Global warming is an issue that scientists are beginning to address in moral terms. We have a moral obligation to future generations to protect the earth, is the gist of many scientists’ appeals to people to listen to their analyse.
We don’t expect priests or ministers to preach global warming on a Sunday – though that, too, is beginning to change.
Michael S Northcott is Professor of Ethics at the University of Edinburgh and a priest in the Scottish Episcopal Church. He has just written a book, A Moral Climate: the ethics of global warming, in which he examines the ethical implications for Christians of climate change.
He begins each chapter with a quotation from the prophet Jeremiah and is not afraid to talk of “the immorality of global warming”. He writes that “the spiritual vision of divine grace” is needed to save the earth and its people.
The immorality of Global Warming? How about “repealing the law of gravity”? Global Warming is a natural cycle, as many, many studies have shown. But they don’t get the press coverage, do they? of course not, they are not poltically correct and in vogue, and so don’t bring in the money!
It is encouraging that books like this are being written. To the extent that GW is the result of human activity, and the consensus of the IPCC is that 80% (politically speaking) to 90% (scientifically speaking) is due to human activity (sorry libraryjim, but the evidence is overwhelming that this time we have much more than a ntural cycle), then GW is indeed a moral issue. Christians have a particular obligation since Genesis 1 and 2 declare that our primary vocation as People of God is to care for this part of God’s creation that we have been placed on. It is heartening that more and more people across the spectrum of Christian faith, from Pope Benedict to Rick Warren and Richard Cizik, are emerging as leaders.
(Raspberry Rabbit: “The Scottish Episcopal Church: lighter, less filling.” I quoted that to a Scottish Episcopalian in Ediburgh last month, and he laughed.)
To the extent that GW is the result of human activity, and the consensus of the IPCC is that 80% (politically speaking) to 90% (scientifically speaking) is due to human activity (sorry libraryjim, but the evidence is overwhelming that this time we have much more than a ntural cycle)
It doesn’t matter how many times one says this, it doesn’t make it so. There are more and more questions being asked about the validity of the science behind these kinds of assertions, and more and more climate scientists (not just generic “scientists”) who are denouncing the hysteria and apocalypticism behind what amounts to a new religious movement. I’m all for responsible use of natural resources, but an awful lot of what’s being handed out under that label these days is nothing more than old-fashioned statism repackaged with a “save-the-Earth!” label.
Actually, Bob, the ‘consensus’ is only the consensus because debate has been, until recently, stifled by the pro-anthropogenic side of the argument. Al Gore said it so well in his book “Earth in the Balance”: “Those who disagree that global warming is caused by humans should just shut up and let us get on with the business of saving the earth” (he’s right on one thing — it’s a business! and a very profitable one at that!).
Recently, when asked on CNN why he won’t debate his detractors he just shouts “The debate is OVER! There is no debate”. And thus, to the public, it looks like the debate is over.
Fortunately, scientists like Singer, Lindzen, Deming, et al, are finally finding outlets to push the natural cycle side of the argument, even if they are not finding a welcome among the so-called ‘peer-reviewed outlets’ or the main-stream media.
Face it, which causes papers to sell:
a: “Climate change natural cycle” or
b: “Earth is doomed if we don’t act!”
Frankly, until debate is encouraged in all arenas on this topic, I will continue to believe that anthropogenic Gorbal Warming is only propaganda. One side cannot make an overwhelming argument in science without the other side being allowed to test their hypothesis in an open environment. Saying “your side doesn’t matter, the case is closed” only shows a dogmatic adherence to an unproven, contested, bias.
a good resource: “the politically incorrect guide to global warming (and environmentalism)” by Christopher C. Horner (a provocative, entertaining, and well-documented expose of some of the most shamelessly politicized pseudo-science we are likely to see in our relatively cool lifetimes.)
Also: “Unstoppable Global Warming: once every 1,500 years” by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer. (Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we’re warming, why it’s not very dangerous, and why we can’t stop it anyway. )
— blurbs from Amazon dot com
As to your other point, if you have been reading my comments on this blog for long, you will KNOW beyond a doubt that I am a conservationist Christian. I firmly and fully believe that our duty as Christians is stewardship of the Earth God has given us as a home. This also is incorporated in the command to “love our neighbor as ourself” — i.e., how can we say we love our neighbor when we do nothing to make sure they can breathe the air, drink the water and farm their land more efficiently? But not because ‘we are causing the earth to heat up’ (we are not) but rather because God commands it.
To the folks who discount the scientific evidence behind CO2 based theories of global warming–
What are you afraid of? So what if the science is bad? So, we all end up emitting less toxins–We all end up conserving more–The oil industry & the oil rich middle east (whom I do not admire) ends up being unable to dictate prices to American consumers….So what?
Some of us think massive economic dislocations and condemning most of the world’s poplation to remain in grinding poverty, while at the same time handing vast powers to the State in order to enfore whatever ti sees fit on the rest of us to mean something more than a shrug, Nate.
Nate,
What Andrew said. To agree with the (false) ‘consensus’ in this case means giving Governmental agencies broad power over almost every aspect of our lives.
Do we [i]really[/i] trust the government — ours or the U.N. or any other government — to handle that in any way, shape or form with any degree of competence (The recent discussion on post-Katrina NOLA, as well as the U.N. and the food for oil scandal come to mind as helping to answer this question)?
#6/#7 So, the way out of grinding poverty is by extracting expensive fossil-fuels rather than by developing energy sources which are cheap & cannot be exhausted?
And current energy policies are not examples of the state enforcing [i] anything[/i] on the people? I get your Ron Paul style suspicion of government (and share it at points)–In regards to energy policy though it’s a poor model in my opinion–The choice is between allowing our government to set energy policy versus allowing the Saudis & the Iranians to set it for us.
I’m really not trying to be picky , just trying to figure out what you’re afraid of.
Nate, there is nothing bad about the science of global warming though the deniers wish it were so. But I’ve learned to make my point and move on because there is no sense debating this issue.
Nate,
Oil and natural gas are extremely efficient resources: you drill a hole in the earth and energy comes out. If you want cleaner and more efficient, go nuclear. Hydroelectric is good too. Wind, solar and biomass don’t even come close. They all have to be subsidized.
“Global warming” raises more questions than it answers. What is the earth’s optimum temperature and when has such existed? Along similar lines, life on earth would cease to exist without CO2, so what is the optimum level of CO2 and when has such existed? Also, since water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas, why the focus on CO2 instead of water vapor?
“The deniers”???
Oh, come on, Bob, I expected better from YOU!
Supporting an alternate viewpoint backed by viable scientific studies by respected scientists from across the scientific spectrum does not amount to being a ‘denier’.
Scientists are nice, but how about climatologists?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21973
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/
If you’re going to “think green” or “vote green”, that’s fine but it pays to educate yourself using the REAL knowledge of people who have studied this phenomenon for decades.
Bob, I don’t believe that there is either. The overwhelming majority of research supports the fact that human activity is responsible for the earth warming—I don’t expect to find agreement on this here–What I WAS hoping to pin down is WHY the folks who don’t agree with the scientific consensus on warming find those who believe in it so dangerous. I asked the question and received no well-documented fears in return. Maybe there are alot of people on this site employed by the internal combustion engine lobby…
Nate, my ears prick whenever I come acorss anyone who, for any reason, wants to give broad,s weeping new powers to government and brooks no disucssion as to why. Change the words from “Global Warming” to “Terrorism” and “Al Gore” to “George Bush.” Do you still support blank checks of authority to government and supression of dissent, likening opponents to Holocaust deniers?
As for keeping people poor, the only way to keep down resource consumption is to either keep people poor (rich folks consume more than poor folks, they can afford to) and/or cut down the number of people. The added costs of carbon neutrality aren’t too big a deal to us here in the States, but can be a VERY big deal to more marginal economies. I just think it warrants a greater level of discussion and openess than a lot of the Green folks want to allow. I’m also suspicious that many (though not all, some have open their minds) of the GW crowd castigate us for using oil, but freak out at the mention of the only realistic current alternative, fission power. Wind and solar are all well and good, but anyone who thinks about the issue seriously knows they won’t be able to replace coal, oil, and gas for at least a generation, if that quickly. So the choice is do nothing, switch to fission, or dismantle the modern economy in order to cut power needs. Anything else is feel-goodism and nothing more.
Come on Nate that’s not nice! There must be an open debate.
I wrote the following off line.
I am neither approving or disapproving of the concept of Global Warming, but when I start believing it, “Perpetual Winter†from several decades ago springs to mind. Perpetual Winter was loudly supported by scientists as well as many in the government, causing me to be skeptical over this new cataclysmic theory.
I do know that we are very poor stewards of our planet and must become better in order for our planet not to be ruined by man’s own hand. I ask myself how should we do it?
1. Will stopping the destruction of the Rain Forests help?
2. Will controlling animal flagellation help?
3. Should we revisit nuclear energy as a source for power?
4. Should we spend as much time as the pro global warming scientists and politicians do by shouting doom and gloom from the roof tops.
