posted
The title is a little misleading, but somewhat applicable still.
I came across this article online today whilest browsing around the catholic news on Yahoo. Particularly interesting was this:
quote:An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”. ...
Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, who retired as Archbishop of Bologna three years ago, quoted Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), the Russian philosopher and mystic, as predicting that the Antichrist “will convoke an ecumenical council and seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions”. ....
Cardinal Biffi said that the Antichrist was not necessarily a person but “the reduction of Christianity to an ideology . . . The teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the heart of being a Christian is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ.” But he quoted with approval from Solovyov’s Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History, which suggests that the Antichrist is a real figure.
Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.
Then later in the evening I saw an interesting piece on the NBC news about evangelical Christians disagreeing about the role of environmentalism in Christianity. I thought it was too much of a coincidence and wanted to post about it.
First, I don't find anything wrong with what Cardinal Biffi had to say. He's simply saying that Christians have to be aware of the watering down of Christianity, and not just from evil men. It may come from people who seem well intentioned, with good will in mind. But we should be aware of those who would take Christ out of Christianity in favor of more humanistic philosophies. And I find nothing wrong with that warning. Of course, it's not a bad thing to be environmentally conscious and concerned. That's a good thing. But I think what he's saying, it's not enough to be a supporter of peace, or love, or humanity, or even environmentalism. If you want to be Christian, you cannot ignore the messages of Christ.
Then of course I thought about Speaker for the Dead, and the priest that argued with Ender about his "humanistic religion" of Speaking for the Dead.
The piece on NBC had clips of Jerry Faldwell basically saying that the earth will continue to produce and provide for us as long as God wants it to, until end days, and that Christians shouldn't be worried about the environment. And there was an opposing opinion from some other evangelical that said the opposite. And frankly, I agree more with the other evangelical than Faldwell. There's nothing wrong with being concerned for the earth, and asking people to do the same, to change their lives to make this world a better place. I think it falls in line with a part of being Christian and not against Christian values. And I think it's probably beetter than Faldwell's stand, which is basically don't worry, God will take care of the earth.
What was interesting, or troubling, to me was some of the responses after the internet article, though. Particularly those people who took time to not understand the article, but to rip on Christianity and Catholicism, yet support the message of peace and love and environmentalism. Particularly the anger and vitriol in some of the responses I would think that anyone willing to embrace and spread those ideas would be less inclined to attack someone's religion. It seems to me that it we have become an either/or society. Either you're a enlightened liberal that pushes progressive ideas or you're a right winger that is against you. Either you're a christian or you're an environmentalist. If you're a christian you can't have progressive ideas. If you're progressive you can't believe in God.
Being a person that doesn't like to deal in absolutes like that, it really bothers me that people who associate themselves one way or the other have to attack the other side. Is that really necessary? You can't respect that opinion and consider it, you've got to shoot them down? Whatever happened to listening to an opposing view point and maybe absorbing and learning from that? It really baffles me that someone would take what the Cardinal says as an attack on environmentalism, it's clearly not.
I'm just kinda ranting, and hoping this would spark a debate, maybe some insight or discussion. Either about Humanism vs Christianity or the idea of absolutes.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Christian I believe we are called to be good stewards of what God has given us, so environmental concerns would completely fall in line with Christian beliefs.
As far as the either/or absolute issue it does seem to feel that way in the media, but that is what they do. A moderate is not interesting TV. In real life I think most people are not quite that extreme. Most of the Christians I know are moving further away from the stereotype the media portrays to becoming more accepting people. I've seen much less of the “we can't support them because they don't do...(whatever)” attitude than I used to. Hopefully it is a trend that continues. Maybe people are realizing it is not helpful to have an us against them attitude. It is possible to accept people you don't agree with on every issue without compromising your own values.
Christ said those who are not against Him are for Him. So unless someone is actively working against Christianity I don't see why we should worry about them. I guess the trouble comes in with how some people define "actively working against Christianity"
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (part of Catholic Social Teaching):
quote: Care for God’s Creation We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
posted
The articles I've seen seem to pit the idea of Christian activism on the environment against Christian activism on abortion and gay marriage. Dobbs was quoted to saying something to the effect that a statement by an Evangelical council supporting environmentalism is an attempt to distract from the important issues, although I can't find a link right now.
I have no idea why this would be so. There's nothing about any of those that require a particular view on the others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Introduction to the section on "The Natural World" from the United Methodist Social Principles:
quote: All creation is the Lord’s and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and non-renewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation.
quote:As a Christian I believe we are called to be good stewards of what God has given us, so environmental concerns would completely fall in line with Christian beliefs.
