Canada Free Press Tom Harris June 12, 2006
“The Inconvenient Truth” is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
. . . more
Yes , but Dr Bob Carter really is a well known oil industry stooge: :::[Global warming denial funded by ExxonMobil]. So how can you believe him?
Father: I have to ask you why you continue to post these spurious and misleading articles denying the existence of global warming when evidence of climate change is overwhelming.
Even your title, “Scientists respond to Goreâs warnings of climate catastrophe” is misleading. Evidence of global warming and its link to fossil-fuel emissions is in fact widely accepted by mainstream scientists and our own government, but instead of providing information from these sources, you limit the information presented to a small minority of scientists whose objectivitry and impartiality are compromised by their financial ties to the energy industry.
Here is what respectable, mainstram science says about global warming:
From the web site of the Environmental Protection Agency.
.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
From the web site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/
From the Web site of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
From the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1375089.stm
“Yes , but Dr Bob Carter really is a well known oil industry stooge: :::[Global warming denial funded by ExxonMobil]. So how can you believe him?”
Yes, but Al Gore, and most of the “majority” scientists are well known leftist/environmental activist stooges. So how can you believe them?
“Evidence of global warming and its link to fossil-fuel emissions is in fact widely accepted by mainstream scientists and our own government,”
Exactly, which is why we need to pay attention to the credible criticisms of this “wide acceptance”.
Actually, I think it likely that the increase of CO2 by humans in the last 200 years or so has (or will) contribute to a warming trend. The question is SO WHAT? In other words, why is it for the left the simplistic formulation “warming trend = bad” seems to apply?
Dean, perhaps you can answer: Why is it, Christianly speaking, this warming trend (what ever it’s cause) is bad? The environment is a dangerous place, whether it global temps stay the same, warm up, or cool down. Each scenario has positives and negatives. For example it is “widely accepted” that on a whole storm activity in the mid latitudes eases a bit and the amount of farm land increases (barring localized exceptions like the Gulf of Mexico hurricane phenomena) during a warming trend. This is a definite plus for humanity on a whole. Of course, loss of ice means flooded coastal areas, which is bad (on the whole) but temporary because after they move to higher ground the are no better/worse off (it’s the move that is painful).
Since the planet has not yet fully come out of the ice age, and the ice age is the real aberration on the planet in terms of overall whether, perhaps what a human induced warming trend is GOOD!
Note 2. Dean writes:
Because I have seen secular apocalypticism before. Remember Paul Erlich? The world was supposed to be reeling in starvation by 2000. But now Malthus has been discredited (Erlich was Malthus warmed over), so now the apocalyptic impluse moved into the environmental movement (and endless shows on Discovery about “the perfect storm”).
Remember the ozone layer? We were all going to be toast by 2004. Yet, remarkably, it healed itself. (If Gore was a failed presidential contender back in the 1990’s, we would have had to endure movies about the upcoming ozone catastrophe.)
Then there are statements like this:
Past millenium? They didn’t start tracking this stuff with any reliability until the last hundred years.
Christopher has a good point too. Global warming happened on a large scale when the ice age ended. What caused that? Too many cars?
Relax Dean. This too shall pass.
I think you are far too complacent. The possible effects of global warming include the following:
1) Flooding of coastal areas. As the massive ice shelves in Antartica and Greenland melt ocean levels will rise placing heavily populated costal areas at peril.
Greenland Melt May Swamp LA, Other Cities, Study Says
2) Disruption of Ocean currents. Every winter, as Artic waters freeze, the North Atlantic conveyer brings warm water from the South Atlantic to the north and west European coasts of Europe, keeping temperatures milder. Less freezing means, less warm water for Europe and colder harsher winters.
Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says
Additionally, tropical systems crossing the Atlantic during summer gather more force over warmer weather, so that stronger more sever hurricanes could also result from global warming.
3) Loss of arable land. Warmer tempeatures could result in a longer periods of drought and loss of arable land.
Drought’s Growing Reach: NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor
In California, where I live, one disasterous consequence of global warming would be the loss of the Sierra Nevada snow pack. California gets almost all of its precipitation in the five months from November to March. Fortunately much of this precipitation lands on the Sierra Nevada range as snow and then gradually melts over the summer providing water for California’s vital agricultural industry and large thirsty cities. As global warming accelerates the temperature may become to warm for snow to fall or accumulate on the Sierras during the winter, meaning less water for the rest of the year.
4) Loss of species: Many species of fish and anmals are uniquely adapted to survive in specific climates and would be threatened by global warming.
Study sees mass extinctions via warming, Scientists admit uncertainties but cite rapid changes
Dean, they can’t even predict the weather with reliable accuracy five days ahead. This is hugely complex, yet you offer these predictions as if they were certain.
