Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
earthtimes.org | Hudson Institute | September 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
. . . more
131 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Junk science |
My kids are terrified of global warming!
Tell them not to worry. These apocalyptic scenarios have a shelf life of about five years. We are in year two.
I didn’t see the names of any new scientists, just the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.
The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank funded by corporations with a financial interest in weak environmental regulation. The Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being “Free Market Right” and 1 “Radical Left.”
S. Fred Singer used to work for the Tobacco Induustry putting our bogus research trying to disprove the association between second-hand smoke and cancer. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
Dennis Avery’s pet peeve is organic farming. He crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology (Monsanto) will save the world from starvation and disaster. Avery is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
So don’t be fooled into thinking these guys are objective sources of information. The careers of Singer and Avery represent the worst sort of acedemic whoredom imaginable.
Mr. Scourtes #3:
Okay, so you have specific problems with two of the 500+ scientists who refute elements of global warming hysteria. But, you claim the other 498+ are “the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.”
Are you a scientist? Do you know and understand all of these scientists’ work? Are you really confident that they are all hacks and stooges?
Oh, silly me, I almost forgot. Any scientist who does not support the “consensus” is obviously a hack or a stooge (or both). Everyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be malevolent.
D. George writes: “Okay, so you have specific problems with two of the 500+ scientists who refute elements of global warming hysteria. But, you claim the other 498+ are ‘the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.’”
From the article I can’t tell what the scientists are saying, or what their actual positions are.
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.
What does that mean? What elements? What does it mean to “refute” an element? What are the “scares?” If a scientist believes that man-made global warming is a serious problem resulting in various disasters, but doesn’t believe that there will be massive flooding, has he “refuted” one of the “scares?”
And what does this mean —
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
How many is “not all of?” What does it mean to say that researchers aren’t global warming skeptics, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see?” Does that mean the researchers don’t understand their own studies?
Mr. Holman #5:
“From the article I can’t tell what the scientists are saying, or what their actual positions are.”
The article did not present details of the research. I agree. I am very impressed that Mr. Scourtes knows enough about all of these 500+ scientists to know, with certainty, that they are all “hacks and stooges.” Not only that, he is so familiar with them all that he refers to them as the “the same old Rogue’s Gallery of hacks and stooges.” He must use all of his free time reading scientific journals, and I am sure that his credentials as a scientists are impeccable.
“What does that mean? What elements? What does it mean to “refute” an element?”
The article indicated that the 500+ scientists were either presenting evidence that the consequences of global warming are not as dire as predicted, or that the cause of global warming is not anthropogenic, or both.
“How many is ‘not all of?’ What does it mean to say that researchers aren’t global warming skeptics, ‘but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see?’ Does that mean the researchers don’t understand their own studies?”
Not at all. Many scientists who argue against the anthropogenic causation hypothesis are not skeptical that global warming occurs, and are thus, by definition, not “global warming skeptics.” I actually saw a presentation by one such scientist back in 2002 or so. The fellow argued global warming was caused by solar activity. So, no, these scientists are not confused about their own research.
There are three players in this debate, the fools who are sure that AGW is true, the fools who are sure that AGW is untrue, and the reasonable people who understand that the issue is so complex and involves so many unknowns that it would be foolish to have an opinion.
There is no such thing as a “God’s Fool”, only a fool’s god. When believing becomes a virtue, questioning becomes a sin.
Mr. Scourtes #8 & #9:
Benedict’s remarks could refer to any number of environmental problems, and may not indicate a belief in anthropogenic-caused global warming. Of course, he has no expertise regarding these matters.
His All-Holiness, however, goes way over the top and is once again an embarassment to the Orthodox Church. From his encyclical:
“Recent unusual temperature fluctuations, hurricanes, earthquakes … are the results of human actions, whether carried out openly or executed in secret.”
This is crazy-talk! Men don’t cause earthquakes. This is reminiscent of the whole New Age “Gaia” thing where people think the earth has a brain and is out to punish us. Patriarch Bartholomew knows nothing about science, so he should spare the Church the embarassment and stop talking about issues of which is he completely ignorant. This is about as shameful as when he visited with Castro awhile back. Instead of pushing for religious freedom like John Paul II did on his visit, our patriarch fawned over the brutal dictator instead. It is very difficult to explain away this sort of nonsense to my heterodox relatives.
Note 11, JohnH, God isn’t afraid of our questions, ask Him anything you want respectfully, prayerfully and then watch for the answer
The point of this article is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature contains numerous studies that contradict what is proclaimed loudly in the popular press.
To give one example that ties in with Patriarch Bartholomew, when there was widespread flooding in eastern Europe (2003 I think) he announced that it was due to Americans driving SUVs. This was a statement of profound ignorance and was an embarrassment to the Orthodox Church. But the idea has legs, and has been a staple in the European and US press ever since.
Two German researchers studied the history of severe floods in that region and came to the conclusion that there was nothing unusual about what happened. The results were published in a presitigous journal. Did this study ever see the light of day in the popular press? No. The narrative is already set, and facts – even peer-reviewed – don’t matter.
We Orthodox should have the longest memory of all the Christian churches, and should be least prone to fall for temporal fads and alarmism.
Note 13 TomC, when theology is based on secular science then theology must change as science changes
Theology should be only about those things which are eternal and immutable, it should not be based on the shifting sands of human knowledge.
Re 14) Befuddled writes: “Theology should be only about those things which are eternal and immutable, it should not be based on the shifting sands of human knowledge.”
Unless you are not a human, the only knowledge you have is human knowledge. What is eternal and immutable to one is shifting sand to another. You will ony ever see through your own eyes.
Note 15, JohnH, aye there’s the rub, is there something eternal or not?
Here’s the rub JohnH. You don’t think there is any other point of view except the human. I know there is another point of view and another source of knowledge, revealed knowledge of the Divine.
I decline to enter into another debate with another agnostic or atheist, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
A debate is a presentation of two opposing points of view. To present your half and then declare an unwillingness to debate is merely a plea to restrain the other half. You have already debated.
To say that you know that you know because you know your knowledge is revealed knowledge must make your foot sore from all the stamping.
Note17, JohnH, no foot stamping
Last time I looked this is still a free country and I can still decide how I will use my time. I don’t have time for this debate.
There are many sites on the internet where Christians and non-Christians debate this particular issue and if you want to you can participate in those debates. The issue has been debated for centuries and probably will continue to be debated for centuries.
You are similarly free to use your time as you see fit and to adopt whatever position you want to adopt on the issues.
I didn’t stamp my feet I simply stated my position.
Have a nice day
Note 18, JohnH, since you don’t share Patriarch Bartholomew’s world view
why you do care what he writes or preaches?
You obviously don’t share Patriarch Bartolomew’s world view so why would you care about the quality of his theological statements? You are in fundamental disagreement with his most fundamental, initial premises so why bother?
John: When a scientist sets up a research question and poses a null hypothesis there are four possible outcomes. True Positive, False Positive (type I error) True Negative, and False Negative (type II error).
Let’s suppose our null hypothesis is that: global warming is not man-made.
A Type I error would be that we decide global warming is not man made, so do nothing, but we are wrong. A Type II error would be if we decide that global warming is man made and adjust our behavior accordingly, but we were wrong and our actions have no impact on temperature change.
Which type of error is worse? With Type I error we ignore global warming and we suffer droughts and famine in some parts of the world and flooding and catastrophic weather events in other parts of the world. America’s beautiful national forests dry out and burn down and are replaced by desert. Hundreds of millions of people become environmental refugees and their attempts to relocate in other countries sparks war and conflict. (BTW – The figures are in: Greece lost 5 MILLION Olive trees during it’s drought-induced forest fires last month- it’s agricultural-based economy is devastated.)
With type II error we make investments in new technologies that result in cleaner air and lowered use of oil and coal-based energry Cases of asthma and bronchitis drop due to reduced airborne particulate matter, while America’s trade deficit with other countries starts to fall to to lower oil imports. The sacrifices we have to make include accepting nuclear power, building windmills, attaching solar panels to the roofs of our houses, paying a higher gasoline taxes, driving in smaller vehicles and/or taking public transportation.
Wouldn’t it appear to any reasonable and rational person that type I error is by far worse than type II error? Wouldn’t the basic principles of risk management dictate that when the cost on inaction are greater than the cost of action, you must act to mitigate and avoid a potential theat.
Fortunately we do not have to make our decision on the basis of risk alone. We know that 99% of the world’s climate scientists have already confirmed that global warming is real and caused by man-made activities. These are the respectable scientists who work for our government agencies and whose research is published and peer-reviewed by other scientists. A very small number of scientists and academics in the employment of an energy industry seeking to protect its profits, have been hired to confuse the public with spurious data and misleading comments.
While we should always be objective and open-minded, common sense should tell us that this second group is comprised of mercenaries and hirelingswho are never going to tell us the truth, but only industry propaganda. As newspaper publisher A.O. Sulzbeger once remarked, “I believe in being open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brain falls out.”
18) “Last time I looked this is still a free country and I can still decide how I will use my time. I don’t have time for this debate.”
To hint that anyone is questioning your rights or insisting that you do anything is very silly. You clearly find the time to keep responding and it is clearly how you wish to use your time.
As for the debate in question, the subject is whether or not you know more than you know, being a human. There is no reason to believe that you have access to a higher knowledge. You merely have your ever-so-human opinion and it is well-supported by fact or not. Dismissing the opinions of others as mere “shifting sands” of human knowledge is epistemologically self-invalidating as long as you are a human.
If you don’t wish to debate, don’t.
19) “You obviously don’t share Patriarch Bartolomew’s world view so why would you care about the quality of his theological statements? You are in fundamental disagreement with his most fundamental, initial premises so why bother?”
Are we only to address those who we know to be in agreement with us? Should we not try to deliver others from their ignorance and error? If you are in disagreement with me, why do you bother?
