Before industry lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill this week to sway the debate on an epic energy bill, religious leaders had their turn to let senators know where God stands on reducing emissions that contribute to global warming. But they couldn’t agree.
According to the seven religious leaders speaking to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, different verses of the Bible support different arguments.
Last week, evangelical, Jewish, mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders quoted scripture from the same Bible to support their positions on climate change. While all could agree that caring for God’s creation and eradicating poverty should be priorities, not everyone agreed that renewable energy policies aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would also help the world’s poor.
Some evangelical Christians joined Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop and a former oceanographer, in saying science has sufficiently proved that global warming is caused by human activity and echoed a call from scientists for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.
Why is she quoting scripture? Is it good politics in Washington? Or has she learned how to read scripture from Al Gore?
I think it telling how the author frames the conclusion:
<i>What do you believe the scripture says about environmental stewardship? Do you believe the impact on the world’s poor should factor into the debate or should Mother Earth come first no matter what?Mother Earth is not a Biblical concept. Earth is not our Mother, but rather part of God’s creation. While the Bible speaks of God being our Father, no where is Earth seen as our “mother”. Rather:
I did rather like the quote from Sen. Inhofe:
“We should respect creation and be wise stewards, but we must be careful not to fall into the trap of secular environmentalists who believe that man is an afterthought on this Earth who is principally a polluter,†he said. “Rather, we are made in God’s image and should use the resources God has given us.â€
Overall, not a bad article. She does manage to present both sides. And yes, definately the impact on the world’s poor needs to factor into the debate. They will bear the brunt of the impact from misplaced governmental restrictions.
Jim Elliott
Wow, if I didn’t know anything else about ++Schori, I actually wouldn’t be embarassed by her based on this article. I think I need to lie down.
The bottom line for the environmentalists is that for the first time ever, since the creation of the universe, global warming is being caused by human activity. Such an absolutely unprecedented assertion would seem to require a very high degree of proof. I haven’t seen it.
Cousin Vinnie,
I’m not sure proof comes in degrees (unless you want to speak of inductive or abductive “proofs”), but evidence does.
It’s not unreasonable to think that we are having a greater impact on our environment than ever before because, after all, there are more of us than ever before, taking up more land and using more resources than ever before.
It’s also not unreasonable to think that the effect we are having on our environment is, on the whole, detrimental. We tend to foul our own nests. Look at what we did to Eden, and the consequences in terms of agriculture. C.S. Lewis wrote in “Religion and Rocketry”, “We know what our race does to strangers. Man destroys or enslaves every species he can. Civilized man murders, enslaves, cheats, and corrupts savage man. Even inanimate nature he turns into dust-bowls and slag-heaps….”
I am not a scientist, but I am a college professor who knows a lot of scientists. For what little it’s worth, each one of them, in numerous scientific disciplines, seems to think that we are, in fact, at least partly responsible for contemporary climatic change.
For my part, and at the risk of engaging in a Pascalian oversimplification of the issue, one side or the other will have to apologize to future generations. Either we will have to say “We’re sorry we didn’t act soon enough to stop the harm we were causing. We were unwilling to believe that we might be causing it, and so we refused to look at the evidence and to change our selfish patterns of consumption”, or we will have to say “We’re sorry we caused a scare. Turns out we weren’t responsible for all that change. But hey, at least we became less consumptive and, through relatively small sacrifices of things we didn’t need anyway, we delivered new cleaner technologies and reduced the effects of pollution and Western consumption on the world’s poor.” I know which way I plan to wager.
And in the meantime, Lacoon, time and energy and money that could go to combating very real immediate problems (such as high death rates due to malaria) go ignored while we argue about fining countries for ‘high carbon emissions’, and pour money into endless research projects which prove — what they said they were going to prove (self-fulfilling prophecy?).