Absolutely.
With how many descriptions of what makes somebody a "good steward" and a "bad steward" in the bible, I find it ridiculous that people like Falwell think that in regards to our own earth, we should ignore what we do to the earth as God will simply bail us out.
In my American Foreign policy class the subject of greenhouse gases and the debate on global warming came up, and an older man in the class said, "Why can't people just accept God's promise in the Bible that he would never flood the earth again."
I'm not joking when I say I saw at least 8 seperate people get this intense look of bloodlust as they prepared to obliterate religious references from our government funded class.
Out of the mass of annoyed responses I think the most pertanent was, "Even if we accept the biblical account as factual, if global warming were to cause the earth to flood, it would be MAN flooding the earth not God."
I like the following scripture alot, "I the Lord God am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not, ye have no promise."
quote:In my American Foreign policy class the subject of greenhouse gases and the debate on global warming came up, and an older man in the class said, "Why can't people just accept God's promise in the Bible that he would never flood the earth again."
I'm not joking when I say I saw at least 8 seperate people get this intense look of bloodlust as they prepared to obliterate religious references from our government funded class.
You really think that this was the most likely source of their ire? I mean, that it was just "Oh no, we need to get rid of religion." as opposed to something else like the extreme stupidity of the comment?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah universities have interesting social dynamics Squicky. In some ways they're a lot touchier about religious issues than other places I've lived, given the vast majority held by a single religion and the resulting defensiveness of the minority.
I'd trust BlackBlade's first person account. I doubt the "intesnse look of bloodlust" would have been there had the man simply made a stupid non-religious comment.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt the "intesnse look of bloodlust" would have been there had the man simply made a stupid non-religious comment.
I know I find people who push their issue and take up class time asking or saying stupid things annoy me a great deal. I don't know that I'd say I feel intense bloodlust over this, but you'd likely be able to see a negative reaction from me for something like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need BB to clarify if "they prepared to obliterate religious references from our government funded class" was based on something said or is BB's characterization of events.
I have heard such things in class before (including when religious views were absolutely relevant to the material), but never from more than one person at a time.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm the same way MrSquicky, it bothers me when class time is used up that way- two of my undergraduate physics classes were terrible for this. In this case, this particular comment bothers me both from an academic standpoint as well as a religious one.
However, I can't think of a time when a question asked in class has actually made me mad (let alone emotional enough that the casual observer would make note of it enough to remember). However, I guess that people more emotionally invested in the topic would have different reactions than what I might consider normal.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.
This paragraph bothers me. I don't think "Goodness, Truth, and Beauty" are any closer to being absolute than "Solidarity, Love of Peace, and Respect for Nature." In fact, I think Goodness and Beauty in particular are relative values.
Galileo was labeled a heretic for teaching doctrine that confused the faithful, and it sounds like this is a similar accusation, except instead of the faithful being confused by the sun being at the center and the earth revolving around it, Solidarity, Love of Peace, and Respect for Nature are confusing the masses. Excuse me, "putting obstacles in the way of salvation."
And despite being labeled eccentric, his point of view comes off as being typical of the Catholic Church, although I am always hopeful they'll move past their control issues and start letting people decide things for themselves.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my American Foreign policy class the subject of greenhouse gases and the debate on global warming came up, and an older man in the class said, "Why can't people just accept God's promise in the Bible that he would never flood the earth again."
I'm not joking when I say I saw at least 8 seperate people get this intense look of bloodlust as they prepared to obliterate religious references from our government funded class.
You really think that this was the most likely source of their ire? I mean, that it was just "Oh no, we need to get rid of religion." as opposed to something else like the extreme stupidity of the comment?
My apologies for not being clear. I did not mean to suggest that those who got irked at the man's comments were ALL anti-religionists. Some of the people who had the look I mentioned were Christians and even some Mormons themselves.
But certainly more (from my perspective) people were yelling, "Separation of church and state!" and "You can't use religion as an argument in a government funded school."
I say "more" then say, "Not everybody accepts Christianity as true, and you would have to address that before you use it as an authoritative answer on this topic."
It was most unfortunate that when somebody DID state to the man the, "Not everybody accepts...." argument, the man's response was, "Thats not my problem, that's theirs."
Whatever that means.
I hope that clears things up Mr.S
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: The piece on NBC had clips of Jerry Faldwell basically saying that the earth will continue to produce and provide for us as long as God wants it to, until end days, and that Christians shouldn't be worried about the environment.