20) Dean Scourtes writes:
“A Type II error would be if we decide that global warming is man made and adjust our behavior accordingly, but we were wrong and our actions have no impact on temperature change.”
Our actions have impacts throughout the world, though they may not effect climate. Suggesting that we take actions without good reasons is not wise. Climate change is not a good reason. People are making choices all the time. Build a windmill if you wish, but suggesting that everyone should when you do not have a good case is mistaken. Forcing them to is evil. The precautionary principle is silly since it is not “cautious” to act without a good reason. It is reminiscent of the old religious argument: even if you don’t believe in God, should you not pray and worship anyway, just in case? Of course not. You should act because of what you believe, not because of an error you might be making. These are desparate arguments made by those who cannot make a case, so they suggest that you pretend to agree with them and act accordingly – just in case. Silly.
Note 20. Dean writes:
Regarding Greece: the last report is that almost all (maybe all) of the fires were started by arson. Why? Because Greece has no land registry and squatters can claim ownership merely by possessing (tilling, building) the land after a number of years. Investigators have said that the large fires were started by squatters when the small fires got out of control. The fires of Greece are related to internal corruption and the inability to uniformly enforce the law, and not global warming.
Type II error: It sounds nice, but since you’ve removed the social policy from its ostensible rationale (global warming) it begs this question: who much of the global warming hoopla is really about social engineering? If you can justify economic retooling without resort to global warming, then the effects of this type of economic interference needs more justification than the feel good optimism that implicitly informs your thesis.
Your thesis then, assumes a point that should never be taken for granted: economic retooling won’t have any deleterious effects. It’s called the law of unintended effects. Be wary when good motives alone are used to justify policy.
Thus, when you ask:
… the answer is no, because the thesis is not complete. More serious thinking is required.
we ignore global warming and we suffer droughts and famine in some parts of the world and flooding and catastrophic weather events in other parts of the world.
Yet, over all arable land goes up, which means more food for the world. As someone so concerned about the “poor”, I would think you would be doing your darndest to increase “global warming”…
I feel like such a broken record, but here I go again: Political ideology should NEVER be used in place of spiritual truth and praxsis. Unfortunately far too many of our bishops confuse the two. Pat. Bartholomew does on the environment.
The theological truth that man is steward of the rest of the phenominological world and is commanded by God to dress and keep the earth cannot be ignored by serious Orthodox Christians. It should be an integral part of the spiritual practice of every Orthodox alive. It involves asceticism and spiritual warfare which undoubtely strikes at the root of our mechanistic/electronic, debt funded world. It is to that asceticism that Pat. Batholomew should be calling us (because it is far more radical and effective) rather than the silly and often destructive political analogs.
To translate any such spiritual practice into political action on a mass scale is dangerous and usually results in the destruction of the value of the practice and little else.
Despite Dean S’s repeated contentions to the contrary there is nothing in the New Testament or the Tradition that compels us to accept mass political solutions to spiritual problems and much that would vitiate against such acceptance.
Note 23, JohnH, deliver from ignorance and error
Well, JohnH, I assume you are over 18 and can do what you please.
I must say that trying to convince an Orthodox Patriarch that the existence of the Divine is merely a myth would be a good trick!!!! Let me know how that works out.
I was raised in the church, then I went through a period in which I considered myself an atheist, then I embrached Christianity after quite a bit of reading, and studying and varied life experiences. I hold a degree in an applied natural science from a respectable academic institution. I don’t claim to be a theological scholar but I am generally familiar with the usual pro and con arguments regarding the existence of God or related topics. I really don’t want to go around that block with you, BUT, maybe somebody else on the board will.
Tom C. writes: “The point of this article is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature contains numerous studies that contradict what is proclaimed loudly in the popular press.”
I don’t think that’s what the article is actually asserting. I think what happened is that the authors of the book found articles with isolated passages that may have disputed some point of what is commonly called the “consensus position.”
This, I think explains the unusual locution in the article: “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.” The author seems to assert that there are things in the studies that don’t support AGW, even though the authors are not skeptical of AGW.
Note also “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.” The article isn’t saying that 500 researchers disputed AGW; it’s saying that 500 researchers wrote articles in which “at least one element” of AGW “scares” — whatever those are — was disputed.
For example, in the famous double murder case, one could hold that fibers found at the murder scene similar to those found in O.J. Simpson’s cap really weren’t from his cap, while holding that nonetheless O.J. committed the murders. In other words, many researchers might not agree on all the evidence related to AGW, while still believing in AGW. I think this is what the article is saying — though not the impression that it wants to give.
There was already a study of global warming articles done by Science magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
I would find it hard to believe that not one of 928 articles reviewed by Science magazine would disagree with the concensus position, and then a paid tobacco and oil lobbyist could find articles by 500 scientists doing exactly that.
Whatever you think of AGW, this piece is simply propaganda, written carefully to give an impression that almost certainly is disputed by the facts.
#28
The study was not sponsored by Science magazine. It was the effort of Ms. Oreskes, who wrote the article. It is a sign of the weakness of global warming alarmism that this paper gets repeatedly cited, as it was a travesty. Ms. Oreskes did not even bother to keep the list of the 928 abstracts so that we could check them ourselves. She misplaced, or deleted it, or the dog ate it, or it was stolen by right-wing stooges and hacks, or something.
S. Fred Singer, who you persist in calling a “tobacco lobbyist” is probably the most highly qualified scientist who has addressed the AGW question in its entirety: from atmospheric science to resource management to economics, etc. Singer’s resume is unmatched in this arena.
Polar bears are not dying; Antarctica is gaining ice, not losing it; the Northwest pasage has been open and navigated many times in the last 50 years; the floods in Europe were nothing special; the heat wave deaths in Europe were due to nursing homes without attendants or air conditioners; the fires in Greece were due to arson, etc. etc.
The frantic name-calling that this issue now engenders shows that the game is already over, though it might take a few more years for it to fizzle out.
I feel like such a broken record, but here I go again:
It’s not about discussion/learning, it’s all propaganda and “debate”. If you choose to, you will repeating the same thing on the next 5 or 10 “global warming” threads over the next year or so, because the same two persons (Dean and Jim) will be repeating the same assertions.
Fr. Jacobse, when is this blog going to be about something other than what Dean and Jim decide it is about??
Note 13. Tom C. writes:
Imagine if an Orthodox Patriarch had embraced the Paul Erlich “Population Bomb” nonsense of the 1970′s or whatever the fad of the decade happened to be. A few years down the line credibility will erode because the ignorance will be revealed for what it is.
We saw the same mistake made in the Cuba trip a few years back. At crucial junctures, in this case human rights, the wrong decisions were made. More specifically, decisions were made that dovetailed too closely with liberal utopianism; decisions that always come back to haunt once the moral air has cleared.
My read is that the Constantinople doesn’t really understand the cultural dynamics of the West. They rely on advisors who mimic so much of the thinking that afflicts the religious left, that ideas don’t really matter as long as the intentions are good, and so you get these hamfisted statements that sound, well, so stupid down the road.
I have no doubt that the Patriarch supports human rights, and his defense of the integrity of the natural environment is necessary and good. But he has got to be more aware that entities like the NCC (which was involved in planning the CUBA trip) will use him to further their agenda. He cannot afford too many of these gaffes — but I’m not sure he understands how foolish it might all appear.
Note 29. Tom C. writes:
Yes. When Newsweek ran their cover story a few months back branding all man-made global warming “deniers” as Neanderthal throwbacks, I could see the shelf life of the movement was less than I first thought. The attack came too early in the game. It was desperate. This thing might die faster than we think.
Well, at least Al Gore cashed in.
Christopher asks: “when is this blog going to be about something other than what Dean and Jim decide it is about”?
Just a humble suggestion … they have these sites now that allow you to set up your own blog where you can write about any topic under the sun and where you can moderate comments so that any “disagreeable” ideas are blocked before they are actually posted online.
Try blogspot.com … or even myspace. It’s somewhat rude to pop in and tell others how to run their site, don’t you think?
Here’s a challenge for you: this week, go ahead and put one up where you can broadcast your ideas to the world without interference by “trolls”, as you call them.
James:
Here is a “humble” suggestion for you:
Learn something about Orthodoxy, so you don’t repeat the same questions our to ignorance over and over and over. Also, don’t parrot the secular left when talking to Traditional Christians. If you don’t agree, move on – don’t make this blog a place where you “work out” your beef with Christians, and certainly don’t use it as a crucible for your own pagan world view like Jim. Finally, don’t complain when I and others properly point out rude and Trollish behavior
If you do these things, then you won’t be a Troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Christopher, your link was informative:
“Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others … The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person, coupled with the person’s history with the forum or group … A troll’s main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board’s other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.”
I’m being honest here … this sounds more like you than any other contributor here. Is this whole persona of yours an elaborate hoax? If it is, you’re very clever, although I’m unclear as to the intent.
If you wish to lead others to Orthodoxy, you might be more persuasive if you actually attempted to embody the values you espouse and absorbed and internalized some of the references you refer to.
Christopher,
Part of the problem you perceive is due to the nature of this site. It is not just an Orthodox theology site, nor is it solely a cultural/political site. The confluence of the two creates some major turbulence. Jim posts more often than anyone else. The sheer volume of his posts means that his viewpoint tends to dominate. His persistence in denying everything substantial within Orthodox thought is irritating. Especially since he has actually read Orthodox literature and attended a few services, both of which he professes to find beautiful and “moving”. I sometimes think he has read more Orthodox material than Dean has. Still, Jim refuses to understand Orthodox thought because he refuses union with Christ.
It seems to be part of my make-up, and perhaps yours, that I find it difficult to refuse a fight especially when it is futile. I am trying to curb that tendency by doing the best to ignore Jim’s posts and make statements that I feel are a reflection of the teaching of the Church on the topic at hand. I do not do a good job, but I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that it is a waste of time and energy trying to change someone else’s mind. The best I can do is to allow the Holy Spirit to transform my mind. (I use the term mind in the fullest Orthodox sense as my entire cogent being).
