Southern Baptists deny anthropogenic climate change

Just yesterday, on my drive home, I was listening to a Christian radio station (it's like watching a car wreck -- it's horrible, but you can't turn your attention away), where the host was excited that President Bush gave a satellite address at their annual meeting from overseas "praising
Southern Baptists for their humanitarian efforts and thanking them for their Christian witness and support of religious liberty." I remember thinking "hmm, Bush taking the time to do a satellite address from overseas." I guess, to put it in their nomenclature, they're in bondage to one another.

Two words......Nuclear Power, it's benefits outweigh its costs .

You should understand that Southern Baptists are supporters of big business. In most cases, a businessman in a small to medium-sized city in the South pretty much has to belong to a church, and the local First Baptist Church is usually the one where he can make the most connections. Thus, SBs tend to follow the lead of big business, which doesn't want to believe in AGW.

Here's a good example of their mindset. A former head of the SBC, a prominent preacher in a big church in Atlanta, once said that if Jesus were alive today, he would be big in real estate. You should also remember that a large percentage of SBs have never read their bible, so you should not expect them to have much idea what's in it.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist community, and I have a few very harsh comments to post here.

I was taught that this Earth will pass away soon (very soon, whenever Jesus comes back, which is surely any day now!), and we are scheduled to inherit a new Heaven and Earth. Since this Earth won't be around for very long, it's acceptable to drive oversized vehicles for no reason and use up all the oil on the planet. It's also acceptable to cut down the forests and ignore what those left-wing liberal scientists and media tell you about global warning, because what they say is simply not true. True, God did charge mankind with the responsibility of taking care of his creation...and we're doing an acceptable job. After all, science can't prove we are affecting the world in any measurable way, and even if we were doing badly, Jesus would find a way to change all of our hearts to be more receptive to improvement.

The "environmentalist whackos" (yes, it was a Rush Limbaugh-ism) refused to share the interests of Southern Baptists, which seemed to center around business, material possessions, and money, or the lack thereof. I wonder what Jesus would really do...

I was taught that this Earth will pass away soon (very soon, whenever Jesus comes back, which is surely any day now!), and we are scheduled to inherit a new Heaven and Earth.

Okay, but what about people who were taught differently, and how do we decide who is ultimately correct?

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible says no man knows when Jesus is returning, and if someone claims to know then you need to stay away from them. Therefore, Rachel's comments that he will return any day now, puts her at odds with what the Bible says.

To be wasteful with what we have isn't Christian as far as I know. Who says we're doing an acceptable job in taking care of the world, "big business?"

People like her fall pray to big business for they don't care what damage is done to the environment and allow business to rape the planet as it wants for the sake of greed.

Thomas:
Rachel was telling us what they believe, not taking personal ownership of the ideas.

But yes anything pushed by a liberal like Al Gore just has to be opposed. And even if the earth isn't going to be destroyed, just the true believers raptured away, then the worse shape we leave it in, the better(worse) will be the sufferings of the godless "left behind".

As a Southern Baptist, I am constantly ashaimed of fellow followers of this denomination. For starters, Climate Change is not a religious issue, yet many SB individuals have the problem of confusing the teachings of Christ with the beliefs of any republican politician they may happen across.
Also, in response to the statement that Jesus will let us know if we need to do something about this earth and until then we can continue to destroy God's precious gift to us, this is sacreligious and clearly an ignorant claim. From a religious stand point, God put us in charge of this earth and commanded us to care for it. Also, if the storms, excessive heat, and chaos derived from this climate Changeis not a wake up call from God that we need to make a change, I don't know what is.
I doubt this will have any effect on Christians who have already made their minds up about this. Sadly, an un-Christ-like stubbornness is typical of today's Southern Baptists. However, I do hope this poorly thought out view of Climate change will have little effect on the decisions our governments will make to repair the damage we have done.
After all, Jesus had plenty of wonderful things to say about "sinners" who cared and attempted to do the right thing, but never said one kind thing about a religious person... ;)

Chase,

Thank you, thank you for your comments. They are a beautiful example of how we can be part of a faith community and at the same time take issue with some of the things thought or done by others from that community. Coming from the Catholic tradition as I do, may I offer a handclasp of fellowship across the "lines."

bigTom,

That's "mighty Christain" of you to say, let's leave the earth if the worst shape we can to add to the sufferings of those that are left behind. Did you ever consider that many of those "godless ones" got turned off to Christianity by people such as you and Rachel. This is nothing but petty sadism.