Of Dean’s list, I see only #3 as a real threat to human vitality. Most of the computer models (which is what all of this is really based on) predict an increase, not decrease, of arable land over all the land masses (e.g. The US corn/wheat belt gets a bit bigger and moves north into Canada). These same computer models are notoriously finicky – change small input over here and you have an ice age instead of a warm up. So it is really an unknown at this point.
Dean, what if it were to be shown that in spite of human activity the whole planet was in a cool down, and things like the following were about to happen:
1) receding of coastal areas (historic cities/harbors are no longer viable)
2) Ocean currents were going to be altered
3) loss of arable land
4) loss of species (cold weather would kill many species adapted to different circumstances)
Given this hypothetical scenario (but no more hypothetical than the current global warming hypothesis!) would you support human intervention (say, massive carbon release through building of coal fired CO2 plants)? I don’t see how you can say no given your current stance on the warming trend. In other words, despite all the historic ups and downs of the planets “average” temperature, you now believe the current temperatures to be “good” and any deviation, up or down, natural or human induced, is “bad”
The effort by ideologues and vested economic interests to to discredit the solid scientific evidence of global warming reminds us of the unsavory role played by the Soviet era scientist, Trofim Lysenko.
Chris Mooney writes:
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Yes, but Al Gore, and most of the So how can you believe them?
===
Not too hard if you think about it for 3 seconds:
a) Global Warming is not a left wing/right wing thing. Luckily for us all science is objective, verifiable and non-partisan.
b) You do have to provide evidence if you are going to say âmajorityâ scientists are well known leftist/environmental activist stooges. If not you simply communicate that you are informed by your own prejudices, and not reality.
Which brings me back to Bob Carter: He is an :::[undisputable oil industry stooge.] He is nought but a shrill shill. He annoys all serious science commentators in Australia because all he had to peddle is the same old tired line… ‘don’t believe the evidence of your senses, global warming is not happening’.
Christopher, you would agree with me, I am sure, if you did just a little bit of research.
The question is SO WHAT? In other words, why is it for the left the simplistic formulation âwarming trend = badâ seems to apply?
Do some research :::[Global Warming Watch] It’s all there
Why is it, Christianly speaking, this warming trend (what ever itâs cause) is bad?
Because, as a Christian, or even if your were a Muslim, you have a duty of care to the environment, as I understand it. It’s called Stewardship, and it simply means leaving the earth in a better place than you found it, so that includes the life-system that supports us – commonly known as the environment. If God made the universe, surely it is your responsibility to look after your corner of it?
Note 9. Dean, you take the most blatantly politicized topics, like embryonic stem cell research, bring it forward as fact by quoting an pro-stem cell research editorialist,* to conclude what? — that anti-global warming skeptics are troglodytes? And then you argue that doubts about global warming is tantamount to Lysenkoism?
Are we supposed to take this seriously?
Look, if you want to jump on the global warming bandwagon, be my guest, but I’d take it a bit slower if I were you. It won’t be too long before credible counter arguments are heard more and more as the mainstream media gets worn down resisting them. By then though, the next apocalyptic fad will have come along.
* Mooney say politicians aren’t scientists. Correct. But neither are journalists. (Do you think Mooney included Al Gore?)
John,
I will see your quacks and raise you with more quacks
(http://www.globalwarming.org/)
Actually, if you have come here to argue that a human induced warming trend is true and anyone who disagrees with this is a quack, then you have come to the wrong place. All the regular posters here received at least a “B” in high school debate and we are familiar with the “research” tactic. If you are a true believer, then you are on your own.
The substantive thing I would like to is why Christian stewardship requires the following formula “global warming = bad”? Why is it, Christianly speaking, a human induced warming trend is counter to Christian responsibility to God and His creation? If you look at note # 6 and 8, it would seem that a global warming (or cooling) trend is a neutral event for overall human vitality (actually, a warming trend seems to be a positive overall).
Some questions which will help us think about the question a little clearer (i.e. get at our underlying presuppositions) are:
1) Would a natural warming trend = bad? If so, what would be mankindâs response (would we try to counter it by our behavior)?
2) Would a human induced cooling trend = bad?
3) Would a natural cooling trend = bad?
4) If global temperatures remained unchanged for the next 1000, 10,000, or 100,000 years would that = good or bad given the fact that global temperatures fluctuate continuously?
5) If global temperatures were predicted to level off, what would be our response – would we try to heat or cool the earth, or just leave it alone?
JohnP says: “a) Global Warming is not a left wing/right wing thing. Luckily for us all science is objective, verifiable and non-partisan.”
