I came across an interesting article on global warming. Now, I am all for caring for the environment in a Biblically responsible way. We are called to steward God’s creation not abuse it.
However, there has long seemed to be an ulterior agenda behind the scientific “consensus” concerning global warming. And I have never taken their claims too seriously. One reason concerns the fact that the vast majority of greenhouse gases are purely wator vapor! Add to that the fact that one giant volcanic explosion (like that of Krakatoa), can in one instant launch more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the pollution mankind has achieved in more than 100 years!
Well, here is the article from the Telegraph. By reading it I learned several interesting facts, some of which I will list here below, and others you will only see if you go read the article yourself (HT: Phil Johnson).
- There was a global warming period back in the Medieval Age (from around 1000 to 1400 AD). This period had average temperatures well above our own. (For example, back then Norwegians could farm the soil in Greenland, today we cannot as it is under a layer of permafrost.)
- This warm period has been edited out in the United Nations’ most recent global warming report. This was achieved through an ingenious method of redefining terms and messing with data.
- In the past half century, the sun has been warmer than it has been in the past 10,000 years plus! Certainly this fact could be seen as a big cause in the recent warmer temperatures! (We haven’t polluted the sun yet!)
- “In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch).”
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
I believe the global warming panic has nothing to do with science and everything to do with left wing politics. IMO it is an anti-American, anti-capitalist socialist movement.
Jazzy,
I agree. Science is not neutral anymore. The bias reveals itself in how they treat evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is not based on observation, which is the hallmark of the scientific method. But rather than giving intelligent design equal opportunity in a marketplace of ideas, they claim it is an afront to “established science” and hence, that it is “unscientific”.
Totally agree. Unfortunately, we can no longer simply trust the pronouncements of ‘scientists’ as true, especially if they come with political or theological implications. Like so many of these controversies, what passes for discussion about it on the web is mostly done by people who lack the relevant qualifications for comment.
However, here’s a handy-dandy little method for looking at controversies like this.
Presume there is a controversy ‘X’ about which there are mainly 2 opposing groups of experts, ‘A’ and ‘B’. Both of the expert groups seem to have equivalent credentials to the untrained eye. One group may or may not be larger or figure more prominently in the media; this machs nix. You know nothing much about ‘X’ except that there’s controversy about it. But there is also controversy ‘Y’, about which there are not only 2 opposing groups of experts, but the groups mainly break out such that the members of groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ for both controversies are the same to a large degree. You know enough about controversy ‘Y’ to be confident in taking a stand on it, such that you agree with expert group ‘A’ on the subject. You are now reasonably justified in taking stand ‘A’ on controversy ‘X’.
When I apply this method to ‘global warming’, I find myself with the provisional opinion that the whole thing’s a crock.
BTW, one can profitably apply the same method to things like ‘intelligent design’, age of the earth, whether families are better off now or in the ’50’s, whether the ‘Pill’ is abortifacient, etc.
Interesting thoughts, Doc. While this approach may be correct, I think the better one is to study up on issues and not just go with whatever flow you prefer. Granted we can lean one way or the other, but ultimately we need to be people of truth and evalutate issues in a full fledged way—studying and concluding for ourselves.
I wish I had the time and ability to follow Fundy’s advice, but life is short. I admit to having used Doc’s approach (as generalized to yard signs) as part of figuring out whom to vote for in down-ballot electoral races. I have a neighbor who can very reliably be trusted to campaign boldly for all the wrong people.
Austin Bob,
I hear you totally! It is easier to not delve into issues personally. And I am so guilty of that myself. But falling back on a second-best practice is not the same as stating that the second-best way to do it is the best way.
True enough. And at least with respect to elections, we need to remember not to take them too seriously.