You said Rachel was only stating what the Southern Baptist believed that she not taking personal ownership. Isn't this a dodge from having to defend those beliefs?

As far as having to oppose anything presented by a liberal like Gore, are you saying that if he's for it it's automatically wrong? This is such an idiotic kneejerk reaction. That's why people like Limbaugh and Falwell were so successful was because they could say this person is for it so oppose it and so many such as yourself will walk in lockstep behind them without even considering the matter.

What we have here is the "GREEN HOAX " effect.
My degree and experience is in chemistry with an emphasis on absorption/emission spectroscopy. Carbon Dioxide only absorbs in a narrow range of the infrared spectrum (this is one of the reasons that a carbon dioxide laser is possible) unlike water and water vapor which absorbs radiation from the microwave to the near visible infra-red.
You don't have to accept just my word on this. Google "Sebastian Borrello" (an esteemed and well published physicist) and read about his research on carbon dioxide and its ability to absorb energy.

The ability of an atmosphere to retain energy (I hate to use the word "heat" because temperature is a relative term) is dependent mainly on the DENSITY of the atmosphere and not the composition.
Venus is a favorite example of a runaway greenhouse effect but these alarmists neglect the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is over 25 times denser than that of the Earth's. These same pundits will ignore that the frigid atmosphere of Mars is composed of carbon dioxide but that the density is so low that it does not retain energy i.e. heat.

Fact:
The majority of all available CO2 is found in the oceans of the world. The amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is INVERSELY proportionate to the temperature of the water. That is the warmer the water the more CO2 is released into the air. IF CO2 HAD THE ABILITY TO RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET then the oceans would warm up and as the oceans warmed they would release more CO2 which would cause the earth to warm even more which would cause the oceans to warm even more which would cause the oceans to release more CO2 which would warm the earth which would warm the oceans which would release more CO2...
IF CO2 HAD THIS ABILITY then the end result would be an endless upward spiral. CO2 DOES NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY!

The levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past with out the influence of human actions or the burning of fossil fuels and during these times the temperature of the earth was higher than it is now. These periods of warmth were always followed by periods of cooling (ice ages). And yet the ecological alarmist can provide no mechanism for the removal of CO2. Remember CO2 does not dissolve well in hot water.

My contention is that the levels of CO2 are the EFFECT of a warm planet and NOT THE CAUSE.
What caused the earth to warm or cool? The energy from the sun.
The sun does not put out a constant amount of energy. It is an established fact that the energy output from the sun varies over an 11 year cycle and there are indications of much longer cycles with much greater fluctuations.
Articles to read:
John Carlisle, "Sun to Blame for Global Warming"
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?"
Dr. Sami Solanski's research showing that sunspot activity has been at a thousand year high.
These are but a few of the myriad articles, which reveal the fallacy of CO2 as the mechanism for Global Warming. Remember: CO2 is a GREEN HOAX GAS!

Rod Duke,
Just a question, do you get paid each time you post that comment (like the majority of the warming-deniers)? Because I have seen it word-for-word before.

Your comment refuses to mention the effect that CO2 emissions have on the density of the atmosphere... if it's negligible, why not say so? And your bit about CO2 absorbtion in the ocean's is exactly why climate scientists are advocating action BEFORE the equilibrium is lost!

Will it kill you to walk to the corner store instead of driving?
Will it hurt so much to turn the lights off when you leave the room?

Ethanol is not the solution, but neither is denial. Whether is global warming or just plain pollution, it would be nice to reduce the crap we're releasing into the atmosphere.

The yes/no argument is tired, lets start to focus on the how.