Absolute bunk. At least since politically controlled grant money came into the picture, research has been skewed to what will grarner the most money, not far beyond that comes the temptation to skew the results in the direction of the money too. Add to that the seeming penchant of many public scientists to seek not just money, but power as well and you have a milleu which belies your assertions in every particular.
Science has become a vehicle for inclucating naturalism and materialism as the ethical and philosopical foundation of our culture. The global warming evidence is sustantially created by computer models. Anyone who has spent much time at all in front of a computer knows that a skilled programer can get the beasts to say anything he wants. There is, in fact, very little that can be done to verify the assumptions that went into creating the models in the first place, let alone their predictions.
With science, as with everything else, one has to test the foundational assumptions of a construct before one can agree or disagree with it. Every train of human thought begins with “Assume…., then” Many of the underlying assumptions of the scientific community are incompatible with Christianity.
There is literally no such thing as objectivity. A Harvard study decades ago came to the conclusion that even carefully designed, double blind experiments showed statistically relevant experimental bias. When one combines such a reality with the political, philosphical, and metaphysical pressures and biases, any culturally significant question that involves science will be a battle.
To think otherwise is foolish, to just cede them the battle is not something I am not prepared to do.
Christian stewardship is founded upon Biblical principals that can be expressed simply, but understood and acted upon with difficulty.
“The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” The Earth doesn’t belong to us.
We must worship the Creator above the created thing.
Christ’s Incarnation was for all of Creation, not just for us.
“If the people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” II Chro 7:14
While Christian stewardship is primarily spiritual and ascetic in nature, we also have a responsiblity to act in the physical world in ways that promote and are in accord with our understanding of the Creation as Theophany. That responsibility is made more difficult when those with whom we might join are opposed to our principals and our faith and often use their envirionmental/social agenda to attack our faith: Neo-pagans, materialists, socialists, and zealous secular politicians for instance.
In any case, Christian stewardship is not a topic upon which anyone who is not Christian can have any relevant input.
Father: Do you consider the National Academy of Science a source of “Junk Science?”
Fox News reports, “Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans”
I don’t know enough about the NAS to give a qualified opinion. I know even less about the credibility of the study. I read enough however, to know that global warming is far from the certain science that global warming proponents say it is.
Here is a site with critiques. Note that the authors of these studies are no slouches either. Bruderheim REA.
I do know however, that when politicians, actors, etc. get in front of a scientific issue, watch out. It’s probably driven by ideology as much as science. Further, scientists are not immune from the ideological virus. Look at America’s sordid past with eugenics, for example.
Remember, just twenty years or so ago the threat du jour was a new ice age. Legions of experts told us it was just around the corner.
I keep harping on this subject because I very strongly feel that once we start substituting pleasing falsehoods for truth our society is in real trouble. Our country is governed by politicans who are all to willing to make policy on the basis of dogma, speculation, hearsay, urban legend and superstition, rather than research, data, evidence and fact. It is profoundly alarming to see our nation abandoning rationalism and descending into medieval superstition.
I copied this very important quotes by Chris Mooney above in Numer 9
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
The war in Iraq is a good example. Before the invasion there was a total absence of hard, substantiated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, none whatsoever, only hearsay and speculation diseminated by people with a prexisting agenda calling for war with Iraq. The need for evidence itself was dismissed by our leaders who said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be is a mushroom cloud.”, raising groundless fears to provoke panic and submission.
The decision to invade Iraq was totally correct if based on the heroic myths, symbols and architypes of American nationhood. The decision to invade Iraq was totally wrong however when subjected to objective scrututiny and investigation of the rationales for war. In the end, the American people were willing to launch a preemptive, unprovoked war and place their sons and duaghters in harms way without any evidence that Iraq actually had WMD, because they were taught that ideologically correct, patriotic-souinding hearsay and speculation are more trustworthy than evidence and fact.
Now three years later there is ample evidence that our occupation in Iraq has been a total disaster and for all practical purposes, the war is lost. Iraq is in far worse shape than we found it, it’s people are suffering and a bloody civil war is underway that we are helpless to prevent. Yet just this week the US Congress voted, however to stay the course of failure and continue to pursue the same failed policies that have produced such dismal results. We take refuge in pleasing lies because it is too difficult to for some to acknowlege the manifest error of our policy in Iraq. So our boys keep dying in a pointless occupation. Truth loses. Lies win.
“I keep harping on this subject because I very strongly feel that once we start substituting pleasing falsehoods for truth our society is in real trouble.”
Exactly, thus the reasonable and factual criticism of the “majority scientists”.
I am still wondering, why does a warming trend = bad?
Dean, so far your appeals to accept the veracity of the climate data at face value have included precisely those elements you decry in your most recent post: “dogma, speculation, hearsay, urban legend and superstition.”
Look, Money is a journalist, not a scientist. Iraq has nothing to do with climate change. Embryonic stem cell research, and Lysenkoism are not related either as I pointed out earlier. The only purpose in trotting out these arguments is dogmatic, ie: painting those who don’t jump on the greenhouse-effect-climate-warming bandwagon as troglodytes.
You want to say that climate change skeptics are not scientific but, lacking the data and expertise to make a scientific claim, you resort to mudslinging instead. This is how scientific questions become politicized and how political correctness replaces clear thinking.
We’ve seen this type of thing before. Remember, twenty years ago we heard warnings of an impending ice age, then the ozone hole catastrophe, even world starvation before that. All proved to be baseless.
Tracking weather is almost infinitely complex. And the more complex a system is, the more people tend to become superstitious about it. We even see conspiracy theories at work, such as the one we heard earlier that a scientist who criticized the prevalent opinion must be deliberately falsifying data because he once did some work for Exxon. When we hear the term “superstition” we think of burning witches and the like. What we forget is that to the people who hold them, they appear emminently reasonable.
I’d wait until more evidence is in before I jump on this bandwagon.
It seems the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Church has a few things to say–as do other Orthodox Thinkers (namely Saint Paul and Maximos the Confessor–regarding an Orthodox position on Ecology. For your perusal (click about, enjoy):
http://goarch.org/en/ourfaith/environment/
Maximos,
The articles/statements are too general. Yes, we are stewards of God’s creation. Yes the Church has something to say about this. However, the devil is in the details – which of course is lacking in the articles. There is much talk in general about “the environmental crisis”, but what exactly IS “the environmental crisis”? Here in America, there really is no such thing. As a society we adopted laws about 305 years ago that do an excellent job of preventing pollution in the air, streams, rivers, and lands of America. As to other countries, they are beyond any significant influence from me or our Church here in America
Now, if the “the environmental crisis” also includes “Global Warming”, “Kyoto Protocol”, etc. and it is somehow going to be argued that Orthodox doctrine requires our support of these speculations, then this is going to be a problem…
Christopher writes: “I am still wondering, why does a warming trend = bad?”
If the global warming view is correct, it would result in coastal storms of increasing strength, and probably increasing frequency. These would result in a large loss of human life, both through the storms and through subsequent diseases. These would include water-related diseases, and diseases that are spread when there are a lot of corpses around. Remember, in most of the world public health is not very well-developed, so when a tropical storm or hurricane strikes the aftermath is a pretty serious matter — at least to the residents. For example, in the aftermath of hurricane Mitch almost 20,000 people were killed or missing.
From your previous posts I gather that this would not be of concern to you. But something that might speak deeply to your heart would be the tremendous loss of private property, along with the risks to insurance companies and their reinsurers. But as coastal areas are flooded, I suppose property values in the higher areas would rise. In that sense, there is a silver lining to every cloud.
A couple of thoughts as I read your post:
Forgive me, but I doubt the Church is going to bother with the “details”–usually the place where the devil wants us to engage him (though I doubt this is the insight you were alluding to when you say that “the devil is in the details.”). For example, when has the Church attempted to define when a zygote is a human person, or when the spirit is blown into the human person? When has the Church sat down to define when the bread and wine become, mystically, the flesh and blood of Christ? Again, as you say, “the devil is in the details.” The Church takes a general position and then deals with the particulars as they come. Many of the theological particulars the Church has in Her language are the result of Her reluctantly having to define general theological truths. The Church, it seems to me, accepts that humankind, not just Americans, abuses Creation. There are ramifications for this abuse. In what ways has the abuse happened? To what degree is the abuse? What will the effects of the abuse be? You are correct, the Church doesn’t get into the details. It simply reminds us 1) that there is abuse; and 2) that as stewards (which you seem to accept flippantly) of Creation we must address #1. I’ll side with my bishop and side with Creation. Even if you’re correct, even if there isn’t a crisis, then all I’ve done is played my synergistic role in Creation. I could be wrong, but I don’t remember a doctrine of laissez faire theosis đ
You write: “Here in America, there really is no such thing.”
Herein lies the problem, I think. I’m not sure any discussion about GLOBAL warming can be so localized as to concern itself only with America. I’d refer you to Jim Holman’s response to your post above.
You write: “it is somehow going to be argued that Orthodox doctrine requires our support of these speculations, then this is going to be a problem . . .”
