Some friends sent me a thought provoking article:
Read more at American Thinker: A Necessary Apocalypse
Certainly not a Christian work, but an interesting look at the history of environmentalism as a pseudo-religion, complete with it's own series of end-times apocalyptic events. If you are old enough (and I barely am..) you may remember some of the previous dire warnings of the doomsday scientists: nuclear winter; over population and world-wide starvation (which led to b-movies like Soylent Green); the global cooling scare of the '70s._____________________________________________
A man who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing; he believes in anything.
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
The apocalyptic vision of global warming serves a deep need of the environmentalist credo, the dominant pseudo-religious tendency of our age in the prosperous West.
For good or ill, human beings are constructed to believe, and faith has its demands.. Along with the concrete elements that demand belief (that fire burns and that it's not wise to walk off cliffs, for example) there exists an apparent necessity for a belief in "the rock higher than I" - a belief in a superior entity that can inspire awe and gratitude, that can be turned to in hard times, that can act as witness to injustice and dispenser of mercy.
Despite the claims of our current crop of militant atheists such as Dawkins and Harris, this is not simply brain-dead foolishness. Religious belief is hard-wired into human beings, by what means and for what purposes we don't yet understand.
When religious belief is subverted, it does not, as Chesterton implied, simply vanish. It is almost immediately replaced by another set of beliefs on a similar level of abstraction and serving the same purpose. Sometimes it's an import, such as Buddhism or TM. Sometimes it's a creed deliberately created to serve a political agenda, as we see in Nazism and Communism. Sometimes it's the goofy SoCal syncretism currently expressed in Wicca and Neopaganism. ("If people seriously want to be pagans," the late Joe Myers, a Christian brother of my acquaintance once said. "They'd become Roman Catholics.") And sometimes they're a combination, a weird melange of ideas picked up from various sources that (and usually not coincidentally) also serve a political purpose. Which brings us to environmentalism...
Read more at American Thinker: A Necessary Apocalypse
Certainly not a Christian work, but an interesting look at the history of environmentalism as a pseudo-religion, complete with it's own series of end-times apocalyptic events. If you are old enough (and I barely am..) you may remember some of the previous dire warnings of the doomsday scientists: nuclear winter; over population and world-wide starvation (which led to b-movies like Soylent Green); the global cooling scare of the '70s.
Labels: Climate Change, Rants
The idea of environmentalism being political is interesting, and while I am sure it occurs in some cases, it is definitely far from a universal truth.
What I find even more interesting is the politicization of Chritianity itself. Maybe not so much interesting as scary. Christianity, at least in the US, seems to be at the very least closely associated, and at worst completely entangled with the Republican party. The Republican party does not promote any interest or acceptance of global warming becuase they have been purchased by the big oil companies, who have their own reasons to deny it. When they do express any interest, it is only after considerable public pressure, and still results in business for oil companies.
If you don't believe that, I suggest "Who Killed the Electric Car?", a documentary.
There are several things I don't understand. As a scientist, I can tell you flat out that most scientists are just interested in furthering knowledge. And I fully admit that there have been evils that have arisen from this, but they have mostly been because the chemicals were rushed past testing and made ubiquitous by companies who were more than willing to supress results in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Those were the businessmen, not the scientists. There is no reason for a scientist to scare people for no reason. Scientific conclusions can be wrong, but they are based on lots of empirical data, not just phoney-baloney hoo-haw.
Just looking at it logically, there is all the reason and money in the world to back the pro-oil, anti-climate change movement, and not too much in the other direction. Money can supress health studies, and it can surely fund doubt in climate change via pseudo-science. Scientists just look at predictors... and nuclear winter was not given as a certianty, but rather what would happen if the arms race did not end. It did. Nuclear winter could still happen if everyone blows each other up.
And the Republican/Christian link still bugs me. Republican ideals do nothing for social programs. Jesus seemed, to me, more concerned with helping the poor than with preventing gays from getting married and wonen from having abortions, neither of which he felt the need to mention in his own words. However it won't take long to find red words dealing with poverty and helping people, not bashing them.
Sorry for my rant, I will actually shut up about it now. I imagine you are sick of my 2 cents.
At the core of your arguments is a debate about the motives and bias of the people involved. What you have said about one side, I believe is true of both.
I think that the climate change *movement* is first a political-environmentalist movement, second a scientific one, not the other way around. I'm not saying that all the scientists are politicos, but that the movement (the media, the pseudo-scientist promoters and some elements of the scientific community) is primarily politically driven. Even at the IPCC, top scientists who were authors of the reports were aghast when their reports that cast doubts on human causes for climate change saw that their conclusions were twisted or ignored in the Summaries for Policymakers (which are not even written by the scientists who authored the reports, but by reps from governments, NGOs and businesses), yet it is these Summaries that are promoted in the media and seen as the true science to the general public.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0
As for motives for the scientists involved.. well, I know scientists are not computational machines devoid of the characteristics of humanity that make us all fallible. The are human, just like me. They all have presuppositions, motives, and biases that can colour their results.
Skeptical scientists face censure, loss of credentials and maybe even their job for saying "wait a minute". A TV personality at the Weather Chanel recently argued that any meteorologist that disagrees with her view on man-made global warming should lose their seal of approval. Funding for experiments that question the party line on CO2 driven climate change is often the first to be cut. Promotions or tenure frequently go to colleagues that are not publicly skeptical. Some scientists and professors face outright dismissal or demotion.
Another type of censure is starting to appear. Al Gore used the term "global warming deniers" to describe skeptics. Sounds ominously like "Holocaust denier", along with all the stigma that goes along with that term. With all the hype in our media, it is political suicide for any government official to even question the policies that are going to be rammed forward.
Whatever happened to intellectual tolerance or freedom? Does this kind of environment fear, intimidation, and censorship provide for real discussion and debate? I don't think so.
[ See "Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'" for a few examples:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm
Also, the National Post has an eye-opening examination of ten top scientists who are skeptics of the Global Warming hype, complete with their scientific credentials. They are certainly not fringe people, many are contributors to the IPCC and other environmental study groups. Read "The Deniers" here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 ]
Sure, some scientists are in the pocket of the oil companies. But why does that invalidate their research when scientists that are funded by environmental groups or businesses or governments that stand to gain much are held as pure, unbiased science? Both can be biased. Both can be well-intentioned, but both still work from their presuppositions and biases that skew results.
Climate change is big business. For scientists, pro-climate change research is easy money for research grants. Whole exchanges equivalent to the stock exchanges have popped up, transferring many millions of dollars for nothing but hot air. Sure there is big money at stake to the energy sector if many emission targets are enforced. There is also huge profits to be made for many, many others! I say again, climate change is big business, and with big business comes all the evils of big business that are usually only pointed at the oil companies (greed, twisted science, political lobbying, propaganda, etc, etc.).
This isn't to say that all those claiming that we are facing runaway anthropogenic global warming are motivated by these things any more than we can say that all skeptics are paid by Exxon. But it has to be acknowledged as a factor for both sides.
________________
As to the politicization of Christianity.. why would that be a bad thing? Doesn't everybody vote according to their principles and values? Should Christians be the only ones not allowed to do so? Should the atheist, the humanist, the pro-gay marriage person, or the pro-abortionist be allowed to lobby and vote for the candidate of their choice, yet the Christian be condemned for doing so?
________________
Ok.. after that rant, where do I stand on climate change?
First let me say I have no ties to Exxon nor do I get money through some big-oil conspiracy, though if they want to share some of their record earnings with me, I won't complain.
Do I believe in climate change? Yes.
Do I believe in the climate change hype? No.
I don't believe the science is settled. The debate is not over, even though Al Gore and the media say that it is.
Do I believe that climate change is the direct result of man's actions? Yes and no..
Yes: believe that climate change is ultimately the fault of man. I am totally convinced that climate change was directly caused by man. One man to be specific. And his name was Adam. When he and Eve sinned, they started a whole chain of events that affected every aspect of our world, the plants, animals, and our climate. It has been changing ever since.
No: I believe climate change is happening, but I don't buy the story that it is driven by CO2 and other emissions. I don't believe it for two reasons:
1) I just don't believe the implied "climatic stability myth" that seems to be promoted in the hype. The history of the Earth is one of repeated climate change. Yet the CO2 hypers don't seem to take this history into account.
Take the Greenland colony for example. The Scandinavian settlers of Greenland probably believed in climate change in their day. In 985 a new, wonderful land was found. Supposedly it was green then... because it isn't really now. A thriving colony was founded and trade set up back to their homeland. After a few decades, the climate began to change. It got colder, winters harsher, the growing season was shorter, the seas more dangerous. Regular shipments from their homeland became less frequent, sometimes with years passing between visits by ships. Hunger became a problem, scurvy and other diseases set in. Eventually, the colony died. The cause? Climate change. And man wasn't to blame.
