Church Pushing Climate Change Agenda

[Tall.Traveler]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... nce-brazil

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -creations

I'll be honest. This is pushing me to the edge. I agree that we should be good custodians of the earth, but not only is the war on CO2 a fraud, but it is actually harmful for the environment and, more importantly, it is a war on the poor and middle class. It makes me sad to see our church leadership falling for this. The climate change agenda is pushed by the U.N., the WEF and elites throughout the world to control every aspect of our lives, grind down the poor, reduce our standards of living and, ultimately, reduce the population. There is nothing about it that is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

Just to complement Serragon's comments, here are exact quotes from Causse's speech:

"First, we strive to increase our energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. For example, we recently reported on the numerous solar energy projects we have implemented globally — over 500! We are actively evaluating the feasibility and advantages of various energy solutions and opportunities."

and

"Working with third-party consultants to evaluate various sustainable alternatives, we discovered that the sacrament cups made from 100% recycled plastic will reduce overall carbon emissions compared to our current cups and even paper cups."

and

"Our fourth priority is to improve air quality and reduce emissions caused by our transportation methods, such as improving the fuel efficiency of our global vehicle fleet. This includes the use of hybrid and electric vehicles as they become available and viable for different uses."

and

"Finally, we prioritize sustainable farming and ranching practices in our operations around the globe. This includes the use of cover crops, crop rotation, no-till farming, grazing management, greenhouse gas capture and other best practices. These practices support land productivity and help reduce negative environmental impacts."

and

"The value of trees to improve air quality, combat rising temperatures, reduce malnutrition and beautify communities cannot be overstated."

[Peeps]

I’m 70. They won’t have to deal with my carbon footprint much longer. I am sure I won’t be unhappy to leave all this nonsense. I can’t believe how much this has accelerated in the last 15 years. All the young are getting played.

Yes, they are teaching them backwards, that carbon is bad, a pollutant, when it is vital for life. It used to be the defining characteristic of all organic life.

[Seed Starter]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... nce-brazil

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -creations

I'll be honest. This is pushing me to the edge. I agree that we should be good custodians of the earth, but not only is the war on CO2 a fraud, but it is actually harmful for the environment and, more importantly, it is a war on the poor and middle class. It makes me sad to see our church leadership falling for this. The climate change agenda is pushed by the U.N., the WEF and elites throughout the world to control every aspect of our lives, grind down the poor, reduce our standards of living and, ultimately, reduce the population. There is nothing about it that is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

And Bishop Caussé wrote:
"Last month, the Church announced a $1 million donation to provide another 140,000 trees for planting in the same area. The value of trees to improve air quality, combat rising temperatures, reduce malnutrition and beautify communities cannot be overstated."

They're planting trees to combat rising temperatures. Trees use C02 so the more of them they plant the less C02 will exist in the atmosphere the lower the temperature will be. They believe C02 is bad and they're spending church funds to fight the C02 boogie man.

[Peeps]

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

And Bishop Caussé wrote:
"Last month, the Church announced a $1 million donation to provide another 140,000 trees for planting in the same area. The value of trees to improve air quality, combat rising temperatures, reduce malnutrition and beautify communities cannot be overstated."

They're planting trees to combat rising temperatures. Trees use C02 so the more of them they plant the less C02 will exist in the atmosphere the lower the temperature will be. They believe C02 is bad and they're spending church funds to fight the C02 boogie man.

Niemand has mentioned this somewhere, but it may be an effort to make up for the trees they cut down for wind turbines.

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) has admitted to cutting down nearly 16 million trees since 2000 as part of an effort to construct wind farms, The Telegraph reported. That amounts to roughly 1,700 trees per day over the last 23 years."

https://themessenger.com/news/scotland- ... d-turbines

[Niemand]

Niemand has mentioned this somewhere, but it may be an effort to make up for the trees they cut down for wind turbines.

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) has admitted to cutting down nearly 16 million trees since 2000 as part of an effort to construct wind farms, The Telegraph reported. That amounts to roughly 1,700 trees per day over the last 23 years."

https://themessenger.com/news/scotland- ... d-turbines

I've always wondered about these stats. We have very little old woodland left in Scotland and large areas without much tree cover. However we also have a lot of forestry plantations. If they're replacing plantations with turbines I've less of a problem with it than chopping down old trees and natural woodlands.

On a different note wind turbines and birds don't mix apparently. Many migrating birds have no natural analogue to wind turbines so don't know how to react to them. I'm a bigger fan of solar, but I've heard in the USA that these big solar farms can cook birds midair. Not very green at all.