Rationalistic materialists have nothing knowledgeable to say concerning Orthodox thought no matter how much they study it. They will forever be incorrigibly ignorant of the reality of the Church because they worship the created thing more than or in place of the Creator. Nothing you or I can say will make a dent unless the Holy Spirit precedes our words. They prefer their massive ignorance to the truth and they feel the same toward us. I fear there is a gulf set between us that cannot be crossed over or rather only the Cross can bridge the chasm.
Come Holy Spirit and enlighten and soften the hearts of all who read and post here, that we may know the Truth and the Truth will set us free.
Germany is demonstrating that a modern industrial nation can make the transition to renewable energy and meet the targets of the Kyoto Treaty, without damaging it’s economy. In the process Germany is becoming a leader in important new alternative energy technologies and industries, while the United States, in a thrall to backward conservative economic dogma, continues to fall behind.
The German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology reports:
Renewable energies in Germany – A Success Story
Expansion is central goal of German government’s energy policy
http://www.german-renewable-energy.com/Renewables/Navigation/Englisch/root.html
Note 41, We have clean sources of electricity for the next 300 years
America is blessed with a 300 year supply of coal, all within our own boundaries. Coal powered electric power plants constructed after 1990 are virtually pollution free– REPEAT– pollution free. This means that we have vritually no constraints industrial development in the United States.
Cars represent the largest supply of air pollution and the technology exists to solve that—the electric car. We just need recharging stations dotted around the landscape as we have gas stations. This is doable–far less trouble than the moon landing.
Agricultural run-off and water shortages remain a tough problem in the Western United States. The solution is not likely to be easy or cheap.
Germany’s econony is very differrent in terms of their pollution challenges because to the best of my knowledge they do not have coal.
As to the Chinese? They are basically a criminal enterprise in the form of a government.
Note 36:
It is a bit low is it not, to turn the definition around like that? To point out that Someone like Jim, who explicitly admits he “uses” this site to “sharpen his philosophy”, to point out his behavior is personal yes. That is part of a Troll’s method however, to draw attention to the personal (by his bad behavior) and then turn around and complain “your getting personal”. Of course! I know you resist it, but “Orthodoxy” means something. Try to at least get a minimal handle on it…
note 38:
I do not do a good job, but I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that it is a waste of time and energy trying to change someone else’s mind.
EXACTLY! The discussions here should be on the level of ideas, and Fr. Jacobse does his best to keep it at that level and is his explicit goal if I am not mistaken. That said, it can not be about ANY idea, it has to have focus to be meaningful. This is why it has to have previous commitments, a “perspective” that things are discussed from. This is why I believe Jim’s and Dean’s participation is illegitimate. They don’t want to play by the rules, they want to “debate” not only every jot and tittle, but from a perspective alien not only to Orthodoxy, but also to anything resembling Christianity. This blog is NOT “OrthodoxyToday”, it is “RoundTableFoodFightToday”. I have no interest in “engaging” the Jim’s of this world – and to be blunt we have nothing to learn from them (which really goads them, because in their world view every other philosophy known to man is “closed minded”). God has other plans for them, and I really don’t see how allowing them to indulge in this endless bantering is part of that plan.
It’s too bad, because I think there is a real need for Orthodoxy to engage the culture, but it ain’t happening here to any serious degree – because of two people, TWO PEOPLE!!
But hey, Orthodoxy in America is not known for it’s robustness. Look at the OCA, where 1 bishop out of 11 has any interest in following the 8th commandment. Or the Greeks, where in my city of 1+ million people (Charlotte, NC) one parish does the liturgy in 99% greek, the other is about 60% greek. But I digress….none of this has anything to do with justifying the killing the unborn…;)
JIM! ATTEND!!: do us a favor and write a 9 paragraph explication of why we Terry was not really a person, or why the sordid details of Roe justify the murder of the unborn – we need a few more years of this…;)
Missourian: I can see Dean et.al choaking already—COAL???? You said COAL??? That’s worse than the demon rum what with strip mining, miner deaths and disability, etc.
The fact of the matter is that to “environmentalists” there is simply no satisfactory way to produce power. None what so ever. Not even wind power, because that kills birds. The entropic state is what the long for.
They are obscene in their denial of humanity.
Christopher, in about three weeks (God willing) the venue you want will be unveiled. The level of discussion you want requires a clarity and focus a public blog cannot provide. A blog that actually examines ideas in depth and detail has to be moderated, requires select contributors, and has to be free of such intellectual vices as substituting emotion for reason, etc.
Keep in mind too that there are lots of lurkers on this blog. Look at the stats: 838,514 visitors since April, 06 (actually more because sometimes the counter breaks). That’s a healthy number for a second tier blog like this one. I’d love to see a million a year but it will take another two years probably to build that kind of readership.
Just found this: The Treehouse.
Michael, is this your church?
It is a Pan-Orthodox Ministry in Wichita, but the executive director is a parishoner at St. George. It was the vision of two women who prayed together, planned together and then submitted it to their respective parishes. It is one of the better ministries we support.
RE: Number 46 & 47: That is exactly the type of organization that some of the federal Family Planning funding that is now going to Planned Parenthhood, should be diverted to. I certainly think that there is a majority consensus in this country that the concept of family planning includes adoption and helping young unwed mothers carry to term. It’s not just condoms and abortions.
Faith-based initiatives are one of the few really good ideas proposed by the Bush administration. If it had been more interested in policy, rather than only gaining political advantage, the Bush adnministration could have demonstrated how small non-for-profits can sometimes provide a better alternative to government-run, social programs.
RE 48)
No, government should not have anything to do with any of these issues. Such matters should be entirely the voluntary concern of individuals and groups who care about such things. Forcing Christians to fund abortions is no worse than forcing atheists to fund “faith-based” activities. The use of force is the fundamental sin.
Note 48: Dean writes:
Some? So the government should fund abortion on the one hand and saving the unborn on the other?
No. The governemt needs to get out of the business of paying for abortions that aren’t medically neccesary. What I meant was that the portion of funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions should be shifted to other organizations that promote adoption and assist unwed mothers. That portion of their funding that is directed towards contaception, counseling and STD and pregnancy testing is not morally objectionable and could be maintained.
Of course we run into the same problem highlighted in the discussion of the Boxer amendment: money from government payments (for non-abortion related actities) are fungible, and eventially end up in the same pot, or general account, that funds that pay for abortions are drawn from. It’s a difficult situation because on one side the pro-choice people are saying, “These neanderthals don’t even want women to learn about birth control so they can avoid getting pregnant”, and on the other side the pro-lifers ar saying, “Abortion is their real agenda, every thing else is just a cover.”
Eventually legislation will have to passed requiring organizations involved in family planning that receive public funds to legally and financially seperate themselves from that part of their organization that promotes or provides abortion and outlaw transfers of funds between the two This will undoubtedly create a political uproar, but the Pro-Life movement can head some of that off by making it clear that it’s not the prevention of unplanned pregnacies it objects to, only their termination.
I find the parallels between the abortion and slavery issues increasingly compelling on a number of levels. During the eighteen fifties, angry mobs in southern cities attacked and threatened to lynch abolitionists who denounced slavery, while the attempted extradition of a captured escaped slave nearly caused a riot in Boston. The people who bomb abortion clinics see themselves as modern day John Browns, animated bu religious fervor to strike at an unspeakable wrong. In may ways attitudes towards abortion are that polarized in the United States right now. We urgently need a dialogue to bridge the gulf between the two sides and promote a culture of life.
Missourian writes: “America is blessed with a 300 year supply of coal, all within our own boundaries.”
I think if you look at that figure, you’ll find that it’s valid only at current rates of consumption. If you assume a constant growth in the rate, then that 300 year figure shrinks rapidly. At 6 percent annual growth, the 300 year supply drops to something like 50 years. Work through it in an Excel spreadsheet with different percentages and you’ll see what I mean.
Michael writes: “Jim posts more often than anyone else. The sheer volume of his posts means that his viewpoint tends to dominate.”
Ok, let’s look at the sheer volume. I did a little survey this morning, looking at the lead articles on the main page that had comments. What I found was of the ten lead articles with comments on the blog, I posted comments to five of them. Of the articles with comments, there were 286 comments. 32 of those were mine, or 6 percent. Half of those comments were posted to the “How poor are the poor” thread — 16 out of 105 comments, or 15 percent. The articles on the main blog page were posted from August 18 through September 18, which means that I post an average of one comment per day.
What happens is that I might not post for a week or two — certainly a time of great bliss for Christopher — then post a lot on a particular topic. Suddenly I’m “dominating” the blog.
A number of my recent posts were not on religious topic — global warming, whether employers mistreat employees, whether J. D. Crossan is a scholar or not. Surely these are not matters of Orthodox faith.
When I do post on topics that involve religion or faith, I try to be respectful of the other participants. I don’t say things like “you’re all a bunch of idiots,” or “you’re all going to hell!” From what I have heard from Fr. Hans, and from what I know about him in other venues, he likes the give and take of opposing points of view. So I feel free to beat him up, and I expect him to beat me up.
Michael: “His persistence in denying everything substantial within Orthodox thought is irritating. Especially since he has actually read Orthodox literature and attended a few services, both of which he professes to find beautiful and “moving”. I sometimes think he has read more Orthodox material than Dean has. Still, Jim refuses to understand Orthodox thought because he refuses union with Christ.”
To be clear, I haven’t been to Orthodox services. I do have a number of recordings of Orthodox liturgy or Orthodox-inspired music, have studied iconography, have visited Orthodox churches during their public festivals, have read a number of books by Orthodox authors, and so on.
Christopher writes: “Someone like Jim, who explicitly admits he “uses” this site to “sharpen his philosophy”, to point out his behavior is personal yes.”