Well, it’s obvious that it won’t be Orthodox “doctrine.” I think we can agree on that. But the rest of your sentence is a bit curious: “then this is going to be a problem . . . ” I’m not sure what “this” refers to. Sort of an ambiguous referent. A problem for whom? For you spiritually? Would this prevent you from remaing/converting to Orthodoxy? A problem for geo-politics? A problem of local-global logisitcs? Yes, probably.
Thanks for your response, Christopher. I appreciate it.
Maximos,
I agree with you, the Church simply gives us the general principals from which to work, or rather the moral precursors to any prudential reasoning or “praxis”. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a clean environment and our God commanded stewardship (I did not mean that “flippantly”).
What I was trying to point out is the above is the “easy” part, so to speak. The hard part – the part that is the source of much disagreement is how to actually apply the above principles, and to whose “facts”.
If you notice, this thread begins with a response to Al Gores assertions. I also take the language in most of the articles in the articles you cite (such as “environmental crisis” and the like) to refer to this “global” problem of a warming trend – though you could be correct and it really refers to a generalized statement about fallen human behavior.
As to the “global” nature of the problem (of the political sort), that is really only true if you accept
a) human induced global warming trend
b) this trend = bad
c) there is a practical and worthwhile correction of human behavior that would reverse this trend.
While I think a) might be true, I certainly do not accept b) or c). You will notice the disagreement further up stream – it seems a global warming trend would actually improve physical well being of the whole of humanity.
As to Orthodox environmentalism and it’s spiritual impact, I just don’t think it is very high up on the things to focus on (spiritually) for really anyone. Most sinners have more pressing spiritual callings, both personally and in relation to their neighbor…
Ouch.
Note 26. Juli, why this attack on Christopher’s motives?
What is your implicit point here? Is it that those who doubt Gore’s global warming crusade value property over life?
Can you draw some quotes from his previous posts that would justify this attack?
Actually, Juli is quoting something I wrote a while back. I don’t consider it to be an attack on his motives. Throughout his posts I get the sense that he has all the “right” beliefs, and he knows what and who he should dislike, and he is very articulate in expressing those dislikes. Beyond that I don’t see that, other than fetuses, he is concerned with people very much.
He asked a question about why anyone would care about global warming, and wouldn’t it be a good thing after all. He suggests “Of course, loss of ice means flooded coastal areas, which is bad (on the whole) but temporary because after they move to higher ground the are no better/worse off (itâs the move that is painful).”
And yes, since much of the earth’s population lives in coastal areas, the move would be “painful.” What “painful” here means is the dislocation of hundreds of millions of people. What is “painful” is how these hundreds of millions would survive upon arriving at “higher ground.” But not to worry, because once they have been dislocated, lost everything, and where they and their ancestors have lived for hundreds of years no longer exists, somehow they are “no worse off.” Bummer dude, your country is under water. Well, not to worry, just head to the mountains, and maybe you can live there.
How easily the suffering of hundreds of millions of people is dismissed, and by a devotee of the God of love. So what might move such a person, if not human suffering? The loss of private property, and the financial risk to insurance companies. If you can think of something else, let me know.
Juli?
Very briefly, Jim is of course correct that I was quoting him (comment 23), and my response/comment (ouch) seems pretty self-explanatory. I may say more later, but not tonight.
Ok, now I see it. Jim attacked Christopher for asking why the assumption that global warming is bad should accepted at face value (Note 23). Julie concurred with an “ouch” (Note 26).
I guess when ideas can’t hold the day, we should attack motives instead.
Fr. Hans writes: “Ok, now I see it. Jim attacked Christopher for asking why the assumption that global warming is bad should accepted at face value . . . I guess when ideas canât hold the day, we should attack motives instead.”
Christopher was asking why, if true, anyone should be concerned with global warming. He suggested that were the coastal areas flooded, displaced people who live in those areas could simply relocate to “higher ground.”
Last I heard something around 25 percent of the earth’s population lives in these areas. In my view, having a large number of these people relocate to higher ground would be a human tragedy of immense proportions. Christopher just sees this as something that all evens out. You live in one place; then you live in another place.
Well, sure, after everything you know has been destroyed, you go to live in another place, and then hope that you can in fact live somewhere else.
What this indiciates to me is that Christopher does not care very much for people. And that’s fine. But I just find that surprising coming from a follower of Jesus. Maybe I’m wrong; I only know Christopher from what he posts here, and perhaps his posts do not adequately express the fulll person.
But on a somewhat different, though related topic, it is interesting to me that religious conservatives often do not seem to be concerned with people. Even unbelievers have noted that the thoughts of conservative Christians often do not reference the teachings of Jesus. Tell me if I’m wrong, but Jesus seemed to be concerned with people. He was concerned with the sufferings of people, or so I have thought.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the essence of being a Christian is having the right theological beliefs, disliking the right people, and approving of others, such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who also dislike the right people.
And speaking of Rush, any idea why a single man travelling to a foreign country would have to have a supply of Viagra with him? I know you won’t answer, but asking the question is fun.
Note 32. Jim, look, you make a claim that you understand Christopher’s motives, then launch into a three paragraph sermon castigating those motives, and top it off with an unrelated point about Rush Limbaugh.
Why not ask Christopher what he meant instead? It’s called dialogue, and in order for dialogue to be constructive, it requires dispensing with the cheap rhetorical devices you and Juli employed here.
Three fundamental principals of Christian Stewardship of the Earth:
1. “The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” Psalm 24:1
2. Man is commanded to “dress and keep the Earth” Gen 2:15
3. “If the people who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” 2 Ch 7 :14
St. Paul put it even more succinctly in Romans 8:21-22: “Because the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”
The suffering of creation is due to the fall and our own bondage to sin, death, and the worshipping of the created thing more than the creator. In that sense, it is man made. In that same sense, it is impossible for us to heal the land by our own efforts alone.
Living a life of repentace, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving is the only answer to the suffering of the creation. Working to acquire the Holy Spirit and practice virtue.
Clearly, as Christians, we are required to care for the earth. Just as clearly, we are required not to accept and make common cause with those philosophies and faiths which will only make the situtation worse: neo-paganism; policies founded in materialistic determinism whether it be capitalist, communist, or scientistic; any idea that stems from or leads to a notion that man is not central to the ordering of creation; any idea that views matter as self-organizing and eternal; any apocalyptic fanaticism whether it is secular or religious.
Unfortunately, most of todays ideas, approaches and policies concerning the use, care and treatment of the natural world are founded in one or more of the non-Christian schools of thought. Since that is the case, I, for one, find it exceptionally difficult to endorse any of the popular approaches that require massive government action or cultural change.
I can do what I can do in accord with the principals of Christian Stewardship, encourage fellow Christians to do the same and leave the rest up to God while at the same time listening to the words of Jesus: “Fear not, I have overcome the world”
Dean in comment #9 quotes Chris Mooney thus:
What are we to call science today that is forced into the ideological service of materilistic determinism, philosophical atheism, and anti-capitalism? We are not even allowed to question such experts because we simply don’t have the proper knowledge to. Worse yet, genuine scientists who are attempting to breakout of the philopsophical tryanny of the scientistic elites find their careers truncated or destroyed.
IMO not much has changed. So far, no one has been executed thank God! Oh, sorry, can’t mention him in any discussion of science because as we all know, He has no authority there.
Fr. Hans writes: “Why not ask Christopher what he meant instead? Itâs called dialogue, and in order for dialogue to be constructive, it requires dispensing with the cheap rhetorical devices you and Juli employed here.”
Christopher intentionally never reads anything that I post, unless he happens upon it by accident when someone else quotes me. He is very clear about this. In his view, as a materialist and secularist, anything I write is unworthy of his time or attention. I would be happy to have dialog with him. But it takes two to tango, and when I ask him to dance, he remains seated. Thus when I comment on some of his remarkable statements, I have to rely on my own impressions and speculation. But it’s a free country, he has his reasons, and he seems satisfied with the situation as is.
Blogs such as this are useful as they allow everyone to engage in a “combat of ideas,” to use a military metaphor. To the extent that a blog has a uniform point of view and everyone agrees with everyone else, there is no test of ideas, no critique, no sharpening of points of view. To the extent that a blog has a diversity of opinion, while still remaing within the intention of the blog, ideas are tested, sharpened, improved. In that sense I’ve always thought that contrary points of view and different perspectives, within reason, are very useful.
If someone such as Christopher does not want to debate with me, that’s fine. But then one wonders how well he will fare when he tries to sell his ideas to the larger world. After all, there are many “materialists” and “secularists” in the world, and if he can’t deal with even one, accompanied by allies on his home court, how will he deal with the many, and in unfriendly venues?
The points about Christopher not wanting to respond are fair. But my complaint that motives were attacked instead of ideas challenged is not addressed here. Motives are attacked when politically correct doctrine needs enforcement.
“Ouch” isn’t exactly “amen,” but I suppose it is something like “touchĂ©.” That said, I’ve been known to say “ouch” when someone said something biting to me.
So while my post wasn’t quite intended as an amen, I think Jim made it pretty clear that he was addressing Christopher’s glib response to the possibility of widespread coastal flooding; Christopher’s offhand comment on that point certainly came across as dismissive – even utiliarian. Maybe Christopher didn’t mean it that way, but as Jim said, he won’t reply to Jim, so we’ll never know.
