{"id":218387,"date":"2022-09-11T12:04:11","date_gmt":"2022-09-11T10:04:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=218387"},"modified":"2022-09-11T12:04:12","modified_gmt":"2022-09-11T10:04:12","slug":"the-religious-moral-dilemma-that-drives-the-moral-imperative-to-stop-global-warming-into-a-brick-wall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=218387","title":{"rendered":"The Religious Moral Dilemma that Drives the \u201cMoral Imperative to Stop Global Warming\u201d into a Brick Wall"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The GelbspanFiles,<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russell Cook<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, the \u201cReligious Moral Imperative to Stop Global Warming\u201d popped up last week and achieved another 15 minutes of fame via multi-repeats of the news story<\/a> of the National Association of Evangelicals putting out a major report detailing the \u201cBiblical Basis for Christian Engagement\u201d to stop man-caused global warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sadly, their nearly 100 page report<\/a> operates pretty much on what skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers would describe as a completely false premise, namely that the science is settled.<\/strong> The report declares it so<\/a>, citing a NASA article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The current warming trend is of particular significance because it is unequivocally the result of human activity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers dispute that at massive depth. What\u2019s missing from the NEA report? Any semblance that such detailed science-based opposition exists. The report only mentions the basic \u201cskeptic\u201d word three times, all within three sentences<\/a>, in between first setting up a logical fallacy of \u201cappealing to consensus opinion<\/a>\u201d and then continuing on with its \u2018settled science\u2019 false premise where readers are subtly urged to acquire confidence via what is arguably \u201cconfirmation bias<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To its credit, the NEA report never insinuates skeptic scientists are immoral operators paid by energy giants to lie about the issue. But one of the report\u2019s citation sources sure did<\/a>, the so-called \u201cChristian climate scientist<\/a>\u201d Dr Katharine Hayhoe. As I implied in the longer criticism I sent to the NAE below, neither Dr Hayhoe or the people she cited could prove skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money if their reputations depended on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that\u2019s where the moral dilemma brick wall pops up for Christians in particular, since within the Bible\u2019s 10 Commandments, there is one that forbids making false accusations about others.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which is the bigger sin? Failing to act in stopping global warming, or prompting others to ignore skeptic climate scientists by telling them that those skeptics are\u00a0immoral industry-paid \u2018liars for hire\u2019<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I wanted to point out this massive problem to the NEA directly. The have a contact page for doing so<\/a>, eagerly appearing to ask for input. But their comment box only permits 300-characters or less. So I had to take what I originally wanted to send to them and put it into a PDF file link which would fit within their tiny comment window, along with a brief summary of what was within it. The short bit that follows is exactly what I sent them, and after that is the verbatim text out of my PDF file link, with the url website addresses made clickable:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Very disappointed that your contact page only permits 300-character comments. I must instead respond with my PDF file link http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Global-warming-issue-moral-dilemma-1.pdf<\/a> to my 645 words 4,334 characters criticism of your revised 2022 \u201cLoving the Least of These\u201d climate issue report. I suggest that you\u2019ve put yourselves in a moral dilemma by failing to examine what skeptic climate scientists have to say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NAE staff,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was just alerted to this Aug 31 article, \u201cNational Association of Evangelicals joins call for attention to climate change\u201d ( https:\/\/baptistnews.com\/article\/national-association-of-evangelicals-joins-call-for-attention-to-climate-change\/<\/a> ).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

May I respectfully suggest, well-intended that this report of yours might be, when religious person or group asserts that the \u2018science\u2019 of man-caused global warming is settled and all of us are under a moral imperative to do all we can to stop global warming, the religious person or group inadvertently places themselves into a serious religious moral dilemma, when an elemental question is asked: \u201cwhich is the bigger sin \u2014 failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the Commandment on Bearing False Witness against skeptic climate scientists by calling them \u2018industry-corrupted\u2019 as a tactic to ensure that the public dismisses skeptic scientists\u2019 massively detailed science-based criticisms aren\u2019t taken seriously?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The global warming issue war is waged on two fronts: \u201csettled science\u201d and \u201ccrooked skeptics.\u201d I submit that it is an elemental sin of failing to undertake basic due diligence to see if there is a viable science-based \u2018second opinion\u2019 on this entire matter, and I submit that it is an even bigger sin to accuse well-meaning skeptic climate scientists of being \u2018industry-paid liars-for-hire\u2019 without checking the veracity of the accusation. Within your report, on page 49, you cite alleged \u201cChristian climate scientist\u201d Katharine Hayhoe, who herself has apparently committed that sin when she accused skeptic climate scientists of that treachery, as seen in this screencapture ( http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/Hayhoe-Nova2.jpg<\/a> ) of her accusation elsewhere. Her citation sources are both massively suspect as I detail here http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=2728<\/a> and here http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=5917<\/a>. I submit that if the latter of Ms Hayhoe\u2019s citation sources is placed under oath at either congressional hearings or in cross examinations within the current global warming damages lawsuits, the collapse of that person\u2019s credibility could implode the entire \u201ccrooked skeptic scientists\u201d accusation by exposing it as something that may have strayed into epic libel \/slander territory on the part of its core promulgators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not a climate scientist, I am no more than a common citizen who (after a decade+ of doing due diligence to determine if the \u201ccrooked skeptics\u201d accusation is true) now has an email contact list that reads like a Who\u2019s Who of skeptic climate scientists and expert climate issue speakers who hold the same skepticism. From my own personal work researching the validity of the \u201ccrooked skeptics\u201d accusation, I can point out at considerable depth how it has NO merit, and that the accusation has been promulgated by a core clique of enviro-activists, where some of their efforts have even infiltrated one particular church organization. I wrote an article on this topic years back at AmericanThinker (\u201cThe Case of the Curious Climate Covenant\u201d https:\/\/www.americanthinker.com\/articles\/2010\/12\/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html<\/a> ), and have a current blog post category at my GelbspanFiles blog where two of my posts explore the HUGE faults of the people behind the so-called \u201cMoral Imperative to Stop Global Warming\u201d ( http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?cat=42<\/a> ).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am certain the NAE staff meant well with this report, but the reason perhaps why you all were not aware of the other side of the issue is because news outlets such as the PBS NewsHour, for example, have EXCLUDED skeptic climate scientists\u2019 detailed viewpoints from their program (I detail the NewsHour\u2019s specific bias here: http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?page_id=3834<\/a> ).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ask yourselves how big of a sin it is for such an influential body of people to deceive their viewing audiences to that extent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then ask yourselves whether you should retract your entire 95-page report until after you\u2019ve thoroughly examined and given fair treatment to skeptic scientists, e.g., the now 1200 behind this declaration\u00a0https:\/\/clintel.org\/world-climate-declaration\/<\/a><\/u><\/font>, along with all the skeptic scientists and other experts behind these reports:\u00a0http:\/\/climatechangereconsidered.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

September 11, 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
The Religious Moral Dilemma that Drives the \u201cMoral Imperative to Stop Global Warming\u201d into a Brick Wall<\/a><\/blockquote>