What caused the Medieval Climatic Optimum? Grapes were growing in England, food was plentiful. What caused that climatic change? Too many flatulent cows?
2) The climate change hype doesn't take external factors into consideration. In a giant isolated test tube with all other things held equal, greenhouse gases may have the effect that the hypers claim. But the Earth and it's climate has too many variables and is far more complicated than their models allow. Plus, there are other factors. Outside factors.
As an amateur astronomer I like to study space stuff. Our sun is the single, biggest driver of all weather and climate on our planet and it is well known that the Sun is not a stable creature.. it fluctuates in its activities, from sunspots, to prominences, to its solar wind, and even its heat intensity. Yet these fluctuations are not included in the models that are promoted by the anthropogenic climate change groups and media.
Why is it that Mars is going through a global warming cycle right now at the same time we are? I don't think it is due to Martians and their propensity to drive SUVs. Why isn't the Sun being included in these discussions? Is it perhaps an inconvenient truth?
Speaking of irony.. There is evidence that sun's output has peaked and is now dropping. Some astrophysicists are suggesting that we may see dramatic drops in temperature and perhaps a new ice age in less than 50 years as the sun cools and cosmic rays from outside our solar system (currently held back by the increased solar wind) increase cloud formation, further reflecting solar energy.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
I am not against sound environmental practices and good stewardship, but I am against the radical environmentalist agenda.
What is at stake? Lives, dollars, national sovereignty. Some would use these global warming fears to force governments to give up authority over their own economies and taxes to fight climate change as we become one large liberal, socialist world, transferring the wealth of nations until we are all equal. Skeptics worry that the business of climate change is going to spend billions and billions of dollars and achieve nothing. Worse than that, if we took half the money they say is needed to fight climate change, we could end poverty, homelessness, hunger, and preventable diseases around the globe.
What an incredible waste in millions of lives and billions of dollars that would be!
So, I know I said I would shut up, but I think I lied.
I'll try to keep it brief.
a) to call people who believe the CURRENT global warming trend is due to high levels of greenhouse gases "hypers" is a bit strong, don't you think? Well, maybe you don't. Personally, I consider myself relatively intelligent and not a real "freak out" kind of person. I see the correlation these scientists have proven. A correlation does not necessarily mean "cause and effect" but rather that a trend in one variable has been linked to a trend in another variable. Perhaps some people are "hypers" but I find it seriously unfair to lump rational people into that category.
Secondly, yes,the government might be investing money into this, but if it were not a concern, why would they? The motivation to me is still unclear. Oil companies have a LOT more money than most governments. And they ARE a multinational force, as opposed to national governments.
Third, to the Christian politics dealie. I did not ever suggest that Christians should not vote according to their own principles and beliefs. I did not say Christians can't be political. I consider myself an actively political Christian. My objection is to the fact that when people learn I am a Christian they think I am right waing. And I believe to a certain extent many Christians (esp the religious right) will always agree with the politics of that party. I guess the mix up I see happening is that poltics and faith are getting mixed up. Believe in God and vote how you will, but don't incorporate party values into your faith. For example, raising minimum wage so people can afford the basics of life seems, to me, to be the right thing to do. I feel sometimes (I am not at all speaking for everyone) that people will disagree if the republicans do. Let's try another example. George Bush lied to the American people and got them into the biggest quagmire of a war since vietnam. As far as what I have seen in the media, many of the religious leaders still support him. I could go on about this all day. What I am trying to say is that you should not be ostracized for your differences in political opinion in the church. And your political fate should not be decided. Absolutely vote with your conscience, beliefs, and values, but as a Christian those things should only be dictated to you by God, not the republican party. And I think there is room for both sides of that argument in the faith.
Lastly, no scientist has denied political fluctuations over time, and none have ever said it was due to flatulent cows. There are OBVIOUSLY other factors, but the correlation currently seen does still exist. This global warming trend could very much be due to CO2 emissions (greenhouse gases do absorb/reflect infrared radiation, any lab with an IR can show you in 5 minutes). It might end up costing a lot by the time the government does anything about it, but as I said before, the changes each individual has to make a re not costly in time, effort, or even that much money. It's little changes that could have the biggest impact.
Why do I find it so hard to shut up? I think you poked the bear with your flatulent cows. :)