[Seed Starter]

Notes are listed at the end of this article from Causse. The last note is:17. Gospel Topics, “Environmental Stewardship and Conservation.”
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... eations#16

So I looked up the gospel topic and found a matching page:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... eng#title1

Then I scrolled to the bottom and listed under learning resources and found this Ensign article written by a Salt Lake bishop in 1991.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

"The relevance of this simple message comes with repetitive impact these days as we read about the environmental damage caused by such man-made problems as acid rain, excessive carbon dioxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere, deforestation, and the pollution of our oceans, lakes, and streams."

"At one time, there may have been reason to be skeptical about the idea that we are damaging the earth on a global scale. But no longer. The evidence is mounting that we are doing ourselves and our mortal home serious damage. An observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii far away from large industry has recorded a rate of 1.5 to 2 parts per million increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. Similar observations were made at the South Pole. A continued increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, produced by our vast consumption of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels, appears to be responsible for a general increase in temperature worldwide. (See Sylvan H. Wittwer, “The Greenhouse Effect,” Carolina Biology 163:8.) That increase threatens possible major changes in climate around the world, potentially causing drought in some areas and greater rainfall in others.

Evidence for this global warming also comes from studies made by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which analyzed records going back to 1860. The studies showed that the greatest global temperature increase has taken place in the last decade. Carbon dioxide and trace gases produced by our industrial societies were considered to be the cause. (See R. A. Haughton and G. M. Woodwell, “Global Climatic Change,” Scientific American, April 1989, p. 37.)"

The church is absolutely including CO2 = BAD in their sustainability efforts. Some bad things might await mankind the farther down the C02=Bad path we get. Once they deal with all of the low hanging fruit the only way to keep reducing CO2 might be to limit the number of humans. The church appears to be approaching this topic with caution so nobody freaks out. The C02 Bad agenda in the linked sources is only sprinkled in a few parts and that's on purpose. How many members will read those stories as good news and common sense? Some will even be proud of their church for doing good. I love the blessings of the earth. I love animals and plants (obviously).

Mankind does a lot of dumb things but the C02 scam doesn't have to be one of them. This is a problem because once people buy into this it becomes very difficult to go back. I see people running toward their own enslavement. This is my opinion. Perhaps I should bring back or start a thread about agenda 2030 They're quite serious about that plan. ESG scores and B corps are being driven by powerful people for a reason and it isn't because they give a crap about the earth or people.

[Tall.Traveler]

Niemand has mentioned this somewhere, but it may be an effort to make up for the trees they cut down for wind turbines.

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) has admitted to cutting down nearly 16 million trees since 2000 as part of an effort to construct wind farms, The Telegraph reported. That amounts to roughly 1,700 trees per day over the last 23 years."

https://themessenger.com/news/scotland- ... d-turbines

I've always wondered about these stats. We have very little old woodland left in Scotland and large areas without much tree cover. However we also have a lot of forestry plantations. If they're replacing plantations with turbines I've less of a problem with it than chopping down old trees and natural woodlands.

On a different note wind turbines and birds don't mix apparently. Many migrating birds have no natural analogue to wind turbines so don't know how to react to them. I'm a bigger fan of solar, but I've heard in the USA that these big solar farms can cook birds midair. Not very green at all.

More absurdities of the climate change agenda, wind turbines kill lots of birds, including protected species. Here's an article on a wind company that plead guilty to killing eagles.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wi ... -rcna23360

There's growing concern that offshore wind farms are killing whales and other marine life.

Also, here's an article on the damage solar farms do to the desert environment. Destroying the environment to save it!

https://news.yahoo.com/really-green-fig ... 17426.html

[Seed Starter]

Niemand has mentioned this somewhere, but it may be an effort to make up for the trees they cut down for wind turbines.

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) has admitted to cutting down nearly 16 million trees since 2000 as part of an effort to construct wind farms, The Telegraph reported. That amounts to roughly 1,700 trees per day over the last 23 years."

https://themessenger.com/news/scotland- ... d-turbines

I've always wondered about these stats. We have very little old woodland left in Scotland and large areas without much tree cover. However we also have a lot of forestry plantations. If they're replacing plantations with turbines I've less of a problem with it than chopping down old trees and natural woodlands.

On a different note wind turbines and birds don't mix apparently. Many migrating birds have no natural analogue to wind turbines so don't know how to react to them. I'm a bigger fan of solar, but I've heard in the USA that these big solar farms can cook birds midair. Not very green at all.

I went hiking with my family here in Utah yesterday. It was a beautiful trail by a clear creek. As you reach the top you see these...