I had forgotten that Christopher won’t read Jim on principle – though he said he did say he can find common cause with people (eg, Ann Coulter, iirc) who may not be Christians but embrace/support what he considers Christian values. I still don’t get that distinction, esp given that Jim is a person he can actually have a real conversation with, and even witness to, if he considers Jim in error. Jim makes his points bluntly but never in an abusive way, from what I’ve seen, so shunning him as one would shun a troll doesn’t make sense.
As to bringing up Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, wasn’t she the subject of a recent thread – or was that a tangent/digression?
Is it legitimate to challenge an idea because it seems to rest on the devaluing of life? One certainly hears that in critiques of “liberals” or the left. That said, I find discourse on these difficult subjects so much more productive and human when we can start from the assumption that we are all sincerely motivated by a desire for what is truly good, and not just good or convenient for us. As Christians – or just as honest human beings – we’re probably better off putting more energy into second-guessing our *own* motives and giving others, especially those we consider “enemies” or “other” the benefit of the doubt.
PS. Jim, if you’re opening to receiving an e-mail, send me a note: juli(spamstop)at(spamstop)tarsney.net – thanks!
Hopefully, I can clear up a few things.
“I had forgotten that Christopher wonât read Jim on principle – though he said he did say he can find common cause with people (e.g., Ann Coulter, iirc) who may not be Christians but embrace/support what he considers Christian values. I still donât get that distinction, esp given that Jim is a person he can actually have a real conversation with, and even witness to, if he considers Jim in error. Jim makes his points bluntly but never in an abusive way, from what Iâve seen, so shunning him as one would shun a troll doesnât make sense.”
This is true, but the comparison of Jim’s thought to Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh is a poor one. A Traditional Christian has much more in common with Ann’s or Rush’s political/moral philosophy than Jim. Jim is an unrepentant modernist. He explicitly supports the holocaust (abortion on demand), the killing of Terri, etc. Ann and Rush explicitly oppose these abominations. Jim may assert the typical modernist “I would not do that myself” but he explicitly supports the law of the land allowing these abominations. His whole political/moral philosophy has much in common with Nietzsche (even if he does not realize or admit this) and nothing to do with St. Paul. Ann’s and Rush’s political/moral philosophy on the other hand, has much more in common with a St. Paul than a Nietzsche. Is it perfect? No. However, it IS conservative to a large extant – Jim’s moral/political philosophy in no way can be described as conservative, traditional, etc. I believe that a traditional Christian has nothing to learn from Jim, any more than a NASA scientist has something to learn from a flat earther. Sometimes a contradiction is just that – a contradiction. Jim’s philosophy is CONTRARY to the very basics of Christian beliefs. He does not “have faith” in Revelation History, the Church and the Spirit that resides in Her, Christ and His Third Day Resurrection, the list goes on and on. I grew up a Unitarian Universalist – I am very familiar (too familiar) with Jim’s reasoningâs. In fact, if Jim does not attend a UU “church” he should consider doing so. He would find many there with whom he has much in common. Further, if he took the first commandment of UUism seriously (as I did), THOU SHALL THINK FOR THY SELF, he just might come to understand the limits of rational individualism. Most don’t, but it does happen.
Now, I know perfectly well why some would want to engage him Christianly – I however am quite confident that it is not my vocation to do that. This is an assertion of a personal nature in that I am saying it is not my personal vocation to engage the Jim’s of this world. In a profound sense, this is between my confessor and my God. If someone want’s to counsel me differently I would certainly listen but I do not at this time believe it is on my list of duties. Further, I come here to http://www.OrthodoxToday.com to hear Orthodox view points, or at least Traditional Christians ones. I do not think we need any more input on the “big questions” from the culture of death.
Concerning global warming and it’s harmful effects and the value of life, I did assert that it does appear that overall – taking the big picture of the whole of human vitality over generations – a warming trend (whether it is human induced or a natural fluctuation) appears to be a good. This is in part “utilitarian” in that more people (and future generations) will appear to benefit and a smaller amount will suffer. However, I fully understand the limits of this reasoning and look for the Christian praxis. I still have not seen why Christianly speaking, the formula “global warming = bad” applies. If this assertion is going to rest on the effects of rising sea levels, I would say the following. First, sea levels will not rise fast enough to be considered a “flood”. It will happen slowly, over long periods of time (an inch or two every few years). I live in an area where the textile industry has been devastated. Over decades, the industry has changed (technology, changing global markets, etc.) and peoples livelihoodsâ have been affected. Now, does this mean that the following formula applies: “Changing textile industry = bad”? What I am driving at here is that a strange statism seems to be implied in the idea that humanity should not have to adjust to this apparent warming trend. This is ESPICALLY true when one considers the manifest human good that is the result of our current lifestyle. Oil is the basis of our entire way of life – from the food we eat to the medicines we take, to the ability to produce wealth where the average life span is now in the seventies instead of the thirties. IF this warming trend is caused by our behavior, and IF rising sea levels is truly a large negative (I don’t believe it is – but for arguments sake…) then what is the REAL negative of a gross change in our behavior – namely giving up an economy based on oil? No one wants to seem to weigh this in their reasoningâs although giving up oil would surely be a human catastrophe of a global scale economically, medically, etc.
