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
#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?
#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.
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.