… but not because I closed it. The comment field in the database behind this blog (where all the comments are stored and organized) is limited to a certain number of comments. When we reach the limit, no more comments are allowed. We can continue the discussion here. I’ll repost Dean’s last comment.
Christopher – In the context of this discussion, man is the entity that has been endowed by God with intellegence and free will and entrusted by God with the stewardship of this planet we are residing upon.
Dean, yes, but intelligence must be informed by facts, and the will must be directed by moral sensibility. It’s a complex process.
Morever, the assertion that global warming is man made is not a closed question. Just because man-made global warming advocates borrow the language of moral responsibility doesn’t mean their science should not be questioned. And, if their science is lacking, or at best inconclusive, then their borrowings amount to no more than propaganda no matter how heartfelt their convictions might be. Looking beyond the moral appeals (some call it moral posturing) is also a proper way to apply our God given intelligence and free will.
Dean I am glad you finally made an attempt to answer the question, “what is man”. I see two deficiencies in your initial formulation: 1) You say “for the purposes of this conversation” which implies that the nature of man is relative and variable and in other contexts might be different; 2) there is no mention of our radical dependence on God for our being.
Free will is not the ability to make choices; it is the ability to act in accord with righteousness without being coerced, i.e., to be freely obedient to God. Ultimately, it means being free of both the mind of the world and sin. According to many Fathers, the act of choosing is merely a replication of Eve’s disobedience in the Garden and reflects the fact that we are fallen.
To the extent that we are influenced by political ideology or social visions, no matter where on the spectrum they are, we are not following Jesus command, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” Matthew 6:33
It is so very easy to allow our pride to invert the process and arrogate our own perceptions of righteousness as a replacement for God’s. Often when the idea of man’s stewardship of the earth is discussed we forget that God is still the Lord. He delegates us the authority we have. It is analogous to the Bishop’s delegation of the sacramental authority to the priests. If we really have confidence in Him and His authority, there is no reason to fear. Decisions made in fear of vague consequences are usually wrong.
“The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”, but as stewards we have the responsibility to use the resources with which we have been entrusted. The use must be appropriate, but we are required to use those resources for the benefit of our Lord and the rest of His creatures.
A weird kind of anthropocentrism seems to dominate the environmental movement; it is a secular formulation of Calvin’s “total depravity of man”. The inexorable logic of such anthropology is that to save the earth we must annihilate ourselves. Even for those who have yet to reach the extreme, it is clear that nothing we do to care for the earth will ever be enough.
Both the statist approach and the unbridled capitalistic approach are wrong, but once again the dialectic dualism of modern thought attempts to foreclose on any but those two choices. Our free will is the ability to recognize the fallacy of the either or approach. We are not binary beings.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, last week, said climate change poses as much danger to the world as war.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=325052007&format=prin
How will we explain our generation’s irresponsible negligence to our grandchildren when they ask why we didn’t act to stop this looming environmental catastrophe when we had the chance?
Note 4. Dean writes:
Looming environmental catastrophe? The best thing we can do for our grandchildren is to keep our heads cool, like we did with Erlich’s “Population Bomb” or the dire threats about the impending ice age a couple of decades back. Global warming might not amount to nothing more than fevered imagination.
Lets put an end to these slimy falsehoods about Al Gore’s home energy use right now. This is another attempt by energy industry interests, working through their hirelings in the media, to distract and confuse the public and divert attention from the more urgent issue of our planet’s future.
First, is it just a coincidence that these reports were released just after Vice President Gore won an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”? Second the Tennesse Center for Policy Research“, the group that released the slime, isn’t an environmental group, it is a right think-tank, funded by the American Enterprise Institute, which is in turn funded by Exxon.
Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office stated:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
Gore’s residence is four times that of the average homeowner so it is to be expected that his electric bill would be a little higher. Where were these people when Vice President Cheney asked taxpayers to pay his $186,000 electric bill?
Note 6. Mr. Scourtes writes:
“Lets put an end to these slimy falsehoods about Al Gore’s home energy use right now.”
