Climate Justice Clips: The Real Conspiracy at Copenhagen

He may be a hypocrite; he may not be--it's not important to the climate debate. I's still a strawman--and a red herring, for that matter.

Galileo, from all accounts, was an insufferable jerk who managed to offend just about everyone who got to know him. His character flaw didn't invalidate his astronomical observations, did it?

Since Tiger Woods is a hypocrite, the merits of marital fidelity must be nothing more than propaganda put forth by those pesky wives who want to see their husbands suffer from only being able to be with just one woman the rest of their lives. How dare they tell you guys what to do with their lives!

If marital infidelity is unhealthy, then Tiger Wood's promiscuous lifestyle makes him a hypocrite. If marital infidelity is not unhealthy, and Woods does not believe it, then downgrading his lifestyle would make him a moron.

Does that argument sound logical to you? Well, neither does the "Gore is a hypocrite therefore climate change is not real" sound logical to me. If you want to debate climate change, fine. But enough of this non-scientific reasoning. As I said before, it is a strawman. Nothing more.

So let me get this straight.

"we can't afford to buy solar panels and new windows and energy-efficient light bulbs and reinsulate our homes with better insulation and replace our appliances and upgrade our heaters and air conditioners and the list goes on"

But you can afford an SUV.

I'm a geologist, just for full disclosure. So I've taught a lot of science classes. One thing I never stop marveling at is that God built in this beautiful balance into His creation. He gave it the ability to replenish itself. He gave animals the ability to adapt to changes in their environment so that they aren't wiped out. He gave it the ability to preserve and create material we now use for energy. And the more we understand His creation, the more we can be the stewards He intended us to be. The more we understand it, the more we can use it wisely and sustainably so that it can be used for generations to come.

But, we haven't been good stewards, and it is not difficult to see that is true. We have driven countless species to extinction, we burn down the rainforest at unprecedented rates, we pour toxins into our atmosphere and into our drinking water (although, thanks to environmental protection laws, at least now rivers don't spontaneously combust--google Cuyahoga River). We haven't and still don't use the resources He gave us wisely or in a way that is honoring to Him.

We are better than we were. And we are getting better still. But it might mean, for us to love God and honor His creation, that we can't live the energy- and resource-consumptive lifestyles we have come to know and love. And, well, Jesus didn't die for us so that we can live as gluttons in a world of limited resources. Selfishness and greed are emphatically not Godly characteristics.

He only gave us one planet. Just one. And it's unique among the solar system and in the universe in that it is capable of sustaining life. This is the only planet we know of that can do that. And the things that sustain life are the following, in order of importance:

1. Clean air (3 minutes without air, and you're gone)

2. Clean water (3 days without water, and you're gone)

3. Soil and animals (3 weeks without food, and you're gone).

And yet, we soil all of that. How's that for gratitude to a Creator who gave us everything we need to sustain our lives?

I find it very interesting when people say "oh, I'm all for stewardship of the environment" but it is clear that they only care about God's creation if it doesn't cost them anything or it isn't too hard to do.

It's weird that those godless environmentalists care more about the Creation God gave us than those who claim to be His children. You wrongly assume that the environment is all environmentalists care about. Why do environmentalists care about the environment? Is it because we only care about the environment? Or is it because we recognize that no one can live without a sustainably clean environment, and that by caring for the environment, we also care for the people who need that environment to survive?

No I wouldn't consider that to be valid reasoning. If AGW is not a fact but Gore thinks it is, then Gore's profligate lifestyle makes him a hypocrite. If AGW is not a fact and Gore does not believe it, then downgrading his lifestyle would make him a moron.

He's getting blamed because he is making things even worse. I feel far more depressed, fearful, and anxious now with Obama in office and watching him and Congress devote far more time and energy to health care and spending money than to things like creating jobs.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed government having so much control over people's lives. It's very disconcerting and disturbing, and things have gotten worse with Obama in office. Just the other day, our local school district announced it has to cut $10 mil. next year, and that will mean techer lay offs. As well, our city has said that the budget it hurting greatly and will have to tap into backup resources and resort to lay offs. All around me, every day, someone is losing a job or a company is folding.

Perhaps we were in a hole with Bush, but Obama has a shovel and is burying us there, and who knows if we will ever be able to get out.

Where do you see derision for those who defend climate change? Our media, our government, and our celebrities- these are the most vocal and broadcast voices- are all hugely on the "green" bandwagon. Calling someone who is not on that bandwagon a "denier" does "tarnish" their "reputation." It's a common occurance though in this current administration and our society. Destroying the repuatation of opponents is quite the M.O. of media & govt, and something I think we have to get used to because it's the way things are now that we've got ultra-liberals and socialists leading this nation.

The sad thing is that Al Gore could use solar panels, etc. but he, and others, want us all to do the same. And where do we get the money for it? All these poor people, the unemployed, even the overtaxed and struggling "middle class"- we can't afford to buy solar panels and new windows and energy-efficient light bulbs and reinsulate our homes with better insulation and replace our appliances and upgrade our heaters and air conditioners and the list goes on. It's actually very costly to be climate-friendly, and one of the biggest problems with this environmental religion is that it places guilt on people for not being "green." Hey, if Gore wants to be "green," so be it. But don't tell me that I have to be "green," or don't give me dirty looks because I drive an SUV or have a lot of Chrsitmas lights on my house! I really have a lot of resentment for the fact that many of these environmentalists judge others for not jumping on the "green" bandwagon (even though, they themselves, still do harmful things to the environment).

And if Al Gore was a true lover of the earth, he'd live in a tent, bathe in a river, walk everywhere, not use toilet paper, not use electricity, and so on. In other words, he'd have to be a homeless person who wouldn't be able to make it in this contemporary society.

