Feed on Posts or Comments 19 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 14 Dec 2010 12:47 am

Amazing – The “religious right” speaks out against environmentalism

The green movement? The scientific evidence for climate change? The desire to stop polluting the planet? The goal of saving thousands of species into extinction? These are now the enemies of Jesus Christ as explained in the following video:

“Around the world environmentalism has become a radical movement – something we call the Green Dragon. And it is deadly. Deadly to human prosperity. Deadly to human life. Deadly to human freedom. And deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake about it: Environmentalism is no longer your friend. It is your enemy”

It is utterly amazing how delusional religious people can be. Understand the delusion by watching this short video on the delusion of Christianity:

10 Responses to “Amazing – The “religious right” speaks out against environmentalism”

  1. on 14 Dec 2010 at 2:34 pm 1.Tim said …

    “Scaring little children to achieve your political ends is reprehensible.”

    He gets the irony prize.

  2. on 14 Dec 2010 at 5:00 pm 2.Horatio said …

    (sigh)

    Even after the climategate scandal these liberal atheist still by into the scam.

    Free market should be driving the green movement not government scare tactics of a world underwater and money (the primary dragon). The video is right on the market. I type this as I experience record low temps. The irony is sweet.

    http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

  3. on 15 Dec 2010 at 6:10 am 3.Joe said …

    Mr Horatio,

    1. You might wish to look up the difference between “climate” and “weather”.

    2. You grossly misunderstand how science works if you think that scientific research is primarily driven by money.

    3. You might whish to consult

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    in particular these parts:
    “With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming [2] [3].”
    and
    “A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
    (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[95]”

    So you really need a conspiracy theory of the type “9/11 was a US government plot” to uphold your statements. (But maybe you do have such a conspiracy theory. Christian fundamentalists are pretty good at conspiracy theories, no matter whether it is about climate change, evolution or the “homosexual agenda”.)

  4. on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:19 pm 4.Lou said …

    Wow people still believe in man-made climate change even after climategate? Scientist all over disagree and climategate proves the numbers were fudged for money.

    Sucker born every minute.

  5. on 15 Dec 2010 at 5:16 pm 5.Horatio said …

    To Joe:

    1. You might wish to look up the difference between “climate” and “weather”.

    My reference to my temperature was to acknowledge the irony. New low temps today! The irony is sweet.

    2. You grossly misunderstand how science works if you think that scientific research is primarily driven by money.

    Not true Joe. Science is driven for research dollars. Visit R&D at any pharmaceutical company and try to tell me it is not about dollars. So naive.

    3. You might whish to consult

    I don’t consult wiki. I know there is climate change and I know it has been taking place naturally for millenniums. In the 20s the cried about global warming, in the 40s and in the 70s it was global cooling.

    Contrary to the thread I recycle and do what I can to conserve VOLUNTARILY. When the government attempts to remove jobs, cap & tax, stop drilling for oil and mining for coal based on there silly fudged numbers at the loss of jobs I will not sit by silently. Never mind they don’t mind other nations doing it for them. Believe the fear and believe the water is rising if you like, but not at my expense.

    Lou,

    Yes Lou there is an Al Gore.

  6. on 15 Dec 2010 at 9:08 pm 6.Severin said …

    5 Horatio
    “I know there is climate change and I know it has been taking place naturally for millenniums.”

    Do you mean “by god’s will”, or you confuse again god with nature.

    Again and again you are representing yourself as an atheist here!

    WHAT is nature for you, Horatio?

  7. on 15 Dec 2010 at 9:30 pm 7.Observer said …

    Lou-Hor Climategate? What are you talking about? That was a load of BS foisted on the gormless and gullible such as yourself by whatever PR firms are used to get trash like the AG in VA elected. Again, by fooling the simple. There were a ton of reviews and they did nothing wrong. The belly-aching was by back-benchers who were trying to get funding to redo work that had already been done several time before.

    But seriously, you guys are trolls. Right?

  8. on 16 Dec 2010 at 5:19 am 8.Joe said …

    To Horatio:

    1. If you really manage to distiguish between climate and weather, I have to admit I fail to see the irony as much as its alleged sweetness. You might wish to explain.

    2. I fully agree that R&D departments of pharmaceutical companies are primarily money-driven. That’s how business works.
    Reseach on climate change, however, has mainly been carried out by research universities, and these are primarily non-profit organisations. If you want to get rich, do not work at a university. People work at universities because they are interested in finding out more about the world and are motivated by the extent to which their accademic colleagues value their research, based on the scientific rigorosity of their arguments and the relevance of their contributions. If they were motivated by money, academics could easily earn more than three times their salary by working in the industry, i.e. outside academia. The only reason why universities offer degrees in arts and humanities is that they are not primarily(!) motivated by money. (Of course, they also need money to run their organisations. So do churches. But you would probably agree that (most) churches are not driven by the “primary dragon” money. Same with research universities.)

    3. An intelligent way of dealing with climate change does not necessarily lead to more job losses than not dealing with climate change at all. (Let me know if you want to know more about this.)

    4. Which part of “no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming” didn’t you understand? (If you did understand this sentence, you really need a fully-fledged conspiracy theory to keep up your line of argument.)

  9. on 19 Dec 2010 at 4:57 pm 9.Anti-Theist said …

    The church’s days, being palpably finite, are (now like always )being spent holding on power; stifling education has always been, as will always be ,the most effective way of keeping religious followers filling the pews. Environmentalism is change as it is education and evolution; all of which diminish the clergies influence over, and monetary soaking of the populace surrounding any given house of worship. Not long ago the church would have, in preference to impotent patronization, called environmentalism heresy and burned those whom disagreed; secular practices being the only wall relieving theists of the authority to remedy dissenters as they did in the past .

  10. on 28 Jan 2011 at 11:18 am 10.Aaron B said …

    The religious right wielding science to combat environmentalism? Apparently there is no science to backup environmentalism and it is only myth and falsehoods. Last I checked, there is no science to prove God either. Conclusion : God and environmentalism are both a myth and a falsehood.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply