Sharing the Earth - A Jewish, Evangelical Conversation
Originally published in Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility (www.shma.com) June 2008.
Tree of Life
When I found this Sh'ma interview in my inbox, it raised a question: we Seventh-day Adventists qua Sabbathing followers of Jesus seems to be on all sides of this conversation, except the ecology part. Why? I'm curious to read your reactions.
Rabbi Andrea Cohen-Kiener, director of Interreligious Eco-Justice Network, Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light is the spiritual leader of Congregation Pnai Or of Central Conn. She is author of Life on Earth: A User's Guide, and For All Who Call: A Guide to Enhancing Prayer Instruction in the Jewish Community. She is also the translator of Conscious Community, A Guide to Spiritual Development, written in the early years of World War II by Rabbi Kalanymous Kalman Shapira.
Dr. Lowell “Rusty” Pritchard, a resource economist, is the National Director of Outreach for the Evangelical Environmental Network and the editor of Creation Care magazine, a Christian environmental quarterly.
Andrea Cohen-Kiener: Does your mandate for climate change come from Genesis?
Rusty Pritchard: Yes, but as an Evangelical Christian, I often go to John 3:16 which starts off, “for God so loved the world.” Most Evangelicals hear that word “world” and think it means all the people in the world. But the word is cosmos. And it fits with the story of creation in Genesis that God loves his whole creation.
Cohen-Kiener: We need to acknowledge our grandeur and our smallness simultaneously. I've experienced a resistance in the Jewish community to environmental efforts; I've heard often over the past ten years, “we have more important issues to address.” Have you experienced similar speed bumps?
Pritchard: The biggest speed bump is a limited conception of God, and a comfortable conservatism that is scared of change. I ask people, “what is it that conservatives should be conserving?” Of course we need to conserve natural resources, families and the ability of families to make a living. We need also to conserve beautiful places, including small towns and farms, all that makes human civilization good and beautiful and diverse. We can respect diversity because it's a blessing from God. That takes us past the shallow conservatism of fearing new ideas and deeper to a conservatism that says we ought to do our best to take care of the natural world.
Cohen-Kiener: In my community, there are primarily two speed bumps. First, my people are a minority and there's a natural tendency toward particularism — taking care first of oneself, one's people, one's family. The universalism of environmental makes some Jews feel it's not an essentially Jewish issue.
Pritchard: Even though it's not demographically true, Evangelicals also feel like an embattled minority culture. Our dominant myth is that we're a faithful remnant that acknowledges the truth even though the world has gone another direction. Until recently, our community viewed environmentalism as a liberal issue, or as a popular fad. But because our theology says that God's character can be seen in the created world, many conservative Christians are beginning to be concerned about creation care. In that view, destroying creation and permitting ecological degradation are like ripping pages out of scripture.
Cohen-Kiener: Let's talk about the pervasive value of consumerism in our culture, our deep hungers of the spirit and flesh. Our culture is so illiterate about the hungers of the spirit that we try to fill up that hunger with a new car or fancy vacation. And we're polluting the planet in that effort. We need a counterbalance to consumerism.
Pritchard: I agree. We have such a fundamental addiction to consuming. The Jewish Sabbath is an antidote to that hunger. It helps us test what we can give up from material culture. The Sabbath idea jumps out of every part of Scripture — the rhythms of rest and satisfaction and enjoyment of the created order are meant to pervade all of our lives. There are weekly rhythms and cycles of seven years and the jubilee cycle of 49 years, all celebrating the sufficiency and the providence of God, where we rest and enjoy and encounter with delight the works of God. The Fourth Commandment requires not only your rest, but the rest of all of your household, including everyone who works for you and all of your animals. And the land itself. It demands we not push to the limits our ecological systems or the people who work for us.
I've just returned from a pastors' conference in New York City where some of the urban churches are trying to reclaim the idea of cities as good places. Evangelicals generally hold an anti-urban bias that comes from a vision of our faith as a remnant existing outside of the mainstream of culture. There's an inability to see cities as places that need investment and work, as places to build meaningful community. In a highly urbanized culture we have to rethink our environmental work — conserving not only wilderness or endangered species but also building sustainable communities. I wonder whether there's something to learn there from Jewish tradition, which thrives in cities.
