Stanek weekend Q: Why is it always the pro-life movement that is told to take on other issues?
The title of the September 8 USA Today column was a bit misleading.
Author Tom Krattenmaker’s focus was urging pro-life Christians to become involved in the effort to sustain water, the growing scarcity of which, he claimed, is becoming a worldwide problem:
If you care about life - and I know you do, especially if you’re a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life - please pay attention to what is happening with the water….
Lately, because of political controversies and headline-grabbing court cases such as the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, the public’s view of evangelical reverence for life has been reduced mainly to fetuses and fertilized eggs. In truth, evangelicals are addressing myriad threats to life, from poverty and slavery to genocide. If the life movement can devote itself to fighting these, can’t it also confront the threat to our life-giving water - and compel the small- and large-scale actions that will conserve it for human beings today and tomorrow?
Krattenmaker confused the issue by interchanging the terms ”Christian,” “evangelical,” and “the life movement.” It is true Christians took on poverty, slavery, and genocide as core issues – a couple thousand years before any other movement came along.
But everyone can’t do everything. Christians comprise a body. See I Corinthians 12. Our body is woven together by people God has brought together who are gifted with different talents and passions. Christians use their God-given talents and passions in various ways to give the Church body life. It’s a beautiful thing.
So there is a subset of Christians whose passion is stopping abortion. (Embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are recent add-ons, as the Culture of Death has expanded its tentacles.)
It’s what this subset focuses on. Why is this so hard to understand? Why are other movements never called to take on the anti-abortion issue? Even in his own article, Krattenmaker participated in that hypocrisy:
One of the environmental movement’s biggest mistakes has been to give the impression that enviros care more about old trees and rare animals than human beings. That problem, thankfully, is being remedied as a new ethos in the movement connects the dots between a healthy environment and the viability of human life.
Krattenmaker did link to a flyer by the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, but I only wish it were true “a new ethos” of environmentalists had added “save the baby humans” to their plank. But they haven’t.
To that end, I wrote in a comment to the article, “I hope the author is writing a similar column to environmentalists encouraging them to take on the anti-abortion issue?”
Why do you think it is that pro-lifers are singularly targeted with demands to add a myriad of other issues to their work, called hypocrites along the way if they don’t?
Do you think we should?
I suppose one way to look at it is other groups think the pro-life movement does amazing work and are only longing for us to help them, too.
Um, I don’t think that’s it.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’ve actually always wondered the opposite. Back in the day, there was a crazy guy protesting churches because he felt he understood the calling on their congregation better than they understood their calling – and I remember distinctly many people saying that because abortion affects the most people,and proportionally is so much worse than any other key issue, that is where the focus should be. I walked away thinking that somebody called to do missions work in Africa would find disapproval with this board.
Maybe I understood wrong – but I’d counter with the question – can a Christian live a Christian life in which abortion is not a key issue in their outreach/discipleship/focus?
Well people who know I do pro life work have never asked me to stop. They know I wouldnt anyway. Once America makes abortion unthinkable then Id be ecstatic to hang it up!!
Ripping off the limbs of babies crushing their skulls and throwing them in buckets to die …cant think of anything more satanic than that. * shudder*
Call me crazy, but isn’t the water supply constant? I know some nations need fresh water access, wells, etc., and that’s a noble cause. But what is the “threat” to the earth’s water?
Jamie I dont think youre crazy. If someone believes in a cause then its fine by me. If Jennifer Aniston and Pam Anderson want to run out to save whales….be my guest. I just cant understand why both women are PC.
Climate change? Don’t you mean global warming? A few decades ago weren’t we entering another Ice Age?
Better stick with climate change. Whether we cook or freeze, the geniuses who can’t give us an accurate weekend weather report have their butts covered.
People ask Pro Lifers all the time, “Don’t you have anything better to do?” As if Pro Lifers aren’t doing something that needs to be done. As if Pro Lifers don’t care about other issues, and don’t get involved in them, too. I wonder sometimes if the people who think Pro Lifers should be involved in something other than saving the innocent from dying are the same people who think the Church shouldn’t be involved in politics, education, health care or other social issues.
The current opinion among the PC left is that worship inside a church is fine, but if you’re a Christian, your other Constitutional freedoms end when you walk outside the doors of the church. It’s like the left is saying Christians need their permission to exercise freedoms that are protected under the Constitution. When the left throws out the bait of “You either care for this issue or you’re a hypocrite,” it is them saying they want freedom to do whatever they will, but you only have freedom to do whatever they will as the current PC cause. I always think if “I don’t do it, who will?” And then I depend on my conscience to be guided by the teachings of the Church, which are protected by the Holy Spirit from error concerning faith and morals, to tell me how best to get involved in changing things for the better.
There are plenty of innovative ways to deal with water shortage problems around the world, and I’m sure you’ll find both Christians and non-Christians generously sacrificing to deal with that problem. Water can be used against political enemies, and oftentimes water shortages are caused by governments manipulating water for political gain against their enemies. Christians and non-Christians alike should have the freedom to be involved in peaceful public airing of grievances to their government.
In Catholicism, we have the concept of “vocation.” We are all given gifts and talents from God, different for each person, and God “calls” each of us to use these to serve the Kingdom.
With this understanding, we are not jealous of another’s gifts and we encourage others to follow their vocations. Meanwhile, we strive to be faithful to our own callings.
My first vocation is to my wife and children. Their well-being is my top priority as a husband and father. I have jobs and careers so that I can provide for them.
My next calling is a one of prayer and service to save the women and children from abortion. I am called to be part of the army restoring the Culture of Life.
My duty to Pro-Life does not prevent me from admiring those who care for the poor (like Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity). I support the missionary work in Africa and South America. I support those who work in Catholic healthcare and Catholic education. They have authentic vocations of heroic service.
But I am called to serve on the sidewalk at Planned Parenthood. I must be obedient to this. The folks who insist that I should come and follow their enthusiasm have missed the whole point of what vocation is.
I read that comment and all I can think of is Colonel Ripper in Dr. Strangelove: “Purity of Essence.”
Btw, if you oppose hormonal contraception, then you are against estrogen contamination in the water, which poses problems for humans and wildlife alike.
Jamie says:
September 13, 2014 at 9:58 am
Call me crazy, but isn’t the water supply constant? I know some nations need fresh water access, wells, etc., and that’s a noble cause. But what is the “threat” to the earth’s water?
Actually, there really is a global problem of supplying sufficient amounts of clean water.
Spreading deserts due to climate change, growing population in the Southern Hemisphere, agricultural irrigation, and increasing industrialization and urbanization (both make pollution) increase the demand for clean water while decreasing the supply.
In underdeveloped and developing parts of the world, it is a big problem.
You may be old enough to recall the “clean air and water” efforts in America, starting around the early 70’s. Other parts of the world still need to do this, and they often have less water than us to begin with.
Many of us are called to save the innocent headed for slaughter. You cannot be a wimp and stand in front of an abortion clinic. You will encounter plenty of nuts. I always offered to hold the huge graphic fetal head. Why? Because I was willing to take on the biggest bullies. Anyway the suburbs are the worst. Women would slam on theirr brakes and get out of their cars screaming and yelling…fists shaking spitting on you by mistake for being so livid. ewww back up. One kid asked me if I had any Ketchup to put on my fetal head. Some disgusting old man looked at the pic and studied my pic. He said “Dont let anyone ever do that to you.” Huh? One guy called me over to say he was calling the cops. I went to hand him my phone and asked “Would you like to use mine”? The cops were swamped with calls to city hall and they swarmed us but they couldnt do anything. One lady hobbled over to me on a cane and studied my pic. She yelled “If I had that thing growing inside me you bet your a** Id have it killed.” Yet one lady threatened to beat my a**. I leaned in closer never losing eye contact and said “Do it and you WILL be prosecuted.” She was big. She could have body slammed me. Instead she jumped in her car and peeled away like the true coward she was. Sigh…dont believe me? By all means please try standing in front of an abortion clinic.
Jamie: Call me crazy, but isn’t the water supply constant? I know some nations need fresh water access, wells, etc., and that’s a noble cause. But what is the “threat” to the earth’s water?
Good post from Del @ 11:35 a.m.
Jamie, it’s not “crazy” – after all, the world does have a largely constant amount of water. We’re shifting the balance of it, though, from fresh to salt; water in lakes, rivers, and underground going to being in the oceans.
Roughly 1 in 9 people on earth doesn’t have access to clean water or decent sanitation. More people die due to that, each year, than are killed in wars with guns, tanks, bombs, etc.
In the US, we’re using more water than rainfall replaces, in many areas. Pumping it out of the ground, down goes the water table, and wells go dry and you get land subsidence – or, in certain places like Florida, sinkholes.
Around Memphis, TN, 70 feet lowering of the water table. Columbia River aquifer, Oregon and Washington, 100 feet. Baton Rouge, LA, 200 feet. Houston, TX, 400 feet with land sinking up to 10 feet; Phoenix and Tucson, AZ, 300 to 500 feet, land sinking over 12 feet, Chicago, as much as 900 feet.
The High Plains aquifer, including the Ogallala aquifer – underlies parts of eight States – in some places more than half the water is gone.
As much of the world gains a middle class, the demand for meat and other goods that take a lot of water to produce is rising fast.
Goods: Water to produce it
1 kilogram chocolate: 17,200 liters
1 kg Beef: 15,400 liters
1 kg Rice: 2500 liters
1 kg Bread: 1600 liters
1 kg Apples: 820 liters
1 kg Potatoes: 290 liters
1 glass of Milk: 255 liters
1 glass of Beer: 75 liters <~~~ there is a lesson here. :P
It is true Christians took on poverty, slavery, and genocide as core issues – a couple thousand years before any other movement came along.
Could you give an example of Christians “taking on” genocide as a “core issue” two thousand years ago? If it’s true, surely you can give an example.
FYI, the Christian stance on slavery a couple thousand years ago was that slaves should obey their masters as they would obey Christ. It’s not something that people with a working grasp of the truth tend to boast about today.
A few decades ago weren’t we entering another Ice Age?
No.
Mary i have to lol at your comment. What a hoot:)
LisaC,
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Imminent doom of some sort or another has been predicted for decades. The “experts” just can’t make up their minds so “climate change” is the safest way to go.
The real deal is whether or not the oceans are warming up. Most of the earth’s surface is water, and the oceans are deep. The thermal mass, there, totally dwarfs that of the atmosphere.
Are the oceans warming up?
Yes.
Mary, try getting your science information from scientists sometime.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Christians use their God-given talents and passions in various ways to give the Church body life. It’s a beautiful thing.
Unless they belong to a congregation that uses its talents and passions to do something other than oppose abortion, in which case you consider them hell-bound blasphemers whose prayers should be interrupted by screaming and curses.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/07/prolife-activists-wreak-havoc-orleans-abortion-crowd/
LisaC,
Try reading my source.
It’s a way for abortion supporters to try to make pro-lifers look uncaring and uninterested as a deflection from the fact that they support something that kills babies and injures women.
Comments like: “Don’t you have anything better to do?” or “If you were really prolife you would support…this other thing” or “You shouldn’t be doing that…you ought to do this better stuff”.
They are the type of things people say when they don’t want to deal with the central issue, and can’t think of a kind and gentle way to oppose you.
It’s just one step up from, “Bring Back Crystal Pepsi” and “Unicorns are Real”.
“Mary i have to lol at your comment. What a hoot:)” – yeah, it made me laugh too.
I informed you recently Mary, that the reason the term was changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ was because the deniers were either too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge that global warming would have a wide range of impacts across different parts of the globe.
If people were truly ‘pro-life’ they’d all be actively opposing the death penalty, supporting gun control and working harder against global disease and starvation.
My goodness Reality,
And I showed you how we went from “cooling” to “warming” in 30 years and the “experts” use “climate change” to convince people like you they actually know what the he&& is going on.
Problem is, people like you believe them.
No you didn’t ‘show’ anything, you only claimed to. No, the term ‘climate change’ was introduced to stop people like you from misrepresenting the situation.
Reality,
If the facts are the facts, how can I or anyone misrepresent anything?
Seriously? Deniers misrepresent the facts knowing that some people won’t or can’t check for themselves.
Reality,
Doesn’t wash. If the facts are the facts, they can’t be misrepresented and the “experts” don’t have to accommodate “deniers”.
Don’t be pointlessly obtuse. Deniers and liars on various topics misrepresent facts when they know there are folk who will take their word for it because they are either lazy or it suits their needs. Climate change deniers rely on it.
Reality,
Again, facts are facts, right? They can’t be misrepresented and the “experts” have no need to accommodate deniers if the facts are on their side.
You really should have left well enough alone.
Well Mary, if you wish it to be known that you think that if there are facts about a certain topic then no misrepresentation of them can be made then I’ll happily stand back and let you have the floor.
Given there are facts regarding the state of the climate and what impacts upon it and how, and 97% of scientists say climate change exists and a few say it doesn’t then someone must be misrepresenting things.
*I* should have left well enough alone? Don’t make me laugh.
Reality,
http://climatechangedispatch.com/myth-of-the-climate-change-97-percent.html
Oh noes, an article claiming that facts have been misrepresented!!! It can’t be…..and from a denialist propaganda sheet and all!
Reality,
LOL. I see you resort to your usual tactic of jumping up and down and screaming you don’t like someone’s source when you can’t prove their source is wrong. Some things never change.
Like I said, you really should have left well enough alone.
Perhaps if the source had anything to do with your claim that anything factual cannot be misrepresented it may have some value.
Perhaps if it weren’t so obviously biased and selective (that’s an element of misrepresenting things, did you know) then it may have some value.
Why keep telling me I should have left well enough alone? Is that a new twist on your old ‘time for sleep’ strategy? I’m quite happy to keep going :-)
Like I said Reality, some things never change. When you can’t counter what someone says you can just jump up and down and scream you don’t like their source.
You’re right, some things never change. You still try to pass off fundamentally biased and agenda-driven sources as being valid. The raison d’etre of the site you linked to is climate change denial.
Reality,
I won’t interrupt your tantrum to confuse you any further with facts.
“and 97% of scientists say climate change exists”
Wrong. 97% of publications in agenda-driven academic journals dealing with “climate change” supported a belief in anthropogenic climate change. The number of scientists who publish articles about climate change in these journals is a fraction of a all scientists.
Yes well, the fact that you wish to assert that clear and concise responses to your repeated failure to provide a valid source constitutes a ‘tantrum’ is amusingly defensive. You haven’t interrupted anything with facts yet.
Wrong Eric, that would be 97% of legitimate, peer reviewed academic journals. It is the articles of the denialists which appear in agenda-driven journals.
Try reading my source.
I did. Then I linked to a source that debunked its arguments. If the article in the science journal was too challenging for you, a summary of its arguments is linked below. The basic point–which your “source” ignores–is that Newsweek is not a science journal.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Incidentally, it appears that Jill is unable to support her claim that it is “true” that Christians “took on” genocide two thousand years ago. One can’t help but wonder how many other things that she claims are “true” are false.
LOL Reality,
Do we all have the privilege of discrediting what people post by jumping up and down and screaming that we don’t like their source? Or is this a privilege reserved only for you?
LisaC,
I never argued that there in fact was global cooling, I’m pointing out the chicken littles who have been predicting climatic disaster in one form or another. They had no clue what was going on then and they don’t now. So they play it safe and call it “climate change”.
My source pointed out the “scientists” and “scientific” publications that supported this nonsense, and the media that promoted it.
In fact LisaC your source acknowledged what I said had a basis in fact, only that there was no scientific consensus on global cooling, which I never said there was.
I’ve been passively reading some of these posts – I dig it Mary though – passing an article written by the President of the Heartland Institute as something other than massively non-biased.
Look people – this is silly. People like science only if it supports their lifestyle and beliefs – same thing you see with people applying only certain Biblical principles to their life while ignoring others.
I just have to say, there’s absolutely no way somebody can hold up things like the breast cancer linkage while denying that humans are influencing temperatures – not if they have any certain sense of coming to the data reasonably.
Whether I like your source or not isn’t the point Mary. The fact is that it is a biased, agenda-driven source proclaiming all the usual denialist claptrap. Accusing me of ‘tantrums’ and ‘jumping up and down’ is just a shallow and meaningless attempt at distraction.
EGV,
Let me make this simple. The fact YOU don’t like a source doesn’t prove its wrong. Also, bias is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to consider certain sources biased, however, that does not prove them wrong and simply whining that a source is biased isn’t going to make my case, don’t you agree?
Really EGV, you’re becoming as childish as Reality.
Are humans making the planet colder, hotter, or changing the climate? The “experts” can’t figure it out do don’t feel bad if you can’t.
Realiy,
So you should have no trouble finding a source to dispute it.
Mary –
The lead writer for the article is an economics major and President of an organization that is far on the right politically. They partnered with cigarette companies in questioning the linkage between second hand smoke and cancer.
If Reality posted a source as biased and junk science as that, you’d literally have a cow (we would name her Betsy).
Seriously – I know you are backed into a corner and doing what you always do when that happens – but this is a time to step back, take a breath, and ask what you’d do if Reality posted information from a left wing think tank that has published junk science in the past, and whose lead writer on a science article is an economist.
No issues?
“simply whining that a source is biased isn’t going to make my case, don’t you agree?” – well I agree. It’s not what has occurred here though, the source you cited is explicitly biased.
“So you should have no trouble finding a source to dispute it” – dispute what? You haven’t provided anything valid which needs disputing.
EGV,
Irrelevant. Can you prove the man is wrong? That’s how it works. Not whether or not you or I like a source.
If anyone posted a source I didn’t like or disagreed with, I could have all the cows I want. Until I could actually prove the source wrong I would be doing little more than having a tantrum.
I’m hardly backed into a corner EGV. You haven’t proven my source wrong. You’re just resorting to Reality’s tiresome antics.
Reality,
You can’t provide a source. There you go with that same tiresome argument of yours…again. I rest my case.
Mary –
The article simply raises questions on the 97%. It might be just 96%. It might be 98%.
One of the main components of the argument is David Legates, who has had much of his work funded by ExxonMobile. The next quoted person was Craig Idso. He was found to have been paid over $10K a month from the Heartland Institute regarding his research.
Do those two seem unbiased? I’d like an answer on that and we’ll move onto the next sources?
If you are having issues with that, pretend that a scientist funded by Planned Parenthood came out and said that abortion makes women happier. Would you have doubts based on who is paying them, or would you treat that research like any other?
Again – I’d like a specific answer as to your thoughts on Idso and Legates being unbiased given their funding.
You can’t provide a source worth bunkum so I have not need to provide a counter-source.
Your same old strategies are on display and they still don’t work.
You haven’t mounted a case.
EGV,
Again you are arguing irrelevancies. The fact you or I think a source biased or unbiased does not in itself prove the source right or wrong.
If you or I are going to dispute a source, it has to be based on whether or not it is providing accurate information.
If it isn’t accurate, then you should have no trouble finding a source to back your claim.
Reality,
LOL. Whatever.
Ex-GOP: The lead writer for the article is an economics major and President of an organization that is far on the right politically. They partnered with cigarette companies in questioning the linkage between second hand smoke and cancer.
If that’s the “Heartland Institute,” then yeah – they put out some of the most laughworthy things imaginable.
We need Rational Catholic Blog to take a look at the Heartland Institute….
https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/09/journal-public-health-publishes-study-linking-autism-vaccines-aborted-fetal-cells/
This thread showed quite well how a rational look at things can show how nutty some of the stuff out there is….
Doug,
Just prove what the man said is wrong.
Mary –
NASA is good enough for me on the 97%. You then posted an article from a massively biased source that said a kid from Stanford did a google search and didn’t find 97%, and then some people funded by the Oil industry and the very site that has written that article – and that they think it might be a different number.
Again, if this is the bar you’ve set for what you believe, this is now on you. You keep having these odds claims that somebody should refute their work. The 97% number provided by NASA is the opposite claim. I’ll take NASA over the guys who think second hand smoke is no big deal.
Lastly – your inability to answer a direct question is troubling.
Excuse me, I should have said men. One of the authors is Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist with extensive credentials.
Doug,
“Massively biased” is a matter of perspective.
Again, please show me a source that proves that both Bast and Dr.Spencer are wrong.
Oh yes NASA, the people who predicted an impending Ice Age in 1971.
I stand corrected,that post is to EGV, not Doug. My apologies to both you gentlemen.
lol, when a source is as clearly and blatantly agenda-driven and biased as the one you cited Mary, it self-evidently lacks credibility.
But if you insist on persisting, whatever.
They had no clue what was going on then and they don’t now.
Uh-huh. This is obviously a matter of faith with you, and there’s no point in bringing reason into a discussion of faith.
There must be certain challenges to working in the health professions if you believe that no one has any clue about anything that has not been held in scientific consensus for forty years.
“Btw, if you oppose hormonal contraception, then you are against estrogen contamination in the water, which poses problems for humans and wildlife alike.”
Rachael, The high dose estrogen BC increases the risk of breast cancer by 50%. That’s right, 50%. But they pass it out like candy to the kids and nobody mentions it to them. Not their doctors or their aunts or their sisters. It is incredible:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_147633.html
Mary,
For the record, are Doug and Ex-RINO and Reality saying that climate experts today are in consensus that humans are causing ‘global warming’ or just saying that we are causing ‘climate change’ and it could lead to warming or cooling depending on how much we pollute?
Doug, what if the people in Canada wanted milder winters, could they just open a bunch of coal burning power plants?
LisaC,
I’m agnostic
Yes it does make the health field interesting. And has resulted in a lot of radical changes.
Please Reality,
If the nonsense you keep spouting off makes me laugh any more, my sides will hurt.
Hi Ts,
I think their guesses are as good as the “experts”, who seem to have the bases covered. Whether we freeze or cook, they can claim “climate change”.
“peer reviewed academic journals” Right Reality, those are agenda driven. The American Meteorological Society, who publishes the Journal of Climate as well as several other publications, has agendas and policy programs that are funded by the government. They are hardly objective. And they hardly represent 97% of all scientists.
Hi Eric,
Great to see you. I hope all is well.
I think you need a better understanding of the rules.
Only certain individuals on this blog determine what sources are valid, and they make the call as they see fit. They are more inclined to proclaim a source biased or questionable if they can’t dispute it. So, even if their sources are no less “agenda-driven” than they consider yours to be, that is beside the point. These individuals and their sources are never biased, unlike the rest of us.
Also, if they disagree with your source, they don’t have to post a counter source. The fact they don’t like your source or consider it biased, is all that is necessary to “prove” your source inaccurate. So whether or not the journals you mention are indeed agenda driven is to be determined on the whim of one of these individuals.
Thanks Mary, that is how it appears to be. What I find interesting about the use of the 97% statistic is how many people believe most scientists work for academia and desire to publish in peer-reviewed literature. Publishing is political and drives academic funding. It must produce conclusions that drive social policies to obtain maximum funding. Most scientists prefer to stay away from politics and simply do research to publish on non-controversial subjects, or do research for other government agencies, the military, county extension agencies, railroads, power companies, schools, hybrid seed companies, airlines, etc.
From the Kresge Foundation’s description of the American Meteorological Society on its grants page:
“American Meteorological Society – The scientific research institution works to advance and expand collaboration between the scientific community and federal policymakers. Funding bolsters the society’s efforts to inform and accelerate climate-change adaptation policy and strategy development by the Federal Task Force on Climate Change Adaptation, housed within the White House Council on Environmental Quality.”
Yeah, like THAT’S not agenda driven.
Hi Eric,
Very interesting.
This is why you only find 3% of articles dealing with climate change that differ from the supposed “scientific consensus” view. If the AMS’s efforts are to accelerate climate-change adaptation policy, then it isn’t going to allow too many publication of articles with an opposing view. The AMS publication process is a self-licking ice cream cone with regards to climate change.
I have been friends with environmentalists.
I had one who was an ardent supporter of saving trees. The most ardent I’ve ever personally met.
She was also an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. She used to lecture me about how I needed to save the planet (I actually did contribute to some specific habitat preservation efforts). I told her my calling was to save humans.
She then proceeded to tell me that Planned Parenthood was doing a GREAT work by making sure there were fewer humans and that abortion could be looked at as a force for good in the world.
She is the reason why I laugh and laugh when people tell me “NO ONE is ‘pro-abortion’.” Oh yes. Yes, some people really are.
“If the nonsense you keep spouting off makes me laugh any more, my sides will hurt” – you’re the one who’s being doing the spouting. I’ve just pointed out what nonsense it is. It doesn’t make me laugh though.
You pick one Eric? Really? Is that it?
Aw, what a sad little diatribe Mary. When a source says “Hi, we are blatantly biased and agenda-driven” it doesn’t constitute anything which needs to be refuted.
“This is why you only find 3% of articles dealing with climate change that differ from the supposed “scientific consensus” view” – and have you seen who backs that 3%? Who funds them?
– See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/09/stanek-weekend-prolife-movement-issues/#comments
Hi Eric,
See what I mean?
Now I am laughing :-)
I can see why Reality,
You’re as nonsensical as ever.
Then obviously you don’t see why……
Never mind.
You then posted an article from a massively biased source that said a kid from Stanford did a google search and didn’t find 97%
A key thing to remember here is that Mary’s source has no interest in accurately portraying the research it is disputing. The Anderegg study appears to have been dismissed because it did not address how dangerous each scientist thought climate change was, not because its numbers didn’t add up.
NASA, the people who predicted an impending Ice Age in 1971.
False. A scientist affiliated with NASA hypothesized that increasing aerosol pollution had a cooling effect that outweighed the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide, and further hypothesized that a quadrupling of then-current aerosol levels was the point at which the projected cooling would have severe effects, including possibly the triggering of a new Ice Age.
I’m agnostic
Not all faith is religious. It is obviously an article of faith for you that human knowledge of the global climate cannot be advanced through scientific investigation. Ergo, there’s no point in debating the science.
they don’t have to post a counter source.
Or, if they do post a source, it will simply be ignored.
So whether or not the journals you mention
You have not mentioned any journals on this thread, so the point is moot.
LisaC,
Since you consider my source, which was also authored by a climatologist with extensive credentials, invalid, then I assume you have a source to prove mine wrong.
Check the source I gave you. There was such an article about NASA predicting an impending Ice Age, you might want to check it out. It was printed in 1971.
Do I think it was all blather and hysteria? Absolutely. Just like “global warming”.
Not at all, I’m all for advancing knowledge. I don’t support listening to these Chicken Littles who obviously can’t make up their minds what is going on. Since the climate does change, its safer to go with “climate change”. Its a pretty safe bet you won’t be shown to be wrong, like predicting warmer weather towards June, at least where I live.
How do you know it would be ignored and what difference would it make? If I’m going to dispute someone’s source, then I need to post a counter source. The fact I just don’t like their source isn’t valid.
I was referring to Eric’s mention of journals.
I assume you have a source to prove mine wrong.
I do, and I linked it above. You didn’t bother to read it.
Check the source I gave you. There was such an article about NASA predicting an impending Ice Age, you might want to check it out. It was printed in 1971.
I did check your source. It was debunked in the article I linked earlier, which you did not bother to read.
How do you know it would be ignored and what difference would it make?
I know this because I linked to a “counter source” that explicitly addressed most of the misconceptions in your so-called source and you did not bother to read it. No, I haven’t linked to multiple counter sources. Tracking down science articles can be time consuming, and there’s no point in wasting that time on someone who will not bother to read the articles because she believes that human knowledge of the global climate cannot be advanced by scientific investigation.
I was referring to Eric’s mention of journals.
If Eric mentioned a journal other than the one I already linked it, then I missed it.
Let’s go back to your supposed NASA Ice Age warning. I think the article that your “sources” are drawing on was probably Rasool and Schneider, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide…” In reality, the article was not issued by NASA and did not predict an imminent Ice Age. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.short
Since you obviously disagree, please post the bibliographic info or a link to the actual NASA Ice Age warning. NOT to a website that alleges such a warning existed, but to the actual warning itself. From NASA, not Newsweek.
No LisaC
Its this one:
NASA warn of human caused coming Ice Age in 1971- Washington Times-Sept.19, 2007
Excerpt: The world could be as 50 or 60 years away from a distastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts”, read a July 9, 1971 article in the Washington Post. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the prediction.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
Yes I agree the whole thing was bunk. My point exactly. Do you know if NASA publicly stated it disagreed with its scientists?
“You pick one Eric? Really? Is that it?”
Now I realize how ignorant you are on the subject of publications in the atmospheric sciences Reality. The AMS isn’t responsible for just one publication. It publishes Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Journal of Climate, Journal of Hydrometeorology, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Meteorological Monographs, Monthly Weather Review, Weather Climate and Society, Weather and Forecasting, as well as preprint publications for more than thirty conferences and symposia they regularly host.
Who funds dissenters? They are not a homogeneous group. Many fund themselves to avoid bias. I have yet to find an agreer with the AMS that funds him/herself.
Hi Eric,
I wish I could “like” your posts a thousand times!!
Thx Mary, it is sad to see the slavish dedication to the belief there is a 97% consensus that there is an anthropogenic climate change crisis.
Another article from Forbes on this topic. Summary, 52% of all AMS scientists (not just the bureacracy in the pockets of the White House) believe there is global warming due to humans. Hardly 97%, and not necessarily a “crisis”.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/
“Now I realize how ignorant you are on the subject of publications in the atmospheric sciences Reality” – “The AMS publication process is a self-licking ice cream cone with regards to climate change” – like I said, you picked one.
