dinosaur flatulence = the cause of global warming.
according to one of our elected officials, dana rohrabacher, global warming is a myth. now this is a widely held belief and one that shouldn’t surprise anyone. rohrabacher goes a little further in his explanation following yet another widely held belief that global warming is the result of climate cycles that alternate between hotter periods and cooler periods. whether you agree or disagree with this thought, i find myself unsure and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those that hold it. but, rohrabacher doesn’t stop there… no, the “honorable” congressman goes just a little bit further—maybe a little too far—and claims that the previous cycles of heat were caused by “dinosaur flatulence.” yes, that’s correct… farting dinosaurs were the cause of the hotter cycles.
now, i’m not sure where you may stand on the global warming issue, but this is a little ridiculous. the debate has been raging among the religious right, where my friend glenn has been chronicling and discussing the recent controversy.
as i stand at a distance in this controvery, i continue to wonder why it is that we’ll go to any length to deny a theory—especially one that could seriously matter if it is true… and really doesn’t matter if it’s false? in other words—whatever the case, if global warming is a fact or a myth, then shouldn’t we be doing something about it because the consequences of doing nothing are far greater than those of doing something. right?
am i missing something here, or am i just looking at it too simplistically?
Related posts:
- becoming new now.
- red-letter christians
- how rich are you?
- “grand theft auto for christians!”
- so the other day…
Where do you find this stuff?
Oops! that was was my alter ego speaking.
i actually found reference to this one in a rolling stone article and had to look it up for myself… i can’t believe that this one has slipped under the radar, it’s too priceless of a quote to go so unnoticed!
Actually Al Gore among others currently believes that cow farts are largely contributing to the current global warming crisis. He is advocating proactive steps to limit the effects of methane gas emitted by cows. I kid you not. Why do certain people (often including myself) deny global warming? Several reasons. 1) Anti-environmental wacko bias (It just seems so politically and socialistically motivated). 2) Fear that it might be true. 3) It is not as universally accepted by reputable scientists as the media machine would have us believe. It’s sort of like the commentary I picked up recently that said no scholar conservative or liberal now accepts that Paul wrote any of the Pastoral letters. It’s just not true but if you say it loud enough and long enough people begin to accept it as truth. 4) Also, another reason why many are skeptical (including myself) is because of logic. If the world is really billions of years old (cough cough) and animals have been farting and volcanos have been erupting the whole time. Is it reasonable to believe that in only 2-3 hundred short years of industrialization we have radically altered our world’s climate. Imagine the ego. Further, if we have altered it because of our lifestyle, will me buying a hybrid really reverse the flow. The only solution for global warming if we’ve caused it is the universal elimination of the human species.
It is also alarming for me to see so many Christians buying into the secular talk of the apocalypse. We’ve caused this mess and we’ve got to pull ourselves out of it. Where is your home and where is your God?
Better to claim dinosaurs did it in the past than place the blame on cattle in the present.
Dinosaurs and cattle have nothing on Matt M….dude!
Your last question actually comes right from “An Inconvenient Truth”, Aaron. Don’t know if that was intentional or not? I think the answer to that question is based purely on what we would do about if we take this threat seriously. If tomorrow, the government says that non-hybrid passenger vehicles illegal (obviously they wouldn’t, but just for the sake of argument), then that could be devastating, because the technology for hybrid vehicles is not yet inexpensive enough for the populace, and so many of us rely on our cars for our commute. Similarly speaking, if we sign a major emission reductions protocol, businesses will be forced to buy incredibly expensive equipment which, unless the fed agrees to subsidize the costs, may be harmful to employees or consumers. So, the downside of taking a non-existent threat seriously is serious negative economic effects. Is doing nothing worth it if the threat is serious? That’s the question.
i’ll admit, i haven’t seen an inconvenient truth yet, so quoting a question from the movie is by pure accident. i haven’t even read or heard much about the documentary other than it’s interesting…
i do, however, want to see it and see what all the hubbub is about.
i still don’t know where to stand with the global warming issue, and although i understand about all the expenses involved it is something that i believe can be gradually put into place to make it easy on the companies and begin to make some sort of a difference. to make it mandatory immediately would be absolutely ridiculous and therefore do more harm than good—but to spread it out over the course of the next 20 years (which i think is the supposed time frame we have before things are “irreversable”) then it’s better to start now instead of debate about it and find out that we have to implement all these things immediately 20 years from now—which would have the worse economic impact? i think bickering about it and doing nothing…
i do understand rags’ point that it’s a little crazy to think that humanity in so short of a time could destroy the earth—and yes i agree that it’s a little ego-centric… but at the same time, why not? why couldn’t it be possible?