Cohen-Kiener: A city is a manmade place as opposed to the wild. It raises questions about how to create sustainable structures.
Pritchard: The pastor of Church of the Redeemer in New York City, Tim Keller, is trying to redefine a city to include small towns throughout the agricultural landscape. He envisions multiuse, walkable, human settlements that have density and diversity. Those settlements can be megacities or smaller places where people live in community, and where culture is created. God either wants us in the country or in the city, but I'm not sure we should try to mix the two, as in a suburb.
Cohen-Kiener: That brings us to another, related, issue, environmental justice, and questions about air quality, transfer stations, garbage dumps, what's called source point pollution, which is almost always located around the world in nonwhite population centers.
Pritchard: The worst stuff gets dumped on the poorest communities and on ethnic minorities. Within blocks of our church there's a toxic waste facility, a trash transfer station, chemical plant, an impoundment lot for towed vehicles.
Cohen-Kiener: When we talk about environmental justice we need to do so in partnership with the poor and with the “other.” If there was a garbage transfer station in the western suburbs of Hartford, Connecticut where I'm sitting right now people would be much more avid in their support of reduce, reuse, recycle and pre-cycle. The technology and the market forces would come into play more quickly if the consequences were borne evenly and appropriately.
Pritchard: Maybe we need a public policy that puts toxic waste treatment facilities and landfills only in the zip codes with the highest per capita income.
Systems and institutions can be sinful in ways different than individuals, who are filled with flaws like jealously, pride, and rage. Environmental issues open a window onto the economic and social systems that are unjust and often racist. As an economist, I think our public policies and the ways businesses operate will change once they face the costs of the pollution that they now get to dispose of largely for free. Climate policy may involve getting the right price on carbon dioxide so that it becomes a part of the price of all of the goods that we buy and sell and therefore we implicitly take it into account even if we aren't explicitly looking for the greenest option. It must hit us in our pocketbook. We need to think explicitly about challenging businesses to be not just responsive to price signals and creating value for their shareholders but to think about ethics in a much broader sense and to allow their business models to be contaminated by their sense of morality and not pretend that there is this huge divide that businesses are sort of amoral institutions.
Cohen-Kiener: Influencing minds and hearts is going to open a very powerful, passionate, articulate, empowered wellspring as we reexamine what we really need, what we really want, what really makes us feel wealthy and safe. It's going to look like spending less and having less. It's going to feel like more wealth. The root of this sin is disconnection. And the cure is connection.
Search
- Darius (statrei) on Miracles as Magic Shows?
- Elaine Nelson on Prophetess of Health Reappears
- Elaine Nelson on The Paradox of Heaven
- Elaine Nelson on Miracles as Magic Shows?
- Jared Wright on Hit me with your best (Adventist) poetry
- Jared Wright on Hit me with your best (Adventist) poetry
- Ellen Brodersen on The Root of the Problem
- Mike MacLennan on Prophetess of Health Reappears
- Karpistian on The Paradox of Heaven
- Adventist Caricaturist on Hit me with your best (Adventist) poetry
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
The article was interesting and frustrating. Many issues were raised, but the conversation moved past these same issues without really exploring them, as though the conversants were talking past each other instead of listening and responding to each other. Many of the proposed solutions focused on what government should do - which is a serious disease of western religion. Western religions, in general, have turned over their traditional roles in society (healthcare, education, community service, welfare, etc.) to inefficient, corrupt, and secular governments - but that is a separate issue to discuss at length some other time.
Unless carbon is experiencing a neogenesis it would appear that at creation, there was a lot more carbon based life on planet earth. Carbon dioxide is fixed by plants into carbohydrates and proteins and some fats, which when consumed by animals, fix these organic compounds into tissue. Some marine life convert the CO2 into limestone skeletons. The vast deposits of coal, limestone, and oil are remnants of the pre-Flood life. I'm sure someone would like to tax God and Noah for all that carbon.
