ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

There are several thousand people from at least 120 countries associated with the IPCC, in one way or another. The fact that one of them may have his own agenda, and said something stupid to a reporter, doesn't make it the IPCC's agenda.

As an example of what I mean: a Baptist pastor in Mississippi last week asked a black couple at the last minute to move their wedding to another church, because of complaints from some members of the congregation -- even though the two of them were also members.

According to the pastor, ""This was, had not, had never been done here before so it was setting a new (precedent) and there were those who reacted to that."

Does that prove Mississippi Baptists are racists who want to push segregation?i Of course not. It simply proves that like any other organization, the Baptists have their share of idiots -- who don't speak for the group as a whole....

 

It does if the minority voice is dictating the majority decision making.

 

So what's going to be the worst outcome,
millions around the world displaced due to rising sea levels
OR
millions displaced due to the collapse of the Euro

easy if your the government...
we get money for climate change and the Euro collapse costs money..mmm?

 

A pretty useless question. The Euro isn't going to collapse. The rest of your post makes little sense.

 

The particular stance of a minority of the congregation at one Baptist church in Mississippi is hardly the official or de facto position of Southern Baptists as a whole.

 

Either the church (or any institution for that matter) listens and takes the position of its minority members or that of the majority members.

If the minority position is adopted, either the institution is no longer democratic or it is agrees with the minority position.

You can paint it any way you like..they either agree or they don't. If they don't agree with the position then said actions would not have occurred, save for mere verbal objections rather than actually taking actions which implies they do agree with the minority, ergo QED.

 

I have to agree. If the pastor was supportive of the marriage going ahead then he would have done it and defied the supposed minority.

He didn't. Conclusion, either he agreed with not going ahead or he was informed by a majority that he couldn't go ahead without consequences for his future, and he went along with that position despite his personal inclination.

As you say, QED.

PDW

 

If you ( anyone) kept borrowing money and putting it into Enron it wouldnt have collapsed either

 

By [IPCC official] saying something stupid, Troy, did you mean to say he let the cat out of the bag?

I would like to see some documentation on that alleged Baptist Church incident. I am skeptical.

http://times247.com/articles/new-study-shows-global-warming-data-inconclusive

 

Ottmar Edenhofer, the UN IPCC Official, didn't say anything stupid, and so Troy's Baptist Church analogy is a red herring. The problem is that Edenhofer's statement has been taken out of context and twisted to mean something he never meant it to mean.

Edenhofer was interviewed at about the time of the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference. He and his interviewer (NZZ) were discussing that

Edenhofer noted how hard it would be for any nation to decouple their economy from burning carbon.

Apparently, an idea had been floated to create a global emissions credit, which would be distributed on a per-capita basis.

Edenhofer then when on to say that it was impossible to discuss a global solution to carbon emissions without also considering the enormous economic consequences.

Then Edenhofer made his "infamous" quote where he implied that IF "global emission rights are distributed" as some were proposing, then

And he said that those who currently own carbon fuel resources would not like that policy.

They then went on to discuss the different viewpoints that the developed nations have compared to the developing nations.

But since the 1980s viewpoints have changed:

They then went on to note that

Then Edenhofer comments that there is no way to solve global warming without international cooperation.

Finally, Edenhofer offers this parable, which is his solution to the global warming crises -- we must develop non-carbon energy solutions to displace carbon sources.

As I see it, once again, the AGW deniers have twisted the truth to conjure up a false debate where there otherwise would be no debate.

 

Strictly speaking you may be correct. But this is a Bible-based organization making a decision according to Biblical principles. One principle is based in Romans 14:

Here, the author is arguing that sometimes it is better to maintain the cohesion of the group by (temporarily) going along with the minority viewpoint, rather than for the more mature church members to do something that might offend the weaker church members, and tear the church apart.

So I could speculate that the Baptist minister suggested that it would be less divisive for the black couple to not get married in the church, even though he and many of the congregants may have thought it perfectly appropriate, to try and preserve the "body of Christ" (the church), and hope that in time the weaker church members might become more mature and less racist.

And of course this is a question that all democracies have to make too -- how to tolerate the interests of the minority as well as the majority, without the whole organization breaking into feuding fragments. Look how dysfunctional Congress has become...what a mess.

 

But I didn't borrow money or put it into Enron so, yet again, your post makes little sense. Seems to be a habit for you.

 

The fact that a few people pressured their pastor not to allow blacks to be married in their church, and he caved, hardly makes racism a policy or agenda of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

Similarly, one official saying something stupid to a reporter hardly makes it a policy or agenda of the entire IPCC.

edit: after reading Imaginary Number's post, I agree: it wasn't a stupid remark after all. It's just been taken out of context and blown all out of proportion. Gee... what a surprise that people would do such a thing.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536#.UBhMoaPdfNg

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding/index.html

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...upport-of-black-couple-blocked-by-church?lite

 

Their actions says otherwise.

And that is a political decision and not an ideological one (as their raison d'etre). So much for being true to ones faith and principals!

Does seem people like to "clump" the two together ignoring the differences for the sake of even more argument and division