Falwell: Evangelicals and Global Warming

[meegbear]

FALWELL CONFIDENTIAL
Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and
The Liberty Alliance http://www.moralmajority.com <http://www.moralmajority.com/>

From: Jerry Falwell
Date: November 17, 2006

Evangelicals and Global Warming

There is a developing cultural divide occurring within the evangelical community over an unlikely subject: global warming.

On one side, we have Southern Baptist-in-name-only Al Gore touting the potential ruin of the planet in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." Joining with him, somewhat surprisingly, has been the upstart Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which has called for sweeping reform to combat global warming in what it terms a Bible-based response to the issue.

Curiously, the ECI, which includes 86 prominent church leaders, has linked with abortion-on-demand and population control organizations that are touting global warming as genuine science.

The ECI’s decision to join the global warming wars compelled two conservative evangelical think tanks — the Institute on Religion & Democracy and the Action Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty — to suggest the ECI has been "exploited" by the abortion-rights community. They note that this strange union could actually "give anti-Christian ideologies unmerited moral and theological cover."

Indeed, it could.

On the other hand, a position from which I am writing, there are those who believe that, while the earth appears to have slightly warmed in recent years, there is legitimate question as to whether this has been caused by human activity or by natural cycles.

So, a group of evangelicals has united to counter the efforts of the ECI. This group, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), is a gathering of scholars and pastors (yes, they can coexist) who believe that "evangelicals should be wary of the politicization and bad science of global warming alarmism."

The problem is that when evangelicals jump on board with liberal groups that are advancing climate alarmism, the so-called major media is there to trumpet their action. As such, when the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance’s released its "Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor," which contains a "detailed biblical and scientific response to the much-heralded Evangelical Climate Initiative," it was virtually ignored by the media.

Another frequently ignored element in the global warming debate is the fact that so-called solutions to the problem will damage the American economy.

Bill Saunders, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Life and Bioethics and Human Rights Council, recently wrote: "If the effects of global warming are real and, in the future, humans face hotter summers and higher sea levels, the solution is not restricting energy access and limiting economic growth. That is quite unlikely to solve the problem. It is certain to lead to economic recession in developed countries, invariably keeping undeveloped countries in poverty as their growth is dependent on the strength of developed nations."

So we must address any real climate changes with legitimate solutions that do not hinder economic development in our nation. The world will certainly suffer if America is monetarily punished.

Nevertheless, the United Nations is touting global warming as an issue as problematic as terrorism.

This week, Sen. James Inhofe dismissed a U.N. meeting on climate change as "a brainwashing session," proclaiming that "The idea that the science (on global warming) is settled is altogether wrong."

He’ll certainly be pilloried by those who believe we should not question the facts of global warming.

I thank God that we have reasonable men like Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) who are willing to take a stand.

Finally, I think it’s interesting that, according to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, the last two months in the continental U.S. have been cooler than average.

The organization reported: " <> The combination of a cooler-than-average September and October dropped the year-to-date national temperature from record warmest to third warmest for the January through October 2006 period. The record warmest January through October occurred in 1934."

I imagine if the scientists of 1934 had the technology we enjoy today, they would have been predicting global warming in their era, as well. The only problem would have been that their fellow scientists in the 1970s would be predicting a massive global freeze in the near future. Of course, that didn’t happen.

In other words, cooler heads must prevail in this global warming debate, especially in the evangelical community.

[WCGreen]

1. Jerry Fallwell, Christian-in-name-only.....

[rosesaylavee]

2. It is comforting to note

that Jerry is not as popular as he once was just a few years ago.

I hope evangelicals will continue to question what's being fed them in the name of Christ. Remember false prophets and all that my Christian friends...

[Perky]

3. self delete

Need more coffee

[pdxmom]

4. I can't stand it when they are so intellectually dishonest. I know. They

are always intellectually dishonest, but when it comes to global climate change, they take it even further than usual. It's about climate CHANGES...not just whether it's overall warmer or overall cooler. They're just idiots following idiots.

[Vorta]

5. Falwell sees "global warming" as a vehicle for socialism/communism

The problem is that he's right. There are those who would hijack the terminology and the apparatus of he environmental movement, including promoting junk science or exaggerating legitimate science, for the purpose of promoting more government ownership, more government control, and simply more government. Well meaning folks they may well be, but communism is slavery.

Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to be as suspicious of our "friends" as we are of our enemies. Your friends are the ones who sabotage you.

[leesa]

8. Capping emissions is slavery?? What hysterical nonsense.

[AZCat]

15. Considering that the "free market" does a horrible job...

managing invisible costs (like pollution or greenhouse gases) we have little choice but to regulate these matters ourselves. Since there is no actual separation between "the government" and "the people" (it merely being the body that carries out the will of the people) this means that in order to prevent global catastrophe we must have more government control of the processes and industries that have created this problem. How you manage to turn this into a push for communism is not apparent to me, nor do I see how calling for regulation of CO2 emissions is "sabotage".