And all the while credible scientists who say “The data is being interpreted incorrectly and thus the conclusion of human cause is incorrect” are ignored and silenced by ‘peer’ pressure and loss of credentials if they don’t change their minds. Again,that’s not science, it’s politics.
libraryjim, No matter what we spend research money on, we will neglect something else that’s worthy of our time and attention. I think we both agree that there are “very real and immediate problems” go underfunded or ignored. But there are also very real and not-so-immediate problems that we ought not to neglect. A small leak in a dike is a very real problem that is not immediate in the way a current flood somewhere else is. I don’t think the choice we have to make is between addressing pollution and climate change on the one hand and preventing malaria on the other hand. Yes, the two issues overlap, for instance if insecticides are overused in antimalarial campaigns or if climate change alters mosquito populations. There may be “credible” scientists who disagree with the current popular interpretation of the scientific data (though if they are not believed by their peers, one has to wonder what is meant by “credible” – but perhaps that is not germane here). In my earlier comment I was offering my admittedly non-scientific assessment of evidence available to me. One important piece of that evidence is that all the scientists I know whose research is relevant to this issue, including scientists in a variety of fields and at a variety of institutions, tell me that the evidence available to them as experts points strongly to a real human factor in climate change. Obviously this does not mean that we are the only factor, nor the worst. But it does mean that all the scientists I regard as credible have told me that I am affecting others through my actions, in ways that are likely to be detrimental to their well-being, and those effects are to some degree preventable with small sacrifice on my part. Am I my brother’s keeper? Am I not responsible for my actions? God help me, I cannot do all that I ought to do. I know that whatever I do I will wind up sinning against God and my neighbor. But because I love Christ I will try to do what I can, with the imperfect knowledge and power that I have, to ensure his well-being: giving him my second cloak, fighting malaria, fighting climate change, whatever it may be.
I agree that a lot of people who are disagreeable and unlikeable have taken global warming and made it into their cause celebre in order to be able to shake hands with Bono and win elections and so on. That the messenger is disagreeable does not make the message invalid, however.
libraryjim and cousin vinnie,
I’m looking back over my two posts and laughing at my own writing and thinking maybe i shouldn’t be typing today, having had surgery and general anaesthesia a few hours ago. Thanks for putting up with me and for engaging me in conversation. It’s good to find a place like this where I can have my thinking challenged by people like you, and where I can hear voices other than those I hear at my college.
The peace of the Lord be with you. I’m off to bed!
Laocoon
Yikes! We will be praying for a speedy recovery!
All I was saying is that there are plenty of credible scientists out there dissenting from the ‘common view’ to call the human cause theory seriously into question!
Now, go recover!
Laocoon:
Where is the impact on our environment? In Brazil. In Indonesia. In China. In central Africa.
Each of those locations suffers from mass clear-cutting, changing forest into desert. It is a documented fact that tropical forests do not have topsoil. Clear cut such an area, and you are left with raw dirt. And such changes have an effect (which is documented) on climate.
All of the referenced areas are not subject to the mythical (having never been universally adopted) Kyoto Protocol.
Look at what we did to Eden? The way I heard the story, we were booted out of Eden. Never had a chance to foul that nest.
And what Lewis was reporting on was the nature of mankind, enslaved by original sin, refusing to repent and lead Godly lives.
If we are responsible for contemporary climactic change, who was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Who was responsible for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary? Who brought about the Little Ice Age? Who was responsible for the tropical rain forests which produced such enormous beds of coal? Who caused the warming which permitted the Viking colonization of Greenland? Who caused the freeze that ended those colonies? Who caused the drought which ended the Maya and Anasazi cultures?
And who, may I ask, is responsible for the shrinking ice caps on Mars?
And as for apologizing to future generations: where is the evidence that the “citizens” of the former USSR apologized to their future generations? Or that the followers of Chairman Mao tendered such an apology? Were is our apology for the slavery which was once legal in parts of the United States?