I had the thought that they're wrecking the beauty of nature to save nature. There is a lot of wind at the bottom of Spanish Fork canyon but that's true for many canyons around here. So ugly and out of place but it's green. I mean it's like putting a giant white vinyl fence on a beautiful mountain. Then head north and see a bunch of giant white letters on the mountain. Ugly.

[TwochurchesOnly]

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

Just to complement Serragon's comments, here are exact quotes from Causse's speech:

"First, we strive to increase our energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. For example, we recently reported on the numerous solar energy projects we have implemented globally — over 500! We are actively evaluating the feasibility and advantages of various energy solutions and opportunities."

and

"Working with third-party consultants to evaluate various sustainable alternatives, we discovered that the sacrament cups made from 100% recycled plastic will reduce overall carbon emissions compared to our current cups and even paper cups."

and

"Our fourth priority is to improve air quality and reduce emissions caused by our transportation methods, such as improving the fuel efficiency of our global vehicle fleet. This includes the use of hybrid and electric vehicles as they become available and viable for different uses."

and

"Finally, we prioritize sustainable farming and ranching practices in our operations around the globe. This includes the use of cover crops, crop rotation, no-till farming, grazing management, greenhouse gas capture and other best practices. These practices support land productivity and help reduce negative environmental impacts."

and

"The value of trees to improve air quality, combat rising temperatures, reduce malnutrition and beautify communities cannot be overstated."

Sick
-
Marching proudly to their GLoBal leader's drum
showing their compliance - "sustainable" " global- "best practices"
Beyond crazy surreal this is actually the focus of the self proclaimed profit$

[TheDuke]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... nce-brazil

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -creations

I'll be honest. This is pushing me to the edge. I agree that we should be good custodians of the earth, but not only is the war on CO2 a fraud, but it is actually harmful for the environment and, more importantly, it is a war on the poor and middle class. It makes me sad to see our church leadership falling for this. The climate change agenda is pushed by the U.N., the WEF and elites throughout the world to control every aspect of our lives, grind down the poor, reduce our standards of living and, ultimately, reduce the population. There is nothing about it that is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

I don't know your background, so I will cut you some slack. I'm an outdoorsman. I am all for good climate and less waste and clean air and clean earth. I always have been. I think those that litter and crap on the earth on purpose are not good stewards. I have always backed efficient use of resources and less energy, etc...

Where I depart is that climate change is man made, and that we need to do it in detriment to our economy and our lives. I do not see anything here and your points are off target claiming those points are part of climate activities. I just don't see it. Now I'm not saying the church or the bishop or others aren't btw. I am saying these two articles simply smack of being good stewards.

If we were, I wouldn't be wasting my time hunting and fishing nothing after government and corporations ruined our wild life for money.

[Tall.Traveler]

I read both of these. I see NOTHING here about climate agenda. Not one word. I see things that I personally accept, recycling, energy efficiency, crop rotation, etc....

Where exactly did you come up with the CO2 fraud here? I know CO2 attacking is fraudulent. But please post quotes from these two sources that say such. Perhaps I just missed it tall?

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

I don't know your background, so I will cut you some slack. I'm an outdoorsman. I am all for good climate and less waste and clean air and clean earth. I always have been. I think those that litter and crap on the earth on purpose are not good stewards. I have always backed efficient use of resources and less energy, etc...

Where I depart is that climate change is man made, and that we need to do it in detriment to our economy and our lives. I do not see anything here and your points are off target claiming those points are part of climate activities. I just don't see it. Now I'm not saying the church or the bishop or others aren't btw. I am saying these two articles simply smack of being good stewards.

If we were, I wouldn't be wasting my time hunting and fishing nothing after government and corporations ruined our wild life for money.

Did you read my post where I included direct quotes from Causse about wanting to reduce carbon emissions? I'm sorry, but I don't know how much clearer it can be.

And solar and wind farms are very harmful to the outdoors. Not to mention the mining (often involving forced or child labor) and energy required to extract the minerals required to build these farms, particularly solar, and the batteries required to make them work. The anti-CO2 agenda is not good for the outdoors.

[TheDuke]

All of the things you just mentioned as not being part of the climate agenda are part of the climate agenda. But if you define things as you did, specifically that things you accept are not part of the climate agenda, it will be very difficult for you to see that. This is a very convenient definition for you by the way.

Where is the CO2 fraud? Point #4 and Point #6 by Bishop Cause. Why would the church be working to reduce emissions as one of its primary goals in helping the environment if they did not believe in the fraud that increased emissions are harmful to the planet. Why would "greenhouse gas capture" be a priority on their farms unless they believed in the fraud?

How about point #3? The church is moving to recycled sacrament cups for the specific reason that it reduces carbon emissions. Not that it is cheaper or more efficient. Carbon emissions.