5. How much can agriculture help by producing ethanol from grain. Living in the country in Georgia, my wife suggests finding a way to make ethanol from the kudzu creeping across our state, thus solving two problems at once.
6. How can we predict and perhaps use the energy from sun spots, which many scientists believe has more effect on the climate than global warming.
For your information there are a great many scientists (more than Al Gore will admit) who are very skeptical about Global Warming being primarily man-caused.
Simply put, no one really knows and we should focus on all sides of the debate rather than a simplistic “This is the reason,†being pushed by politicians and scientists with a vested interest.
Cellulosic Ethanol (I suspect you can make it from Kudzu, it uses things like grass)) would be a great help, if we can make it work. As it is, I’ve seen several places that it takes something like 1.05 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol from corn, by the time you grow the crops, transport them, convert them into ethanol, and then truck them to the gas station as ethanol can’t be sent via pipeline. Making ethanol an energy loser, but a great way to prop up corn prices. Already causing problems in Mexico due to the rise in the price of tortillas.
By the way, Nate, the “overwhelming majority” of studies do NOT suggest “anthropogenic Gorbal Warming”, rather the overwhelming majority of studies [b]allowed to be published in peer-reviewed sources[/b] do.
There are quite a lot of studies that show it to be a natural cycle that are never allowed in print, and so must rely on internet or self-published books (see the two I mentioned above) for distribution, which then opens them up to the critics as ‘non-peer-reviewed’ and thus ‘worthless’ and ignored in the PR.
The scientists who disagree with ‘human cause’ are all well respected, and cover a wide range of scientific fields from climatology to geology to meteorology and physics, and include scientists such as (look them up and verify) Richard Lindzen, David Deming, S. Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, Philip Stott, Reid Bryson, Henrik Svensmark, Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Claude Allègre and many more, including some who previously supported anthropogenic GW but have now changed their mind with further study!
Yet when their views become known, they are derided by the press which questions their character and accuses them of accepting money from ‘Big Oil’ to cause trouble. Some are threatened with the loss of their jobs or positions:
Fairly recently, Delaware State Climatologist David R. Legates was recently told by the Governor Ruth Minner to either agree with the human cause theory of Global warming or resign his position.
And:
last December, Dr. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel stated that any meteorologist who disagreed that humans are causing Global warming should lose their certification.
Other scientists have come forth with similar stories when their research conflicts with the current “consensus” hypothesis.
The question of the cause of global warming should be asked in the public arena. Debate should be encouraged (not stifled) before any socialistic-styled measures are enacted that take away the freedoms of the American (and any other nations’) people.
Jim Elliott
Andrew:
[i]Change the words from “Global Warming†to “Terrorism†and “Al Gore†to “George Bush.†[/i]
Great analogy! LOL
#14/15
Thank you–You’ve stated your cases admirably. #14–My ears tend to prick up when I come acorss anyone who wants to preserve broad sweeping powers for government (or other countries’ industrial monopolies) and brooks no discussion as to why. So we do have a similar annoyance there. I think that terrorism and global warming are a conflation and uncomparable (and swapping Bush for Gore is quite curious)– Not sure what exactly you’re driving at here, but often folks will support “broad sweeping governmental powers” if they’re not arbitrary, but rather in the interest of the common good (that’s where the originalist language “commonwealth” comes from)–I happen to believe that things like highways, traffic lights and Federal Police are all in the interest of the common good. I also believe that GW (Kyoto style baby) is too. So–It sounds as if you’re not opposed to GW (or people believing it exists), per se, but rather are opposed to the government doing something about it b/c it would give them new powers. And, you know, I respect that because it is mostly principled. Also, nowhere was anyone accused of denying the holocaust.
#15, It almost (almost) sounds like a copout to say that “know one really knows”…So we should, instead, focus on the vested interests of politicians & scientists…There are vested interests on all sides of this debate–I’m not really concerned with why the earth’s heating up (like gravity and evolution I tend to defer to the scientific consensus on this one). It does seem to me the Green side aligns closest to our national interests (e.g. energy independence).
Jim:
I appreciate your comments, and will inform myself about these scientists whose work has been rejected by the peer-reviewed journals in the field.
Nate,
It’s not that we don’t believe that climate change is occuring, it’s the cause we disagree on. I hold that the studies that show natural cycle are far more convincing than those that show human cause. That’s what it comes down to for me.
And I am not ready to give up my freedom or liberty for an unconvincing, highly contested theory.
make that:
And I am not ready to give up my freedom or liberty [b]or money (in the form of higher taxes)[/b] for an unconvincing, highly contested theory.