First, Mr. Gore’s extravegant natural gas bill (over $1000/month) doesn’t bother me at all because I don’t believe for a minute that humans cause global warming.
Second, it doesn’t matter to me at all if an argument is made by an organization funded by the oil industry, or whether it is funded by socialists posing as environmentalists. The thing that matters is whether or not the argument is true. The fact that Exxon-Mobil funds a think-tank that funds a small group of conservatives that point out Mr. Gore’s extravegant use of energy means nothing to me.
Mr. Gore is telling average Americans that they should purchase offsets until they live a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle like he does. This is easy for Mr. Gore to do, as his family has made a fortune from investments in the oil industry (most notably from Occidental Petroleum). Also, a lot of the “offsets” Gore can afford to purchase are investments in alternative energy sources. It isn’t like he’s giving a lot of money away for R&D, he is investing in what he hopes will yield a good rate of return. A lot of Americans don’t have the kind of money or opportunity to make these investments, and would ultimately only live a carbon-neutral lifestyle by making draconian cuts in their standard of living and by paying much more for energy and transportation. Gore’s belief that the common folk should follow his example of purchasing offsets isn’t hypocrisy, but it does demonstrate a lack of empathy for the financial situation of most Americans.
But, in addition to lacking empathy for the common American, Gore is obviously a hypocrite. He doesn’t do anything to conserve energy, even though he tells poor and middle class Americans to greatly reduce their consumption and take actions that would result in huge cuts to their disposable income. His family consumes a huge quantity of energy, lives in an unnecessarily huge house, and their natural gas consumption is about ten times more than average. But, I guess it is okay for Mr. Gore because he just happened to be rich due to his parents’ involvement in oil and gas, among other things. That is called hypocrisy.
Note 6. Dean writes:
Well, it’s either an attempt to “confuse the public” or it’s that Gore is not playing by his own rules. Looks to me like buying “energy offsets” is a way to justify burning more energy than he allows for you and me. It’s not the hypocrisy that’s the rub here (hypocrisy still tips its hat to virtue), it’s the elitism, the notion that one standard should exist for the rich and another for the middle class.
If asked, most people would say that their probability of experiencing an auto collision, or property damage from a storm is low, yet they buy insurance for such an eventuality, just in case.
Meanwhile, the probability that the world is experiencing global warming is not low, but, as indicated by all evidence, already underway. Mean temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, massive ice shelves are breaking and falling into the sea, and in many places, fauna and flora are changing. There isn’t a single reputable scientist, not directly or indirectly in the pay of the energy industry, who disputes that carbon emission caused by humans are the direct cause of global warming.
We know that the consequences of global warming will be dire. They include rising sea levels and flooding of coastal areas, drought and famine, and possibly war as populations migrate to areas with more arable land.
Serious people in government are preparing for global warming:
A WARMING WORLD
As warnings grow more dire, Nobelist emerges as leader. The director of Lawrence Berkeley lab is pushing his scientists and industry to develop technologies to reverse climate change.
What if someone said to you, “you don’t need auto insurance, what are you, an alarmist?” What if they said, “Why do you buy homeowners insurance that covers tornados? Do you think you are going to be struck by a tornado – are you a chicken little?”
Your answer would be that prudent risk management requires that if the impact of an event is catastrophic enough you should be prepared for it’s occurrence, even if the probability is low. The probability of global warming is greater than low. The impact of global warming could be catastrophic. Why are there some still protesting against the exercise of prudent risk management?
Check out Drudge. The global warming juggernaut may be melting:
London Daily Mail Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
‘Global Warming Is Lies’ Claims New Documentary…
National Post Allegre’s second thoughts
I’m starting to wonder if the global warming fad will collapse sooner than I thought. Usually it takes a couple of years for apocalyptic hysteria to die down.
Note 8. Mr. Scourtes writes:
“Meanwhile, the probability that the world is experiencing global warming is not low, but, as indicated by all evidence, already underway.”
True, but the average temperature of the earth has never been static.