Well, “sharpen philosophy” is a bit narrow. One thing I hate is always discussing things with people who agree with me. Once in a while is fine, but not all the time. Let’s say that I value the test of ideas. When you, Missourian, Fr. Hans, Tom C, Michael, D. George, and others rip into my ideas, I think that’s great. Bring it on. Personal attacks — I don’t see the point. But when it comes to ideas I want to be pushed and probed.
My exposure to Orthodoxy has changed me in many ways — in ways that people here will never know, even as I disagree with them on many fundamental issues. As the prophet Isaiah noted “so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” The Word has it’s own purpose, it’s own timeline, it’s own audience. It is not bound by human expectations or hopes.
Fr. Hans: “A blog that actually examines ideas in depth and detail has to be moderated, requires select contributors . . . ”
One hopes that outsiders will be able to observe discussions, if not participate in them. Best wishes on your new venture.
Note 53. Jim writes:
The blog, in fact the entire site, will be open to anyone to read. But I don’t see the blog serving the same function as this one. It will be more focused, less polemical (in the good sense of the term), basically a “meeting of the minds” type of thing — at least that is the plan. Have to see if it will fly of course.
I’ll have a complete announcement on this after September 23, when the new issue of AGAIN is released. It’s a project that I and a few other people have been working on for the last three years.
And yes, I don’t mind the push and pull of opposing views.
check out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html?mod=hotair.com
“There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true.”
“The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.”
First, the global warming deniers tell me that there is no proof that human activity causes climate change. Then they tell me that it is futile for the United States to adopt cleaner renewable energy technologies because China will still be spewing tons of pollutants into the air.
Well if China is spewing tons of pollutants into the air, isn’t that a human activity? Doesn’t that contradict your other comment trying to refute the link between carbon emissions and global warming with ridiculous stories about sun spots and natural cycles?
Get your story straight guys!
Global Warming is happening and human activity causes it. End of story. To arrive at any other conclusion is simply willful ignorance.
Yes yes, up until now, the earths climate has never changed – because humans were not numerous enough or industralized enough to produce the change. Since the Fall (or what ever it is you mark time with) the climate has held rock steady…;)
On a more serious note, increas in atmospheric moisture is a real good thing – more rain!
Note 56. Dean writes:
I love the “deniers” that’s thrown in here, as if global warming –what? –non-deniers? have settled science on their side.
Dean,
Scientific and observational evidence tying warming to sun spots (undisputed by the global warming fanatics), plus geological evidence and ice-core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years, and historical evidence of the wild swings in atmospheric conditions (Little Ice Age in Europe!) equals “ridiculous stories about sun spots and natural cycles”? You know Dean, I am beginning to agree with Christopher that on many issues you lack a great deal of common sense and make idiotic arguments just to muddy the waters and contradict everyone else who wants to engage in substantive and objective discussions.
(PS – the reason I pointed to China, is because I was willing to suppose that even given your thin argument on human activity causing warming, Germany trying to significantly impact the CO2 levels by using solar panels was meaningless. It’s like using ONE bucket to attempt to bail out the sinking Titanic. While it may make one feel good that they’re “doing something”, it’s futile and useless from an objective, reasoned and logical perspective. You would be better off using the deck chairs to build a lifeboat or praying. Most of the dogmatic proclamations, arguments and “solutions” offered by you and other warming fanatics are how children think and act, not how mature and wise adults should conduct themselves.)
RE: 55)
“Global Warming is happening and human activity causes it. End of story. To arrive at any other conclusion is simply willful ignorance.”
Writing such nonsense is itself willful ignorance of the complexity and controversy inherent in the subject. That the study in question was not a study of climate, but of computer models, and that the study authors found a guess about reality to be “plausible” precludes that kind of arrogant dismissal of all further debate.
Writing such nonsense…
Is simply part of the tactics, and dogma, of the left. It’s all about creating a scare, not actually looking at the facts. I for one think that we are in a natural warming trend, but that human caused CO2 has (and will) mildly increase the extant of this trend. That said, I think the trend is actually a good thing. If we were really interested in the morality of this warming trend, we would actually be trying to speed it up.
There is a pattern to dishonest debate that is clear and ubiquitous in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate:
A says: I believe in X for reason 1
B says: But reason 1 is not valid
A: then I believe in X for reason 2
B: But reason 2 is not true either
A: Well, then I believe in X for reason 3
…Repeat ad infinitum…
Having an ever-growing list of bad reasons does not add up to a good reason. A thousand guesses do not add up to a certainty. Quite the opposite: the more estimates involved, the less certain the conclusion.
At the root of the whole theory is amaturish epistemology by those who perhaps just love the catastrophism and holocost of it all. Normality-deniers, every one of them. I suspect they are just bored.
It is not that they are bored, it is that they are demogouges seeking power. Thus their use of the big, bigger, biggest lie technique.
#55
WOW! I had no idea how serious this problem is! 0.41 kilograms per cubic meter per decade since 1988. Since 1988 was about 20 years ago that amounts to about 0.8 kilograms more moisture in every cubic meter. Pretty soon the oceans will be depleted with all that water going into the air, shipping routes will be disrupted, fish and whales will die, the salinity will increase to the point where toxic chlorine gas is released. Quick! Buy a compact fluorescent light bulb.
This press release illustrates perfectly the lunacy which has overtaken this issue. Room temperature air at 50% humidity holds about 10 grams per cubic meter. The only way you can get 0.8 kilograms of water into a cubic meter of air is to put it in a jar in the middle of the cube. So, here we have a press release from Lawrence Livermore that can’t even get this basic quantity correct. Then they compound the mistake by putting kg per meter squared in parentheses.
More moisture in the air does not implicate carbon dioxide anymore than it implicates the sun or any other natural source of warming. Plus, more moisture in the air probably leads to more clouds, which is a negative feedback to temperature.
The spectacle of a national laboratory putting out a press release to say that warmer air holds more moisture, and then botching the details, is really sad.
Plus, more moisture in the air probably leads to more clouds, which is a negative feedback to temperature.
This is an important point made by the scientists who are ‘global warming scare’ dissenters. Water vapor is many many times (orders of magnitude, can’t remember the exact number) more “powerful” as a climate change agent than CO2 (most atmospheric components are). Yet, according to most of the computer models relied upon by the global warming scare advocates show a significant increase in water vapor, which means more rain and global cooling – an inconsistency the advocates do not explain to the satisfaction of the dissenters…
Tom C writes: “So, here we have a press release from Lawrence Livermore that can’t even get this basic quantity correct.”
I sent an email to the actual author of the article referenced in the press release, asking for a clarification. I couldn’t even find the original article. There is no “Sept. 17 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” It’s September 18 — but I couldn’t find the article there either, or any reference to the author. I’ll let you know if I hear anything from the author.
Apologies in advance to Christopher, who will no doubt denounce my “materialistic” attempt to discover the actual content of the article. Apologies also to Michael for “dominating” the discussion.
Note 69. Dean writes:
Not really. Rephrase your paragraph to read:
“Father, you present the collectivist wrapper around Global Warming as a transitory ‘flash-in-the pan” popular mania, driven by some strange tree-hugging secular/pagan psuedo-theology. You smugly predict that hysteria over global warming will fade within five years, becoming a historical novelty or curiousity, like the hoola-hoop or the Nehru Jacket to amuse future generations.”
…and you will be closer to my view.
Learn to separate science from ideology.
#69 Mr. Scourtes
How do you explain something like this:
“Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.”
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.”
-Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007
I’ll tell you how I explain it, along with the other hundred examples one could dredge up. It is a cultural phenomenon where lazy journalists who don’t truly analyze issues but instead present pre-written narratives, conspire with scientists whose careers depend on securing funding from government, to scare the public and thereby sell more papers and win more funding.
You are most exercised about the loss of ice in the arctic. Why? Why is that a problem for anyone? Polar bears have survivied for eons through all sorts of wide temperature swings. If the region is now open for shipping and natural resource extraction that is a good thing.
But what I’m really curious about is why we don’t hear about the latest antarctic data. Seems the antarctic is gaining ice and on a continent-wide basis has been cooling for some time now. Are you concerned about “climate change” in the antarctic? If not, why? I can list all kinds of problems that will occur if it gets too cold down there.
Those tree-huggers at ScientificAmerican.com report:
Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? Large amounts of solar-thermal electric supply may become a reality if steam storage technology works—and new transmission infrastructure is built , September 19, 2007
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=1FC8E87E-E7F2-99DF-3253ADDFDBEC8D41&pageNumber=1&catID=1
We were once the nation that put a man on the moon and hopefully have not yet succumbed to the Republican “Can’t-Do” vision of government. Once again, the only thing standing between America and energy independence is the entrench oil and coal industries, their lobbyists and minions in the media.
Not that Dean will be talked out of his “secularized apocalyptic thinking” thinking as Fr. Jacobse rightly puts it, but I just wanted to point out that his last link is from Martin Marty, whom I met once. The man is a sociologist, a modern secularized thinker if there ever has been one, a typical example of the “religious left”.
Dean, do us a favor and place all your crib’s and links in one or two emails per thread, instead of bombing the blog with one over long quote after another. That way, those of us who know better can simply skip them…;)
Dean, Note 73, so what’s preventing entrepreneurs from capitalizing on this amazing solution to energy generation? Don’t give us the tired and dogmatic BS we keep hearing from that crew: “only thing standing between America and energy independence is the entrench oil and coal industries, their lobbyists and minions in the media.” since it’s truly insulting and childish.
If what this article claims is true, then why aren’t Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, BS (Barbara Streisand), Michael Moore, Al Gore, Oprah, the Kennedys, Rockefellers, or the thousands of other liberal and leftists millionaires and billionaires capitalizing on such a reasonable and proven energy generation solution? Could it be because many billion dollars in “tax breaks” and gov’t subsidies are actually needed to make such an endeavor even remotely profitable and competitive? Nah, it’s just mean ol’ conservatives and environment hating right-wingers stopping progress from solving all the world’s energy problems.
Fr. Jacobse: Is this consistent with Orthodoxy? I like my planet as much as the next person, but, this is a bit much.
