Rev. Pat Robertson often attributes horrific events to God’s wrath as when he explained that the 9-11 attacks and the Katrina disaster were punishments for our sins. Now, Robertson has proclaimed that the earthquake in Haiti was sent by God to punish Haitians for a “pact with the Devil” made to overthrow the French.
Robertson favors that Old Testament God filled with anger and wrathful impulses. On this occasion, in Robertson’s mind, God wanted to kill over 100,000 people because of something that some of their ancestors allegedly did. Makes perfect sense. Here is what the good Reverend said “happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it”:
You know, Christie, something happened a long time ago in Haiti. And the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another — desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people — and the suffering is unimaginable.
He may be taking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reference to “Biblical damage” a bit too literally. However, President Obama seem to be offering a rebuttal by promising the Haitians that they “will not be forsaken.”
Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence. If only they had stayed virtual slaves under French rule, God would have been pleased and they would have been earthquake free.
This is line in with Robertson’s prior explanations of God’s wrath in terms of killing people in New Orleans and New York as God’s way of “vomiting” us out:
My only question is why we want to spend eternity with God if he is this horrible being filled with rage and wrath who speaks to guys like Pat Robertson? Isn’t God supposed to be better than us? Even my four-year-old does not hope that her classmates are wiped out in earthquakes when she is mad at them. If this were true, God would be in serious need for intense therapy over his anger issues and violent disposition. It is a bit hard to imagine Jesus saying “serve’s em right, Pop, for that stuff that their ancestors did over two hundred years ago.”
By the way, I missed that history lesson about how all of the Haitians swore a pact with the Devil. There are sacrificial and voodoo practices certainly on that island, but I was unaware that the whole revolution was one big Satanic movement.
There is no such “true story” about a nationwide pact with the devil. There were various revolutions by people like Padrejean in 1676 and François Mackandal in 1757. Robertson seems to be referring to Dutty Boukman who helped led the uprising in August 1791. He was a houngan, or Haitian priest, who held a traditional ceremony in which a pig (symbolizing the power of nature) was sacrificed and an oath administered to the fighters to be fearless in battle. However, accounts of his words notably omit Robertson’s alleged pact:
h! Eh! Bomba! Heu! Heu!
Canga, bafio té!
Canga, mouné de lé!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, li!We swear to destroy the whites
and all they possess.
Let us die rather than fail
to keep this vow.
Indeed accounts have him referring to God not Satan for some old-fashioned wrathful justice (which would seem to appeal to Robertson:
“The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all.”
For more on this oath, click here.
Of course, even if there was a pact with the Devil, God can really keep a grudge. Over two hundred years later, he kills over one hundred thousand people to teach their long-dead ancestors a lesson. I find that hard to believe, though I am warming to the idea of God sending Pat Robertson to punish us for our sins.
30%er,
Wiki is not a scientific reference. Further, the Wiki points to the opinion of one Otto Kinne for support. Here’s a link and his full statement.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
“The paper that caused the storms (Soon & Baliunas,
Clim Res 2003, 23:89–110) evoked heavy criticism, not
least in EOS 2003 (84, No 27, 256). Major conclusions
of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many
records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the
warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the
last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century
does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium
in most of the proxy records which have been
sampled world-wide’ (p. 104). While these statements
may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be
concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in
the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions
of the manuscript prior to publication.”
May be true!! Hardly a statement that their conclusions are wrong.
The difference between those who believe and those who don’t, is that those who don’t are the ones willing to do the research and ask more questions.
Question. You based your down dressing of my right to input on the subject on whether or not I was a climate scientist.
Are YOU a climate scientist?
I’d still like that question answered.
Sure, anytime, anyplace
When I say it’s cooling again it’s because there has been no warming in the last ten years, there has been a slight cooling trend the last three to four but most of all wide spread reports such as this.
3,116 RECORDS BROKEN; 4,350 INCLUDING TIES for Cold in July 2009
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&pgurl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp
Look, I’m not going to spend my afternoon debating global warming science with you in a thread on Pat Robertson and his pious hypocrisy. If you’d like to discuss Pat Robertson further or peripheral topics dealing with religion that’s fine. But I think this thread has strayed far enough.
