This summer I’ve been waiting for the opening of the movie Eat, Pray, Love with an anticipation that is a bit different from my hope that Congress would find effective strategies to address climate change. The difference? I don’t think I’ll be disappointed with the movie’s ending.
I’m a Christian, an environmentalist, an academic and a pop-culture junkie. And I think the three verbs in the movie’s title ”” eat, pray, love ”” might provide direction for the thousands of believers from diverse faith traditions who advocated for a religious response to global warming in three stories that unfolded this summer.
Despite sincere prayer and informed lobbying, people of faith have watched: (1) the Senate’s inability to tackle the real problem of climate change, (2) the lack of progress at the United Nations Climate Change Conference and (3) the failure of the oil spill along the Gulf Coast to create a national demand for alternative energy sources.
Bless your heart. One of that last true believers in the false god of man’s ability to effect climate change. Climate changes, man proposes, God disposes.
[blockquote]”the failure of the oil spill along the Gulf Coast to create a national demand for alternative energy sources.”[/blockquote]
Not only does he ignore the solid evidence that there is no solid evidence for global warming, He makes the accident in the gulf (for which the evidence seems to be disappearing) sound like an intentional policy maneuver. I think I’ll skip the movie. Even on cable.
I’m a Christian, an environmentalist, an academic and not in thrall to pop-culture. I was one of the organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970. This article is rubbish and a poor substitute for religion.
Sorry #1, there is plenty of solid evidence. If you don’t want to see it, then don’t. But you won’t make the evidence go away. Mind you, there is no point in my citing any of it, because you won’t believe it. Larry
Perhaps I was to hyperbolic, but the science is certainly not settled. While the UN’s IPCC trumpets that the sky is falling, it has been inconveniently reported that some of their basis data ( nonexistent Siberian weather stations, massaged tree ring data, urbanization of American weather station environments) has been “massaged” into compliance with the Anthrogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. This calls their entire methodology into question, to say nothing of motivation.
When a seminal world government starts demanding absolute control over the production and utilization of energy sources, I tend to start looking under rocks.
But, there are [url=http://www.petitionproject.org/]actual scientists[/url] that take issue with the IPCC.
The whole UN Global warming effort is starting to take on the characteristics of an [url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995465,00.html]irrigation religion[/url]. Call me apostate.
When the sciences make predictions and when these predictions actually begin to show in the real world, then the probability of a post hoc fallacy grows significantly less. It was at least ten years ago – more probably now – that the predictions were made that the Arctic and Antarctic ice would melt significantly and that the weather patterns would become increasingly what they are now – violent shifts in weather patterns far exceeding the statistical norms. All of this is happening in spades.(Russia qv) The disappearance of the arctic ice pack and the disappearance of the glaciers is probably not the result of a failure of prayer. Larry
I’ll Buy that: [url=http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/501.htm] from the IPCC:The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.[/url] (third paragraph from the bottom)
But it would look better if I use I use a different set of predictions:
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007
Antarctic sea ice reached the maximum extent ever recorded in 2007, and is currently more extensive than normal.
Like I said before, AGW activists are sounding like they are starting a new religion, as you must take their word on faith. The “Journolist” scandal showed that we can’t trust the media to be objective. “Climategate” showed we can’t trust the scientists behind the IPCC data (they can’t even reproduce it), even as the IPCC hedges around conclusiveness. I’ll let the world worry, and trust the Lord.