Is the idea of humans being “co-Creators” Orthodox? Does Genesis indicate that humans are here to “care for the Earth?”
Doesn’t Genesis place Earth at the disposal of humanity. Earth exists for Man, Man doesn’t exist to “care for the Earth?” Doesn’t the Bible fortell that the Earth will “wear out like a garment?”
Befuddled writes: “Doesn’t Genesis place Earth at the disposal of humanity. Earth exists for Man, Man doesn’t exist to “care for the Earth?” Doesn’t the Bible fortell that the Earth will “wear out like a garment?”
In your view does humanity consist of just the people around today, or also potential future generations? If the latter, then it seems that caring for the earth would be a necessary condition of having a livable planet on which future generations can exist. In my humble materialistic opinion.
Note 77. I have no idea where the term “co-creator” comes from. I just did a search of several different interpretations of scripture and I cannot find it. I can’t recall a reference either.
Further, the term is so fluid, it could mean anything to anyone. This is why you have to stick to scriptural terminology when speaking of the things of God. At least you have text and context to wrestle meanings from instead of the conceptual blandness offered in the paragraph you quoted.
And what purpose does the phrase “morale, impetus, insight, and a cooperative spirit” serve except to substitute a moral exhortation for clear thinking?
So no, in my opinion there is nothing remotely Orthodox in the statement. It has the same loopy ring that “co-redemptrix” had a few years back when some Catholic group wanted to elevate Mary to the point where she was practically the fourth person of the Trinity. Thankfully that idea died a swift and necessary death.
Genesis is clear. God created the heavens and the earth through the power of the spoken word. No man was around. Man was created out of the “dust of the ground” (the matter that was spoken into existence), and filled with the breath of God on the sixth day, the day before God “rested”. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be construed from the text that man somehow shared in God’s creative activity.
And yes, man’s assignment is to be stewards of the creation — it’s caretakers. This does not mean that man exists to serve the earth (what eco-radicals think). Nor does it mean that man can abuse the creation.
Finally, yes, the scriptures do indicate that the earth can wear old, but at the same time it says:
indicating that the final liberation of man from the clutches of death also will liberate the rest of creation.
Patriarch Bartholomew’s authority rests on the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, i.e., God Incarnate. As an Orthodox bishop, he should approach the care of the environment from an Incarnational understanding. Unfortunately, nothing I have read of his indicates to me that he has an Incarnational understanding, but rather demonstrates an ideological emotionalism. To me, he has already abandoned the confession on which his authority rests.
His loopy pronouncements and his proclivity to look for ways to promote his own image and person especially in the midst of the hetrodox and pagan make me nervous, not proud.
Michael: Your comment reminded me of the title of one of my favorite Elvis Costello songs, “What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?”
In this case I wanted to ask “What’s so ‘loopy’ about wanting to protect this earth for our children and future generations?”
I want to support to the teachings of Jesus Christ, love my neighbor, help the poor, promote a consistent ethic of life, and protect the earth that God created. But when I advocate on behalf of actually doing these things you beliittle me and offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong. Now apparently even the Ecumenical Patrirach doesn’t meet your exactling standards. He’s not “incarnational” enough, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I haven’t a clue.
Note 83. Dean writes:
There is nothing loopy about it. In fact, is a God-given command. But we have intelligence too, Dean. We have to use it in order to discern how to carry out the command.
The virtue doesn’t lie in recognizing the command. It lies in how it is carried out, and this carrying out is informed by ideas about what constitutes the common good. However, some ideas will create different results than others, so we apply intelligence, foresight, planning — all the constitutents that raise man above the animals and inform the notion that man is the “steward” of the creation. (Genesis is perhaps one of the greatest books ever written. It is the narrative ground of true progress.)
So it is not enough to proclaim that one has the right motives. Motives, while indicating a proper (or improper) orientation toward things, are vivified by ideas. Ideas, however, have consequences. It’s the consequences, not merely the motives, that define the world in which future generations live.
Now, if we could just get your compatriots to recognize that aborting the future generation corrodes the virtue necessary to create a better future, we could make some real progress.
offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong….He’s not “incarnational” enough, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I haven’t a clue.
Perhaps you are beginning to understand why some of us question your Orthodoxy, that is your Christian understanding. Fact is, you do not have a Christian worldview. You (allegedly) attend an Orthodox Church, but you think like a typical secularist…
So it is not enough to proclaim that one has the right motives. Motives, while indicating a proper (or improper) orientation toward things, are vivified by ideas. Ideas, however, have consequences. It’s the consequences, not merely the motives, that define the world in which future generations live.
Dean, do you any idea what Fr. Jacobse is saying with the above sentances? If so, how is it a response to your reaction to environmentalism, etc.? Really, we have been talking to you about this basic concept for years, but I do not believe you understand. Do you?
Yes – one could apply Father’s comment about motives and ideas not just to environmentalism but to a wider spectrum of movements. One notable recent example – the Neoconservative movement – springs to mind.
John Gray, a professor of European history at the London School of Economics has written a book entitled, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1961492.ece
Dean, have you read “On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius yet? Your comments indicate that you have not. Before you reply to what follows (if you ever do) read it at least once.
There is no continuum. One is either Incarnational or one is not. The Incarnation reveals and defines the proper interrelationships between God, Man and the rest of Creation. In light of the Incarnation, the Chicken Little syndrome disappears, political ideology is rendered meaningless, and sobreity can be reached. The earth and all on it are here at the pleasure of God. He is not separate from His creation. He gave Himself for it. His Blood will not be wasted.
We have the responsibility to increase the fruits it produces and return it to God in good shape. Indeed, it is part of working our our salvation, but we need not, should not, approach our task in a state of fear. As ususal, you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of “government” wanting to force everyone to comply with your will. So, it appears does the Patriarch. That attitude is not Christian. If it were, Jesus would not have gone to the Cross, He would have come with an army of angels and sit on a worldly throne ruling us all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he reject that opportunity as a tempation of Satan?
I must confess, I have not been able to make it all the way through most of what Patriarch Bartholomew has written on the subject because it was obvious to me that he was taking an idelogical approach that had very little to do with the Church or an Orthodox response. Way too many buzz words that are little more than emoticons. The “green” philosophy is pagan. Pagans and Christians simply have no common ground to address the issue other than in the most superficial manner. I see absoultely no reason to “dialog” with them on the subject. At best, it is a waste of time, at worst could become a denial of the Chrisitan faith. Calling him the “Green” Patriarch is, when one considers the philosphical foundaton of the “green” movement, little short of calling the Patriarch apostate which I am sure he is not. To the extent that his words have aligned the Patriarch with the “green” philosophy however, he has abandoned the knowledge and the hope the God Incarnate brings.
“To do the right deed for the wrong reason, is surely the greatest treason” T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral.
Because I reject your means, you accuse me of rejecting the care of the earth. That is sheer sophistry and indicates either an unwillingness to engage in serious conversation or a shallowness of thought that makes serious conversation impossible—probably both.
The state of the earth is not a political problem, it is not a technological problem, it is not an economic problem. The state of the earth reflects the state of our union (or lack thereof) with God. The cure is to preach the Gospel, preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. The acute environmental problems that exist are not going to be eliminated without addressing the spiritual problems that create the disruption, despoilment, and abuse that exists. Certainly there are pragmatic adjustments and responses that can be made to ameliorate the problems while effectively allowing us to meet our humen needs.
The Elvis song you quote is just another way of asking me when I stopped beating my wife. Again sheer, unadulterated sophistry with out serious content.
Read St. Athanasius!
#87 Michael
That was very well written.
I agree, Michael wrote a very eloquent and reasoned post in #87. He truly focused on the core issues and presente the proper Christian perspectives vs. the pagan undertones that permeate the radical environmental dogmas. It’s a privilege to be in the company of such clear and deep thinkers. A big Thank You also goes out to Fr. Hans for providing this venue!
Michael writes: “you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of ‘government’ wanting to force everyone to comply with your will.”
So government action is “out” when it comes to the environment. Okay. Yet, in an issue like abortion, we bypass any talk about remedying the problem through spiritual reform, prayer, counseling and personal involvement and go straight to advocating the implementation of new laws (a tool of government). (Note: I think laws banning some abortions – and certainly PBA – would be perfectly democratic and reasonable.)
Consistency is a sticking point with me, and there seems to be a lack of it among our more Orthodox posters here on this issue, no?
Michael writes: “As ususal, you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of “government” wanting to force everyone to comply with your will.”
What are these individual and personal actions? Most large-scale environmental issues are highly regulated by the government, and sometimes even intimately involve the government as vendor.
For example, the government sells mineral extraction rights to companies. The government leases forests for logging. The government regulates commercial fishing. Government permits are necessary for dams and power plants. The government regulates disposal of garbage, hazardous waste, medical waste, and so on. The resources of oil-producing countries are typically owned or largely controlled by those governments. Governments regulate the auto industry and set mileage and safety standards.
Given that large-scale environmental issues are almost always intimately involve the government, what is the “personal” action that is supposed to happen. If my fleet of fishing boats and floating canneries destroys your fishery, what is the Christian response to that? Stop eating fish?
RE: 87) In Dean’s post about John Gray, I’m not sure who is quoting who, but the interesting – to me – quote is:
“Nobody, he points out, seems ready to face the obvious conclusion: the goals of these projects were unattainable from the outset. ”
This raises for me a fundamental point: it is rarely the goals of a project that explain the motivation of the actors. It is the methods. A man may be “saving the world” but if his method is murder, I assume murder is his real pleasure. He may be “bringing god to the people” but if his method is to dress up like a king and stand at an oaken pulpit elevated far above a mass of kneeling supplicants, I assume that dressing like a king and blabbing at a silent kneeling crowd is his real pleasure. “Educating our nations future leaders” may be his stated goal, but I assume that forcing himself on other people’s children with truancy laws and forcing their parents to pay him through the extortion racket of taxation is his real pleasure.