You misunederstand. I am opposed to giving the gov’t sweeping new powers whilst limiting discussion and attempting to quash dissent. I also think that government is not the answer. Roads and police are public goods, difficult to finance outside of taxation (apart from bridges and limited-access roads). Government may have a role, but blanket regulation is not the answer, and government intervention tends to cause more problems than it solves.
My analogy was to the point that many people will trust Bush or Gore implicitly, and howl with indignation at the other doing the same thing. I personally know many people who will accept on faith pronouncements on GW and how to respond to it, saying that “smarter people than us have thought about it” but scream conspiracy at every action of the Bush administration, and insist that it is impossibile that there is anyone smarter or better informed making decisions.
And I’m not arguing to preserve the economic and political power of OPEC. I’d be delighted to have electric cars powered by nuclear reactors, usuing uranium from Canada or Australia. Or synthetic fuel, as the USAF is currently researching, making JP-8 (very like kerosene) out of coal, and cleaner burning to boot. But ethanol is a waste of money and energy, there is no practical reason for it to be pushed like it is. We need to be sensible, panic and closed mindedness are not helpful in any way.
Nate, What bothered me was when you wrote: “Maybe there are alot of people on this site employed by the internal combustion engine lobby…” Like there was no doubt that internal combustion engines were the major cause of global warming. Does denuding the rainforests ring a bell?
I have been in this debate a long time and, when living in Malaysia, cringed every time we drove over the mountains behind a barely creeping logging truck with four monster logs.
My point was not a cop out! My point, perhaps poorly expressed, was that we need to focus on how to save our planet in more ways than politically inspired scientific inquiry that focuses on reduction of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels….often at great expense to us and to developing nations.
Lets look at ALL methods, not just one. Like I said, Perpetual Winter, still sticks in my mind.
Hey, Oldman,
Sounds like [url=http://www.centuryinter.net/tjs11/jean/tambora.htm]”the year without a summer”[/url] — 1816, to be precise. I wonder what the thousands who froze/starved to death during that one frigid year would say about the argument over global warming?
If I’m in the pay of the internal combustion lobby, I sure would like to see a paycheck before my next property tax bill is due. 🙂
I guess we can put it with our IRD money, eh Jim?
Jim–You’re actually working on commission–I guess you didn’t get the memo. 😉
um, yeah. I’ll see you get another copy of the memo. Just don’t forget your TPS cover sheet next time.
[My point was not a cop out! My point, perhaps poorly expressed, was that we need to focus on how to save our planet in more ways than politically inspired scientific inquiry that focuses on reduction of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels….often at great expense to us and to developing nations. ]
What if I told you that it was possible to build a zero energy solar house and purchase a hybrid automobile and, as a result, reduce your carbon footprint by at least 50%, and pay for the increased financing costs (expecting that you financed the house and car) out of your monthly energy savings, such that it didn’t cost you a dime up front? I did that, so don’t tell me that a program of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels has to be at great expense. The utilities, oil companies and current producers of internal combustion engines want you to think that so that you do not start demanding products that don’t benefit them directly.
In a normal unregulated market for electricity, perhaps you would have choices but we have powerful monopolies with utilities who are not interested in promoting solar homes because the state rewards them for building central power delivery stations (not solar homes). The large car companies also act as a collective monopoly keeping plug-in hybrids away from the market. Don’t believe that, watch the film “Who Killed the Electric Car†or read the book, “Plug-in Hybrids – The Cars that will Recharge America.â€
Surveys say that nearly 80% of Americans want more solar power and a majority (I don’t recall the percentage) want more energy-efficient cars. Although, I have not yet been able to get a plug-in Hybrid, I have been able to get a solar house and three hybrids all financed by the bank with no cash out-layed. I paid for the additional financing out of energy savings. So if a majority of Americans says we want it; a majority of scientists say we need it and I can prove that it is available but major corporate forces and/or government forces are keeping it from the majority of Americans, why shouldn’t we ask the government to change the rules?
[Sounds like “the year without a summerâ€â€”1816, to be precise. I wonder what the thousands who froze/starved to death during that one frigid year would say about the argument over global warming?]