I don't think we need to keep waiting for "Jesus to send us a sign." Christians, what do you think about the verse, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God's what is God's?" The principle of this line is "Some things are simply human, and some things are divine. Some things are of man, and some of God. And render each to what it should be rendered to."
The evidence is pretty clear to me that there is global warming; the degree of damage is debatable, but there is global warming. Christians, it grieves me to see you, my brothers and sisters, believing 2+2=5 because your pastor told you so. No where in the Bible does it say how old the Earth is. This is superstitious, taking off of one of Peter's Epistles where he says, "One day CAN be like 1,000 years to God." It is the principle that God is outside of timelessness. And no where in the Bible does it say that man walked with dinosaurs. The Leviathan and Behemoth in Job is not evidence that man walked with dinosaurs at all.
And everywhere in the Bible it says that man is supposed to love, nurture, and cherish all of God's creation. Remember, Jesus died not just for man, but for all of God's creation. The evidence is clear: American's are very wasteful and are the #1 polluters. There is no need for this type of pollution. There are reasonable ways to reduce this pollution on a person level. So either do something about it or keep your nose out of what it shouldn't be in in the first place.
I just wish that all Christians and non-Christians could see one thing: that God created man out of pleasure only to give all that He is to man; it is His heart's desire and because He loves us. Does this sound like mere doctrine to you? Who cares about trying to prove that global warming doesn't exist! Just enjoy Christ and maybe He will reveal something to you! Can't you see that acting this way is immature and does nothing more than show non-believers how religious and legalistic you are? This isn't spirituality and it isn't practical...
And what is this about shaking hands across the "lines" only when "you" approve of what another Christian says... What lines? Tell me where Christ says it is okay that the Body of Christ be divided and shaking hands across the "lines." There is one Body that the Apostle Paul says should not be divided, and those who divide the one Body are carnal.

Christians, please, for the sake of the worldwide church, begin to read the Bible and give yourself to begin to love and enjoy the Lord to grow in the truth. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's. Join a genuine local church based on the ground of locality and Jesus Christ being the Son of God, nothing else. "The church in Chicago" or "the church in Los Angeles," "a meeting place for the church in Chicago" or "a meeting place for the church in Los Angeles." Keep it practical and simple. The church is the believers, not the building. Start one on the genuine ground of oneness if there isn't one in your city.

Non-Christians, continue to see through the religiosity and "lines," and understand that being a Christian does not equal disregarding scientific truth and believing 2+2=5. The Christian life was always meant to be quite normal humanly speaking. Discover what God's eternal economy (oikonomia) is (Ephesians Ch. 1), that God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and that God became a man in Jesus Christ so that man could become God in life, nature, function, and expression but not in the Godhead. Understand that you cannot respect Jesus or believe He was a wise teacher or taught good ethics or whatever if you do not believe His main and central claim, that He was God incarnated. He either lied, was insane, or was God. There is no middle ground. You either believe that He was the truth or that He lied. Also, consider how all of the prophecies in the Old Testament, which were written thousands of years before, down to the last one, were all fulfilled perfectly by Jesus Christ. It is more than a coincidence.

Rod Duke, you are so right :o) Whether it is a yes or a no, shouldn't we just cut to the chase and reduce some of the pollution we put in the atmosphere, just in case? We have more than enough technology and it is just a matter of time until it is implemented anyways... So why don't we just get to it now just in case global warming "IS."

Thomas
I have two degrees in writing from English Departments. I've not only taught written communication to a wide variety of students from high school to bachelor-degree holders, for a number of years I made my living as a writer.

You misread both Rachel and bigTom. They were making, either directly or through sarcasm, exactly the opposite point you think they were.

If you were a composition student of mine, I'd give you the opportunity to reread their comments correctly. If, as a college student, you couldn't derive the correct, grammatical denotative meaning in their sentences and pick up the sarcastic connotative meanings, I'd give you an F - - -. I'd also write down for you, somewhere, a note stating someone who is so incapable of following simple grammar should postpone college and enter intense remedial work. I'd also encourage you to consult an excellent plaintiff's attorney to see if you couldn't sue every single person and organization involved with your education in order to finance both that remedial work and the entirety of your post-secondary education.

Pattern Recognition, Not Details
.
Three things seem obvious [and unmentioned/missed by the good guys] about this particular evolving subplot in the global warming novel. In order of ascending importance:

1. Nobody is stopping ol' Rod from doing research into the science he so clearly believes is reality. While lack of funding can certainly be an issue, a tiny sliver of one of Exxon's annual skeptic campaign budget would give him years' worth of experiments. There are many scientist who pursue such on-the-side work when their jobs do not offer the opportunity. Instead, he spends his time on commenting on blogs, mouthpiecing at least three extremely narrowly focused talking points/approaches directly from Exxon's script. Whatever Rod's degrees are in, all the scientific vocabulary he uses are simply props designed to distract from the persuasion industry approach he's not very good at performing.

I could, and have at scienceblogs, publicly perform live dissections on content like his in which practically ever phrase is shown to be a lie. However, those are usually personal indulgences, something I've repeatedly urged others not to do. To grab one of many things, Rod flashes credentials then never writes a word referencing any work or publication of his own doing that's relevant. Zero. This is a technique I call distraction by omission.

2. We all know what will happen to Rod and his ilk come Judgment Day. What intrigues me is why the readers and viewers that lap up this utterly obvious false witness and regurgitate it ongoing through their personal lives think they'll get a pass on that day. The legal concept that ignorance of the law is never a valid defense before it is actually built into the fiber of these more-or-less biblical literalists' book. This insight then is an explicit idea of the type of tactics available when one approaches this per my last item.

3. Even a simple outline of the strategy and tactics of Right Wing, Inc. shows a fundamental weakness in the right's 30-year-long strategic campaign. Stipulating the lack of public discussion reflects lack of private thinking, a likely successful counterstrategy is completely overlooked.

The multiple, ongoing, very obvious efforts to fabricate motivation designed to keep evangelic conservatives involved in politics illustrates that The Cadre know they can't maintain power without these votes. If someone can point to a well-financed, intelligent, professionally-designed, long-range campaign to separate a segment of these followers from their false-witness-spewing leadership, I'd be a very happy camper. None even on the horizon as far as I can tell. And likely somewhere between an infinitesimal few and no one is even thinking like this.

I think this is a flank attack against a growing environmental movement among Christian evangelicals. The old guard doesn't want distractions from fighting gay rights and abortions. It's not about climate change at all; it's about who has power within the conservative Christian community. Of course the old guard will lie to keep power, that's par for the course.

SkookumPlanet,

You maintain that I misread remarks by Tom and Rachel. You think this was sarcasm on their part? You obviously believe that no one who is so over the top is being serious. Obviously you have very little experience with the �true believers.� I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee and am well acquainted with that mind set. One only needs to listen to a loyal fan of Jerry Falwell or Rush Limbaugh to hear what blind fanatics are like.

If you can not figure this out on your own, then you certainly don�t need to be teaching anyone or grading their material, either. As far as my grammar goes, the point of a blog is the discussion of ideas more so than to have every comma in the correct location.

As far as the idea that you would give me an �F,� I really don�t think that will cost me too many nights of lost sleep. Those who have little (if any) imagination or original ideas are usually the type of pedants that wind up grading papers. I hate to think that some teaching establishment actually allows you to be in a position where you actually instruct anyone beyond about the fifth grade level.

I find it hard to believe that someone would actually pay you for your work as a writer. You made this remark in the past tense. Did they actually begin to read what you wrote and terminate you?

Your entire commentary seems to have little to do with the subject being discussed, and more of an attempt to degrade someone with your wit and intelligence (?) to demonstrate to the readers what a class act you are. This may explain your desire to teach. Perhaps it shows you have a juvenile desire for attention. Did your parents not give you enough attention? Please consider some counseling.

I suggest that you seek immediate attention from a qualified medical physician to deflate your ego (which as far as I can tell isn�t based on anything substantive) before your head explodes. On the other hand, that may spare untold numbers of unfortunate students who would have had to suffer through your classes.

SkookumPlanet,

In response to your attack on Thomas, I just have to say, "how petty and ignorant of you." If you think the Big Tom and Rachel are being sarcastic then it is YOU who are mistaken. This is how many "Christians" believe. There is no sarcasm involved. The idea that Jesus is going to come back and take only the righteous is as old as Jesus. They don't care if this planet is destroyed. They hide behind religion. It allows them to not have to think for themselves. It is laziness and irresponsibility to the extreme.

