The moral dilemma of religion puts the “Moral imperative to stop global warming” against a brick wall – Would you rebel against it?

From The GelbspanFiles,

Russell Cook

Once again, “Religious Moral Order to Stop Global Warming” came out last week and gained another 15 minutes of popularity last week. many repetitions of news stories of the National Missionary Association released a major report detailing the “Biblical Basis for Christian Involvement” for stopping human-caused global warming.

Sadly, they almost 100 pages report works pretty much on what skeptic climate scientists and expert speakers on climate issues would describe as a completely false premise, namely the science of settled. The report claims soQuoting a NASA article:

The current warming trend is particularly significant because it is clearly the result of human activity.

Skeptic climate scientists and expert speakers on climate issues dispute that to great depth. What is missing from the NEA report? Any form of opposition based on such detailed science. The report only mentioned the basic word “skepticism” three times, all within three sentencesbetween first establishing a reasonable error of “call for consensus“And then continues with its false ‘scientific’ premise, where the reader is subtly urged to gain confidence through what is supposed to be”confirm bias. “

To its credit, the NEA’s report never implied that skeptical scientists were unscrupulous miners paid by energy giants to lie about the matter. But one of the sources cited in the report definitely didso-called “Christian climate scientist“Dr. Katharine Hayhoe. As I have implied in the longer review I submitted to NAE below, neither Dr Hayhoe nor the people she cites can prove skeptical climate scientists are spoiled by their money. fossil fuel industry if their reputation depends on it.

And that’s where the brick wall of the moral dilemma comes in for Christians in particular, for in the 10 Commandments of the Bible there is one It is forbidden to make false accusations about others.

Which sin is greater? Inaction on stopping global warming or causing others to ignore skeptical climate scientists by telling them those skeptics are paid liars in unscrupulous industry?

I want to point out this major problem with the NEA directly. Have a contact page to do so, eagerly appeared to ask for input. But their comment box only allows 300 characters or less. So I had to take what I originally wanted to send them and put it in a PDF link located in their little comment window, along with a brief summary of what was inside it. The following short is exactly what I sent them, and then verbatim text from my PDF’s link, with clickable url website addresses:


Very disappointed that your contact page only allows 300 character comments. I had to reply with my PDF link instead for my 645 words 4,334 characters criticizing your revised “Love Farthest” 2022 climate issue report. I recommend putting yourself in the ethical dilemma of not checking out what skeptical climate scientists have to say.


NAE staff,

I was just alerted to this August 31 article, “National Association of Missionaries Engaged in Calls to Care about Climate Change” ( ).

May I respectfully suggest, with good intentions, that this report of yours may be, when the person or religious group asserts that the ‘science’ of human-caused global warming has been resolved and we all must do all we can to prevent global warming, individuals or religious groups unwittingly put themselves in a serious ethical dilemma, when a the fundamental question is asked: “which is the greater sin of failing to avert the so-called global warming crisis which increasingly has problems with the reliability of basic scientific judgments, or violate the Commandment of Bringing False Witnesses against skeptical climate scientists by calling them ‘industry spoilers’ as a tactic to ensure that the public rejects science-based criticisms on the mass details of skeptical scientists are not taken seriously? “

The battle over global warming is waged on two fronts: “stable science” and “crooked skeptics”. I consider it a felony not to do a background check to see if there is a ‘second opinion’ based on a viable science on the whole matter, and I consider it a crime to do so. Accusing the well-meaning skeptic is an even greater sin. climate scientists become ‘paid liars in the industry’ without checking the veracity of the accusation. In your report, on page 49, you cited alleged “Christian climate scientist” Katharine Hayhoe, who apparently committed the crime herself when she accused the scientists climate science is skeptical of that betrayal, as seen in this screenshot ( ) about her accusations elsewhere. Her cited sources are highly questionable when I detail them here and here I suggest that if the following source cited by Ms. Hayhoe were sworn in at congressional hearings or in cross-examination in the current global warming damage lawsuits, the decline the person’s reputation could lead to an entire charge of “crooked skeptic scientists” by exposing it as something that may have strayed into epic defamation/slander territory from the side. its core issuers.

I’m not a climate scientist, I’m no more than an ordinary citizen (after a decade + due diligence to determine if the accusation of “crooked skeptics” is correct) currently has a Who’s Who-like email list of skeptical climate scientists and expert climate speakers who share the same skepticism. From my personal work researching the validity of the “crooked skeptics” accusation, I can poignantly show how it is NOT valid and that the accusation has been enacted by a core group of environmental activists, where some of their efforts have even penetrated a particular church organization. I wrote an article on this topic many years ago at AmericanThinker (“The Case of the Curious Climate Pact”) ), and there’s a current portfolio of blog posts at my GelbspanFiles blog, where two of my posts explore the BIG mistakes of the people behind the so-called “Moral imperative to stop global warming.” bridge” ( ).

I’m sure the NAE staff meant well with this report, but maybe the reason why all of you aren’t aware of the other side of the issue is because newspapers like PBS NewsHour, for example, have EXCLUSED. Detailed views of skeptical climate scientists from their program (I detail NewsHour’s specific bias here: ).

Ask yourself how much of a sin it is for such a group of influential people to deceive their audience to such an extent.

Then ask yourself whether you should retract your entire 95-page report until you’ve thoroughly examined and treated skeptical scientists fairly, such as the current 1200 behind this statement along with all the skeptical scientists and other experts behind these reports:

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button