[Vorta]

16. "in order to prevent global catastrophe we must have more government control"

First, you are assuming a fact not in evidence, ie that there is a pending global catastrophe. It is not settled science, every article you will read promoting this idea is EXACTLY the kind of article we rip to shreds when someone like Falwell or the AFA comes out with some new way of saying that the country is going to hell. "Many scientists say", well hell, EWTN has scientists who believe in literal creationism. "Many scientists say that we are headed for a global catstrophe" is no more convincing than "More doctors smoke Newport than any other cigarette." Stacked studies are another fave in this movement.

"More government control." What is the government controlling? Ultimately, they are controlling production and consumption. That's really close to owning production and consumption.

[AZCat]

19. Bullshit.

If you can't see that global warming is "settled science" then you have two choices: you can keep your head in the sand or you can begin educating yourself about this. Get back to me when you actually know something worthwhile.

[Vorta]

20. Convincing. Global Warming- an End Times prophecy for the atheist.

[AZCat]

23. Now you're reaching - for the RW rhetoric, unfortunately.

Get back to me when you have a legitimate argument (I won't be holding my breath, though).



Enjoy your stay here, too. :eyes:

[Vorta]

24. You dare demand a legitimate argument?

What have you offered? As far as I can see, your argument is: "GW is settled science and if you don't believe that then I'm going to accuse you of being in bed with the RW." Are you suggesting that one must hold to a doctrinal view on a scientific question? There is dissent, from credible sources.

Now the argument would probably go to "Who is behind the dissent?" It's a fair question, AS IS , "Who is behind the support?" The popularity of a view is utterly irrelevant to its truth. However, the promotion of a view for popular support generally has an aspect that is self-serving or mendacious; it's human nature.

Most of the people one encounters who trumpet the doom of GW can't even answer simple questions about the premise. Now I, and surely you, upon first hearing about GW ran for resources to challenge the idea. It's the thinking man's way of learning- disbelieve and try to prove wrong. You obviously have evaluated the dissent and have concluded that GW is settled science. I have evaluated the dissent and I disagree with you. That's really all there is to it.

BTW, as far as I know, the 'End Times prophecy of the atheist" is my own and not "RW rhetoric". I even ran it by some hard core conservatives (not the freeper types) to see if they had ever seen a similar suggestion. Here is one response:

You may be original. But that doesn't mean nobody else has come up with it. It just means I've never heard that slant on it before.

For what it's worth, I don't think they view it as "end times". In my own experience, the greens have been looking for a disaster ever since the river fire. Global warming as a human-induced phenomenon would be perfect, both as a disaster and as a HUGE validation of their self-images. They see themselves as the unappreciated saviors of the earth, battling the forces of darkness in an effort to restore the "natural balance" under which everything prospers. They've been predicting disaster since the 1960's and they're still waiting for the chance to show the rest of us that they were right all along.

But end times? No, I think they view it as a chance to come into their own. But you're right about their attitude. They believe it. Look at the indicators. The latest is this trend of calling for the suppression of "deniers". The "deniers" are endangering the entire human race and ought to be arrested for obstructing its only hope for salvation. Osama's boys operate on much the same premises.

Here's another:

Go to http://www.globalwarming.org/
This website contains a great deal of information on why global warming is fundamentally a huge hoax.

There's also http://www.sepp.org but it tends to be heavily scientific and a tad daunting.

Suffice it to say there is a ton of information with which to refute global warming, but in the end it needs also be said that the Earth has been warming for about ten or eleven thousand years since the last Ice Age. Were it not for this warming, known as an interglacial period, civilization would not have occurred around the world or would have been limited only to the southern hemisphere.

During this long warming period, there were many instances of brief mini-Ice Ages as well. The climate is cyclical, circling back and repeating itself. The best definition for it is "chaos." It is only predictable in the most vague terms because like the weather from day to day, week to week, it is in a state of constant change.

It would be fairer to say that "Yes, the Earth has been warming and continues in the current cycle between Ice Ages", but it would be far more accurate to predict a new Ice Age within the next thousand years or less because we are well and truly at the end of the current warming cycle.

I hope you took the time to read what these men wrote. Surely, like myself, you seek out those who disagree with you, to broaden your perspective and to further your understanding. The author of the first response is a Phd in computer science and a former street kid from Brooklyn. The author of the second is a published OP Ed writer and book reviewer and scion of one of America's successful but lesser known artists, probably the most voracious reader I have ever known.

[hatrack]

25. Wow, a CEI website! Gosh, how could I have been so wrong?!?

After all, CEI scientists have published just TONS of articles in GRL, PNAS, Nature, Science and all of the leading scientific publications! And of course, there were their substantial contributions to the upcoming IPCC report due out in February.

Perhaps you could list a few of them here for me so that I'll be even more convinced of the overwhelming strength of your arguments.