All this by way of saying that actions not only speak louder than words, they are the only real speech. If there is a real and just god, he does not bother listening to the noise of words. He watches behavior. Therein lies good and evil, not in the word, but in the action.
Jim & James K: perfect examples of binary thinking.
Mr. Scourtes #83:
“In this case I wanted to ask ‘What’s so ‘loopy’ about wanting to protect this earth for our children and future generations?’”
Of course, nobody is saying it is “loopy” to want to protect the earth. But, making up straw men seems to be a passtime of yours (as evidenced by the later lengthy quote regarding neoconservatives, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand).
And then:
“But when I advocate on behalf of actually doing these things you beliittle me and offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong.”
Because you don’t like theological arguments, and because I doubt I could improve on Mr. Bauman’s statements in any case, how about gracing us with an answer to this simple question:
Do you think it is or is not “loopy” when the Ecumenical Patriarch claims that humans cause earthquakes?
I personally think this and the EP’s other comments about the environment, which tend to be almost as irrational and uninformed, are an embarrassment to the Orthodox Church. But, I am curious about your reaction – particularly because you quoted this argument of the Patriarch.
Michael writes: “Jim & James K: perfect examples of bianary thinking.”
Not sure what that means, but I guess you done stuck it to us! Mission accomplished. Additional clarification or expansion of comments would be welcome.
Note 95. Jim Holman writes:
Michael is right. I caught it too. The only point extracted from the entire discussion was “government action” — as if that point was the only relevant and germaine idea expressed.
01011100. Spelled it wrong. Binary. Because I don’t agree with X I automatically agree with its opposite. It can also be called a dialectic of oppositions, dogmatic necessity any number of other things or it can be just sheer sophistry to avoid genuine discussion. The fact of the matter is that the point of what I was saying was entirely ignored and my thought miss represented all to paint me as an anti-government zealot.
Dean, last time I checked the Incarnation was not an opaque theological argument, but the very reason for our faith and the instrument of our salvation. If you are unable to comprehend even that little bit of the teaching of the Church, you really should stop claiming to be Orthodox.
Read St. Athanasius. He doesn’t use big words. He explains far more simply than I am able to because he really knows.
Dean, either the Incarnation of Jesus Christ means everything or it means nothing. There is no fence where you seem to think there is one.
Michael is right. I caught it too. The only point extracted from the entire discussion was “government action” — as if that point was the only relevant and germaine idea expressed.
Ah, but you assume they are here to “think” and “discuss” ideas. To so consistently “miss the point” and end up sounding like left wing political hacks, here to “counter” the “religious right”, they either ARE left wing political hacks, or are truly dim witted…
I am going to be gracious and assume they are left wing political hacks…that is Trolls…;)
prediction: They regroup and focus on “government action” for the next 20 posts, first claiming to simply be trying to “understand“, and then semi-politely asserting the usual left wing complaints…;(
But, I am curious about your reaction – particularly because you quoted this argument of the Patriarch.
He will have no real reaction – simply writing it off as the equivalent of a “slip of the tongue”. When you support the underlying hysteria (the doomsday environmental crises sentiment) it is it’s own justification…
Fr. Hans writes: “Michael is right. I caught it too. The only point extracted from the entire discussion was “government action” — as if that point was the only relevant and germaine idea expressed.”
Michael writes: “The fact of the matter is that the point of what I was saying was entirely ignored and my thought miss represented all to paint me as an anti-government zealot. . . . either the Incarnation of Jesus Christ means everything or it means nothing. There is no fence where you seem to think there is one.”
I did not take what you said as anti-government. I meant to show only that since government is so connected to many environmental issues, to address those issues necessarily involves government action. E.g., if you want to keep from destroying a particular fishery, then you have to have government regulations and quotas to ensure that it is not depleted.
I stayed away from the Athanasius part because I’m trying to avoid open criticism of people’s theology here. If I discuss theology, I’m criticized. If I don’t discuss theology it appears that I’m also criticized. So here goes.
The problem I have with your statement about incarnational theology is that I don’t agree with your interpretation of its meaning for environmentalism.
If the Word is eternally present throughout all creation and saves creation from corruption through His death and resurrection, thus making the creation not an end in itself but rather a means through which the Creator is known and divine truth is understood, then the creation serves as a kind of icon, pointing mankind to the Creator. In fact Athanasius alludes to that when he refers to what happens when “a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains.”
What happens then, when the icon of creation is used merely as an instrument for profit, and is thus desecrated? It is like Titus stealing the treasures of the temple in Jerusalem and turning them into coins.
While there is a right use of the creation, there is also an abuse of the creation. There is a point at which the icon of creation is defiled and defaced. Even if defiled, the icon of creation does not lose its sacred character, though I would argue, at some point the image of the Word is no longer visible.
Thus the creation is desecrated in two ways. First, its use strictly as a materialistic means of generating profit constitutes a denial of its sacred nature. Second, the extreme abuse of the creation obliterates the face of the Creator, and only the material aspect of the creation is visible.
Through modern technology we have reached a point at which we can literally destroy the creation. Vast forests that stood for centuries are gone in a day. Some species disappear and others are brought to the brink of extinction. There is massive pollution of land, sea, and air. Chemical and nuclear waste poisons the ground, making it uninhabitable.
Whether religious or not, many people have an instinctive sense of the sacredness of creation, and are thus moved to protect it. You mentioned the quote from Eliot that “To do the right deed for the wrong reason, is surely the greatest treason.” With all due respect to Eliot, I think that statement is wrong. If a conservator protects and preserves damaged icons, thinking of them only as works of art, is that the “greatest treason?” I don’t think so. People moved to protect creation may do so for religious reasons or other reasons. But whatever the reason, if you lose a species, you don’t get that species back. You lose a habitat, and that habitat may be gone forever. You cover farm land with asphalt and that land may never grow food again.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Had Titus taken the treasures of the temple and preserved them as works of art, it would have been better than melting them down and using them as money. In the latter case they are lost forever. In the former case we might have had them today.
While some environmentalists take extreme positions, the materialistic, profit-driven commercial forces, aided by modern technology, also constitute a kind of extremism. Thus commercial extremism spawns environmental extremism. Neither extremism is good, but there has to be some kind of countervailing force that slows down the commercial machine. Environmental extremism, however misguided, at least constitutes an acknowledgment of the sacred nature of the creation, however poorly understood or articulated it may be.
As a matter of practical fact, given the relationship between government and the environment, many times the only way to slow down the commercial machine is through governmental action. That doesn’t mean that the state of the earth is only a political, technological, or economic problem. But it does mean that those things can be used as tools to prevent the desecration of the creation, and sometimes they are the only tools available.
You say “The cure is to preach the Gospel, preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. The acute environmental problems that exist are not going to be eliminated without addressing the spiritual problems that create the disruption, despoilment, and abuse that exists.” But again, as a practical matter, if we eschew governmental action while waiting for some kind of spiritual apocatastasis to set everyone and everything aright, it may be too late.
Hey, Jim – you should talk about theology more often!
Jim, I largely agree with what you say. My point is the IMO Patriarch Batholomew departs from the witness of Church in favor of modern ideology. He should lead on the environment, but he should lead from the fundamental understanding of the Church. If he would do so, his leadership would have more power and authority certainly with those whom he is impowered to lead. The Pope’s leadership is founded upon the office of the Papacy, the Patriarch should speak from the Church. He is not.
Greed is a spiritual problem. The utopians (Dean is I fear one) assume that greed can be conquered if you have enough regulation, i.e. laws which means that ultimately the coerceive power of the state is required. The coerceive power of the state is founded upon its ability to abridge freedom (incarcerate), confiscate, or kill. The very power that so many of the enviornmental groupies are horrified at when it comes to protecting our country.
Law, at best, controls the sinful impluses of people in specific and limited ways. The apocalyptic globlal warmers go much further than that while at the same time denying man’s true nature. Dean not long ago actually made a post in which he claimed he (and California) would “save the world” by using florescent light bulbs. That’s loopy. A thoughtful, pragmatic governmental response that keeps the genuine needs of human beings paramount is appropriate. The mass hysteria promoted by the global warming fanatics and the concomitant over-reaction of govenment is not.
Patriarch Bartholomew partakes not only of the ideological rhetoric and mind-set but neccessarily thereby of the utopian ideal. Ideological utopianism always leads to disaster and tyranny.
The only actions over which I have any control are my own. The actions that matter are my personal ones. The GWF’s (global warming fanatics) don’t care about people, only about their ideology and their power, at least that is what they communicate to me.
P.S. I don’t mind when you comment on theology in a thoughtful way, I do mind when your comments descend into a philosphical rant against God. There really isn’t any point to that on this site, plus its boring.
I’ll have to defend Dean here. I don’t consider him Utopian in the sense of the Marxist thinkers.
I do think he looks far to much to the state, and is too comfortable with state power, but that doesn’t make him a Utopian.
It might make him a statist. It might also make him naive in believing that bureaucrats would act in the best interest of the ‘people’ rather than in their own.
But, I’ve never read anything out of either Dean or Jim that would lead me to believe that they are Utopian.
I can understand how a strong pro-Life message advances the cause of Christ, since our Savior taught us that all life is precious and sacred to God.
I can understand how support for private and/or public efforts to help the poor advance the cause of Christ since our Savior tauight us to love our neighbor and see Him in the face of every poor person we meet.
I don’t understand how attacking people trying to protect our environment, God’s creation, advances the cause of Christ. To me it is a counter-productive and only serves to bolster the propaganda of the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and other athiests, who see religion as a menace.
The entire misguided attempt to deny global warming reaffirms the views of secularists who see religion as implacably in opposition to empiricism and evidence-based science, and people of faith as primitives who live in a world of myth and magic.
The science behind the warnings of temperature change and its adverse effects is solid and supported by a huge body of research and an ovewhelming majority of the most qualified and knowlegable experts. On the other side, there is a desperate, grasping-at-straws quality as the deniers seize first on one contrarian argument, and as soon as that one is dicrediited, another and another, in a stubborn attempt to avoid having to admit that maybe the environmental movement was right after all.