I think this sort of thinking confuses the earth for the Garden of Eden.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Not really. In a situation like that, if the proper response of a brief stare and then ignoring what they said wasn't available for some reason, I'd probably explain that a religious argument isn't particularly compelling or appropriate in that situation. But what I'd be thinking is "Man, that's stupid. How do we get this idiot to shut up?"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Not really. In a situation like that, if the proper response of a brief stare and then ignoring what they said wasn't available for some reason, I'd probably explain that a religious argument isn't particularly compelling or appropriate in that situation. But what I'd be thinking is "Man, that's stupid. How do we get this idiot to shut up?"
And you would be part of the problem then.
And I meant, "clears up" as in, makes the situation more clear, not hope that makes you agree with me.
The man clearly does not grasp the concept of why his argument is flawed and essentially pointless in this situation.
edit: Who are you suggesting should give the man a disapproving stare and ignore his comments? The teacher? The class? I do not think either would be right in taking such a response. /edit
At least you would do him the courtesy of giving him good advice, I just hope you mask your disdain well.
My response (in my mind) was that the comment was stupid, but I had alot of sympathy for the man. Whereas the folks who were upset with him merely reinforce his belief that those who do not agree with him are "Godless Barbarians."
To be honest, I myself made the comment I quoted before about "Assuming we accept the bible as factual, and many people do not, if greenhouse gases cause the earth to flood, then its humans that flooded it, not God."
I could already tell the man does not grasp the futility in this circumstance of using theology in a discussion about science. I decided instead to work within the framework of his religion while remaining honest to my own convictions. He actually responded positively to my point, he responded negatively to others.
I was disappointed when even my best friend seemed more interested in getting the man to shut up and not contribute to future discussions rather then helping him.
edited for clarity and spelling.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. From my perspective, you are part of the problem, which is that the self-centered stupid issue people think that they are not completely out of line doing what they do.
I'm there to teach or to learn. I'm not there to do remedial proper behavior for the spoiled who are wasting my time. It's not my job and they never seem to want to learn this anyway. These people are, to me, the academic equivilent of people talking in a movie theater. They don't contribute to discussions; they pollute them.
---
I knew how you used clears up. It doesn't clear it up for me because I don't think you've established that these people were doing what you said as opposed to what I said they might be doing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. From my perspective, you are part of the problem, which is that the self-centered stupid issue people think that they are not completely out of line doing what they do.
I'm there to teach or to learn. I'm not there to do remedial proper behavior for the spoiled who are wasting my time. It's not my job and they never seem to want to learn this anyway. These people are, to me, the academic equivilent of people talking in a movie theater. They don't contribute to discussions; they pollute them.
Your lack of empathy is quite striking Mr S.
Again, "Who are you suggesting should give the man a disapproving stare and ignore his comments? The teacher? The class? I do not think either would be right in taking such a response."
Your response of, "I'd probably explain that a religious argument isn't particularly compelling or appropriate in that situation," does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. Obviously the man already believes his comment is compelling AND appropriate otherwise he probably would not have said it in the FIRST place. You simply telling him its not would convince only somebody under hypnosis.
quote: I'm there to teach or to learn. I'm not there to do remedial proper behavior for the spoiled who are wasting my time
You seem to have judged the man far deeper then even I dared to, and I was there. I wager you would do FAR more good to teach the concept of "religion in a secular classroom." Then you would "I find your mindset inherently flawed and thus a waste of my time." Who are you to tell a 50+ year old man he has nothing of value to say?
quote: These people are, to me, the academic equivilent of people talking in a movie theater. They don't contribute to discussions; they pollute them.
That's a terrible analogy, people talking in a movie theater do so because they consciously do not agree with or care about remaining silent during a movie.
For your analogy to work the man would have to believe he has nothing of value to say, and be aware that everyone in the class believes that to be true.
I assume a man of his age is in college PRECISELY in order to learn more intellectual patterns of thinking. Your SOP simply tells him that you have nothing but contempt for his ideas and beliefs and that college most likely causes one to think as you do. Something I am sure he would rather drop out of college then obtain.
quote: t doesn't clear it up for me because I don't think you've established that these people were doing what you said as opposed to what I said they might be doing.
Well I was there, and you were not. Your perception is dependent entirely on the information I relay to you. Its certainly possible that you are right and that I am wrong, but the odds are against you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter whether they "prepared to obliterate religious references from our government funded class." Now that we know what they actually said,* we know that those people were making points at least as ridiculous as the original speaker and were only less rude in that they didn't start the diversion from productive discussion.
*Here's what was actually said according to the only report we have:
quote:"Separation of church and state!" and "You can't use religion as an argument in a government funded school."