I wish we were talking about thousands, LibraryJim, but we are talking about, additionally, hundreds of millions who are expected to drown in rising seas, or die of infectious diseases, or starvation. Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and considered NASA’s top Climate Scientist, whom the Bush Administration infamously, but unsuccessfully, tried to discredit last year, says that global warming is occurring on an unprecedented scale, and that we need to rapidly seek reductions in man-made emissions of 60 -80% to avoid the climate catastrophe. I am not too impressed with scientists whose funding comes from the fossil fuel industry taking on the top climate scientist at NASA who is paid by a government trying to discredit him, yet who has been doing climate simulations for nearly 30 years and has been issuing warnings about the warming climate for the last 20. It is simply too preposterous to believe that Hansen would want to incur all the trouble he has endured from the Federal Government if he did not actually believe the science, while it is simply too cozy for Singer, Michaels et. al to enjoy the fossil fuel industry falling all over themselves to fund their scientific work that now no longer even claims that global warming isn’t happening.
I’ve said it before to you guys on this blog. When we are responsible for the rise in carbon (and remember the average American at 21.5 tons per capita is six times more carbon intensive than the rest of the entire world at an average 3.6 tons per capita); when so many people are expected to perish; when there are things we could do differently, or request our government to change so that we do differently; and we don’t do anything but argue and worse, provide the “I do not have to do anything – because global warming is not happening or it isn’t my fault†excuse cover, to the vast majority of people sitting on the fence – ie, I do not see nearly the level of investment in solar homes, wind turbines, hybrid automobiles, that Jim Hansen says we need, or that is even occurring in other countries,…….. I say we’ve got some explaining to do before our Lord and maker on Judgement Day.
And, Alden, we’ve said it before to you: there is plenty of disagreement over what, if any, catastrophic events will occur due to Climate Change, or if the cycle will turn around before the ‘doomsday’ scenarios being hyped by GW prophets like AlGore (who claims a 20 ft rise in sea levels where the IPCC predicts a 17 inch AT WORST rise over 1,000 years!)
In other words, you have your studies, but there are others that contradict those studies.
Yes, I want a more fuel efficient car, but not because of a ‘carbon footprint’ but because it would save me money. I don’t want a hybrid, because, in spite of rave reviews at first, new studies are showing they are not as good as first thought. I never buy a fist year issue car of any type because the ‘bugs’ still need to be worked out. Perhaps 10 years from now, they will be cheaper and more relilable. I’m happy to note that Ford and Chevy are coming out with hybrid SUV’s. Finally, a practical hybrid as opposed to the Prius.
Anyway, Alden, you are not going to convince me Lindzen, Singer, etc (see list above) are wrong, and I am not going to convince you that Heid Cullen, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are wrong.
THAT’S WHY A NATIONAL DEBATE IS NEEDED FOR ALL SIDES TO BE PRESENTED, instead of just one side stifling debate (see quotes from AG above). Let’s get all the facts and studies out in the open, on the table, and then come to true consensus based on those facts instead of hysteria and hyperbole.
Jim
One of the problems with jumping to “solutions” to problems is the law of unintended consequences. Those neat little low energy light bulbs contain mercury and should be recycled, how many people kno that and how well publized is it? The internal combustion engine and car was a solution to the polution of horse drawn vehicles and got read of that nasty waste product form the refining of heating and lighting oils, gasoline. If global warming is not man made we may creat more problems than we solve!
[i] we may create more problems than we solve! [/i]
DaveB,
I think that is a certainty!
To your point, DaveB, it is said that the overall lifetime enviromental impact of a Hummer is less than that of a Prius, due to the longer useful life (batteries wear out in the Prius and need replacing) and the toxicity of producing and end-of-life processing of the Prius’ battery pack. From what I’ve read modern diesels are a much better choice enviromentally. But the Prius is trendy. Love how on South Park they call it the “Pious.”
The studies I’ve seen were looking at the H2 and Prius specificaly, but as the battery was the main problem with the Prius, I’d imagine the relationship holds true for other hybrids.
And to continue Dave’s point: Many communities have made it illegal to dispose of compact flourescent bulbs in trash that goes to a landfill (don’t know about communities that use incinerators). In thise communities one has to take the bulbs to a special collection facility for hazardous waste disposal.
My dad was shocked to learn the CFBs contained mercury, so when we were at Sam’s I showed him the package where it stated “Caution: contains mercury. Please follow local standards for proper disposal”.
The other big issue that has reared it’s ugly head is censorship. The scientific community has censored people who do not follow the party line and it is not well known. Linus Pauling was censored. It is no wonder that there is not honest debate about global warming!
“Honest Debate”??? The pro-Anthro side won’t allow [b]ANY[/b] debate!
#36–What really trips my wires is when the government pretends that there were never aliens at Roswell too. I [b]AM[/b] really bothered by that.
Nate, how cute! luckly I’m wearing my tinfoil hat