9 thoughts on “Warmist Hypocrisy Alert: Michael Mann now okay with using Bible in global warming debate”

  1. Actually, it’s not the first time climate change advocates have aligned with religious folks–witness John Cook. Sure, they don’t make a point of saying he says he became active in climate science due to his religion, but who knows. That may become a badge of honor for the advocates. Of course, skeptics are still superstitious fools if they are into religion.

  2. a sure act of desperation. I see it from the Marxist-redistributionists when they drag Jesus into their argument, as if He somehow implied that Caesar was to be your stand-in for personal charity when they get beat down by folks tired of getting robbed by government to buy votes from the leech class.

  3. “Evangelism” refers to particular religious beliefs, mostly considered Christian and conservative, and it also refers to sharing one’s beliefs to invite others to join them. A scientist could believe in the central Christian doctrine of salvation by grace and the death of Jesus Christ, and could invite others to share that belief, and still be a particle physicist. It might lead to a bit of cognitive disonance, but humans can handle some cognitive disonance. Since our understanding of the Universe is shaky, we pretty much have to deal with some cognitive disonance.

  4. This might be a fairly reasonable suggestion for Christian Ms. Hayhoe, and Dr. Mann as relates to a truly biblical understanding of our environment and how us evil humans are powerful enough to destroy it. I suggest contacting Dr. John Whitcomb for his opinion. Of course, he believes the Bible, so that of necessity makes this Princeton educated scholar a modern-day Neanderthal!

    http://www.whitcombministries.org

  5. Science answers the question “how”. Religion and philosophy answer the question “why”. For my money, there’s precious little difference between believing anything a preacher with a bible tells you and believing anything a scientist with a text book tells you. Facts are independently verifiable. Everything else is faith.

  6. I’m not sure I even understand what an “evangelical scientist” is. Seems a contradiction in terms, but then, I’m an atheist.

  7. Evangelical Christians run the political gamut from conservative — probably most of them — to pretty “progressive”. Finding some evangelicals who are signing onto the climate/enviro agenda is hardly a surprise.
    Being fair-minded, I’ve known people who are glad to quote the Bible when it supports a conservative agenda but gripe about “religious influence” when it supports a “progressive” agenda. Moose, bear, who needs a shave?
    The evangelicals may be missing something here. The “progressives” are not really friends of evangelicals; when the evangelicals seem to have outlived their usefulness, the “progressives” will turn on them the way that Islamists are going to turn on “progressives”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.