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.
Seems to me
you dont want to talk about it
Seems to me
you just turn your pretty head and walk away.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The head of the IPCC Dr. Rajenda Pachauri had said: “India was ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
The Times, January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”
The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.
…
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.
…
Pearce said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy” and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
“Sorry all. Human Target, followed by the season premiere of 24 is on now. Hasta la vista baby.”
That completes the picture.
Maybe this year Jack Bauer can shoot a couple more CTU agents in the head because a terrorist tells him to?
Or torture some kids huh? That torture….boy Jack Bauer…what a hero. We need to know that torture is good and keeps us all snugly and safe like. Thanks Jack! You’re our bestest hero. Us patriots anyway.
Lets all come together to worship at his feet.
Wow. 8 guys? What a consensus.
Lets look at them.
Roy Spencer? The guy that doesn’t believe in evolution? Tied to big oil.
David Deming? Tied to big oil.
Robert C. Balling Jr? More than 200,000 from Big Oil and Coal over the last 6 years.
And Keith Idso? The Idso family? You’re kidding, right?
Everyone of the 8 guys you put up is tied to big oil and energy and most are neoconservative loons like Spencer and his denial of evolution.
Tell you what mister troll.
You produce once actual recognized scientific group, not 8 guys, and a group NOT tied to big oil, and I’ll be glad to listen. But it better be an actual recognized scientific community. Not some right wing or big oil front group.
Let me know when you have one.
Until then the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that actually deals with climatology disagrees with your “experts”.
And thus your uneducated opinions and the articles you google don’t mean a thing.
Sorry all. Human Target, followed by the season premiere of 24 is on now. Hasta la vista baby.
AY who the hell is Alan? I don’t see any Alan posting here or in this thread.
How bout Dr. William Gray Colorado State University, Hurricane expert. Has studied the atmosphere for over fifty years. He doesn’t believe in man made global warming.
How bout Dr. Neil Frank, director National Hurricane Center, retired. He’s stidied the atmosphere for thirty plus years, he doesn’t believe in global warming.
There are many examples just like one of the top climate scientist from the U.N. IPCC who warns us we may be headed fro a cool down over the next 20 to 30 years. He still believes in global warming but that does not fit the theory that the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere the hotter the planet will get.
“Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity.”
Do you really want to take the veggies out of the mouths of your children? Do you want the majority of the planet to starve because you overreacted and reduced the CO2 levels needed to support the growing agricultural needs?
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=225&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain – literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is an abuse of language, logic and science.” – Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” – S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
“Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants’ photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned.” – Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
“To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.” – Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
“Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ‘starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” – Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
“I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land.” – David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth.” – Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
30%er
It appears that Duh, Alan, Bdaman has a new nom de plume.
“NASA? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration? That NASA?” -troll
Yes. That NASA. The guys who deal with the atmosphere every day.
Try their website some time.
They’ll clear it up for you.
Duh
“You do more to support big oil than I could ever do. Intelligent readers will see that you need to resort to personal attacks.”
Lol, nice try troll. That I don’t abide nonsense or liars has little to do with personal attacks. That I call a troll a troll or a loon a loon merely testifies to my ability to define the obvious.
And as for “losing” I lost the minute I thought you were a sincere blogger who had a point to make, rather than a neocon shill out stumping for big oil.
Engaging trolls is always a loss because you cannot teach a fanatical loon anything. Like I said once before, its like going into an insane asylum and seeing a patient smearing feces on themselves. You wouldn’t try to talk with them. Doing so would be pointless. Anyone that far gone is beyond reason.
All you can do is shake your head in sympathetic shame and walk away.
NASA? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration? That NASA?
Not that you’re interested in facts, but I think NOAA is the acronym you were searching for. You know The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“What’s the high temp going to be in Miami, Florida two weeks from today? When your scientists can predict that with reliable accuracy, I’ll start to have a little more faith in their predictions.” -Duh
Thanks for showing your incredible lack of any knowledge in this area in which you’re trying to lecture others. You’re one of those neocons who don’t even realize that it ain’t about how warm it gets in Florida. If you knew something about it you’d know that there is a growing consensus that it may lead to another Ice Age.
Don’t hurt your head on that now troll.
30%er,
You do more to support big oil than I could ever do. Intelligent readers will see that you need to resort to personal attacks. You lost and you did it to yourself. Your friends won’t tell you this, but the results will. When you make use of the loser’s tools, you assume the role of the loser. Undecided readers will read your comments and see that the are emotional rants filled with borg-like party-line rhetoric.
When one of you trolls get a degree in climatology you let us know.
Until then your opinions are nothing more than posting articles you found on the web that you know nothing about.
And what’s even more laughable are the articles you post, funded by big oil and the neocon right. Like that bogus poll you posted. The 700 Club was pushing that nonsense. You know the 700 club right? The neoconservative pseudo Christian looneybin that has their own show?
When you guys get a degree you let us know. Until then the majority of scientists who actually research and work in the field are in agreement. As is NASA who is at the core of our atmospheric science.
Given the word of NASA and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community or two looney neoconservative shills on a blog trying desperately to push right wing lies and nonsense, …I’ll choose the scientists and NASA.
Here, I’ll put it in language that you can understand.
Dey’s dem smart guys….yoooze not.
Name please.
“Over 95% of legitimate Scientists support GW”
That’s cute. Who gets to determine who is considered to be a “legitimate scientist”.
Do you really expect me to give my personal information on a blog that has consistently demonstrated that they will resort to personal attacks?
I haven’t tried to sell anybody anything. I’m not trying to coerce anybody. I presented my personal beliefs, and you can’t stand the fact that I have a personal belief that is different than yours. If that’s a problem for you or 30%er, you can both blow it out you asses. You can continue to present false claims of association, and fabricate motives all you wish, and I’ll still voice my opinion.
If you want me to accept what your scientists are saying, tell them to quit making false claims. Tell them to quit destroying their data, and tell them to quit skewing the numbers to support their conclusions.
What’s the high temp going to be in Miami, Florida two weeks from today? When your scientists can predict that with reliable accuracy, I’ll start to have a little more faith in their predictions.
“If green technology is so beneficial and will create so many wonderful jobs; what are you waiting for? Start your business. (That would require you going into business for yourself”
I’m sorry troll, were you under the impression your advice was needed or wanted? The day I need the advice of a loonball who spends his time shilling for the global warming denying GOP I’ll let you know.
Once we get past the throwbacks like yourself the technology will advance. Currently big oil is out working to conceal new technologies and or retard their deployment and of course out actively seeking to discredit the science behind global warming through their shills like yourself. Loons the lot of you.
But sooner or later we’ll get past you and your big oil and GOP puppetmasters and the world will move forward. Cell technology will increase. Wind and Solar will become the norm for all new residential and commercial building and guys like you will be left with a barrel of your precious oil but not a pot to piss in.