But you are right. NOT ONE WORD!!!

I don't know your background, so I will cut you some slack. I'm an outdoorsman. I am all for good climate and less waste and clean air and clean earth. I always have been. I think those that litter and crap on the earth on purpose are not good stewards. I have always backed efficient use of resources and less energy, etc...

Where I depart is that climate change is man made, and that we need to do it in detriment to our economy and our lives. I do not see anything here and your points are off target claiming those points are part of climate activities. I just don't see it. Now I'm not saying the church or the bishop or others aren't btw. I am saying these two articles simply smack of being good stewards.

If we were, I wouldn't be wasting my time hunting and fishing nothing after government and corporations ruined our wild life for money.

Did you read my post where I included direct quotes from Causse about wanting to reduce carbon emissions? I'm sorry, but I don't know how much clearer it can be.

And solar and wind farms are very harmful to the outdoors. Not to mention the mining (often involving forced or child labor) and energy required to extract the minerals required to build these farms, particularly solar, and the batteries required to make them work. The anti-CO2 agenda is not good for the outdoors.

Yes, so? Did you read what I said? That in the open is good? I believe it. I am anti-climate agenda as I said. The two are not mutually exclusive. Are you by chance bi-polar or something where against pollution is for climate agenda?

[Ciams]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... nce-brazil

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -creations

I'll be honest. This is pushing me to the edge. I agree that we should be good custodians of the earth, but not only is the war on CO2 a fraud, but it is actually harmful for the environment and, more importantly, it is a war on the poor and middle class. It makes me sad to see our church leadership falling for this. The climate change agenda is pushed by the U.N., the WEF and elites throughout the world to control every aspect of our lives, grind down the poor, reduce our standards of living and, ultimately, reduce the population. There is nothing about it that is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think all of what's in there is reasonable. The only reference to carbon was the plastic cups. Hahaha. The impact of that is obviously... trivial. Like nothing. There's no debate over climate changing. It always does. There's a question of how much of the change is from human activity, it's s small percentage of the overall change. Then the question is what small percent of the change can we change? An even smaller percentage. So a small percent times a small percentage is a smaller number. Plastic vs paper cups don't even register. "BUT it's the thought that counts." Some say. Ok, just don't spend one minute feeling good about the paper or feeling bad about the plastic. Waste of energy.

The other stuff will ultimately reduce particulate matter in the air, which is more of a real issue and leads to decreased sex hormones levels, lower sperm counts, reduce health etc. Pollution is a very real issue affecting our biology. We conservatives should be aware that some of what causes effeminate men is directly related to environmental factors, plastics in waters, industrial particulate matter in air, etc.

Environmentalism isn't sold this way, but no reason to turn down some benefits if it cleans up cities. And yes, that Pollution happens somewhere in mines or power plants, but we'd be better isolating Pollution to production areas rather than living one's.

Still, obviously fossil fuels are 100% necessary for a modern economy.

[dreamtheater76]

You are right about the climate change agenda not being in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Because it’s a lie!

I feel fortunate that I grew up mostly in the 80’s and early 90’s and didn’t have to put up with all the climate change brainwashing that younger generations have had to deal with.

After I graduated from high school was the time when the climate cartoons were taking over. So called childrens programs like Arthur and Captain Planet. Such garbage!

I remember the first time I heard anything about it was a global warming article in a Highlights magazine I saw in 1984-85. I was only in 3rd grade and thought it sounded ridiculous. I’ve had similar sentiments ever since.

I always thought it was run by a bunch of communist hippies. These days we know them as globalists.

[Ebenezer]

The Sustainability Sister said:

"As we go forward with faith, courage and persistence, continually learning and seeking diverse perspectives we will be led to the success that we seek. No matter the challenge or uncertainty we face, we can be of good cheer, for God is leading us along.”

I wonder, what success does she seek? And which god is leading her along?

[TheDuke]

You are right about the climate change agenda not being in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Because it’s a lie!

I feel fortunate that I grew up mostly in the 80’s and early 90’s and didn’t have to put up with all the climate change brainwashing that younger generations have had to deal with.

After I graduated from high school was the time when the climate cartoons were taking over. So called childrens programs like Arthur and Captain Planet. Such garbage!

I remember the first time I heard anything about it was a global warming article in a Highlights magazine I saw in 1984-85. I was only in 3rd grade and thought it sounded ridiculous. I’ve had similar sentiments ever since.

I always thought it was run by a bunch of communist hippies. These days we know them as globalists.

