A combo of secular progressives (USU) and a bunch of liberal “global warming” alarmists just met up at USU. The Herald Journal as usual did a big front page write-up on the subject.

I love how the paper had to inject the fact that two panelists are LDS as if to help brainwash the rest of us Utahans into believing the great global warming lie just because a few LDS people may have bought into all the BS!

As if having Rev. Carolyn Irish here back in 2002 spewing her pro UN, Anti American, environMental agenda at the USU commencement wasn’t enough. Now they have her back again? It is truly ironic to me that USU, a government run school will do their best to shun religion and promote atheism as an institution. Yet in the name of religion, they use religion like a bacteria uses its host to promote ideals such as global warming which may have otherwise never made it to the light of day! This is similar to how the Health Department used the LDS church a year ago by taking up sacred block schedule time to get people politically charged and upset in telling them through a video that they shouldn’t drive due to air quality!

This is crazy! Now these environMentalist, pro UN/global warming groups are trying to infiltrate our churches now because they can’t get their pathetic message out around here otherwise. We need to get them out of religion!!!

My message to these panelists along with anyone else in attendance is simply this. You will never be successful in convincing me that global warming exists!!!

The global warming people assume that the whole nation blindly buys into these theories. Let me underline the fact that they are just theories and theories only. As long as we continue to make the distinction between Global Warming=Liberal and Non Global Warming=Conservative/Freedom loving, the global warming side will loose!

For every amount of liberal spin the Herald Journal gives USU and other liberal groups around here, it will be countered on this forum which is read by many people!

HJ Write-up below 2/1/08

“Utah State University biologist Kevin Young believes that a compassionate relationship toward the environment is part of a compassionate relationship with God. That’s why the active member of the LDS Church supports efforts to stop global warming.

“Why can’t conservation be tied to conservatism?” he asked.

Young brought this view to an Ethics and Stewardship panel at Utah State University’s Focusing Cache event. The day-long series of global warming discussions was held Thursday as part of the Focus the Nation “teach-in,” which was held across the country.

While most of the panels emphasized scientific projections of global warming’s effects, the Ethics and Stewardship group took a different approach, looking into the moral implications of ignoring a heating climate.

The six panelists all drew upon their strong religious views. Carolyn Tanner Irish is bishop of the Utah Episcopal Diocese; Paul Heins serves as pastor of Logan’s First Presbyterian Church; David Sakrison, an Episcopalian priest, is also Moab’s mayor; Steve Ritchey is a Protestant who runs Utah Interfaith Power and Light, bringing faiths together to combat global warming; and Ed Redd is a Bear River Health Department physician and, like Young, an active LDS Church member.

Though they come from diverse faiths, all agreed that global warming is occurring through human activity — and they think something must be done. The hotter climate will bring large-scale suffering. Standing aside and watching the world plunge into environmental catastrophe isn’t just foolish, it’s immoral.

Redd emphasized that The Third World is typically hardest hit by environmental catastrophes.

“There are people who are on the edge,” he said. “All of us in this room could probably afford it if gas went up to $10 a gallon. We could get a smaller car or take the bus. There are a lot of people who already don’t have a car and are taking the bus.”

Redd recalled a Boy Scout trip where he spent four days subsisting on a few plants. He thinks of that hunger when he hears about starving people around the world — a situation he worries will become more common as crops die in hotter weather.

The only hope, the panelists said, is to take action by reducing consumption.

“With 7 billion people on the planet, there is not enough to go around,” Ritchey said. “The Navajos said we have to think seven generations down the road. ... I end my sermons by saying ‘I wish you enough.’ You have to start asking yourself, ‘How much is enough?’”

Though he is not religious, audience member Dave Bastian enjoyed that message.

“Throughout history, a lot of the most significant social changes have come from people of faith,” he said. “I’m not seeing that lately, but I think I saw a bit of that (today).”

I wonder on what you base your insistence that global warming is a lie.  The evidence used in global warming research is not at all related to anything that can be immediately observed by one person, but rather it uses multi-decadal trends in weather data.

I suppose that you hit on one of the biggest problems with the global warming debate, which is that people tend to load the sides by implying that they are part of something bigger.  By making it about liberal vs. conservative or patriotic vs. pacifist, they try to tie people down to one side or the other, when they might not care otherwise.

The funny thing about that is that you have clearly bought into the trap.  You have decided that this really is about conservativism and patriotism, and subsequently unleashed your typical brand of immature name calling ("environMentalist"?).  What's all the worse is that childish ranting, while popular during amateur demagoguery, does nothing to convince others that your position is right.  Instead, it gives the impression that your position is embraced by lunatic crackpots, which isn't exactly a commendable thing.

If you want to undermine global warming alarmists, then ask them about how they think that minor changes in our carbon consumption will be able to stall or reverse the effects, when the total energy cycling in the Earth's ecosystem is so much greater than the changes that they propose.