[AZCat]

27. It's sad that people still buy into this propaganda.

I don't understand why. Perhaps their reasons are genuine rather than cynical, but the end result is the same - enough "confusion" over the issue that people like Inhofe can get away with blatant lies.

[AZCat]

26. My argument is quite simple.

It is as follows:
GW is settled science and if you don't believe that then you are uninformed (or misinformed).

No amount of crappy propaganda will change the fairly simple science behind global warming theory. To have (as you say) "evaluated the dissent" and failed to conclude the obvious is either a sign of ignorance or gullibility. One of these you can change, the other I am afraid you are stuck with.

[SaveElmer]

6. Any man who ignores so many of Jesus' teachings...

Is not to be listened too...("Love Thy Neighbor" comes to mind)

Fact is he is invested monetarily in a right wing domination of national government. He is beholden to the same corporate sponsors the Republican Party is beholden to.

Any issue not originating with the Republican Party, or wholeheartedly embraced by the right wing of the party, will be dismissed as anti-Christian.

In addition, any person who holds a literlist view of biblical teaching is in no way credible on scientific matters.

Luckily, the fat blowhard that Falwell has become is increasingly being dismissed as just that.

[Perky]

10. The funny thing is that he is ignmoring the Old Testament here as well.

The OT is actually very green on land use and stewarship both in the the Torah and in the Prophets.

[Perky]

7. I will make a stunning prediction on the issue of Global Warming and the Church

well actually the envirnment in general..... It willbe the undoing of the RW fundies..

I was at our weekly small group/bible studies last night. Now you have to undertstand that there are four progressives, three active duty military. a cop and IRS careerist and we all live in Northern VA suburbs and are otherwise very politically diverse.

But we were having the discussion about the role of the CHurch on environmnetal issues. and perhaps more succinctly Christian stewardship of the Earth. I made the point that I had run across a Bill Moyers website that brought together Rick Warren, Tri Robinson of the Boise Vineyard Church (Check these guys out) and Jim Wallis (sojo.net). I made the point that the coalescing around the issue of our responsibilities to the enviroment reminded me alot of the early days of the Habitat for Humanity movement in that it brought together social justice and evangelism in a way that transcended sectarian bias and denominationism but that the environment is a much larger issue and that the Church would seem to be gravitating rapidly toward a new understanding.

SOmeone else the point that the issues transcened typical political barriers and creates new fault lines and with the fundie movement. But that because the issues of global warming and land use are transcendant new voices like Tri Robinson's will emerge. Those that those that who either put their head in the sand or espouse a dominionist view that we can do whatever we want are going to wind up losing a great bit of support.

And here is Falwell trying to link abortion and the environment. SOrt of proves the point.

[leesa]

9. I agree. This is one thing Fundies seem to get. For some reason the idea

of stewardship of the earth sticks in their brains even though the prohibition of killing and stealing have seemingly flown the coup. Hopefully someday they connect to the idea of bombing countries with depleted uranium as not very good stewardship, nevermind all the dead people.

Many still try to deny it, but the evidence is overwhelming and they really can't.

[G_j]

11. "genuine science"

TAKE IT FROM MR SCIENCE HIMSELF, AND REMEMBER OUR FLAT EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM .

[Zorro]

12. The world will be a better place

when that beady-eyed porkfaced hypocrite meets his maker and finds out he's destined for the nether regions for eternity.

Hope that day comes soon.

[ourbluenation]

13. If you believe in a hell, he is surely destined to go there upon exiting this earthly plane. n/t

[bobbolink]

14. Heh... he's starting to feel the "heat"!

Heh... he's starting to feel the "heat"!

(pun intended)

Moyers reported in his program, "Is God Green?", that an evangelical group called "creation care" is gaining strength, and it appears that Falwell is feeling the pressure.

I can't stand to read all Falwell's words... what a detestable man! I'm sure glad there are some cooler heads among the evangelicals!

http://www.creationcare.org/ From google, and there is supposed to be something about it on Moyers site, Moyers On America. Too bad for falwell.... :)

[Bluebear]

17. "Southern Baptist-in-name-only Al Gore" - - - fuck you, Falwell. nt

[LittleClarkie]

18. Who is he to decide whether or not Al Gore is right with his religion

I think Gore has exhibited some fine Christ-like qualities. Where was Farwell during Katrina. I know where Al Gore was. He was ferrying sick people from Louisiana to Tennessee.

Farwell, you're a pastor, not God. And people like you make my Baptist friend cringe knowing that some people think you represent her denomination.

[piedmont]

21. How does one pronounce "SBINO?"

I can't wait to see the rigorous research coming out of this new "think" tank.

[Nikia]

22. Global warming does damage the economy

The problem is that the polluters don't pay for the damage that they are causing. This will have to be dealt with one way or another in the near future, the sooner the better. I am glad that there are some Christain organizations on the environmentalist side. It is too bad that Falwell is so against anything "liberal" that he cannot consider that this might really be a problem.