If the temperature of the globe rises (and apparently there is data that for the past 8-10 years it hasn't) then there are longer growing seasons, snow melts off earlier and over greater areas, areas that were once barren winter wastelands become verdant tundra (like Greenland that WAS green during the middle ages). All that extra plant life takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and releases oxygen. If the CO2 levels come down, won't the temperatures come down if the global warming experts are correct? In the meantime, won't the temperatures which have been experienced as milder winters and springs mean less fossil fuels expended to heat homes and businesses and less CO2?
I think there is a difference between "consumerism" and "materialism" which appeared to be used synonymously in the article. Jesus worked as a carpenter for much more time than He worked as a Rabbi. He used natural resourses - wood, glues, metal for reinforcements and decorations, used tools that were metal, presumably dug from the earth and worked by blacksmiths (more CO2), and maybe even some paints, thinners, lacquers, resins, waxes, and oils. He made goods for consumers. The disciples were fishermen and if they dried, salted, or smoked their fish to preserve them, they must have created some CO2. And they sold to consumers. Even back in Cain and Abel's day people were following different careers (farmer and shepherd), and barter for goods, or consumerism occurred. And when they sacrificed offerings to God, oops, more of that nasty CO2. Consumerism is how economies work. Materialism is consumerism on drugs (steroids and judgement destroying kinds) where the goods are purchased as an act of worship rather than to fulfil legitimate needs (shelter, food, clothing, transportation, etc.).
The conversants were right, though, when they said the Sabbath was given to remind people about God, and their connection to God. It is a weekly reminder that life is more important than getting stuff, that relationships are more precious than money (especially our relationship with God). The Jubilee years (7's and 50)also reminded us of our original 'job' to 'dress and keep' the garden, and to be responsible for the care and preservation of God's creation (dominion) - just like He cares for us - and gave a fresh start to people just like the plan of salvation does as taught in the sanctuary services. If everyone kept the weekly Sabbath for the right reasons (love for God)then the spiritual hunger that people try to fill with materialism might be less of a problem because they would be reconnecting regularly with God, and worshipping Him as the Creator of this world.
Sin is a big problem. Why businesses have to invest so much money in "wrappers" for goods to prevent shoplifting, pirating, tampering, etc. All junk that ends up in landfills and at toxic waste incinerators. And the junk we eat - fast food, cereals that look like candy, bottles of fizzy brown sugar water with harmful chemicals that costs more per gallon than gasoline and is full of CO2. All those gadgets that we "have to have". Too bad we didn't get to discuss the benefits of a vegetarian diet and/or free range cattle and poultry in the context of conservationism.
I see the article as a conversation starter, and as I'm no climatologist or geologist my comments are purely as a layman, so I'd like to learn more about what we can do as individuals without giving the government even more reasons to tax us. The Europeans have doubled the energy taxes and consumption/pollution is still rising in those countries. People there are paying $10 a gallon for gas and heating oil on smaller wages and much higher income and sales taxes (VAT of 22%). Man-made CO2 accounts for about 3% of the total CO2 produced, so I think the system God put in place to keep the planet in balance (vegetation) is going to do far better at making a difference than making a few "carbon credit" brokers into multi-billionaires.
If we carpooled to work 1 day a week that would save 20% of weekly fuel costs and pollution. If we plant some vegetables in our yard, we will convert some of that CO2 into food and oxygen. If our bosses would let us work from home 1 day a week (where possible) that would save another 20%. I think people are beginning to do some of these things, but why are they doing them? Because they love God? To save money so they can give more to evangelism and community service projects at their Mosque, Synagogue, or Church? Or because they worship Mother Earth instead of Father God? I don't know the answers to that, but I do know that God is more interested in the motivation than the behaviour from what He tells us in the Scriptures. And He does want us to imitate the way He cares for us and the world in the way we care for our neighbours and our communities and our planet.
I hope there's not a rule about posts being longer than the article because I've probably broken it. Sorry, new at this...