“Many fund themselves to avoid bias” – lol.
52% of one group =/= <97% overall.
Summary, 52% of all AMS scientists (not just the bureacracy in the pockets of the White House) believe there is global warming due to humans.
False. 62% of the AMS subscribers who responded to the survey said that they believe there is global warming due to humans. (52% of the respondents believed that global warming was mostly caused by humans, 10% believed that human and natural causes contributed about equally, 5% believed global warming is due to natural forces, and 20% said that warming was occurring but that the cause cannot be determined). The survey was sent to 7000 people, with a response rate of 26%. Since only 4% of the respondents said that global warming was not happening, someone who wanted to lie with statistics (as apparently you do) could say that only 1% of all AMS scientists believe that global warming is not occurring (a 4% subset of the 26% of respondents is about 1% of all AMS scientists).
No LisaC
Its this one:
NASA warn of human caused coming Ice Age in 1971- Washington Times-Sept.19, 2007
Mary, neither the Washington Times nor the Washington Post is the source of the purported warning. Rather, they reported on the purported warning. IIRC, you claim to be an ER nurse. If it is true that you completed a degree in the science-related field of nursing, then you are capable of identifying the actual source of the “NASA warning” and summarizing its arguments. So, the question I’m asking is very simple. You say that NASA warned of an impending ice age. Exactly what did NASA say, and where did it say it?
Mary: Doug, Just prove what the man said is wrong.
Mary, my point was that the “Heartland Institute” is basically “for sale,” (they are funded by certain groups within industry), i.e. it’s not that they in any way do any sensible research – what they do is begin with an agenda, a desired conclusion, and then concoct things that seem to work toward that.
Joe Bast is the president, and he wants to get paid, period. Just as he makes loony attacks on some climatologists, so did he used to attack doctors and public health experts who were trying to bring the dangers of cigarette smoking to the fore.
Fer gawd’s sake – tobacco company executives have even been on Heartland’s Board of Directors. :P
And just because tobacco companies were giving him some money, it didn’t mean that Joe Bast didn’t want more:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220221575/Joe-Bast-s-bottom-line
Doug,
Did you notice that the co author, Roy Spencer, is a climatologist with extensive credentials?
Also, whatever you think of Bast does not in itself prove what he says is wrong. Bias is a matter of perspective.
LisaC,
I am well aware they reported on the purported warning. The article clearly states that and of course the media are reporting what they are told. They certainly didn’t make it up and I never suggested they did. My point is the media took these “warnings” and ran with them.
Also it was two scientists with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, now a proponent of global warming. Did NASA issue any disclaimers concerning what THEIR scientists were reported to be saying?
My point is the media took these “warnings” and ran with them.
So what? You insist that scientists don’t understand global climate. What do the media have to do with it?
Did NASA issue any disclaimers concerning what THEIR scientists were reported to be saying?
I doubt it.
To repeat my question, which you really, really ought to be capable of answering if you work in the field you claim to work in:
You say that NASA warned of an impending ice age. Exactly what did NASA say, and where did it say it?
Truthseeker: Doug, what if the people in Canada wanted milder winters, could they just open a bunch of coal burning power plants?
TS, they can burn more coal if they want to, they can leave their friends behind, ’cause their friends don’t dance, and if they don’t dance, well, they’re no friends of mine.
Yes, they could intentionally add more carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere. Canada is a small country, population-wise, though, and it would not make much of a difference. Also, in any case it takes a long time for such an addition as that would be to alter things noticeably.
Mary: Did you notice that the co author, Roy Spencer, is a climatologist with extensive credentials?
Also, whatever you think of Bast does not in itself prove what he says is wrong. Bias is a matter of perspective.
Mary, fair points, and I’m not saying that nothing Bast says is ever true. That would be an exaggeration. Albeit a dang slight one. :P
Spencer may have a bunch of credentials, but he’s adding some bad ones by working with Bast. Moreover, one dude’s opinion ain’t necessarily any big thang…
Same for “global cooling” in the 1970s. A relatively very few people may have been thinking that was the deal, longer-term, but the vast majority of scientists, and the vast majority of published articles in scientific journals and reputable books, argued for global warming.
I think it’s like the Christian people who are always predicting the end of the world. It’s happened many times in the past few decades, alone – this or that “preacher” says he’s got it figured out from the Bible, i.e. “The world ends on this date,” or “The Rapture” or “Armageddon” or the day the “preacher” gets “called home.” It never works out, and then many of them announce a “slight error” in their calculations, but don’t worry – they’ve got it nailed this time…
To quote Bast: There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
As stated, I’d say that is right. The fact is that we don’t know how dangerous a thing it is.
That’s not to say that a huge majority of climate scientists don’t say the world is warming up, and that human activity is responsible for it. Yet indeed – I don’t think 97% are saying the sky is falling, so to speak.
LisaC,
The scientists make inaccurate predictions and the idiot media ran with it. It created hysteria over climate catastrophe like it now has with global warming.