“There isn’t a single reputable scientist, not directly or indirectly in the pay of the energy industry, who disputes that carbon emission caused by humans are the direct cause of global warming.”
Very, very false. Claude Allegre (see note 10) is a most serious and respected (or perhaps respected until very recently) scientist who noticed the flaws in the models that support an anthropogenic cause of global warming, and changed his mind about the whole matter.
“The impact of global warming could be catastrophic. Why are there some still protesting against the exercise of prudent risk management?”
Because we cannot control global warming, and there are plenty of data to support this position. Also because:
Even if there were a chance that humans cause global warming, no prudent action will stop it. Europe is on target to miss its Kyoto targets by a long shot. There is a reason for this: It would ruin their economy if they hit the targets. If the U.S. played along, and if the developing and third world nations were also expected to hit such targets (and they are not, for some reason) the world economy would collapse. Millions would starve, and there would be massive political instability resulting in war. Furthermore, some of the same alarmists who say the earth is coming to an end admit that even if all nations adopted Kyoto and obeyed the treaty, it would not significantly impact the expected magnitude of global warming. Playing dangerous games with the world economy is not prudent action, it is highly imprudent action, especially when odds are that it won’t make a difference. It would be better to take our chances with sea level increase and changing climate, which have both happened in the geologic past and during human history.
This kind of alarmism is not unprecedented. Dr. Erlich wrote about the population bomb. According to him, humans would be extinct by the 1980s. Then they would be extinct by the 1990s, and I’m not sure what he says now. Not many people listen to him, but he still has a professorship at Stanford. Around the same time that he was popular, we were supposedly on the verge of freeze to death in an impending ice age. That scenario is not so popular anymore. Now we’re supposed to get scortched to death due to CO2 emissions. This latest theory is supported by a system in which evidence and hypotheses that do not conform to the “consensus” theory are kept out of scientific journals simply because of discrimination, and in which government (much deeper pockets than Exxon-Mobil, mind you) research funding is used to reward those scientists who came up with the “right” answer. Recently, supposedly rational people are saying freedom of speech and academic freedom for deniers of anthropogenic global warming should be curtailed, the media need to be biased about the issue, and that skeptics are as bad as holocaust deniers.
All of this leads skeptics like me and a significant number of scientists to raise the question: What is the true motive behind the global warming hysteria? I personally think one goal is to create a global socialist system (thus the free pass for third-world and developing economies – no matter how much they pollute), and for Europe the goal is to weaken the United States as a competing economy and power (even though this would be a disaster for the security of Europe).
Father writes:
Are you serious? Growing awareness and concern over global warming are based on actual climatological trends which have been studied closely for several decades now and which are accelerating at an increasingly rapid pace. Mean temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, flora and fauna is changing, and massive ice shelves are breaking and falling into the sea. These are not imagined events. They are actual ocurences for which have been witnessed and documented, and for which empirical data has been gathered and analyzed.
If global warming is a mania or hysteria then we would have to imagine that the world’s leading scientists, universities, research organizations and the governments of many of most of the world’s advanced industrial nations are colluding in a vast conspiracy to dupe the public, although to what I end no one can say.
Richard Feynmann, the highly respected Yale professor and physicist is quoted as saying, “There is no harm in doubt and scepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.”
We should question dramatic scientific claims. Doubt and skepticism however, must be based on fact and logic, not paranoia and ideological predilection. Doubt and skepticism must be used to uncover truth, not to obscure, block and bury information. We have to have a better reason for rejecting a scientific claim other than the fact that we find it’s implications inconvenient, displeasing r at odds with our financial plans. There must be a solid scientific rationale for rejecting a scientific claim.
If global warming is to be rejected it should be rejected on the basis of the best science available. To date all alternative theories for global warming, other than carbon-emisions from human activity, have been disproven. The accumulation of carbon-emisions from human activity in the atmosphere is the most plausible reason for global warming, and is the explanation most strongly supported by the data.