If Juli believes that an economy based on oil is âa convenienceâ then we disagree as to the basic facts of modern life â and thus on how to be âsincerely motivated by a desire for what is truly good,â when it comes to the subject of global warming.
By the way, I have no doubt that the motives of those who believe a warming trend = bad, at least those who have not been corrupted to the point of being real âPangiaâ types who believe humanity is a stain upon the earth, are based on a real concern for their fellow man (and of course a righteous concern for their own skin đ
Fr Hans, I should be more careful about posting my e-mail address in clickable form – would you please either delete my PS in comment 38 or change the @ to “at” or some such, to help foil the spambots? Thanks!
Note 41. Done.
Regarding personal attacks. Attacking Christopher’s ideas is different than attacking his motives for holding the ideas. Jim ventured into the second:
Your (Juli’s) comment “ouch” and subsequent explanation:
… shows you didn’t catch it.
I brought it up because attacks on motives are intended to coerce people into a way of thinking apart from any coherent defense of that thinking. (It’s how political correctness works.) I want a higher quality of discussion on this blog.
Christopher, to his credit, did not return kind for kind.
Back to the issue, my opinion:
Relocation because of nature’s vicissitudes happens all the time. Towns built on the flood plains of the Mississippi were relocated after the great floods a few years back. Sounds reasonable to me. Also reasonable would be no more federal flood insurance for people who build palatial homes on barrier islands.
Christopher writes: “A Traditional Christian has much more in common with Annâs or Rushâs political/moral philosophy than Jim.”
I would like to explore the concept of “traditional Christianity” a little bit. We hear a lot about it in this venue, and mostly from those who are convinced that they have it and that others don’t.
It seems to me that what many people call “traditional Christianity” is really a shrunken and diminished version of actual traditional Christianity, bearing as much relationship to it as a shrunken head has to a living person. The new version of traditional Christianity consists firstly of a set of doctrines that have to be believed. Christopher kindly lists some of those for us:
He [I, in other words] does not âhave faithâ in Revelation History, the Church and the Spirit that resides in Her, Christ and His Third Day Resurrection, the list goes on and on.
Indeed the list could go on and on, but we appreciate Christopher’s brevity. These in Christopher’s view are extremely useful for separating the sheep from the goats. Of course, they would work just as well to separate Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh into the goat category, but when it comes to those on the right, a completely different standard mut be applied — that of the “philosophy.” So whether or not Ann and Rush have any theological beliefs or inclinations, not to worry, because they have the right “political/moral philosophy.”
And this leads to the second feature of the new view of “traditional” Christianity. In this new view a very small subset of Christian teachings are extracted from their original context, and used as raw material to construct a “philosophy” that is then used to attack those who are seen as enemies in the culture war.
In the new view of traditional Christianity, the point is not to become a saint, but to become a social critic. The point is to be able to catalog the 1,000 ways in which “liberals” are wrong, to be able to detect and denounce all that is corrupt and despicable in society (originating, of course, in libealism), to re-fight the culture battles of the 1960s, and finally to prevail. In this sense, whatever their personal and theological shortcomings, in spite of Oxycontin and Viagra, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter really are co-religionists of those who espouse this shrunken view of traditional Christianity.
In this shrunken view, the teachings of Christianity, that were intended to heal, to save, to lead people into a fullnesss of existence, are used instead as weapons. They are used as yardsticks to see who measures up and who doesn’t. And to these unworthy ends they are quite effective.
The Jesus of the new view of traditional Christianity is very different from the actual traditional Jesus. In the new view, Jesus is rarely mentioned, except as a kind of abstract entity about which liberals have the wrong beliefs. Other than that he is largely missing in action, except when his teachings are being re-interpreted. In this way “blessed are the poor” really means “blessed are the rich; the poor are on their own.” “Blessed are the peacemakers” really means “blessed are the warmakers.” And rather than sparing the woman taken in adultery, the new Jesus throws the largest stone at her, with Ann and Rush cheering on the sidelines.
All of this passes by under the title of “traditional Christianity,” but it’s really just a damaged version of Christianity, like a piece of broken glass, useful for slashing enemies.