We rely on science to build bridges and skyscrapers, design medicines and computer chips, in short to make our world a better place to live. This reliance makes us no less Christian, nor does it degrade our relationship with God in any way. Similarly, we need to rely on science to protect our planet against environmental degradation that could harm hundreds of millions of people. This urgent imperative outweighs any disagreements we may have with people of secular outlook on other issues.
Mr. Scourtes #106:
“I don’t understand how attacking people trying to protect our environment, God’s creation, advances the cause of Christ.”
I’ve not read anything here that attacks people who are trying to protect the environment. I don’t see any “deniers” who say global temperature does not change, either. There is, however, plenty of criticism of the idea that humans cause global warming.
“Similarly, we need to rely on science to protect our planet against environmental degradation that could harm hundreds of millions of people.”
I agree with this statement 100%. This is why I, drawing on my training and practice in science, engineering, and mathematical modeling, disagree with the hypothesis that humans cause global warming. But, the details have been debated repeatedly in other threads.
Given your claim to rely so heavily on science, I am curious to know what kind of science you have in mind when you cite the Ecumenical Patriarch’s claim that humans cause earthquakes? I really want to know. You posted the citation, now why don’t you defend it?
#103: Personally I find it only a matter of degree between a committed statist and a utopian. They both tend to believe in the “perfectability of man” or go the other way and want individuals to be absorbed in the state or the group or whatever. The statist may be a little more pragmatic in some instances. Never said Jim was a utopian.
To second Michael, Dean is a utopian in the sense that he is a secular progressive.
While some environmentalists take extreme positions, the materialistic, profit-driven commercial forces, aided by modern technology, also constitute a kind of extremism. Thus commercial extremism spawns environmental extremism. Neither extremism is good, but there has to be some kind of countervailing force that slows down the commercial machine.
People and their quest for wealth is not a “machine”, as in “commercial machine”. It can be greed (as Michael says) but just as often, particularly in the “developing” world, it is just as much a quest for the basics.
Environmental extremism, however misguided, at least constitutes an acknowledgment of the sacred nature of the creation, however poorly understood or articulated it may be.
Not true, at least when speaking in a Christian way. Your use of the term “sacred” here is too fraught with a “comparative religion” sense.
Where as you would error on the side of “Environmental extremism”, I would say that the “commercial machine” definitely has the edge morally here. “Environmental extremism” is all about power, non-Christian views of creation (both nature and man), and using the state to enforce those views (it’s really a state religion). The “commercial machine” on the other hand at least has the virtue of being a phenomena of differing people, all with differing views and goals, all trying to attain both the basics for survival as well as things they don’t really need. It also recognizes basic freedoms of persons. Give me the “commercial machine” any day. But all this is really beside the point:
You (and Dean and no doubt others) seem to think that to question this or that particular, or even to question this or that Bishop means that Traditional Christians don’t wish to be stewards of the creation, or understand the role Caesar plays. As is typical here, this is really about left wing politics, as your limited use of Athanasuis. In typical left-wing-political-hack fashion, feel the need to once again defend “the government” from the “religious right”.
You don’t even join the conversation really, which has moved past that to determine what and how to be Stewards. Thus Dean can through out useless and dimwitted caricatures such as:
“I don’t understand how attacking people trying to protect our environment, God’s creation, advances the cause of Christ.”
Yea, you don’t understand. You don’t even understand what we are criticizing (in Patriarch Bartholomew for example). Jim thinks we are somehow “eschew(ing) governmental action ”
Jim and Dean, did you READ the original article? Did you READ Michael’s post? You two are such reflexive left-wing-political-hacks you have completely missed the relevant points once again…
But hey, only 18 more posts from both of you before this thread gets closed…;)
Hey Jim Holman -
I’ve been away for a couple of days and am wondering if I missed something. Did anyone from Lawrence Livermore get back to you to explain how sooo much water got in the atmosphere over the last 20 years? I’d like to use that knowledge to design a super humidifier or some such thing. But, then, maybe this is another of those subjects where there is “special” science related to climate.
I enjoy theology as much as the next guy, but most environmental issues get mucked up in theology before anyone has basic scientific understanding and a common set of definitions. Before I talk about the theology of environmentalism I want to know what exactly it means to “despoil” the environment. If I cut down 10 trees have I despoiled the environment? How about 100 trees? How many trees is it OK to cut down and how do we determine that number? Trees get cut down so that people can live in houses and read newspapers. To what extent should we limit those activities in order to save trees?
I’m not trying to be cute or difficult here, I really want to know. How can we even talk about these topics without a common understanding of the basics?
Tom C writes: “Did anyone from Lawrence Livermore get back to you to explain how sooo much water got in the atmosphere over the last 20 years?”
No, the email didn’t bounce, but I haven’t heard anything from anyone.
Tom C: “Before I talk about the theology of environmentalism I want to know what exactly it means to “despoil” the environment. If I cut down 10 trees have I despoiled the environment? How about 100 trees? How many trees is it OK to cut down and how do we determine that number? Trees get cut down so that people can live in houses and read newspapers. To what extent should we limit those activities in order to save trees?”
Good question. I’m obviously not an expert in the field, but I would think it must have something to do with the resilience of the resource, the uniqueness of the resource, and the permanence of the damage.
I used to work in the fishing industry in Alaska. The fisheries are highly controlled there. There are strict quotas, and licensing requirements even to be able to fish. Sometimes a fishery would open up for only a few days before the quota was caught. Why? Because without those limitations a fishery would eventually be depleted for years. A lot of that has to do with modern technology. For example, we’re not talking about a guy going out in a small boat with a few crab pots, but about 110 foot boats that could hold 50 tons of crab and pull large numbers of pots in multiple sets. So the fishery had to be managed so as to be able to recover for the next season.
Trees are different because (here in Oregon) it takes around 80 years to grow a new forest. In my younger days I used to do reforestation work (the hardest job on the face of the planet, in my opinion.) If you don’t replant after harvest then the whole nature of the land changes, and 80 years later there’s little to harvest. It’s an interesting experience to be on a treeplanting crew up in the mountains, and everywhere you look, for miles, on all degrees of the compass, there are no trees anywhere. It’s not that 1 tree or 10 trees or 100 trees have been cut, but all of them have been cut. You get the idea real quick that this is an activity that has to be managed.
Location is also important, as the activity of logging also can cause other problems including erosion and contamination of streams with silt, even to the point of contaminating drinking water supplies. And you don’t want to cut down trees in a scenic area either. Tourists want to come to Oregon to see the beautiful trees, and I doubt that dirt, stumps, slash, and vine maple would be much of a draw.
Not all forests are the same. Old growth forests provide habitat that younger forests don’t. Last I knew around 95 percent of old growth forests around the country are gone, and 90 percent here in Oregon. So you have to manage old growth differently from other forests. You don’t grow an “old growth” forest back in 80 years.
As you say, “Trees get cut down so that people can live in houses and read newspapers.” The question is “which people?” Just us, or future generations as well? Maybe our grandchildren would like to eat crab and build houses too. Maybe they would like to see what an old growth forest looks like. I think that’s the ultimate question. If we answer in the affirmative, then we have to manage the resources to ensure that they can.
#112 Jim Holman
Thanks for your well thought-out answer. I remember seeing the vast areas of clear-cut mountainside in Oregon for the first time and being taken aback. That was an emotional response on my part. I later had a chance to discuss logging practices with informed persons and realized that the issue was very complex. Trees are going to be cut down because people need wood. Where does it make the most sense to cut them? There are several reasons why Oregon mountainsides are an ideal place. If you put too severe limits on the logging there it will simply move somewhere else, probably to South America where the practices are unsavory.
I was trying to lure someone into the question of whether our “concern for the environment” is based on human needs or on some intrinsic rights that are possessed by the non-human natural world. In you last paragraph you concluded that the former was your concern.
That’s good, because it’s also my concern as well. In fact, I doubt anyone posting here would want to deplete something so that it would not be enjoyed by future generations.
You realize, though, that now the question is one of economics (“the study of how scarce resources with alternate uses are allocated”). As such, environmental concerns are most rationally addressed through economics. I would argue that economics grounded in Christian stewardship is the best approach.
This approach has nothing to do with the hyper-emotional, incoherent “green” philosophy which so dominates public life these days.
Tom C: Now I’m confused in post #111 you say “I enjoy theology as much as the next guy, but most environmental issues get mucked up in theology before anyone has basic scientific understanding and a common set of definitions.”
Then in #113 you say ” You realize, though, that now the question is one of economics (”the study of how scarce resources with alternate uses are allocated”). As such, environmental concerns are most rationally addressed through economics. I would argue that economics grounded in Christian stewardship is the best approach.
This approach has nothing to do with the hyper-emotional, incoherent “green” philosophy which so dominates public life these days.”
In 111 you seem to be eschewing a theological approach in favor of a pragmantic empiricism while the statement in 113 is a theological one similar to my own.
Could you clarify for me which direction you think we ought to take?
#114 Michael
I guess I don’t see the contradiction. As Fr. Jacobse always says, God wants us to use our brains and make well-informed decisions when we address problems. My impression is that people throw around lofty theological ideas about the environment without thinking about or understanding practical realities.
In this thread we have had reference to “desecration of nature”, “despoiling of nature”, “protection of the environment”, “caring for the environment”, and that is not even mining the morass of words that Patriarch Bartholomew put out. I very highly doubt that most people can put definitions on these terms that make any scientific sense. So, everyone is talking past the other from the very start. How can we argue theology from such a starting point?
How about a test? Lets say everyone involved in this thread puts up a definition of “caring for the environment”. Let’s see if people are even talking about the same thing.
But, Dean S., you are shooting yourself in the foot. We weren’t saying that global warming does not happen, we were saying that it is beyond our control. This article supports our position. Is this John Christy’s “skepticism” on the issue of man causing global warming, or the issue of global warming actually occurring?
