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
To repeat what Mr. Banescu already said, while we are bombing the blog with outside links:
I included below several must-see videos on the Glogal Warming debate. They make some key points that balance out the hysteria of the alarmists and the dogma and propaganda spread by Al Gore and his blind and unquestioning followers.
Beck’s global warming special with industry-funded “experts”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RxPNFy27kc&NR=1
Exposed: the Climate of Fear – Glenn Beck (full video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7221788764767175476
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part I of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo2VSsDqsk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part II of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Venw45DNX5g
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part III of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRcIVBwrTVk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part IV of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWaKP2Dj7Xc
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part V of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQxCq59_g4
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part VI of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcRc_UuK5To
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.)
Dean, is there something in your mind-set that requires dogmatic answers? If there is, it is no wonder you prefer quoting the Pope over studying and understanding Orthodox Tradition. If there is, it is no wonder you prefer mass solutions that rarely solve anything over the application of spiritual principals in life. For Christians, the small stuff matters far more. Check out, Why the Small Things Matter.
A Christian has to learn to live with the reality of the mixture of good and evil in our lives created by our unwillingness to submit to the love of Jesus Christ. God’s commands to us our simple, but not simplistic, they are personal because He is person but they are not individualistic. They are communal without being tyrannical because it is only in communion with Him that we have being. Being a Christian requires acceptance of the antinomical reality of our lives in union with Christ. Dialectic dogmatism is not Christian.
I see absolutely nothing in the mass proposals to “end global warming” (an impossibility no matter what the cause) that reflect love of neighbor or love of God. In fact, they are redolent with denial of God and lack of concern for neighbor.
It is strange that you advocate dogmatic answers to global warming and refuse them where they really exist-abortion. I must admit I do not comprehend the premises that give rise to your logic (materialism is the only one that I can ascertain as a possibility). There is nothing that is recognizable to me as Orthodox Christianity. That saddens me.
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…
Note 63. John Howard writes:
It’s not boredom. It’s secularized apocalyptic thinking. They take a doomsday motiff and create a narrative arround it. This round is global warming. Past rounds were population explosions. These narratives are legitimized by appeals to authority, in this case science.
Why are certain populations susceptible to this kind of thinking? One reason is that the teleology (Greek: telos – end) of the foundational cultural narrative of the West requires some kind of cataclysmic clash. It’s the only way to reconcile the conflict between good and evil. This functions as a self-evident axiom, but its source really lies in the book of Genesis. Eschewing recourse to the scripture however, the axiom must be necessarily secularized, that is, stripped of any transcendent reference, and so nature replaces word and spirit, and good and evil is given a concrete locus in actions that ostensibly defile or safeguard nature.
It’s interesting though, that nature, often seen as a benevolent goddess of sorts on one hand (the nuturer of life), is also perceived as a threatening demi-god on the other. Upset the balance, and this pristine source of all goodness will raise it’s head in destructive and beastly fury. The god of the global warmers resembles the god of Mani a lot more than the God of Abraham.
What upsets the balance? Sin, but it’s sin defined in a matrix of nature veneration that, again, takes different forms — global warming today, something different tomorrow. That’s what’s behind labelling global warming debunkers as deniers. It’s a deliberate attempt to lump the sinners in the same camp as holocaust deniers through the clever manipulation of language.
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.
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.
Note 78. Dean writes:
It worries me that the Patriarch would be so quick to jump on an issue that is still contentious in the academy. If I were his advisor, I’d urge more caution — much like Pope Benedict shows:
If man-caused global warming ends up being another doomsday fad (which I believe it will), the Patriarch’s authority will take a big hit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.