Global warming: So sayeth the shepherd...so sayeth the flock

I did, but I just logged on, Reverend Flavel.

See you on Saturday morning for porn at the Seward County Courthouse.

 

Wonderland on the Potomac.

 

Religious leaders should be on the frontlines of the environmental crusade. Good to see some of them finally are getting involved.

 

OK, I get it. "DC" means "DC."

 

I love it -- people like AlleyAllen who disdain religion and mock religious leaders are now using quotes from the Vatican as if they are declarations from God above and mostly because they are saying something he agrees with.........

Of course when the same Vatican declares something about Abortion or Stem Cell Research, the AlleyAllen's of this board claim that they are a bunch of F%&* pharisees that brainwash people.....LOL.

Sorry dude, you can't have it both ways.....

And I know, I know, more vast right wing conspiracy....

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

 

Zag, as usual, your shots are a bit off the mark. I disdain "organized" religion because it's far too often phony and contrived. But I certainly believe in God. My whole purpose, however, was to point out that if these two groups are saying there's an issue, maybe the naysayers ought to listen, too.

The logic and subtelty obviously escaped your powerful mind view.

 

Sourcewatch.org

Nope. No bias there. Just one "independent" guy giving out "facts without opinion." He's perfect!

 

I thought sure it meant me...

 

No I got that -- I am just wondering if you would urge them to listen in the same way on issues you don't agree with them about....

Oh and I see Pastor -- thanks for explaining it -- when some left wing tree hugging crack pot comes out with a study about global warming it is gospel -- when a Republican or conservative comes out with a study about global warming it is biased.

Thanks for clearing that up, that seems perfectly logical to me....LOL

What a joke.

 

Nah, Zag, you're the joke.

See, unlike you, most of us have a brain with which we should to express some mental independence. You see, that's the wonder of free will. You can pick and choose the parts you agree and disagree with in almost any avenue. I certainly will listen to a baseball writer about his baseball predictions but will likely discount his views on politics if I feel they're wrong.

So in this case, it's a good thing that both churches are taking a stance on global warming, even if I disagree with their stance on religion itself.

Is that concept clear enough for you now?

 

From the same site I quoted before:

Note that it was attacks on the scientists not the science.

There is the money shot. It is basically the argument of Inhofe, against any and all evidence, that Global Warming not be true. As such, the author of the piece, which provides no actual information and only makes a series of claims, argues that Global Warming isn't real.

Of course, I recognize that you are batshit crazy and post lie after lie (almost Bootsian) so it is no surprise that you would take an opinion piece by an obviously bias hack as gospel.

As someone that has actually seen the shit that came from NASA, I'll go with them first...

 

Yeah, the Southern Baptists are a bunch of left-wing, tree-hugging crackpots, aren't they Zag?

Simple question: Shouldn't the devout work to protect God's wonderous creations instead of destroying it with pollution?