Schneider, who was not a NASA scientist, but a climatologist who along with Rasool, a NASA scientist, wrote that paper that was debunked, as you rightly point out. A colleague of Rasool’s, James Hansen, also a NASA scientist, also supported the “impending ice age”. These scientists would continue at NASA, so obviously they remained in good standing even though the impending Ice Age was hokum.
Hansen and Schneider would become proponents of global warming. Either the climate did an abrupt about face over the past few decades or these guys, one of whom got a “genius award” don’t know what they’re talking about. Which is it?
LisaC, it was NASA scientists promoting this nonsense. They remained in good standing, and NASA never issued any disclaimer to their claims of an impending Ice Age. So maybe it was more accurate to say NASA scientists but they represent NASA and NASA never disputed their claims, even though the media and TV programs would continue to promote this nonsense. Maybe NASA let this go on because they believed the scientists.
Hi Doug,
I am well aware that scientists can’t agree and never could, and some even make complete about faces, or else the climate abruptly changes in a matter of a few decades.
I completely agree about doomsday prophets. If its not nuclear Armageddon, or the biblical doomsday, then its the climate.
Then we have our media and such a brilliant climatologist as Al Gore to guide us. And if Rasool, Schneider, and Hansen are the kind of people we have put our faith in, we’re really in trouble.
James Hansen, also a NASA scientist, also supported the “impending ice age”.
False. Rasool and Schneider constructed their hypothesis using a computer model that Hansen had developed to study the atmosphere of Venus. Hansen had no part in their paper and never predicted global cooling. Rasool and Schneider also subsequently concluded that they had underestimated the impact of the greenhouse effect. That’s how science works, Mary: scientists make hypotheses based on existing data, collect and analyze more data to test those hypotheses, and then either discard or refine the hypotheses based on what the data show. The scientists who were hypothesizing about global cooling several decades ago all called for systematic collection of data to enable future analysis. They also noted that if carbon output changed from existing levels, the results would also change.
Either the climate did an abrupt about face over the past few decades or these guys, one of whom got a “genius award” don’t know what they’re talking about.
Rasool and Schneider predicted that an ice age would occur if a particular change happened in the earth’s atmosphere. What was that change, Mary, and did it ever come about?
LisaC,
I stand corrected on Hansen. He was a colleague of Rasool and was not involved in the paper. I never said he was.
As for Rasool, he was out of NASA. Did Rasool say or do anything, or did NASA itself, to put an end to the nonsense in the media? Or did they believe it was indeed a possibility?
From what I have searched the culprit was aerosols? Did they change or effect the climate? I have no idea. I don’t think the great geniuses know either:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-Warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warming-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200/
From what I’ve been checking on the internet, NASA scientists now promote global warming, or climate change. Like I said LisaC, maybe we shouldn’t put our faith in much of anything these great thinkers, and that includes Al Gore, have to say, whether its cooling, heating, or changing.
Is this where the big aerosol scare of the early 70’s originated? I can’t know for certain, but it does seem to coincide. When we were told we could save the planet by using roll on deodorant. Seriously. People believed this nonsense. I can’t recall if aerosols would destroy ozone or lead to an Ice Age. Who knew, right?
BTW LisaC, you’ll see everything old is new again. Also looks like we can’t just blame an hysterical media.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
Did Rasool say or do anything, or did NASA itself, to put an end to the nonsense in the media?
What do you think NASA should have done to put an end to reporting done by independent news outlets, Mary? Have the president call out the National Guard? Shoot them with the Super Secret NASA Death Ray?
LisaC,
I think responsible scientists at NASA, and Rasool in particular, had a responsibility to come forward and say this was just a study, not a declaration of impending doom…..unless of course he and others at NASA truly believed an impending Ice Age was a fact. They certainly wouldn’t have been alone. If this was the case, then by all means let the media run with it.
At least I wouldn’t have felt so guilty about using spray deodorant. Yeah I admit it, I fell for the claptrap like everyone else.
As my previous post points out, we can’t just blame an hysterical media, can we?
I think responsible scientists at NASA, and Rasool in particular, had a responsibility to come forward and say this was just a study, not a declaration of impending doom
Seriously? Because I think it was the responsibility of your fourth-grade science teacher to teach you the rudiments of the scientific method, not NASA. It turns out that Dr. Schneider wrote an explanation of some of the things that are puzzling you to the New York Times, (http://www.realclimate.org/images/schneider_letter_1971.jpg), but I guess that doesn’t get Dr. Rasool off the hook for failing to instruct you personally.
[Incidentally, the “aerosols” they are talking about is airborne particulate matter produced by burning fossil fuels, not spray deodorant. Clearly Dr. Rasool has much to answer for when it comes to shortfalls in your education.]
we can’t just blame an hysterical media, can we?
Mary, the headlines you’ve linked to all come from news outlets. You would need to track down and read actual scientific articles or reports to see whether or not the science had been sensationalized by the media, and we both know you’re not going to bother to do that. Presumably you think that is also somehow Dr. Rasool’s fault.