Now. As to problems. Death comes to all. It is an observed fact that we do not act towards premature death in a way which is related to the number of such deaths. Heart disease, for instance, receives less funding per affected individual than AIDS. Deaths due to mad cow disease receive much more publicity and attention than deaths due to drunk drivers. Deaths due to adulterated pet food are much more significant than preventable deaths due to Malaria (remember, Rachel Carson is a Saint and DDT is evil). A friend of mine is a retired Army immunologist, and he KNOWS about the ability to control the malaria mosquito by the use of DDT on the interior walls of dwellings. And that manner of application threatens no birds.
We do not look at the situation globally, and rank problems according to the number of persons affected and the likelihood of making a positive change. Instead of a rational deliberative process, the paradigm is the bandwagon paradigm, which suggests a gaggle of reporters in a feeding frenzy, all attempting to get credit for telling the same story.
If it makes you feel good to use a waterless toilet, be my guest. If you want to go entirely paperless, that is your privilege. If you are able to do without a car and use public transit or a bicycle, by all means do so. If you want a 55 degree home in winter and no air conditioning in summer, do so. Should you wish to use only recycled products, there are extensive sources of such materials. But please do not attempt to elect legislators who will mandate such individual living choices on all.
But please be advised that the crisis of Freon, which is no longer used in the United States, has not impacted India at all, so the stratospheric Freon burden has not been eased. India is partially in the tropics, so they use a lot of refrigerant. The ozone hole has not gone away.
And as for our impact: should you find a scientist who does not buy the current paradigm, you will learn very quickly that he cannot get hired, get published, or have the opportunity to speak. It is about as safe to question global warming as it is to question evolution!
Mathman,
You are a master of the red herring. My hat’s off to you. The fact that climates have always changed, here and on other planets, is irrelevant to my point. My point is that we are probably having some impact, and that impact will likely cause harm, and we ought to avoid doing harm if we can. Is that so objectionable? Why should one find that so threatening?
Climates appear to be changing worldwide, not just in the locations you mention.
I am not claiming to know all the causes, and I will suspect that anyone who claims to know all the causes is a charlatan or a liar.
Similarly, I will wonder about the motives of anyone–and especially someone who claims to be a Christian–who denies that humans have an impact on our environment; or who claims that such an impact is morally negligible. What did we do to Eden? We fouled it with sin. (Maybe your ancestors were better than mine, but mine had at least one chance to foul the place, and we jumped on the opportunity, with unpleasant results for all. Sorry about that.) What was the impact on agriculture? We were “booted out” and inherited a place where it’s much harder to grow our food. And yes, Lewis was talking about our sinful nature. My point is that he does so by pointing to the consequences of our nature on our natural environment, which is what is at issue here: “Even inanimate nature he turns into dust-bowls and slag-heaps….†Disagree with his conclusions if you like, but don’t pretend he’s not saying what he’s plainly saying: we humans make a mess of the place, as a result of our sinful nature.
I suppose you’re right: we can always choose not to apologize if we’re wrong. But does an unwillingness to repent seem like a good idea to you?
Libraryjim’s point about scientists who hold contrary views (a point you also make) is an important one, and am glad to acknowledge it. I am an untenured academic myself — this is why I post under a pseudonym — and I know the way politics affects academic life and freedom.
So let me make this as plain as I can: I am not claiming that we are the absolute and sole cause of climate change. Climate change appears to be happening, and it seems _likely_ that we are having _some_ impact on that. It also seems _likely_ that some very bad consequences will follow from climate change. I therefore think it behooves us to pay attention to how we live our lives, examining them to see if there are ways in which we are causing harm to our neighbors. These neighbors include those who are yet to inherit this place, arguably.
I do not want to embrace trendy political slogans any more than I want to embrace the selfish disregard for neighbor that comes with my sinful nature. I find myself tempted by both, and though I know I cannot save myself, much less my world, from the consequences of my sin, my love for Christ makes me want to at least do as little harm as I can. Mock that if you will.