This is, quite simply, idiotic.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.
This paragraph bothers me. I don't think "Goodness, Truth, and Beauty" are any closer to being absolute than "Solidarity, Love of Peace, and Respect for Nature." In fact, I think Goodness and Beauty in particular are relative values.
Galileo was labeled a heretic for teaching doctrine that confused the faithful, and it sounds like this is a similar accusation, except instead of the faithful being confused by the sun being at the center and the earth revolving around it, Solidarity, Love of Peace, and Respect for Nature are confusing the masses. Excuse me, "putting obstacles in the way of salvation."
He's referring to people who would take christianity and reduce it so relative values replace the core message of Christ. He isn't saying that there's anything wrong with those values, just as long as people don't eliminate the core of Christianity. Those relative values, while important, are still issues of this world, humanist issues. While that's important, the idea of christianity is to prepare you for the world after this and to not get too hung up with things in this world. To water down christianity, take Christ and His message out, and to make it simply about those relative humanist issues would be an unraveling of Christianity.
And of course, if you don't care about Christianity, then you don't care about that anyway and it doesn't pertain to you.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
He isn't saying that there's anything wrong with those values, just as long as people don't eliminate the core of Christianity. Those relative values, while important, are still issues of this world, humanist issues. While that's important, the idea of christianity is to prepare you for the world after this and to not get too hung up with things in this world. To water down christianity, take Christ and His message out, and to make it simply about those relative humanist issues would be an unraveling of Christianity.
I think the article favors a liberal standpoint. The way you put it makes it sound so perfectly reasonable, but the article goes out of its way to point out that this cardinal is known for having eccentric views.
To me, the cardinal giving the speech is clearly conservative, and they mention that he certainly has liberal opponents within the church. I tend to be more liberal minded. I don't find anything wrong with the message as you have phrased it, but the way it is presented in the article definitely cast it in a negative light for me.
The following excerpt paints the Cardinal as being eccentric. Is he a hateful eccentric or a strange but harmless eccentric? It insinuates to me at least that he is a bit intolerant and extreme:
"The choice of Cardinal Biffi raised eyebrows in the Vatican, given his sometimes eccentric views. The cardinal gave a warning of the coming of the Antichrist during his two decades as the Archbishop of Bologna, and said that an “invasion” of Muslim immigrants was undermining Europe’s Christian values."
Of course, it doesn't tell us what, if any plan of action the cardinal recommended Christians should take. Should they repel the invaders? Convert them? Put them into gas chambers? Accept them as moral people with their own distinct identity, and simply stress that Europeans should strive to maintain a strong Christian identity? That quote could be wildly out of context, and seems to serve no purpose other than to show the Cardinal as being eccentric, Conservative, and a bit intolerant of other religions (maybe 'territorial' is a better word).
And then "Cardinal Biffi said that the Antichrist was not necessarily a person but “the reduction of Christianity to an ideology . . . The teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the heart of being a Christian is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ.” But he quoted with approval from Solovyov’s Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History, which suggests that the Antichrist is a real figure."
That little gem, rather than making things clear for me, suggests that the Cardinal can't make up his mind whether or not the anti-Christ is a real figure. To me, it subtly suggests that the cardinal is quoting from two different sources that have very different views on the same issue. On the surface of things, that paragraph reflects poorly on the cardinal. It doesn't delve very deeply into the Cardinals personal views, and I find it probable that he could justify using both sources, possibly because the anti-Christ could be both of those things. A little more investigation would have been nice.
"The choice of Lenten speaker has in the past given a clue to Vatican policy, although one source said that Cardinal Biffi had perhaps been chosen because his “verbal fireworks” would keep listeners awake."
Even this last little part reflects poorly on the Cardinal. It shouldn't, because we have no idea who this "source" is, or how prevalent this opinion might be. But the idea that he was not chosen for his beliefs, but because he could put on a good show suggests a lot about how the church feels about his views. Note the word "suggests." It by no means provides any real evidence.
I don't care for or have a personal relationship with the Christian God (or any God, for that matter), but I absolutely care about people (and the environment), so this might pertain to me more than you think.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would prefer to be a steward of God's works rather than a heedless moocher, were I given the choice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm there to teach or to learn. I'm not there to do remedial proper behavior for the spoiled who are wasting my time. It's not my job and they never seem to want to learn this anyway. These people are, to me, the academic equivilent of people talking in a movie theater. They don't contribute to discussions; they pollute them.
posted
DD: I don't know anything about Cardinal Biffi, other than what's in the article. But you should understand when the catholic church considers someone eccentric or liberal, that doesn't mean necessarily they fit the rest of the world's definition of eccentric or liberal. Especially when dealing with the vatican. A liberal catholic is probably still very conservative.