As far as the personal attack on Thomas and his grammar, lighten up. This is an internet blog, not The New Yorker. One might say to you, "...those who do not do, teach." Being an English teacher does not further your credibility in this argument. Now, if you have something scientific or fact-based to say, please do so. Otherwise, keep your grammatical observations to yourself. It's just not relevant.

Thomas
I basically agree with your analysis of the evangelical mindset. I've read a number of bigTom's comments over the last nine months here at scienceblogs. There is every indication he's the opposite of your characterization of him. I don't have time to locate those but you can. I do have one link to him because he responded to a comment I wrote last fall. I'd hardly call him a fan of Jerry or Rush, but go see for yourself. And you might consider asking bigTom if you understood him correctly.

As to "grammar" see my comments below. There can be no discussion of ideas if there's no comprehension of what others are saying. I spoke up because no one else was kind enough to bring your misreading to your attention. You are correct, it had nothing to do with the blog subject. That's why I posted it separately.

I'll also reiterate that in the hypothetical class I would have given you the opportunity to re-read the text after my input. I assumed a followup discussion about that reading. Only after your second reading and the discussion would I give you a grade. Stated differently, I would not grade your first effort.

And Thomas, I spent all of 2006 posting a book-length manuscript at scienceblogs as about 400 comments on about 350 blogs. I used, and thus presented, an odd but productive approach to content analysis and spoke about many new ideas, including some ways to look at the Christian right and their role in politics, such as my point three above. I saw no one else speaking about them in such a manner. Ask around scienceblogs if I was imaginative and pushed new ideas. I thought that defined what I was doing.

In regards to my being terminated because of my writing, most of my professional writing was as a journalist. Two of the four publications I worked for had audiences that were a cross-section of the population. One was a weekly in a contentious small town and the other a state-wide monthly for a umbrella group of local commercial fishermen organizations. At each of those I was the editor and so in the position of "terminating" people.
.
.
Kim,
I said absolutely nothing about Thomas' use of "grammar". I wrote about his reading comprehension. I used the word "grammatical" as a synonym for "semantic" or "lexical", i.e. lexical meaning, the logical, overt meaning of the words and the structure with which they are connected. Those three words do not have the exact same meaning, but I thought grammatical would be much more familiar.

I did not personally attack Thomas. I said he should go back and reread the texts to see if he was correctly reading them. It is inappropriate for a college-level writing instructor to simply ignore people who can't read or write at the level necessary to make their way through the curriculum. The purpose of giving grades is to provide feedback. If you want an example of me "attacking" someone, I can provide you with a link. The difference is very clear.

Admittedly the three minuses and my last sentence had a bit of sarcastic bite, but that wasn't directed at Thomas. I was simply trying to emphasize, using exaggeration, that in the class example he would not have been adequately prepared for college material. Writing a note to that effect, rather than giving only a letter grade, seems to me the least a concerned teacher should do. Everything else in my post was pretty straight forward.

And as far as doing versus teaching I spent 2006 both doing and teaching at sciblogs. But most of my other teaching was as a grad student 30 years ago.

You said, "They don't care if this planet is destroyed." I understand that. My first article about environmental issues, a long one, was published for Earth Day 2 in, if I remember correctly, 1972 or '73. I've been a member of two of the nation's premier environmental organizations for a quarter century. I've done volunteer writing for one of them twice, which they published nationally. My ongoing, informed concern for environmental issues stretches back over 30 years.

My understanding of conservative evangelicals is shown in this comment of mine discussing the mechanics of just one of many tactical tools they are using.

As for the relevancy of my observations, see above for the importance of reading comprehension.

Whoops....

I was wrong about one item. bigTom was kind enough to bring up your misreading.

To change the subject a bit, an interesting article popped up on Drudge Report today that has a scientist saying the same things as the Baptists. I guess that's one for all those who don't believe in miracles! The news story at least adds something to the discussion, the link is http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

To SkookumPlanet,
Rather than simply suggest that I re-read the statements to see if I came up with the same conclusion, you immediately tell me what "you" would have done if it was "your" class. I understand that you have a background in teaching and editing, so you have a tendency to view thing from that perspective, however you seem very pushed to place yourself in a situation that you stand in judgment of others from a lofty seat on high. You need to remember the world is not your classroom nor your stage.

