Al Gore's Religion: Environmentalism

[Eryk]

Interesting article as it appears Gore is shifting away (in public at least) from the Gaiaism and marxism common in some environmental activist groups.

When Republicans shift away from corporate-sponsored lysenkoism we'll have a bi-partisan reality-based environmental policy.

It's not the flaky powerless new-age Gaiains who are holding up progress. It's the lying anti-science propagandists in the government. It's the advisory committes stacked with unqualified persons with industry ties and ideological agendas.

The administration has distorted and suppressed scientific information on astinence-only sex education, drinking water, global warming, stem cells, workplace safety, breast cancer, missle defense and other issues.

Fact: Hurricanes are growing fiercer because of global warming. Link

And when they lash the gulf coast and social conservatives flee their homes, they will say that hurricanes are caused by gay people. Link

 

[robalan]

Interesting article as it appears Gore is shifting away (in public at least) from the Gaiaism and marxism common in some environmental activist groups.

Yale Medical School library exhibit on the history which set the stage for Gaiaism:

http://www.med.yale.edu/library/historical/exhibits_main.html

University of Delaware speech by former major general of the KGB which touches on how the Soviets used environmentalism to further marxist expansion:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/spies031303.html

That's an interesting point you bring up. Gore's views are strikingly similar to those of Gaiaism. (And who said that humans are "enlightened" and no longer believe myths?)

 

[Voegelin]

That's an interesting point you bring up. Gore's views are strikingly similar to those of Gaiaism. (And who said that humans are "enlightened" and no longer believe myths?)

Not me!. . . lol . . .

That said, charity demands Al Gore be taken on his word that he is motivated by his Christian faith. Not unfair to point out, however, the dangers of paganism inherent in radical environmentalism. Primitive man did believe he was responsible for the weather. A form of Manichæism is apparent in some radical environmental writings--man is evil, a despoiler of creation and must sacrifice to atone for his sins against the earth. For example, some insist recycling is a good in itself--even when it makes no economic sense. A scarier view one sees expressed now and then is that a human to human H5N1 mutation would have beneficial effects as a plague would reduce economic output and stop "global warming".

 

[wiggsfly]

This article makes me want to vomit:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1399058.html

Al Gore NEVER was interested in the Bible until suddenly he wants to promote his own religion of environmentalism.

Excerpt from article:

"The Book of Revelations [says] God will destroy those who destroy his creation," Gore said...

What a dispicable misrepresentation of the Bible for political purposes. I wish Gore cared THIS much about what the Bible says when it comes to the things that matter most: Christ, salvation, and moral governing.

How is this any different from the republican party using christianity to promote themselves???????

 

[Daywolf]

Why do you feel the need to question his Christianity? Just because he's not a conservative doesn't mean he doesn't know the Bible.

I didn't question his Christianity, I questioned his biblical literacy. Just because one makes claim to being a Christian, does not mean they lay claim to the bible as the word of God. Hosea 4:6

 

[Voegelin]

How is this any different from the republican party using christianity to promote themselves???????

Why single out the GOP? A few months ago, 55 House Democrats, lead by Connecticut representative Rosa DeLauro-- the wife of Clinton's pollster Stanley Greenberg--signed a statement affirming how important their Catholic faith is to them and how it is reflected in their politics. The DNC leadership has met with Jim Wallis several times to organize a campaign to regain the majority of the Christian vote. Democrats have run two ministers for President in the last 20 years and had a very influential Catholic priest serve in the House in the 1970s. Democrats routinely campaign in black churches. When Clinton was impeached, the media gave great attention to his church attendence and reported on the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ministry to him in the White House.

It is good both parties are addressing faith. Gore's use of religion to advance a radical environmental agenda is fine as far as I"m concerned. But is is fair to ask how far his faith extends, if he is picking and choosing issues ,if he has always felt this way and what other political goals he finds inspiration for in the Bible.

The issue of a double standard in the media and among some "activists" should be addressed also. President Bush is routinuely attacked on his faith. We hear all the time about how Republicans wish to create a theocracy. But Al Gore, Rosa DeLauro and House Democrats go much, much further than any elected Republican in national office has gone in using their religion to advance their political agenda and the media and "activists" applaud.

 

[Eryk]

Why single out the GOP? A few months ago, 55 House Democrats, lead by Connecticut representative Rosa DeLauro-- the wife of Clinton's pollster Stanley Greenberg--signed a statement affirming how important their Catholic faith is to them and how it is reflected in their politics. The DNC leadership has met with Jim Wallis several times to organize a campaign to regain the majority of the Christian vote. Democrats have run two ministers for President in the last 20 years and had a very influential Catholic priest serve in the House in the 1970s. Democrats routinely campaign in black churches. When Clinton was impeached, the media gave great attention to his church attendence and reported on the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ministry to him in the White House.

It is good both parties are addressing faith. Gore's use of religion to advance a radical environmental agenda is fine as far as I"m concerned. But is is fair to ask how far his faith extends, if he is picking and choosing issues ,if he has always felt this way and what other political goals he finds inspiration for in the Bible.

The issue of a double standard in the media and among some "activists" should be addressed also. President Bush is routinuely attacked on his faith. We hear all the time about how Republicans wish to create a theocracy. But Al Gore, Rosa DeLauro and House Democrats go much, much further than any elected Republican in national office has gone in using their religion to advance their political agenda and the media and "activists" applaud.

You know that's a tu quoque argument?

What about Democrats? They use tu quoque arguments too!!

 

[JPPT1974]

Well I may not agree with his politics but I think he is a Christian! He says he and his family belong to a Southern Baptist church.
However, I hope and pray that he doesn't put environmentalias over Christianity at all.
That really is the main concern my friends!