As far as the message goes, the church is somewhat leary of making specific statements about things like the antichrist. I'm thinking the choice of him to speak was more of a general warning about allowing outside influences to water down christianity's core message, not a specific ruling on antichrist lore.
And as far as Muslims go, the catholic church is very concerned with the decrease in christianity in Europe, traditionally its strong hold of the faith. I don't think they're calling for a crusade.
And finally, as I said, the church isn't saying those values are bad. Peace, love, environmentalism. Just that they shouldn't get in the way of Jesus' message. It's just a way of saying you can practice those values, but don't forget about Jesus. Many people think that keeping to those things makes them good christians, but if you don't also honor Jesus you're missing out. And to let that overwhelm the path of Christianity would be bad.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Who are you to tell a 50+ year old man he has nothing of value to say?"
The IntergovernmentalPanel(on)ClimateChange predicts a maximum sea-level rise of 0.6metres/2feet within the next century. There is a group of dissenters who say that actual measurements taken between 1990 and 2006 strongly indicate that the sea-level will rise 0.9metres/3feet, or more.
So let's use 10times the IPPC projection for the effect of a 6metre/20foot sea-level rise on Florida -- about the sea-level rise produced by a meltdown of the Greenland icecap on some of the flattest lowest-lying land on Earth -- just to make sure that we don't underplay the hazard of flooding.
Comparing that coastal-flooding map to this Florida map, you'll notice KeyLargo sitting just off the southern coast of Florida. And that east of FortMeyers and west of LakeOkeechobee, LaBelle is above the flooding zone. The distance between KeyLargo and LaBelle is ~121miles/~195kilometres, about the farthest distance one would have to travel to avoid drowning.
If the meltdown takes place over a century, one would have to travel ~1.2miles/~2kilometres per year to avoid drowning. There are ~8766hours per year. A snail would have to be suicidal to not avoid death approaching at a speed of less than 9inches/23centimetres per hour. Then extremely patient as the water rises at a rate of 0.2inch/5millimetres per month.
So let's make it more*exciting: total meltdown of both the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps in one century. Which would cause the sea-level rise of ~72metres/240feet, and flood the darkest-green portions of these continental maps and these USA maps. And which would speed up the approach of death by drowning by a factor of 12 to 8feet9inches/2.66metres per hour. Then one could watch the water rise at a rate of 2.4inches/6centimeters per month.
In other words... Upon hearing the equivalent of "It's dangerous to ride a bicycle without a helmet", that 50+ year old man responded with the equivalent of "Nah, don't need a helmet. I never ride a bicycle faster than the jets flying around me." Theologically, his response made even less sense.
posted
I'm trying to decide if you're being sarcastic, aspectre, of if you're seriously trying to make the argument that coastal flooding doesn't pose a danger because people can just slowly walk out of the way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm trying to decide if you're being sarcastic, aspectre, of if you're seriously trying to make the argument that coastal flooding doesn't pose a danger because people can just slowly walk out of the way.
posted
In the context of GlobalWarming, worrying about drowning from coastal flooding is somewhere between: Having your convertible stuck on a railroad track with a train approaching at high speed, and expending your efforts on protecting the leather upholstery from the rain; And being stuck in Baghdad outside of the GreenZone, and fretting about whether or not ParisHilton is wearing panties.
posted
aspectre: I am lost as to what that had to do with my statement. I was talking about telling somebody they have NOTHING of value to say on ANY subject. I am perfectly aware that there are folks with such extensive knowledge on a topic that it is prudent for me and others to just shut up and let them explain, teach, and exhort.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure anyone is worried about drowning from coastal flooding because of global warming. But something to worry about is the loss of that land, where to put displaced people, the loss of valuable ports, etc. It's not just coasts, but rivers and places like the great lakes where people will be displaced. Where do you move all those people as the water creeps up? How do you replace ports on a coast that keeps moving. What about New York City, which is right on the water. Where do you put displaced people there? Huge buildings under water, one of the nations greatest ports?
Now let's worry about the rest of the world as the ice melts. Polar bears and other arctic wildlife is already becoming endangered because their habitats are disappearing. How will all the added water affect the ocean currents, the weather that is dependent on warm air and water coming from the oceans? What will we do as the weather temps heat up and change current patterns as far as food production? Areas closer to the equator that produce food today will lose those abilities. The farm belt will move north, which is a problem at the very least here in America.
It's a lot more than just simply slowly walking away from the coastline.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
