Continue reading →
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At first perhaps, a regular drought. However, eventually the agricultural practices contributed to the fact that it still didn't rain and the lack of rain raised temperatures which could cause the wind to blow harder. When the agricultural practices changed, those things also changed. It could be a coincidence, but it's a hell of a coincidence.

My parent's grew up during the great depression, and I got bit by a history bug on the subject at an early age.. From what I have read, and seen on the Dust Bowl, it wasn't necessarily any one thing at all. But most seem to think the biggest problem came from the simple fact the soil there was held together by the vast networks of grass roots that held the soil together. The modern farmer for that time wasn't privy to maintaining soil moisture levels during the off-season for large scale farming, mostly because farming on that scale was still relatively new in that area. Remove the roots, and then add a drought and some unsavory weather, throw in a dash of ignorance and you have a disaster..

Other places may have different soil compositions which can keep the soil down in wind. Anyon ever worked on a baseball field can relate to that. A pitchers mound has a different composition than that of the infield otherwise the pitcher will have holes in front of the mound and where his lead foot falls. The mound has to be firmer and be able to hold a shape. WHereas and infield needs to be able to give way on a sliding baserunner or to get a consitent bounce. Both rely on variations in mixture of silt, top soil, and clay, as well as sand.

The area of oklahoma most hit would be like an infield poorly mixed. A good wind and the top layer ends up in the players clothes and eyes..
 
Top Bottom