|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 10, 2008 19:40:29 GMT -4
Just to bring this thread back home, I will say that we United States citizens are being very generous with our CO2. We are practically giving it away.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 10, 2008 20:18:26 GMT -4
Some guy modifying the passage 1800 years later should easily be seen as a change made to correct an obvious problem in the New Testament. Clarify, not correct. You can read the KJ version as also saying "the generation that these signs are shown in."
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 10, 2008 20:45:02 GMT -4
The King James version, if not the very least accurate version, is certainly nearly the very least accurate version of the Bible.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 10, 2008 20:46:01 GMT -4
Jason, are you only sceptical about a human cause of environmental problems or do you not believe climate change is occuring at all? I am primarily skeptical of the idea that human activity is drastically and permanently altering the world's climate. I am secondarily skeptical of claims of the severity of climate change. God knows. And he can impart knowledge of the meaning of the Bible in the same way he gave it to the original authors. This document shows that American private charitable contributions were $34.8 billion in 2006, which is more than the $23.5 billion the US government provided in official aid. So the amount of aid freely given exceeded the amount mandated by the U.S. government and collected through taxes by 48(!) percent. $8 billion of that was from religious organizations - that is $1.5 billion more than the private contributions from all private sources in 30 of the world's major industrialized democratic countries combined. U.S. aid (government and private) totalled at $129.8 billion. The U.K. comes in second at $20.7 billion, about 1/6th that amount. And much of the contributions from the U.K. and other european nations are government funds - collected by taxes rather than free donations. Other nations compare favorably to the U.S. in the amount given as a percentage of their gross national income, but only through government funds collected through taxes, not outright philanthropy (although you could view the decision to allow such taxes a collective decision to be generous).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 10, 2008 20:46:28 GMT -4
The King James version, if not the very least accurate version, is certainly nearly the very least accurate version of the Bible. You can also read the version you quoted from the same way.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 10, 2008 20:59:57 GMT -4
I suppose you can "read" it any way you want, then.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 11, 2008 6:03:11 GMT -4
Aren't charitable donations tax-deductible in the US?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 11, 2008 10:53:18 GMT -4
Aren't charitable donations tax-deductible in the US? Yes. Charitable donations can generally be subtracted from your income before calculating your income tax. Typically this means you give away more than you will actually save with the tax break, unless you're right on the lower end of a tax bracket already and the donation pushes you over to the next lower bracket - then you might just get a tax break larger than your actual donations. Might. I give 10% of my income to a charitable group every year, and I get a much bigger tax break from my home mortgage (the interest of a home mortgage for a primary residence is tax-deductible).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 23, 2008 20:44:18 GMT -4
Here is another environmental scientists/wacko. James Hansen testimony before congress.
Emphasis added
So this scientist want people jailed because they disagree with him. This is a classic example of the environmental fascism that repels many people from the environmental movement and science in general. with limited resources in the world there are so many more cost effective ways to aid people than handing over the control of the economy to radicals like this.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jun 23, 2008 22:18:00 GMT -4
So this scientist want people jailed because they disagree with him. Uh, no. He wants them tried for the crimes he believes they have committed. If Hansen is right, they should. Are you aware of how many people want GWB tried? Most of them aren't fascists. They might be wrong, but that is something one can be debated. And look up the word fascism. It doesn't quite mean what you seem to think it means. It is not a word to be used lightly. Godwin. You loose.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 24, 2008 0:58:11 GMT -4
No, he's a wacko alright. To have comitted crimes they have to have known exactly what would happen as a result of their actions, and the science of global warming is still not a settled issue. There is plenty of room for doubt as to whether human activity is doing anything at all - and that means there is no crime being committed. If it ever is proven that human carbon emissions really do ruin the climate then, and only then, will oil & gas executives have to stop what they're doing or be criminally liable. Tobacco executives were not guilty of anything until science had proven that smoking really was bad for you beyond a reasonable doubt - we're very far from that with global warming.
GWB is also not guilty of war crimes, and anyone who seriously thinks he ever will be tried for any such is also a little unhinged.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 24, 2008 16:31:01 GMT -4
Oil companies are no more at fault for global warming than everyone that uses fossil fuel. We users are the ones that actually put most CO2 in the air.
Merriam-Webster says one usage of fascism is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
While it is not a traditional use of the word as it describes the early 20th century political movements, it is fairly common modern usage.
When we call for the incarceration of people because they express ideas that are at odds with a as yet conclusive scientific view, or even conclusive scientific views, we are bordering with dictatorial control.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 1, 2008 11:17:25 GMT -4
An interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today, concerning how belief in global warming is a religion. The points of similarity the article makes are: - Global Warming theory is not falsifiable - literally anything climate-related can be seen as evidence in its favor.
- The catastrophy predicted is diluvian in nature (in other words, a big flood).
- The proposed "solutions" involve radical changes in personal behavior with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent (self denial of current pleasures).
- Global Warming is seen by many believers as the result of hubris and its cures as penance for past environmental sins. Our successess are undeserved and our prosperity is morally suspect.
And he doesn't even touch on modern indulgences - "carbon offsets". He also raises the idea that global warming alarmism is a rebuke to capitalism, and therefore idealogically convenient for many. I know wdmundt is gone, but does anyone else care to point out where he's wrong?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 1, 2008 11:31:07 GMT -4
[/li][li]Global Warming is seen by many believers as the result of hubris and its cures as penance for past environmental sins. [/quote] I see it more as a result of past environmental campaigner sins, to wit the rejection of nuclear power stations.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 1, 2008 12:53:50 GMT -4
It's quite the connundrum for the greens, isn't it? More nuclear power would cut carbon emissions more than any of the other technological options currently available, but would require them to admit they were wrong for putting the kibosh on it in the past.
|
|