Are you serious? did you miss that was going on around you? I mean it was the late 50's before I was born that they got into global population explosion and pollution destroying the earth. It was early 60s for the likes of "The Omega Man", "Soilent Green", and many end-of-world scenarios. Usually around nuclear results, but more than often about ruining the earth "Water World" later on, etc... In the 60's is was about the "ozone hole" over SA due to burning the high mountain forests to grow coffee. In the 70's and 80's back to over population due to too much grazing. Funny the movies then were like "Day After Tomorrow" around global cooling as global warming adds agricultural area. It was food shortages, gas shortages, too many babies, too much good medicine, etc... By 80's is was polar bears and poles and glaciers melting, worrying about penguins and polluting the oceans and the oceans dying.

If you think it started recently, I feel you lived a very sheltered life.

The difference is that those fringe believers didn't have the MSM and global governments behind them. It was Al Gore that brought it to the front and TPTB finally joined in to make it a power and money changer. Now we have idiots using it to destroy us and make someone trillions. But the threat isn't new, it is the younger people being stupid.

[Tall.Traveler]

I don't know your background, so I will cut you some slack. I'm an outdoorsman. I am all for good climate and less waste and clean air and clean earth. I always have been. I think those that litter and crap on the earth on purpose are not good stewards. I have always backed efficient use of resources and less energy, etc...

Where I depart is that climate change is man made, and that we need to do it in detriment to our economy and our lives. I do not see anything here and your points are off target claiming those points are part of climate activities. I just don't see it. Now I'm not saying the church or the bishop or others aren't btw. I am saying these two articles simply smack of being good stewards.

If we were, I wouldn't be wasting my time hunting and fishing nothing after government and corporations ruined our wild life for money.

Did you read my post where I included direct quotes from Causse about wanting to reduce carbon emissions? I'm sorry, but I don't know how much clearer it can be.

And solar and wind farms are very harmful to the outdoors. Not to mention the mining (often involving forced or child labor) and energy required to extract the minerals required to build these farms, particularly solar, and the batteries required to make them work. The anti-CO2 agenda is not good for the outdoors.

Yes, so? Did you read what I said? That in the open is good? I believe it. I am anti-climate agenda as I said. The two are not mutually exclusive. Are you by chance bi-polar or something where against pollution is for climate agenda?

I'm pretty sure I'm not bi-polar, but I'm confident I passed reading comprehension!

It sounds like philosophically we are violently agreeing, but you don't seem to think Causse is pushing the climate change agenda, whereas for me it's blatantly obvious. I believe him when he says he wants to reduce carbon emissions. He was pretty clear with that in his statements.

[dreamtheater76]

You are right about the climate change agenda not being in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Because it’s a lie!

I feel fortunate that I grew up mostly in the 80’s and early 90’s and didn’t have to put up with all the climate change brainwashing that younger generations have had to deal with.

After I graduated from high school was the time when the climate cartoons were taking over. So called childrens programs like Arthur and Captain Planet. Such garbage!

I remember the first time I heard anything about it was a global warming article in a Highlights magazine I saw in 1984-85. I was only in 3rd grade and thought it sounded ridiculous. I’ve had similar sentiments ever since.

I always thought it was run by a bunch of communist hippies. These days we know them as globalists.

Are you serious? did you miss that was going on around you? I mean it was the late 50's before I was born that they got into global population explosion and pollution destroying the earth. It was early 60s for the likes of "The Omega Man", "Soilent Green", and many end-of-world scenarios. Usually around nuclear results, but more than often about ruining the earth "Water World" later on, etc... In the 60's is was about the "ozone hole" over SA due to burning the high mountain forests to grow coffee. In the 70's and 80's back to over population due to too much grazing. Funny the movies then were like "Day After Tomorrow" around global cooling as global warming adds agricultural area. It was food shortages, gas shortages, too many babies, too much good medicine, etc... By 80's is was polar bears and poles and glaciers melting, worrying about penguins and polluting the oceans and the oceans dying.

If you think it started recently, I feel you lived a very sheltered life.

The difference is that those fringe believers didn't have the MSM and global governments behind them. It was Al Gore that brought it to the front and TPTB finally joined in to make it a power and money changer. Now we have idiots using it to destroy us and make someone trillions. But the threat isn't new, it is the younger people being stupid.

A lot of environmental stuff was being pushed and around going way back. Leonard Nemoy saying that the world was going to end a couple of decades before Al Gore was doing the same thing.

Yes all this stuff was around. It wasn’t pushed anywhere like it is now. It wasn’t the thing that was the most important thing in the world like it is now.

Yes global governments and the MSN are fully on board but the education system is obsessed with it. I really didn’t have the environmental fear porn pushed on me in school until college. Al Gore wasn’t even in the White House until I was just finishing high school.