Finally, I will continue to vote for people who I think will do the most good and the least harm, and I encourage you to do the same.
Mathman:
to wit:
from MIT’s Technology review online edition:
oops, cut it off too soon. The bottom line is that these editors questioned the graph that forms the basis for human cause theory of Global warming, saying it left out important climate data such as the “medieval warming period’, and so had to resign. There are more articles like this on the web (in fact, I posted on on the old forum). But I have to get to work, so I can’t post anymore for a while!
See you!
Jim Elliott
There is no record of Jesus making one comment on how to improve the human condition other than to repent and follow him. He did not even speak out explicitly against slavery.
The Anglican communion lacks direction because we don’t actually DO anything. We just make general statements about what everyone else should be doing with about the same level of insight as “buy low, sell high”.
LAcoon,
What bad consequences? The IPCC states that sea levels may raise less than two feet as a result of melting ice (not the 20 feet Algore claims in his idiotic movie). That’s not catastrophic. Florida’s coast line used to be be much further out 10,000 years than it is now (miles of difference in fact).
Continents used to be much closer together at one time, too. But continental drift hasn’t seemed to have made any impact on quality of life. Is it still happening? Should we have a campaign to ‘stop platectonics’? 😉
In all eras and periods of change — Life made do and went on, adapting as it went along. In the Medieval Warm Period, agriculture thrived. In Switzerland where Glaciers are receeding, there is evidence of stone age civilizations that were forced to move because of the encroaching ice.
It seems that every time in the history of Earth that warming occurred, society benefited and thrived. It was in times of cooling that hardships came about.
If we are having an effect (and I doubt it) Bjorn Lomberg (“the skeptical environmentalist”) says that it would be less than 1% of the total change. (or was it .01%? I’ll have to look it up again — but it was a very small/slight impact.) Do an internet search and you will find Human Cause theorists who state that the threshold for our having any chance of slowing the change they believe we are causing was five years ago! In other words, many theorists believe anything we do now will be too little too late.
Just some musings.
Libraryjim,
First of all, thanks for your prayer on my behalf yesterday. I have never felt so well after surgery as I do today. Thanks be to God.
Now, in answer to your question: as I’ve said before, I’m no expert, but here are a few of the things scientist friends bring up, off the top of my head. I may well be mistaken about the importance of all of them; I am only parroting what I’ve heard:
1) Loss of glaciers and snowpack may mean loss of aquifers. How much of the populations of India and China rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water? When people lack water, conflicts ensue. Whether we are the cause of the glaciers disappearing or not, we need to address the need for clean water for the world’s poor.
2) A two-foot rise in sea levels can still have a dramatic effect on low-gradient coastlines. Since many urban areas are in such places, and since the poor often live in those places, a rise in sea levels may well result in mass movements of people. But where will they go? There may be land enough for all of us, but how much of it is available for the poor to occupy? There are islands in the Pacific that are populated but very low-lying. Two feet might be enough to force the populations of some islands to remove themselves to other locations. Two feet of sea-level rise might also be enough to significantly alter fishing stocks, weather patterns, and other familiar features of our world, forcing more migrations. Greenland’s ice sheet appears to be melting pretty rapidly, by the way. I understand that if we just lose the ice caps and glaciers, we’ll get a half-meter rise in sea level at most, but if we lose Greenland, the effect might be several meters.
3) Rapid changes in environment often result in rapid changes in animal and plant population. Since most of us rely on a fairly stable plant-and-animal population, this can be a real problem, especially for those who haven’t got alternatives.
Yes, the sea levels have changed tremendously in the last few millennia, and yes, in the past increased temperatures may well have benefited humans. But I wonder how much migration will be required if we see a dramatic change in climate now that the earth’s population is what it is. And I wonder how much change of culture will be required, including loss of traditional ways of farming and living. Tradition’s not something to be worshiped, of course, but when it gets dropped rapidly, there can be wide-ranging ramifications. (See most of the other threads in T19, e.g.)