 

[chaim]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. CFCs have essentially nothing to do with climate change. CFC's are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. If you don't even know which chemicals are responsible for anthropogenic climate change it makes it hard to believe your claim about "top notch" scientists.

I have noticed that 99% of global warming skeptics really have no knowledge of the science behind global warming. The "anti-global-warming" crowd seems to be purely ideologicaly motivated. Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.

Most scientists agree that a PERCENTAGE of the climate change is attributable to human actions. No scientist believes that 100% is. The only debate is what percentage.

The older models which used to calculate CFCs impact (from the 80s and earlier) have since been found to have some significant flaws. These older models gave higher estimates as to the total degrees that CFC usage worldwide has increased the global temperature. Since the flaws have been found, estimates are now as low as .8 degrees for CFC's net temperature change on the globe--which is insignificant COMPARED to the accelerated global warming that we have objectively observed.

I think you should just be aware that there ARE top notch scientists who study this who believe that mankind's contribution to global warming is either neglible compared to the whole, or even zero. I would just say be OPEN to hear what these scientists have to say. There are more of them than you are led to believe.

 

[robalan]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Why thank you.

CFCs have essentially nothing to do with climate change. CFC's are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.

And the ozone layer is connected to the change in the earth's mean temperature.

I have noticed that 99% of global warming skeptics really have no knowledge of the science behind global warming. The "anti-global-warming" crowd seems to be purely ideologicaly motivated.

I have noticed the same thing with 99% of the pro-global-warming crowd. Wake up, there's ignorance on both sides of the spectrum. Don't pin it all on the side you disagree with.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.

Really? Thanks.

All I was saying is that human-induced global warming lacks concrete proof. If you do some unbiased research, you will find plenty of scientific writing against human-induced global warming.

 

[chaim]

Why thank you.
And the ozone layer is connected to the change in the earth's mean temperature.

Really? Here is a great opportunity for you to demonstrate your understanding of climate change - Does the loss of stratopsheric ozone heat or cool the planet? Do CFC's heat or cool the planet?
Please enlighten us.

I have noticed the same thing with 99% of the pro-global-warming crowd. Wake up, there's ignorance on both sides of the spectrum. Don't pin it all on the side you disagree with.

There is ignorance on both sides of the spectrum. However when your side happens to be supported by 99% of the science, it is less likely that you are the ignorant ones.

Really? Thanks.

All I was saying is that human-induced global warming lacks concrete proof. If you do some unbiased research, you will find plenty of scientific writing against human-induced global warming.

Just as gravity and Quantum Electro Dynamics and geostrophic motion have no concrete proof. You may want to read up on the scientific method. There is no such thing as "Concrete Proof" in sceince, that is reserved for mathematics.

You keep talking about all these "scientific writings" against anthropogenic climate change - would you care to give a couple fo examples from the peer reviewed scientific litterature - 'coz I certainly haven't seen them.

 

[robalan]

Yes, there is concrete proof in science. It just requires repeatability, measurability, etc. The reason the whole global-warming issue can't be fully understood is because we are not taking into consider all variables. Most people don't even realize that the SINGLE BIGGEST determinant of the earth's climate has NOTHING to do with the earth, itself, but the properties of the sun. Global warming theory doesn't even take this into consideration.

 

[chaim]

Well done on ignoring most of the points in my post and again demonstrating a lack of understanding of the climate system. If them scientists are ignoring the sun, what is the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment doing? Can you explain how a changing solar constant effects climate model predicitons?

You want to back ANY of your claims with any sort of scientific evidence?

Yes, there is concrete proof in science. It just requires repeatability, measurability, etc. The reason the whole global-warming issue can't be fully understood is because we are not taking into consider all variables. Most people don't even realize that the SINGLE BIGGEST determinant of the earth's climate has NOTHING to do with the earth, itself, but the properties of the sun. Global warming theory doesn't even take this into consideration.

 

[icedtea]

I have admiration for Mr. Gore. Now that he's not running as has to put on a face for the public, he can speak freely about his concerns. Rah rah to him, I say.
Its not like the president has ever talked the religious talk to influence the public, eh?

I am looking forward to seeing this film.

He is hardly in the same camp as Earth Liberation Front, which is terrorist.

 

[robalan]

Well done on ignoring most of the points in my post and again demonstrating a lack of understanding of the climate system. If them scientists are ignoring the sun, what is the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment doing? Can you explain how a changing solar constant effects climate model predicitons?

You want to back ANY of your claims with any sort of scientific evidence?

I'm ignoring your posts because they are irrelevant to my point.

Chaim, I have a challenge for you:

Explain the Ice Age. What brought it to an end? What caused the planet to warm up? Human actions?

 

[chaim]

Sure - the Milankovic cycle, Muller and Macdonald cycle and CO2/water vapor feedback. Next?

I'm ignoring your posts because they are irrelevant to my point.

Chaim, I have a challenge for you:

Explain the Ice Age. What brought it to an end? What caused the planet to warm up? Human actions?

 

[JPPT1974]

Don't want to see the film
You know most environmentalists seem Democratic and Liberal!

 

[robalan]

Sure - the Milankovic cycle, Muller and Macdonald cycle and CO2/water vapor feedback. Next?

In all those fancy terms, I didn't notice a "human action". Next.

 

[chaim]

That is because the ice ages wern't caused by or ended by "human actions". They are a product of orbital dynamics. How does this relate in any way to anthropogenic climate change?

In all those fancy terms, I didn't notice a "human action". Next.

 

[icedtea]

Don't want to see the film
You know most environmentalists seem Democratic and Liberal!

One can be Christian and liberal. I sure am.