If you’d like to discuss global warming I’ll be happy to engage you in another thread that is about global warming.
Fair enough?
Bdaman/30%er:
there is a scandal brewing at NASA and NOAA, it appears they discarded 3 out of 4 data sets. the ones that were coldest. And changed the location of temp stations to lower latitudes and altitudes to “gin” the numbers.
All the information isn’t in yet but it is being called “son of climate gate”.
Mann Made Global Warming is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination. It literally appears to be Mann Made.
if you dont have these sites:
surfacestations.org
http://icecap.us/index.php
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliuna have already been discredited.
From Wiki-
“The circumstances of the paper’s publication were controversial, prompting concerns about the publishers’ peer review process.
An editorial revolt followed and the publisher subsequently admitted that the conclusions of the paper could not be supported by the evidence and that the journal should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication.”
Thanks for the references bdaman.
30%er, I have no interest in big oil, and I’m not a member of the GOP. I have changed all of my light bulbs. I haven’t put my boat in the water in over 3 years (even though I paid extra for a more fuel efficient engine). I cut my driving down from 20k miles per year to under 3k miles per year. Last summer I increased the insulation in my attic.
I’m willing to take steps to protect the environment, but I think the jury is still out on global warming. Once you choose a side, and then start calling people names because they don’t agree with you, you have too much at stake (your reputation) to be impartial.
When I say it’s cooling again it’s because there has been no warming in the last ten years, there has been a slight cooling trend the last three to four but most of all wide spread reports such as this.
…RECORD BREAKING COLD SPELL SLOWLY COMES TO AN END…AS OF TODAY…THURSDAY JANUARY 14TH…THERE HAVE BEEN 13 CONSECUTIVEDAYS WITH MINIMUM TEMPERATURES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 32 DEGREES ATALMA GEORGIA AND GAINESVILLE FLORIDA AND 12 DAYS AT SAINT SIMONSISLAND GEORGIA WITH THE STREAKS STILL IN TACT.THIS SETS NEW RECORDS AT GAINESVILLE FLORIDA AS WELL AS ST SIMONSISLAND AND ALMA GEORGIA FOR CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITH MINIMUMTEMPERATURES AT OR BELOW FREEZING. THEY ARE NOW LISTED AT THE BOTTOMOF THE PRODUCT.
Full Report here
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=jax&storyid=46354&source=0
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JACKSONVILLE FL
502 AM EST FRI JAN 15 2010
SHORT TERM…THROUGH THE WEEKEND
WE WILL CONTINUE TO THAW OUT TODAY FOLLOWING THE LONGEST DURATION
OF COLD WEATHER IN RECORDED HISTORY. TEMPS WILL FINALLY CLIMB
ABOVE SEASONAL AVERAGES FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR. HIGHS TODAY
WILL RANGE FROM MID TO UPPER 60S NORTH TO LOWER 70S SOUTH. MOST OF
THE AREA WILL REMAIN DRY BUT CANNOT RULE OUT AN ISOLATED LIGHT
RAIN SHOWER OR SPRINKLE ALONG OUR FLORIDA COAST DUE TO WEAK
INVERTED SURFACE TROUGH.
We can even go as far south as Cuba who broke all time cold temperatures since record keeping began during the last two weeks.
Climate Gate has now moved to the United States. For those who thought it was over, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Of course thats what happens when you lie, you have to tell another one to cover the last.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.
Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”
Email Response from James Hansen to Damian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”
Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…” (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)
According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.
Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”
“This email traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA. Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data. Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
=================================
Here’s a large package of emails from NASA GISS in one large PDF with 215 page which I’ve made available on the WUWT server which can handle the traffic this is likely to get.
783_NASA_docs (warning large PDF 11 MB)
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html
In 2003, two Harvard-Smithsonian Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific journal Climate Research which identified solar activity as a major influence on Earth’s climate. This paper also concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period, known as the Maunder Minimum, from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended.
Then when you fast forward to Climategate we work this into the equation. The solar correlation became a lightning rod of more than a dozen e-mails from the Phil Jones group to discuss how to discredit Soon and Baliunas. Ultimately, the group decide to compile a new paper to counter the conclusion made by Soon and Baliunas.