Yes, there are things we can do to care for the resources God gave us, but I feel no guilt for using the things I do (like incadescent light bulbs), driving an SUV, and so on. Environmentalism is quickly becoming the new socialism because it is ultimately going to control people's lives with the govt. telling us what we can and can't drive and so forth.

Gore's lifestyle does make him a hypocrite. In fact, all true, devout environmentalists are hypocrites. Do they use electricity? yes. Do they drive cars? yes. Do they light candles, make fires in their homes, purchase any material goods? yes. Do they pee in toilets? yes. Well, that pee contaminates water, and medicines and drugs can even be carried into water through that pee.

The bottom line is that no matter what we do, we are going to pollute the environment, use its resources, etc. in one way or another. But God created this world with natural resources for us to use, and for us to "protect" certain things which God created for our use in order for us to live is preposterous.

Environmentlism/global warming is becoming a religion among people like Gore. Not only that, but it is making him a tremendous amount of money. It preys on people's fears.

As Christians we should be good stewards of this earth and its resources. We should do what is normal and good to take care of it. But going to extremes is not good. And going to extremes does end up hurting people in one way or another. Well, not Al Gore. His going to extremes lines his pockets with thousands of dollars.

Environmentalists would be very happy if we all lived in tents, showered in rivers, walked everywhere, and only used blankets to keep warm in our tents (because fires produce smoke which pollutes air).

The Bible cleary addresses avoiding extremes. The global warming/environmentalism of today is becoming very extreme. Yes, we ought to care for the earth, but not to the point that it becomes a type of obsessive religion or object of worship or when it trumps human needs.

"[Climate Change] is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill. On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

--So, we should eliminate CO2 completely? Just checking (holding breath...)

I posted an op-ed by Hansen down under the "Day 1" of Climate Justice Clips. Ditch cap and trade and go with a carbon tax. I don't know whether to believe the catastrophic claims of Hansen, but he's definitely right about cap and trade. The EU has spent millions of dollars implementing a cap and trade scheme that hasn't worked. The version of it working it's way through our Congress is mostly a handout to favored "green" interest groups and corporations and energy companies and industries that are based in key legislators' districts. It's a mess.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

On a side note, I think the best analogy regarding the buying of indulgences is actually the rich and powerful (Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPPC, come to mind) who say they care about climate change yet fly around the world on private jets and live in thousand square foot mansions. They then buy "carbon offsets" to make themselves feel better. Talk about buying indulgences.

"Abraham Lincoln was arguably our most racist president, and was uninterested in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was very clear about this."
--Ridiculous.

Not at all. The evidence is overwhelming. Even my father, who is a big lincoln fan, admits this sad fact. The following quote is the most damning: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

Environmentalists would be very happy if we all lived in tents, showered in rivers, walked everywhere, and only used blankets to keep warm in our tents (because fires produce smoke which pollutes air).

The Bible cleary addresses avoiding extremes. The global warming/environmentalism of today is becoming very extreme. Yes, we ought to care for the earth, but not to the point that it becomes a type of obsessive religion or object of worship or when it trumps human needs.

Umm..hey Xfree and others. What is McKenna's post about?

First of all, I said arguably, which means not definitively. "Up for debate," as it were. But he was racist, very clearly. "Most racist"? Maybe, maybe not. But he was clearly a white supremacist, in his own words.

Somewhat related, and worth noting, is that there is a church presence at Copenhagen as well. Mardi Tindall, moderator of the United Church of Canada, is over there and blogging about the experience: http://wondercafe.ca/blogs/moderator-mardi

"[Climate Change] is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill. On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

--So, we should eliminate CO2 completely? Just checking (holding breath...)

So then explain his desire to deport blacks so that whites could have the continental states?

"the notion that he was some savior for blacks is just absurd."
--As absurd as the notion that he was "arguably the most racist president"?

He freed black slaves. This is an inarguable fact. He fought a war that was caused at least in part by his opposition to slavery. This too is an inarguable fact. He did more for black people than any other president. Fact.

There is a reason Obama and many blacks hold him with admiration, and it's pure revisionism to claim he was "the most racist president."

Qualifying such statements with "arguably" is frankly a silly debating tactic. For example, I can say that George W. was "arguably the greatest president ever." How is that not true? Someone can argue it. Just saying something "can be argued" is meaningless.

Such statements must be considered in their historical context and would not seem very extraordinary for their time. He said this might be a solution that would benefit all sides. Keep in mind that the previous presidents were quite happy with just enslaving blacks. Do you believe that is better? If you think Lincoln was the "most racist president" then I guess you must.

It still doesn't change the fact that Lincoln held views, made public statements, and acted in ways that benefited blacks greatly.

Arguably was part of my original statement, not a qualifier after the fact. And if you'll notice, I haven't continued to defend "most racist" but the fact that he was racist at all. I'm not stating my claim on "most racist," so if you please, start defending the statements I quoted that were indeed racist.

Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" dispells the "facts" that you claim. The war was not fought primarily over slavery-that is a federal government invention perpetrated by Lincoln and his admirers to make us believe that saving the union (which Lincoln himself said he would do w/ or w/o abolishing slavery because a single union was his greatest concern) was of highest value. The fact is, the south seceded, and Lincoln didn't like it. So he used abolition as a political tool to fight for the control over the south.

Whatever the case, this is way off topic of the original post. I just can't see how you can justify his clear (factual!) statements that abolition of slavery was to bring about a fully white occupation on the United States by deporting black slaves to another land. My dad, who is a staunch Lincoln admirer, admits that he had very racist tendencies. I simply don't bother justifying them by saying he "ended slavery."

"Abraham Lincoln was arguably our most racist president, and was uninterested in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was very clear about this."
--Ridiculous.

I said arguably, not definitively. Evidence is very prominent, though. Consider one quote: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)