In your comment, "I spoke up because no one else was kind enough to bring your misreading to your attention," I don't see that you were being kind as much as desiring an opportunity to show off by pointing out fault. I really don't see any altruism in your motivation.

As far as misreading the comment by bigTom, you maintain that bigTom has posted numerous comments some of which demonstrate that he is not how I portrayed him. All I had to go by was the one comment, which could have very well been in earnest. I have heard just such comments from many people that were not being sarcastic in the least. Your original statement made no mention of these.
As for your journalistic background, "In regards to my being terminated because of my writing, most of my professional writing was as a journalist. Two of the four publications I worked for had audiences that were a cross-section of the population. One was a weekly in a contentious small town and the other a state-wide monthly for a umbrella group of local commercial fishermen organizations. At each of those I was the editor and so in the position of "terminating""

Neither of these sounds as if they were the apex of journalism. I grew up in a small town, and managing to be the editor for a newspaper of one isn�t exactly grounds for the Nobel Prize in Literature. I also wonder the types of writers you were over as well. Were many of these professionals in any real sense of the word or were they high school students and some little old ladies? The job for a state wide monthly for commercial fishermen organizations sounds a little more impressive, but it's not exactly The New York Times or Atlantic Magazine either. As much as you seem to make these jobs sound impressive it seems to me like putting lipstick on a pig. I can just imagine some of the possibilities of the small town paper you edited for, The Bugtussle Bugle, The Hooterville Herald???

In one of your comments to Kim you said, "I used the word "grammatical" as a synonym for "semantic" or "lexical", i.e. lexical meaning, the logical, overt meaning of the words and the structure with which they are connected. Those three words do not have the exact same meaning, but I thought grammatical would be much more familiar.� Don�t you believe it would be more professional to use the most "precise" word if you mean to get your meaning across rather than one that is similar, but not exactly the same? I think that using correct terminology would rank up there with "reading comprehension" as far as importance.

You also said to her that you have been "a member of two of the nation's premier environmental organizations for a quarter century." It is nice that you have environmental concerns however it seems to me that you are using this podium as a means to promote your own self importance. Many people get involved with causes not so much for the sake of the cause but for self aggrandizement. I remember Madalyn Murray O�Hare, the head of the atheist movement, and Ann Coulter, the right wing pundit. More than any loyalty to a cause, the cause was nothing more than a vehicle for their exposure. Remember Ira Einhorn was involved with the first Earth Day. He was the anti war environmentalist who killed his ex girlfriend and then fled the country while on bail. I don�t doubt that you have an earnest regard for the environment, but as I said, you seem as much as anything to be calling attention to yourself rather than the cause.

You also mentioned, "And as far as doing versus teaching I spent 2006 both doing and teaching at sciblogs. But most of my other teaching was as a grad student 30 years ago." I really get the feeling from all you�ve said and its tone that you seem to be a rather frustrated individual who never quite managed to be the writer or the teacher that you wished to be and is trying (not too successfully) to dazzle and dictate on these blogs as a self appointed instructor and editor. Let me make a few suggestions to you as you have seen fit to make to me. Drop the self important pomposity and the attitude that those writing in are a room full of students that are desperately waiting for drops of wisdom from you. Make a comment or a suggestion if you think valid and leave the ego out. If you were anywhere near as important as you wish others to think you are, you wouldn�t have the time to blog as much as you say you do.

I say all this to you because I'm afraid no one else has been kind enough to bring your shortcomings to your attention. I would not be a very good blog commentator if I didn't point these things out to you. I am simply expressing my concern. This is my way of providing you with the necessary feedback to correct your mistakes. How could you otherwise grow as a teacher, person, and commentator? If some of my comments seem sarcastic, it not personal just exaggerations to emphasis some points I am trying to make to help you.

You win Thomas.
Don't ask Rachel and bigTom what they meant. Don't ask me to demonstrate how I [mis]read them. I'm sorry my approach to encouraging a closer reading of the text failed. I'll give myself an F - - - for that. Your grade has been changed to A + + +.

I also, now, need to plead guilty to everything in Kim's critique:

I personally attacked Thomas
I'm petty and ignorant
I read the posters wrong
I'm blind to the evangelical threat to planet
[so I'll consider changing my nom de net]
I need to lighten up
I teach because I can't do
What I said was not scientific nor fact-based
I'll keep my grammatical observations to myself

Finally, I'll have to contemplate that my entire work here in 2006 was wasted effort, that I was obsessively focused on the actual text. Content analysis, looking at things like rhetorical argument, intentional flaws in logic, hidden misuse of language, branding and rebranding in political communication [like the "Death Tax"], the cheatsheet I posted last night, etc., might not be so important after all.

And so I'll have to entertain the thought that the science on global warming really is still "up in the air". That's what they say, I hear.
.
.

PS.
Now I'll be straightforward. You're correct about me not asking you straight up to reread the comments. Obviously it was a mistake to start with credentials. But I did that intentionally. I was the second person to tell you'd made a reading error -- one should be enough. My credentials, such as they are, were simply to stress I had professional knowledge behind my comment; that I wasn't speaking up as some random commenter.

I had other choices also. For example, I could have analyzed the text. Rachel has a key reference omission in her opening sentence that likely created your problem. [I grew up in the Southern Baptist community, and I have a few very harsh comments about that community to post here.] But there are still plenty of clues in what follows to see she's being negative about them.

Both you and Kim made responses to me that virtually ignored the texts in questions. You focused on my lack of knowledge of fundamentalists. But that has nothing to do with misreading the text. Again, my responses weren't the best, but how do I show Kim I am quite aware of the evangelical mindset toward our planet? Do a linkfest of my posts on the subject? Her response wasn't relevant to the issue, misreading the text, the words.

And knowing bigTom's previous writings wasn't my point. I thought if you decided on your own he was sarcastic, you might then re-evaluate your reading. His first paragraph has some problems that likely also contributed.

I could have taken Rachel's text and shown phrase by phrase, many illogical things in it if she was making a pro-fundamentalist statement. Her mistake aside, her post is logical if read as an anti-fundamentalist text.

So I'll offer you the best observation and advice I have at this point in the discussion.

First go back and read your own posts [and Kim's if you like] and physically extract all the text you explicitly reference, the actual words Rachel and bigTom use. You'll see there is very little. Then go back and reread first Rachel's, then bigTom's comments from the point of view that they are negative and bigTom's last paragraph is sarcastic. The idea is to figure out a way to do that for each sentence, not simply to read the words. Anytime the text seems ambiguous, resolve it in favor of a negative p.o.v.

Stipulating a few errors on their part, their comments should make much more sense, phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, than as you read them. If that still doesn't register, then there's one more way to do it. Create two columns and physically write each of their sentences in each column. You'll have two copies of every sentence, side by side. To visually help, make sure there's white space vertically between the sentences. Label one column PRO and the other CON. Then do the comparisons. Which makes more sense, which accounts better for the actual text? Pro- or con-fundamentalist? Tabulate your results.

The way I intervened, clearly not very well, derived from my conclusion you weren't interested in re-evaluating your reading of the text. There are some facts involved here -- the words in question. No one has said your political analysis is wrong, simply that you misread the text. All along you've pretty much ignored the text. You've not asked for help, nor specifics about how or why, nor asked Rachel or bigTom if you understood them correctly. It's not an invalid conclusion to draw.

One of the most common techniques being used in Exxon's global warming skeptics campaign is distraction via details. There are many ways this can be done. One is they grab some small part a statement or report they consider damaging, and spin out endless discussion and controversy. The left/environmentalists/scientists, so far, get suckered in every time. Almost always, the original material gets forgotten. See my link above.

I can slice and dice these mouthpieces because I pay extremely close attention to what they say. It's all one giant lie, but if one let's them set the discussion agenda one is playing by their rules on their playing field. A lie is a lie. Essentially the lie is built into every sentence. The most effective counter-tactic is to take their own words, not the external reference, and show those words to be lies. To do that, one must pay close attention to those words. If the IPCC can screw up so badly against this negative psychomarketing campaign, as they did a couple months ago, I don't think you have any need to be defensive. You are in good company.

As a general rule, the more unmotivated toward a task, here a difficult one, someone seems, the less inclined others are to offer help. All I was attempting to do was motivate you to expend some energy on the texts in question. And so my F - - - isn't sarcasm. I did fail.