Detailed in an e-mail from Dr. Scott Rutherford dated the 12 March 2003. Dr. Rutherford does not go head-to-head with the data presented in the Climate Research paper, but he seemingly wishes to “cook” other data to counter the honest work of Soon and Baliunas, as stated by the following e-mail.
“First, I’d be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding Mike’s suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period for both (1xxx xxxx xxxx). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the results.”
Dr. Rutherford goes on to suggest that Soon and Baliunas should be dealt with severely:
… “there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).”
“When it comes to global warming, the experts don’t all agree. That’s a fact you can sink your teeth into.”
Wrong. That is neoconservative lie designed to convince people that there is not a consensus.
But feel free to produce a recognized major scientific body not affiliated in any way with Big Oil\Energy or the GOP that does not agree.
“30%er:
I am suspicious of global warming based on what I have read. I wont discount the possibility but I seriously doubt it is a man made occurrence.
It is a tool to control the economies of the world as certainly as it’s denial is a tool of big oil to control the economies of the world.”
Well I’ve read as much as I as a lay person can get my hands on (and comprehend) and I have no suspicions in that vein. Clearly the consensus is in. And being that NASA endorses it I really don’t need to look any further. If you know of some other organization that has successfully sent human beings to other worlds who discredit the science I’d be happy to see what they have to say. Until then the jury is in.
And besides. What’s the problem here? So we get off the teat of big oil, our kids stop dying for it in the middle east and the world turns to us for the new amazing technologies we develop, making us once more the world leader in innovation and technology. I don’t see the problem with it whether you accept the consensus or not.
“New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
“Thus with global warming, you, I and the rest of the population must rely on the information provided to us by scientists trained in the field.”
Facts are not up for debate. Interpretation of those facts, and the method used to obtain those facts is too. Are any scientists claiming that the world isn’t round? Are any scientists claiming that water doesn’t flow downhill? Are any scientists claiming that the moon is made of green cheese? The answer to all is NO.
When it comes to global warming, the experts don’t all agree. That’s a fact you can sink your teeth into.
The fact of the matter is Greenland was green and it is now covered in ice. Meaning, yes the planet has warmed, the planet has cooled, the planet warmed and it’s cooling again.
Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees[citation needed] and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree [10] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
The vikings grew grapes in New Foundland. The Tutor Kings grew citrus trees in England. In Italy figs were harvested twice a year, why ? because it was very warm. This can not be duplicated at the present time.
Sometimes it is better to look at evidence rather than something that is fabricated to be evidence.
“30%er:
the reason people want to deny the existence of Christ is to destroy Christianity. If Jesus did not live there is no basis for the religion; no sacrifice, no resurrection – no religion.
If you cannot discredit the idea then destroy the source.
Did you even need to ask that question?”
I asked the question really more rhetorically than anything but your answer is clearly spot on.
30%er:
I am suspicious of global warming based on what I have read. I wont discount the possibility but I seriously doubt it is a man made occurrence.
It is a tool to control the economies of the world as certainly as it’s denial is a tool of big oil to control the economies of the world.
The earth has gone from a very warm humid environment to a snowball and back again. Humans have a very small frame of reference, 20 years to us is an eternity. To the earth a million years is less than a minute in our lives.
It is almost laughable to me that scientists are making conclusions based on a very limited amount of data.
30%er:
the reason people want to deny the existence of Christ is to destroy Christianity. If Jesus did not live there is no basis for the religion; no sacrifice, no resurrection – no religion.
If you cannot discredit the idea then destroy the source.
Did you even need to ask that question?
“What was the CO2 content of our atmosphere 150 years ago? What is it today? Did you measure it 150 years ago? Did you even measure it today?” Duh
My answer to that would be “duh” of course not. I’m not a scientist studying global warming.
I’m also not trained in dentistry, but when my dentist tells me I have a cavity, I don’t need to go out and study dentistry for 8 years to confirm it.
I like you, take his word for it.
And as for my comments about silly neoconservative nonsense, I don’t know what else to call it. The only people denying global warming are those propped up by big oil and or the GOP. I don’t see any other demograph denying it.