What do you find most bizarre when it comes to politicians or religious leaders reacting to different weather disasters in America? Please vote below and feel free to add a comment about the increasing number of politicians and religious leaders reacting to weather disasters in America by saying they are messages from God.
Politicians, Religious Leaders and Their Take On Weather Disasters
September 8, 2011 by doncorrigan
3 Responses
Leave a Reply
-
Arriving in April: Don’s “Environmental Missouri” Upcoming Events
Don’s Facebook
Archives
- October 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- January 2014
- March 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- February 2012
- December 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
Even insurance companies and legal contracts call these events acts of God.
“Act Of God
n. act of God is a legal term for those events which are outside of control of humans and for which no one can be held responsible and which cannot be prevented.”
And Don the latest nomenclature is “climate change” and not “global warming” as you stated this morining in the “Call” newspaper. See the link to the latest NASA report.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8308&linkbox=true&position=1
Okay, Paul, the American nickel says “In God We Trust.” That doesn’t mean everyone who uses a nickel believes in Divine Providence. It’s a formality like in the insurance contracts you talk about. Your point is irrelevant.
As for using the term “climate change” vs.“global warming,” I am impressed that you have consulted NASA. Some scientists prefer “climate change.” I will continue to use both terms. To me, it’s like using the term “conservationist” rather than “environmentalist,” because the right wing has so disparaged the term “environmentalist.” I am not going to change the language I use because some right-wing, talk radio loons have sullied the word “environmentalist.” So, I will also continue to use “global warming” and “climate change,” no matter how much the right wing tries to discredit the concept of “global warming.”
Those of us in the “right wing” do not discredit the concept of “global warming” any more than we discredit that of “global cooling” or of “climate change” in general. What we question is the concept of “anthropogenic” climate change of any sort.
Global warming and global cooling have cycled back and forth throughout all of the billions of years of Earth’s existence with no help from human activity whatsoever. Climate changes are indeed “Acts of God” or, in other words, inevitable phenomena of the”Laws of Nature”. That we humans happen to be on Earth during a ten or fifteen thousand year period of global warming is simply our own good luck.
The only cause-and-effect between the two is that natural global warming has probably allowed humankind to flourish by liberating the most fertile lands on the planet from their glacial shrouds so that we could expand human agriculture, society and civilization towards their fullest potential.
Human beings can claim no credit for climate change, whether warming or cooling, whether for better or for worse, any more than we can take the blame or credit for any other planetary phenomena. These things are planetary forces acting according to the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.