By the way, I laughed out loud at the “stop plate-tectonics” line. Maybe we should print up bumper stickers and start a movement to stop the movement. Just for kicks, that is.
The peace of the Lord be with you,
Laocoon
Here’s a thought:
As the ice melts in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, etc. that will free up land for settlements.
Of course, the fly in that ointment is that, in spite of predictions of shrinking ice caps, the ice sheet in Antarctica and Greenland is actually GROWING in the interior.
Wouldn’t that be something else if Greenland were actually green one day!
National Geographic has an article about Greenland this month where they say that there is increased snowfall in the interior, but that it’s insignificant in comparison to the amount of ice lost at the edges. So yes, the interior is slowly thickening, while the exterior is rapidly thinning. I think the fear some scientists have is that the edges are like buttresses keeping the interior, well, interior. A number of glaciers on Antarctica have been rapidly accelerating their oceanward flow in just the last few years. I’m not sure if that’s a longterm trend or a shortterm anomaly.
Well, after all, it WAS green-land when the vikings/Norse settled it 1,000 years ago. So perhaps we are just seeing a return to those thrilling days of yester-year?
(By the way, the archaelogists who are studying the civilizations uncovered by the receeding glaciers in Switzerland said much the same thing: “perhaps what we are seeing is a return to the way the Earth used to look BEFORE the glaciers forced us to move south — a return to normal”)
Thank you, libraryjim.
Laocoon: a glacier scientist in India was recently asked about the status of the glaciers which come south off of the Himalayas. I regret that I do not have the reference ready to hand. His response was that there were several hundred such glaciers, and that he was unable to answer the question in a meaningful way, because there was no data of an historic nature on most of them. Those regions are quite inaccessible, and until the recent photographic efforts of Landsats the ice rivers were not even identified. So there is no baseline.
Ever thought about how one would survey the icepack at the South Pole? Friend, that is extremely hazardous terrain. Measuring precipitation and measuring vapor loss over a period of time would require technology which we do not yet have. And, again, there is no baseline against which such data can be compared. By the way, why do you think Iceland was named Iceland?
My observation remains: we don’t yet know enough to make intelligent projections. Think about this: the radius of the Earth is about 4 E 3 miles. The surface area of the Earth is about 2 E 8 square miles. Suppose you placed a weather instrument (temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, relative humidity) in the center of each square mile. Suppose each one cost $5 E 3. That is $1 E 12 . One Trillion Dollars. That is why we don’t know about the weather. Try to get accurate weather forecasts for ten days from now (temperature to within 2 degrees, cloud cover, rain/snow/fog). It cannot be done. As for 100 years? Not.
Mathman,
I think about the predictions last year for the most intense hurricane season yet. Nothing much happened. Why? The forcasters put it that way:
“We had no way to predict the formation of an El Niño system.”
In other words, things happen that effect the climate that no one has the ability to predict or take into consideration.
Hardly confidence inspiring, IMO.
My students who have gone on to work at NASA, USGS and EROS and my colleagues who regularly travel to Antarctica to survey the ice give me a much more sanguine picture of what both remote sensing and Antarctic local observation can do. We can detect very slight changes in sea levels and very slight changes in snowpack and precipitation. Are you such a cynic when it comes to statistical sampling and extrapolations from observed data? Are you a scientific skeptic in general?
To project ten days with accuracy is quite a different thing from predicting a hundred years wih generality based on observable trends in a wide spectrum of data over millennia. You’re comparing apples and oranges. In the one case we want to know whether we should pack a raincoat or sunblock (and you’re right: best bet is to pack both). In the other case, we want to know, based on what we observe in geological and other records what is likely to be the general trend over a long period. In this second case, we know we’ll be wrong about loads of particulars, but we are constructing a model, based on what we know, in order to test our knowledge and to find out what we do not know. I don’t see why you find that so threatening that you search for ways to discredit it. The validity and usefulness of the method is played out a thousand times in our daily lives.
Actually, I think I do see why, and you can tell me if I’m wrong on this: on the one hand, science as I am describing is an attempt to give an inductive, general model based on extrapolation from observed particulars. It operates with the assumption that it will be wrong as more particulars are observed. In other words, it’s a terrible source for doctrine or infallible dogma. On the other hand, some scientists — and a lot of non-scientist politicos — use the general observation as infallible dogma and try to use it to gain power over others’ lives.
If that’s what bothers you, then I am with you. It’s not a good idea to use fallible guesses as the basis for infallible political dogma.
At the same time, I don’t want to commit the genetic fallacy and ignore the evidence given us by what seems to be a majority in the scientific community simply because it has been mishandled by politicos. I am told a three-foot rise in sea levels will submerge places like Tuvalu and much of Bangladesh. That’s a lot of poor people displaced with no place to go. I am also told that a three-foot rise is a real possibility. I do not know what the cause of that rise is, but I am told by those I trust that my choices today may reasonably be expected to have a long-term effect on that. Perhaps more importantly, I think that loving my neighbor means that the church needs to be prepared to act on behalf of the poor. Does that mean reducing carbon emissions? Or does it mean preparing to negotiate with world governments to receive refugees? I don’t know. I admit this is beyond my expertise. Is it within yours? If so, then teach me so that together as the body of Christ we may act in a way that honors Him.
libraryjim – but remember that there is a difference between predicting local weather and (even weather in general) on the one hand, and, on the other hand, observing a change in worldwide sea level, or historical trends of precipitation on a continent, or historical trends of average global temperatures.
Lacoon,
perhaps, but my point is that there will always be X that cannot be factored in and which will affect whatever outcomes are predicted. The further away one gets from the present, the more chances for variation and the less chance for successful prediction.
(For a fictionalized view, see Isaac Asimov’s original “Foundation” trilogy. for a silly example, see Superman III with the attempt to create synthetic kryptonite where there were unknown elements involved.)
That’s why it is so important to factor in all known variables, such as the Medieval Warming period, and the little ice ages, etc., which human cause theorists leave out. Leaving out such variables immediately skews the results and leaves one with unreliable predictions.
(continued)
Which is why Natural cycle theorists have such a different picture of the future of climate change than the human cause theorists, they use more complete historical data.
There is an interesting article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
Freedom, not climate, is at risk, by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic in the Financial Times of June 13 2007.
Here is an excerpt:
Libraryjim – Yes, like you, I’m not particularly interested in people who claim to have figured it all out and who want to solely emphasize one cause for climate change (e.g. extreme deep ecologists or people who claim that humans are the unique cause of climate change). I am interested in figuring out how we as a church ought to react to the current actuality and future likelihood of altered environments, strong climate change, and human needs. My scientist friends are not politicians, and so they care about the data, regardless of the political outcome. Anyone who comes to the data seeking to prove their politics (and so, who comes with a willingness to ignore inconvenient data) is in danger of becoming a tyrant, or a supporter of a tyrant.
â– Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
Fine. But what counts as small? What is currently small may gain momentum, so we should determine “small”-ness with as much historical reference and inferential power as possible.
â– Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
Okay on democracy, but I want to see definitions of freedom before I sign off on that. No one should be free to do what is harmful to others with impunity.
â– Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
Gosh, that sounds great. Does that mean we abolish laws? Prisons? Military? We always have some organization and some restriction. I believe too much in sinful nature to be an absolute libertarian.
â– Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensusâ€, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
Do we have a consensus on that? 🙂
â– Instead of speaking about “the environmentâ€, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” Yeah, let’s stop talking about the environment, and maybe all our problems will go away.
â– Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
Okay, and I’ll burn my 20th Century European history books, too, since they are not conducive to developing confidence in the spontaneous evolution of human society.
Klaus sounds like the Bergsonians that C.S. Lewis spent so much time attacking.
â– Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.
I agree. Nobody shout “fire!”, okay? Unless you smell smoke, that is…
Lacoon
Here’s a thought: instead of the church jumping on a political bandwagon of an unproven and disputed ‘scientific’ theory, why not rally the Church around the Biblical concept of stewardship and love of neighbor? the slogan can be something like:
How can we love our neighbor when we pollute his water?
God put us on Earth to care for it, not destroy it
Love your neighbor: support missions well projects or solar light for Africa or (fill in the project of your choice)
AS you have seen from my posts, there are a LOT of scientists in all fields of study, in all disciplines, from many countries who say climate change is a natural cycle (Singer, Lomberg, Demming, Lindzen, von Storch, George Taylor, Rajmund Przybylak, the list could go on).
As long as there is NO vigorous debate allowed on the subject in the media or in political circles, I will continue to hold the human cause threory with suspicion and reject it. Any theory that is not willing to be challenged is not scientific theory. Dissent and negative hypothesis testing is needed for validation.
so let’s focus on what we all can AGREE on: stewardship of God’s Earth for future generations, and love of neighbor.
By the way, according to David Demming, the U.S. has the cleanest air quality and water quality of any nation on earth, developed or developing. There are exceptions by area (e.g., Los Angeles), but overall, our water and air are cleaner now than they were 50 years ago. We have the technology for this which we can export abroad, the problem is that it IS expensive technology and not many companies overseas can afford it.
Libraryjim –
“Here’s a thought: instead of the church jumping on a political bandwagon of an unproven and disputed ‘scientific’ theory, why not rally the Church around the Biblical concept of stewardship and love of neighbor? the slogan can be something like:
How can we love our neighbor when we pollute his water?
God put us on Earth to care for it, not destroy it
Love your neighbor: support missions well projects or solar light for Africa or (fill in the project of your choice)”
Amen! There’s something I think we can agree on.
Thanks for the conversation, brother. It’s good to discuss things that matter with those who think clearly and seriously, as you apparently do.
I would imagine Klaus intends small in the usual relative sense, i.e. small = “small compared to historical fluctuations”.
As regards “what is currently small may gain momentum” , there are many counterexamples to such a general statement. Moreover, the opposite may also be true. For example, in a proton alternating gradient synchrotron one deliberately introduces a perturbing field to stabilize the particle beam. In general, trying to maintain some parameter constant may not be a good way to guarantee system stability. In any case, the point is moot. Who says that change is bad? As Václav Klaus has pointed out: (see http://pennance.us/?p=41 )
Since we manifestly cannot stop climate change and do not even know which direction of change is for the best, or, as yet, how to attain a given desired climate change, it might be more productive to follow Klaus’ advice and spend less time worrying about how to micromanage climate and more to the —often harder— problem of putting our own lives in order.
Hey, Phillip,
did you see the special on the History Channel yesterday on the “Little Ice Age: Big Chill”?
They interviewed scientists from the Wood’s Hole Oceanograph Institute who said the little ice age was the result of fresh water runoff from the medieval warming period changing the currents in the ocean so that warm air couldn’t circulate around the globe, resulting in lower temperatures, coupled with volcanic eruptions that created a haze in the atmosphere blocking the sunlight (I think I have that right).
They also said that the same thing looks to be happening today with us coming off a warming period (the Little Ice Age ended appx. 150 years ago), which is resulting in fresh water from glaciers streaming into the oceans, and clouds of volcanic (and man-made) debris coating the atmosphere reflecting sunlight. (I think I have that right.)
Their conclusion: we are heading for another ice age!!! (I KNOW I have that right.)
Libraryjim, Unfortunately I did not see the program. Concerning the effects of volcanoes, it is worth noting that the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines has been correlated with quite measurable climatic changes over a time period far longer than the of the actual eruption.