Skip to content

“We are All Stewards of Our Earth” 10-10-10 in Camp Springs, MD

October 6, 2010

When: Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:30 AM
Where: Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church (DMUUC), Camp Springs MD
Who: CONTACT: Caryl Henry Alexander 301-877-2029 caryl@bigbangbanners.com

DMUUC presents – “We are All Stewards of Our Earth”

We Are All Stewarts of Planet Earth by Caryl Henry Alexander

10/10/10: World’s Largest Day of Practical Action to fight Climate Change In collaboration with Thousands of Events Across the Planet Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:30am-12:30pm

CAMP SPRINGS – ON OCTOBER 10, PEOPLE ACROSS THE PLANET WILL PICK UP HAMMERS, SHOVELS, AND PAINTBRUSHES AND JOIN THE 10/10/10 GLOBAL WORK PARTY.

DMUUC organizers expect to join in an interfaith commitment to environmental action in their church and family homes for the next year. We are a Welcoming Community. Our Celebration includes something for all ages.

Joelle Novey, Director of Greater Washington Interfaith Power and Light will discuss “Confronting Noah and Ourselves: Our Religious Response to Climate Change”.

“Wild Child”, Mother Earth tucks her rambunctious child, Autumn, into bed for sleep. by Plourde will be read for all ages.

“DC Green Festival Comes to Davies” to premier this year’s UU festival booth. The unique artwork and photo op will provide family fun and environmental education in Davies’ lobby after the service.

Directions: Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church, 7400 Temple Hill Rd. Camp Springs, MD 20748. Directions: http://www.dmuuc.org/welcome_directions.html, Google map: http://bit.ly/bW5N0v

The 10/10/10 Global Work Party is being coordinated by the international climate campaign 350.org. Photos and video from thousands of simultaneous events across the planet will also be available for the media at http://350.org/media.

Please spread the news!

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. rogerthesurf permalink
    October 6, 2010 6:48 pm

    Better get stewarding then instead of running after the life giving gas CO2!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  2. October 6, 2010 7:12 pm

    People can be ignorant about CO2, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem.

    Read the Science of 350 (350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. ) here: http://www.350.org/en/about/science

    From Earth System Research Laboratory http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    A <2 min. video, Jonathon Porritt, Founder Director of Forum for the Future, explains how and why scientific consensus was reached on the issue of Climate Change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_IEfZRqYQU (The evidence is more and more certain…. Vast majority of the world's scientists have signed on to [it]…. Clear signals that it's going to get worse…. That's the way the scientific method actually works.)

  3. rogerthesurf permalink
    October 6, 2010 8:54 pm

    What scientific consensus?

    These links have lists larger than that of the IPCC contributors.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

    The reason that there is so much disagreement is because scientific process has not been followed at all.

    Lets take the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming ” hypothesis for a start.

    The scientific process to turn this into something like very likely would be.

    1. List all hypothesis which fit the known data. (I can think of a number including the above which do)

    2. Look for factors which show each hypothesis does not fit the data so you can eliminate it from the list

    3. Look for factors which disprove any hypothesis that are on the above list.

    4. Try and reconcile or disprove the disproving factors.

    At that point your hypothesis will enjoy the status of being the best hypothesis for the known facts.

    5. Then start looking for empirical evidence that explain the causation link contained in the hypothesis.

    I would respectfully point out that the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” has barely got past 1. on the above list.

    Now frankly, I normally wouldn’t worry one way or the other about some half baked scientific theory. Evolution and techtonic plate theories all went through the above process.
    But why I am demanding some reasonable proof for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis is that because of my expertise in ecomomics, I can see that the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands will have the same effect on us as if we ran out of fossil fuels completely within a short time frame. In other words there will be economic collapse which means starvation for us and our families.
    This is someone else who has come independently to the same conclusion but says it better than I can.
    http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/global-warming-scare-industry-suppresses-benefits-of-co2

    This is the case of a half baked scientific theory threatening to effect me personally, so at that point my tolerance is exhausted.
    My economic expertise also allows me to recoil in disbelief when I read so called “Authorative” reports such as the one by Nicholas Stern and I believe that the IPCC also exaggerates and claims proof where there is none. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/upenncross.pdf

    If I was religious I would say that CO2 upon which all life depends is God’s gift of life to us and the world.
    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv I read recently, up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.), 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)

    If there is no proof for AGW then it makes a lot of sense to run about remedying the things that do effect us, such as water contamination, particulate air pollution and heavy metals, (just to name a few)

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    ps these comments are also reproduced in my other blog http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers will be interested to read your reply

  4. Race Dowling permalink
    October 7, 2010 10:52 am

    @rogerthesurf

    petitionproject:

    “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”, and

    Logical fallacy: Appeal to false authority. The opinions of scientists who are not climatologists aren’t any better than the opinions of anyone else. A phD in physics does not qualify one’s opinion on climate change. Any purported physicist worth anything knows this and will not comment.

    climatescienceinternational:

    “It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.”

    Logical Fallacy: Argument by selective observation (aka, Cherrypicking), appeal to coincidence, argument by generalization. The change over a ten year period is irrelevant.

    “We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change”

    Logical Fallacy: Appeal to false authority, argument by laziness, appeal to widespread belief, argument by dismissal. The belief of economists, policymakers and business leaders has no bearing on the outcome of the scientific process, nor the quality of scientific peer review.

    scienceandpublicpolicy:

    Logical Fallacy: Similar to all of the above, too numerous to list.

    Your argument:

    “But why I am demanding some reasonable proof for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming”

    Logical fallacy: Non Sequitur, red herring. It does not matter whether global warming is anthropocentric or not. What matters is whether it is happening and what we as humans can do about it.

    Examiner:

    “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination”

    Logical fallacy: Argument by scenario. It doesn’t matter what the motives of scientists are regarding global warming. What one must do is show that the peer-review process is somehow faulty or was not performed according to standards.

    Your comments:

    “If I was religious I would say that CO2 upon which all life depends is God’s gift of life to us and the world. A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv I read recently, up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.), 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”

    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You have an ill-formed opinion based on fallacious arguments. A partial listing of all the logical absurdities in this statement would place me over the character limit.

    1. The CO2 concentration in a greenhouse has no bearing on the climate effects of CO2
    2. Find me one qualified scientist in the field of climatology who agrees with you in a published paper.
    3. The scientific process provides evidence specifically tailored to eliminate bias.

    You probably don’t believe that your argument has been completely shredded. If you wish to embarrass yourself further, please reply to this comment.

  5. October 19, 2010 3:52 pm

    I’m sorry, the church blog moderator doesn’t have time to keep up with comments, thus comments will be closed for this blog. Please see the text to this sermon at http://www.dmuuc.org/lay/climatechange.html and the audio podcast will be placed on http://dmuuc.libsyn.org and a video on http://www.youtube.com/dmuuc as soon as volunteer time makes it possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: