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
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.
John Christy, a global warming sceptic, has joined the chorus warning of rising ocean levels.
Rising seas projected to overtake U.S. coastal history within a century
AP, September 22, 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20070922-1021-risingseas.html
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.