Dean – My foot is fine. Consider this – if ocean levels will rise by three feet despite all our best efforts to control carbon emissions – how much more will they rise if do nothing.
One commenator writes:
http://plumer.blogspot.com/
#115, Tom C: My father always taught me to think and act from the general to the specific, not the other way around.
We cannot even begin to answer the question you pose, “what is caring for the environment” without first answering the theological questions and from that the anthropological ones. The question of caring is a theological/anthropological concept as is the nature of the environment and our ability/authority to effect it. That is why “inter-faith dialogs” on the environment are useless. Pagans and Christians simply will not have the same idea of what “the environment” even is, let alone our responsibility toward it. It is an even greater waste of time trying to find a common ground for action with those who profess no faith.
Even raising the question in the manner you do, however, IMO presupposes a separation between who and what we are and the state of the rest of creation that I do not believe exists. If we follow the way of Christ in prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance, the earth which has groaned in travail until now and still goans under the weight of our sins will be healed. If we do not follow the way of Christ, nothing we attempt to do will be of any avail as the earth will remain a barren fig tree.
I find a common thread throughout the following quotes that may point further to my answer:
•“Truth is not just an abstract idea, sought and known with the mind, but something personal—even a Person—sought and loved with the heart, Jesus Christ”
Fr. Seraphim Rose
•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 Chronicles 7:14
•If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now; yet it will come: the readiness is all.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2
•Let simplicity accompany you everywhere. Be especially simple in your faith, hope, and love, for God is not a complex Being, and our soul is also simple. The flesh hinders the simplicity of our soul when we gratify it; let meekness be its crown. Saint John of Kronstadt
•Psalm 104/103 that begins Vespers partially quoted: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his agnesl spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the eart, that it should not be removed forever…”
•“Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” Jesus Christ
•the poor..”care not for wealth, and are superior to covetousness, are despisers of base gifts, and of a disposition free from the love of money, and who set no value upon the ostentatious display of riches”
St. Cyril of Alexandria commenting on Luke 6:20,
“Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
•The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much To mitigate the justice of thy plea; Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1
•I must not fear. Fear is the mind (soul) killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear, I will permit it to pass over and through me. When it is gone past, I will turn my inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Frank Herbert, DUNE
My apologies to Mr. Herbert for the slight alteration of the Bene Gesserit mantra against fear. But you see the global warming fanatics do nothing but attempt to sow fear and hysteria. As long as that is their message, as a Christian, I cannot listen.
But Dean S. that information was not in the original article. Who is this commentator. Is it this Mr. Christy? Is this person qualified. I could comment that the entire Earth will be under water and have a median temperature of 350 K by 2008, but I would probably be wrong
.
Dean S.: If C=”extreme environmental controls”, B= rising seal levels, A= factors beyond our control…
If B occurs due to A, it does not follow that B will be affected due to C.
It is just a logical fallacy. Look at the climate change in the 13th or 14th (can’t remember) century, where global temperatures dropped markedly. Or even 1816, the “year with no summer”, is a clear example of B occurs due to A.
It appears Christy was mischaracterized. See follow up article below:
Excerpt:
Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions. The AP article also has been accused of mischaracterizing the views of a leading skeptic of man-made global warming fears. The scientists are dismissing the AP article, entitled “Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History” (LINK) as a “scare tactic,” “sheer speculation,” and “hype of the worst order.” (H/T: Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org – LINK)
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer ridiculed the AP article.
“Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle. Not only do real studies show no increase to rate of sea level change, the [AP] article gives reasons for concern that are nonsense,” Courtney told Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand slammed the article as well:
“This [AP article] is a typical scare story based on no evidence or facts, but only on the ‘opinions’ and ‘beliefs’ of ‘experts’, all of whom have a financial interest in the promotion of their computer models,” Gray wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog.
Swedish Professor Wibjorn Karlen of the Department of Social and Economic Geography at Stockholm University:
“Another of these hysterical views of our climate,” Karlen wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog regarding the AP article. “Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate,” Karlen explained.
The September 22, 2007 Associated Press article promoting future computer generated climate fears, appears just days before a high profile UN climate summit in New York City this week. The AP’s Seth Borenstein has a history of promoting unverifiable climate fears of the future (See: “AP Incorrectly claims scientists praise Gore’s movie” from June 2006 – LINK )
This AP report comes at a time when the peer-reviewed science is continuing to debunk the foundation of man-made climate change fears. (See “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears” (LINK)
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated that the AP mischaracterized his views on sea level in the article promoting climate fears a hundred years from now.
“[My] discussion [with the AP reporter Seth Borenstein] was primarily about the storm surges which come from hurricanes – that’s the real vulnerability. The sea level is rising around 1 inch per decade, but sea level is like any other climate parameter – its either rising or falling all the time. To me, 16 inches per century is not a significant problem to deal with. But since storm surges of 15 to 30 feet occur in 6 hours, any preventive strategy, like an extra 3 feet of elevation, would be helpful,” Christy wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press blog.
“Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris. I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm – about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn’t seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend,” Christy explained.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551&Issue_id=
But, Dean S., you are shooting yourself in the foot.
That’s nothing new. We ask again, “what is Man”?
We weren’t saying that global warming does not happen
You are a Big Fat Liar. I HOPE, I PRAY we are in a warming trend, and I think instead of fighting it we should do all we can to speed it up! Been to any Big Fat Liar (um, I mean Weddings) lately?
we were saying that it is beyond our control.
Yes, mostly. Our contribution of CO2 is likely a minor player in this current warming trend, which would have happened with or with out us.
But please, spam the tread with another 20 too long quotations – Fr. Jacobse has not given the blog over to the Trolls completely yet, but you are trying…;)
Christopher, Dean and Dean Scourtes are two different folks (really they are). Dean (not Scourtes) actually has some reasonable things to say.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bauman. I am sorry for the confusion caused. Incidentally, my last name also starts with an ‘s’, so it may be a bit confusing, so I just use my first name. I try to apply reason to our world problems within an Orthodox framework (though I am a very poor Christian). Be glad and rejoice and give praise for the day God hath made!
I stand corrected. I thought Dean S was using a self dialogue of sorts. Now that I take the time to notice the difference I see my mistake.
Michael writes: “We cannot even begin to answer the question you pose, “what is caring for the environment” without first answering the theological questions and from that the anthropological ones.”
That sounds good, but let’s say we agree on these issues. How is one’s theology expected to play itself out in real-life, practical terms? If one has the “right” ideas about the Incarnation and man, his role with the environment will be … what exactly?
A side note about what I think motivates some within the environmental community: man-made changes to the environment and the impact on animals. My understanding of Orthodox theology is that suffering is not an end in itself: though it can be rightfully avoided at times, individual suffering may also play a part in the redemption of man. Suffering itself, however, is not to be embraced as an intrinsic good for its own sake. Animals, because they cannot share in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, however, should not be forced to endure unnecessary, pointless suffering. Were this acceptable, there would be no moral reason to condemn acts such as dog fighting or torturing animals for sport. This does not mean putting animals over humanity, but it does seem that having an awareness of the “sacredness” of all life does not imply a rejection of all that is Orthodox.
I thus am still trying to grasp why rejecting any positive benefits of environmental activism seems to be the norm among our more Orthodox posters.
I thus am still trying to grasp why rejecting any positive benefits of environmental activism seems to be the norm among our more Orthodox posters.
Which is a caricature of our position – the binary thinking Michael already talked about. It really does not deserve an answer…
JamesK, as much as you would like for there to be, there is no legalistic program for salvation. The state of the earth reflects our spiritual state (individually and corporately). Unfortunately, you cannot assume agreement on matters of the spirit that do not exist. The practical is already in what I have written, it is just not a practical that is limited by empiricism, expressed legalistically and driven by ideology. Simple work done well for the benefit of others. A simple life not surfeited with “things”. A life marked by what the Fathers call dispassion. The little things done with love. I don’t have to “save the world”, it has already been saved. I just have to participate in that salvation by submitting to Christ’s love, which means submitting to the Cross.
Repent, pray, give alms, fast, worship the Creator more than the created thing, love my neighbor as myself. What is more practical than these? We will be in harmony with creation when we are in harmony with God. If we continue in our rebellion, nothing we do will bear good fruit. If we are living a life of repentance, relying on the grace of God and His dominion, nothing we do will be lastingly destructive even when we fall into sin.
What is the public policy that is in accord with such living? We cannot even imagine until enough of us start living Godly lives, then the public policy will become obvious. To even begin, we must eschew ideology and fear.
JamesK, while it is out of my depth to address your comments on suffering in detail, I can say with confidence that you do not grasp what the Church teaches here. I’m sure Fr. Hans could explain more completely. Father?
Michael writes: “What is the public policy that is in accord with such living? We cannot even imagine until enough of us start living Godly lives, then the public policy will become obvious. To even begin, we must eschew ideology and fear.”
Ok, but on a regular basis we do establish policies in all sorts of other areas — military, social, economic, political (e.g., form of government), and so on. What is it about the environment that requires a “critical mass” (for lack of a better term) of believers before environmental policy can be addressed? In your view, what is it about the environment that requires this different treatment?
Jim, the state of the environment is, more than any of the other issues we face, an ontological one, intrinsic to who we are as human beings and why we are here. That is why it is so personal. Of course there are obvious, pragmatic steps we can and should take to lessen and prevent the worst abuses. If carefully crafted, they will help. However, to suggest, as the plans of the global warmers do, that we can and MUST undertake massive world-wide action or we are doomed is stupid. Scale is crucial. Our ecology is made up of many, many ecosystems that are interrelated in an amazingly complex manner. Large-scale environmental proposals are akin to doing brain surgery with a sledgehammer.
Any proposed solution that is ideologically founded and driven will do more damage than good whatever the intentions. Ideology ignores the personal and the intimate. Ideology de-humanizes. The last thing we need is more de-humanized policies toward the environment.