Paul - there is much you can do as in individual and we as a Church in unity. And interestingly, the same solution for the planet is the same solution for good personal health. See the following article: Human Health and Planet Health—Same Solution
You might be interesting in the following articles by the same author as well: An Inconvenient Truth: We Are Eating Our planet to Death Choosing a Plant-food Based Diet Is a Moral Issue
And A New Global Warming Strategy
A. Way
Just wondering...is it possible we could be in the process of creating as many rules for the "saving of the world due to 'climate change'" as the Pharisees had regarding proper sabbath observance? We can even add rules of "foods and days" as part of the "ethical" effort!
Go for it ladies and gentlemen...see where it goes but I'm just personally not into that burden!
State and Local environmental issues, ok with reason. A stall without an ox is very clean. But...much is to be gained with an "ox."
pat
Responding to A.Way and Pat, I suppose it is possible that people could take a legalistic approach in responding to environmental issues (i.e. making it more about moral duty, obligation and rules and then tie all that to our standing before God).
There is a difference, however, and the difference is worth noting. The Pharisees seem to have taught that following rules was the way to please God and merit God's favor (i.e. become righteous).
Combating environmental crises has not yet been made an issue of rightness before God in the way that pharisaic rules were. There is the danger that they could become the same.
We also should speak with some caution because Scripture is clear in calling humanity to action, never inaction, where justice is concerned. Whether it is racial justice, gender justice, or ecological justice, Scripture makes clear that denying justice is immoral.
The thing that is most helpful to me is noting that environmental action is at its heart a response to God's gracious giving. Environmental advocacy starts with God's grace. See an Adventist model of grace-based Environmental stewardship here.
The lifestyle habits that A.Way points to are a good way that Christians might faithfully respond to environmental issues. Pat, you have also made good suggestions for taking care of the Earth in various other posts.
That is the bottom line. Our faith challenges us to respond creatively and faithfully, and the basis of it all is God's generous, unmerited giving.
Jared,
I am posting this article again because I hope you and Alex saw it. This is the same conclusion that John Christy who was lead author on 2001 IPCC report has been stating. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.The models don't match the evidence.
No reply necessary other than maybe...I saw this. Of course he could have been bought off by big oil or he could be a pseudoscientist.:~)
Regards
No smoking hot spot
• Font Size: Decrease Increase
• Print Page: Print
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
"If everyone kept the weekly Sabbath for the right reasons (love for God)then the spiritual hunger that people try to fill with materialism might be less of a problem because they would be reconnecting regularly with God, and worshipping Him as the Creator of this world."
I, for one, am thankful that "everyone" does not keep the same Sabbath in my time zone (there was only one time zone where the original Sabbath command was given), as I rely on so many to allow me the privilege of not working: firemen on immediate call; physicians and medical personnel working 24/7 if I might need them; utility workers if there is power outage; electricty workers to maintain the needed power for traffic lights, cooling and heating of a church sanctuary as well as home, and much more.
Has anyone really stopped to think of the results of living in an environment today that effectively stops for a 24-hour period?
Idealism has trumped reality in this, as well as other religious laws. The basic Golden Rule would prevent acting in such selfish reasons looking out for "my" privileges, while ignoring the many contributions other's forefeit to give me that liberty. When the Sabbath command was given, it was only and specifically for a group of people living in a self-sustaining animal herding economy; who, for a period of 40 years were not to be involved in any people other than themselves.
"I, for one, am thankful that "everyone" does not keep the same Sabbath in my time zone (there was only one time zone where the original Sabbath command was given)"
Sundown Friday till sundown Sabbath handles timezones.
"as I rely on so many to allow me the privilege of not working: firemen on immediate call; physicians and medical personnel working 24/7 if I might need them; utility workers if there is power outage; electricty workers to maintain the needed power for traffic lights, cooling and heating of a church sanctuary as well as home, and much more."
And this part is handled where Christ said, Luke 14-5
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Comments of this type show personal bias at the expense of common sense.
This guy you cited has some trouble with misrepresentation. Read it all here.
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
I'm in interdisciplinary graduate studies so I have a bit of an understanding of the comparative analysis and epistemological care needed in commenting on primary research across disciplies, must less the overwhelming evidence that multitudes of peer-reviewed work points to.
