EPA gives $30,000 to global warming church

Originally posted by whodey
Man made climate change and impending global doom that will follow is just as much a religious belief as Jesus returning some day.

This is your argument about the topic in the link in the OP?

Originally posted by whodey
You like repeating yourself, don't you? 😴

I was trying to get you to talk about the OP rather than about [1] Obama and his health care reforms or [2] whether calling you out for your OP is "character assassination".

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm guessing the Republicans want to speed it along as fast as possible because that sets the stage perfectly for the AC to come save us from it after the Republicans finally push us over the edge.

Are there many non-Republican Christians in the US who entwine their party political views with their Christian beliefs in this way?

Originally posted by whodey
Man made climate change and impending global doom that will follow is just as much a religious belief as Jesus returning some day.

I believe you are confused here. The grant money from the government was not for preaching against global warming; it was for supporting the idea of the problems of climate change, which is the left's new name for global warming. Read the two paragraphs of your reference that I posted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The grant money from the government was not for preaching against global warming; it was for supporting the idea of the problems of climate change....

The grant money from the government was clearly allocated for actions and measures in line with policy aims. Whether one agrees that climate change is a problem or not ~ for retail politics reasons, or because of scientific disagreements ~ and whether or not one agrees that such actions and measures are the best way to achieve the stated policy aims ~ whichever way you cut it, whodey misrepresented what was found at the link in his OP.

Originally posted by FMF
The grant money from the government was clearly allocated for actions and measures in line with policy aims. Whether one agrees that climate change is a problem or not ~ for retail politics reasons, or because of scientific disagreements ~ and whether or not one agrees that such actions and measures are the best way to achieve the stated policy aims ~ whichever way you cut it, whodey misrepresented what was found at the link in his OP.

Whodey was mistaken, but you are mistaken too, It clearly says all these actions are "associated with climate change" and anyone that know anything at all should know that the "policy aims" you are talking about includes promoting the idea of climate change as caused by man. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Whodey was mistaken, but you are mistaken too, It clearly says all these actions are "associated with climate change" and anyone that know anything at all should know that the "policy aims" you are talking about includes promoting the idea of climate change as caused by man. 😏

Of course the policies and measures are about climate change. Actions regarding mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and dealing with actual events on the ground affecting millions of people cannot be dismissed as "promoting an idea".

They are about things like stopping flood waters devastating villages and towns or dealing with them when they occur, being able to grow crops that survive and therefore communities being able feed themselves, it's about protecting themselves from pollution and other real life public health issues.

You can't dismiss all these very real and ongoing ~ and in so many cases, worsening ~ human predicaments and vulnerabilities as them merely thinking about and coping with an "idea". You're just being an oaf as usual. 😉

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you thumb FMF down even when you agree with him?

Do you?

Originally posted by FMF
Are there many non-Republican Christians in the US who entwine their party political views with their Christian beliefs in this way?

In what way?

Originally posted by Suzianne
In what way?

In the way you did. When you said "I'm guessing..." and then tried to score a domestic US-retail-politics point against "the Republicans". Are there many non-Republican Christians in the US - like you - who do this kind of thing with their religious/political beliefs?

Originally posted by FMF
Of course the policies and measures are about climate change. Actions regarding mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and dealing with actual events on the ground affecting millions of people cannot be dismissed as "promoting an idea".

They are about things like stopping flood waters devastating villages and towns or dealing with them when they occur, bei ...[text shortened]... s as them merely thinking about and coping with an "idea". You're just being an oaf as usual. 😉

You continue to created a strawman in my opinion. Global warming or climate change has not been proven to be the cause of man's problems. It is only a theory that the left use to further their leftist agenda.

Certainly I am not against informing the public of practical things they can do in case of emergencies due to weather. But to put in the minds of the common people the leftist ideology that if the world would just stop using carbon based fuels that we could calm the storms, like Jesus, seems extreme.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You continue to created a strawman in my opinion. Global warming or climate change has not been proven to be the cause of man's problems. It is only a theory that the left use to further their leftist agenda.

There is no straw man. Your political opinion about the virtues - or otherwise - of climate science is immaterial. The policies are what they are and the measures are what they are. Your viewpoint has no effect on people in the real world taking real steps to protect their communities from real things that are happening to them. The link in the OP has little or nothing to do with the separation of Church and State in the US.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But to put in the minds of the common people the leftist ideology that if the world would just stop using carbon based fuels that we could calm the storms, like Jesus, seems extreme.

The link in the OP talks about trainings, research, data collection, anti-pollution, sustainable agriculture projects, and other similar activities aimed at real live human beings protecting themselves from threats to their health and livelihoods - and in more and more case - their lives too. The words "carbon based fuels" do appear in the article linked in the OP - indeed, even the word "carbon" does not appear in it.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no straw man. Your political opinion about the virtues - or otherwise - of climate is immaterial. The policies are what they are and the measures are what they are. Your viewpoint has no effect on people in the real world taking real steps to protect their communities from real things that are happening to them. The link in the OP has little or nothing to do with the separation of Church and State in the US.

I already said that this is not a church. You do not get this strawman about separation of church and state from me.

http://www.uufbr.org/

By the way, most people already know what the EPA means when they refer to climate change. They have accepted the theory that the ongoing unlimited burning of fossil fuels is the cause of climate change that produces an increase in severe storms and sea level rising.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I already said that this is not a church. You do not get this strawman about separation of church and state from me.

The nonsense about the separation of church and state whodey's, not mine. I don't think your estimation of The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Boca Raton is relevant.