Hi :o) Really, what is the issue here? I am befuddled... How can grown men go on in such a way?

Question: What are you doing about anything? We are arguing over such a stupid and petty argument; whether Southern Baptists believe climate change is occuring or not.

Southern Baptists: It does not matter whether you think climate change is occuring or not. Climate change has absolutely no correlation with the faith. What does is that we are supposed to care for and nurture the earth when possible. Should we start marching around with "Go Green!" picket signs? No. I don't care what you might think, the fact is that you should take care of the earth when possible. Enough said. Now why don't you enjoy the Spirit overflowing inside of you like Christ wants you to? "Truly, unless I serve you, you cannot serve Me." Does this verse mean anything to you. "I am the vine, you are the branches. A man who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit. Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING." I find it very hard to believe that when one is truly walkin in the Spirit he or she will be quarelling with non-believers on issues such as climate change. So, as a testimony, stop being wasteful and don't pollute when possible. How are non-believers ever going to believe that you have Christ in you when you aren't willing to show them that you love them. You do love them, right? Can you just love the Lord and others, please? Can you just enjoy Christ? Are you enjoying Christ or loving others by arguing your case that global warming is a lie?!

Others: I want to ask you a serious question. Are you happy? Does quarelling about climate change make you happy? Another question. Is this earth going to be here forever? By any means, I am not saying that because one day the earth will be no more that we should trash it. Even from a secular standpoint, the earth will one day be scorched by the sun or freeze. Intelligent life on earth will not be possible. So, I guess I am entreating you to think about the fact that corporately speaking, humankind is not eternal. And one day you will die. And one day all human existence will come to an end in this realm. So, I am asking you, what is the point in living? Really, we can go one of three ways at this point: 1, lie to ourselves and say intelligent life will exist forever. 2, begin to just do what feels good at the moment because one day we will die. Or 3, experience the warmth of a God who loves you. Let me ask you something else: Can food really satisfy man? Can money satisfy man? Can human interaction satisfy man? Can education satisfy man? Can morals satisfy man? No. None can satisfy man here because all is limited here. There is nothing in this material realm that can truly satisfy us. We are the only creatures created that long for something more. Why? Why do we have an unlimited desire to be fulfilled and to be loved? And why can nothing here in this universe fulfill that need? What a cruel God that must be to just leave us here alone like so!!! But really, why? Ask yourself why! There is only one who can satisfy our deepest unlimited desires and that is God. "God has placed eternity into the heart of man, except that he cannot figure out what He has been doing from the beginning to the end." I believe that if you read the book of Ecclessiastes with an open heart, you will realize that this life is complete vanity without God being a God of love and with a judgement. I can tell you that Christ lives in me so that I live, too. I can tell you that I will live forever in the presence of God. Why? Because I was predestined according to the foreknowledge of God in knowing that I would be one who would first HOPE in Christ. You receive Christ by faith according to he fact that you hope in Christ. What does it mean to hope in Christ? It means to put your faith in God, that God in Christ is our eternal enjoyment and the uncreated, marvelous life of the Father was embodied in the Son and made available to us, the children of God, by the Spirit. Understand this: You were created to receive God. You are vessel, a receptable, a glove for that only God can fill. Ask yourself something: Do you feel empty? Do you lack real purpose or meaning? It is okay because if you just open yourself to God, He will fill you in a way that you have never thought possible. THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN.

Aaron,

Why do you take it upon yourself to use this blog as a pulpit? Did anyone here ask you to witness, or preach? Coming from the South, I am very burned out on this kind of ranting. Do you not think that there are some that feel very fulfilled without your religion? To be brutally honest, Ive been down the religion road, and after awhile realized that about every time there was a knife in my back, it was in the hand of a confessing Christian. Do you think everyone needs your religion to have a meaning in life? Many, including myself dont. I thought "WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN" was to act superior and use every excuse to dick people over. To sit in church on Sunday, then do whatever you wished the rest of the time and feel like you were a fine person. If you want to rant like this, find a church, street corner or whatever. Better yet, knock on my door, so I can slam it in your face, turn the dog on you, or call the cops and report you for trespassing.