But this guy just seems like someone who at least plays loose with his own bio facts. Plus, as that DeSmoggers note, he has not published a single paper on climate science, which is where the rubber meets the road in actually owning ones ideas.
Over and over Pat keeps linking to newspaper op-eds by dodgy scientists or my favorite was the embarrassing WSJ op-ed in which the actual editor board member railed against the "radicals" who think that we should walk more and consume less.
One of the differences in methodology that one can note is that people who believe in global warming don't have to rely on random individual scientists. We rely on large consensus statements. I see this all over the right-wing web and somewhat in the MSM, Pat, like most deniers/delayers, just grabs this or that op-ed as evidence. There are a couple dozen of these writers who get cited again and again this way. Many have a documented history of payments from Exxon-Mobil or have consulting gigs for think tanks connected to the fossil fuel industry. Of course not all do, some really believe due to religious or ideological frameworks.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics
What I hope that folks reading this take away is the difference in methodology. One relies on op-eds by a circulating couple dozen scientists, the other relies on hundreds of thousands of scientists doing double-blind peer-reviewed, published work in both a business and academic setting. No one is perfect or free of bias, but when someone has to rely on op-eds to make their argument, their epistemological threshold is exponentially lower.
If someone wants to read actual science on global warming rather than op-eds I suggest the group of climate scientists at RealClimate. They allow open commenting so it's really interesting to see the actual work and debate among real climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the...
I don't know if anyone caught the media hype over this APA article "proving" global warming is hyped, but they do a fine job dismantling it and discussing how actual peer-review works.
Like we did with flat-earth folks, it will just be sad when we look back in a few years and see this written record of people who let their ideology cloud their judgment all the while railing against the "socialist/UN/Nazi/NWO/liberal/fascist/terrorist/Al Gore/treehugging/Marxist/secularist/pagan/Jesuit/Pope/mainline/progressive/feminist/gay/creation care idea that almost every scientist from every background, including Jesus worshiping, Bible-believing Christians believes: that global warming is real and we can protect humanity by taking some steps to live more harmoniously.
Here on Spectrum, I'd like to discuss what that means, but as long as the dominant voices here keep recycling the aforementioned stuff, we're missing the larger conversation.
"Sundown Friday till sundown Sabbath handles timezones."
This overlooks the very important part that there were no timezones until several milennia after the Sabbath command was given.
The time zones in many parts of the world have no sun showing during a 24-hour period; while others have the sun never going down for a 21-hour period. So, sundown is not a realistic sign for many. Nor were clocks invented until several millennia later than the Sinai command.
Hi Alex,
Just thought I would see if you are alive. Haven't seen your name lately and I knew this subject would ring your bell as it is the natural rally point around which to make us citizens of the world and it's savior.;~)
Hope your engagement or now marriage is going well.
regards,
pat
Wow, it's kind of scary to see how information gets bungled online - from my belief in a risen Christ to my love life.
I'm neither married nor engaged. But I do love Jesus and my girlfriend.
Regarding global warming... I have finally settled on an approach well summarized by this comic: http://xkcd.com/164/
Mostly because global warming deniers will not be convinced no matter how much evidence is against them as long as they can find a single source which is in disagreement, no matter how tenuous the research or dodgy the scientists involved. It just is too much work to argue against a stone wall.
I really do care. But I try to convince myself I don't because it's so much easier.
Jemand,
Well,how do we reason with those that contend no matter if things are getting cooler or hotter it is always "man made global warming." Or let's just soften it a bit since things seem to be coolin' and start saying man made "climate change." Wow, does it really! ;~)
Alex,
Sorry, I guess I misread something a few weeks back that
insinuated that your engaged. In fact I came to your defense because I thought a pejorative attitude was used against the "engagement" as I recall and someone supporting you.
Regards to both of you,
pat
PS. In 1983 I sent $300 to that "right wing" think tank when my son was getting his BA in Business at Auburn University.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute was established in October 1982 in Auburn, Alabama.
Post new comment