While the assumptions behind the modeling that indicate that global warming will worsen may be imprecise, they are best assumptions we have, and it is just as likely that they are understating the problem as it is they are overstating it.
There isn’t a single reputable scientist, not directly or indirectly in the pay of the energy industry, who disputes that carbon emission caused by humans are the direct cause of global warming.
This is just plain wrong. Google it brother…:)
We know that the consequences of global warming will be dire.
Wrong again…
If global warming is a mania or hysteria then we would have to imagine that the world’s leading scientists, universities, research organizations and the governments of many of most of the world’s advanced industrial nations are colluding in a vast conspiracy to dupe the public
No, but they are part of “group think” that leads back to a neo-Rousseaunian (with a hefty dose of neo-Darwinianism thrown in) view of nature, man’s nature, and his place in the cosmos. Because you follow this anthropology (and do not question it – in fact, you are truly unaware of it) you do not have the basis to question it. However, all sorts of other people do, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even secularists who do not hold to this anthropology…
Just a factoid: a group of Danish scientists (not exactly a bastion of neo-conservative fascism) has posited the theory after observing warming on Mars that changes in the sun’s magnetic field are a big contributor there and here–last I checked aren’t too many people on Mars running around in SUVs. Combined with the Swedes who make the study that implicates cosmic rays and the the anthropogenic production of greenhouse gasses as the big bad meanie ought at least to be reconsidered. But, despite Jim’s frequent assertion to the contrary, facts are meaningless in this sort of debate, I’m sure it will not.
My advice to everyone: Do what you think is right in appropriate in your own life and allow the rest of us the right to choose–oh I forgot we only have that right if we want to murder our own children in the womb or kill a disabled relative. Sorry.
Question: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70’s, now it’s warming! Why should we believe them?
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
Question: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV’s on Mars, CO2 can’t be causing Global Warming
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.html
Question: Isn’t Global Warming just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.html
Question: If there was a consensus that we should all jump off the a cliff would the global warming hysterics therefore jump off said cliff?
Christopher writes: “Question: If there was a consensus that we should all jump off a cliff would the global warming hysterics therefore jump off said cliff?”
Dude, what brand of cigarette do you smoke? How much lard do you use to fry your eggs? What does your doctor say when you tell him don’t care about your blood pressure? How hard was it to find a traditional house with asbestos and lead paint? How long did it take to uninstall your seat belts? How’s that deep, unscreened tan coming?
If you’re going to reject the warnings of scientists, then live it up and reject them all. Let the good times roll, and don’t let those liberal pinhead scientists get in the way.
Note 12. Mr. Scourtes writes:
“To date all alternative theories for global warming, other than carbon-emisions from human activity, have been disproven.”
Sounds authoritative, but it is absolutely untrue.
“The accumulation of carbon-emisions from human activity in the atmosphere is the most plausible reason for global warming, and is the explanation most strongly supported by the data.”
This is very debatable, and has been effectively debated on this blog. The data used to support human-caused global warming are highly questionable. The “hockey stick” graph was literally doctored by culling problematic data. I could rehash the original and very well informed notes posted by Mr. Chresand, but there is little point to it. We can all find lists of competent scientists (and a few big oil companies trying to score PR points) who argue for and against the theory.
The point is, there is very good reason to doubt that humans are driving global temperatures. When these points are made, most of the time they are refuted by lists demonstrating the “consensus” on global warming, or statements that merely say the points are not true. A lot of those statements are far too bold given the data involved. While wildly popular among most (but not all) climatologists (who have reaped the windfall in government funding), the theory that humans are causing global warming is not nearly as accepted in other pertinent fields, such as geology and meteorology. That alone should be cause for suspicion that something is wrong.
What is more, and this is a point that I haven’t seen answered in this blog, is that assuming the so-called “consensus” is correct, the actions that would be required to remedy human-caused global warming would result in draconian decreases in the standard of living here, and total economic collapse in the developing and third world. Concern about the worldwide economy is not the same as greed. Cutting global emissions to levels that presumably cause global warming would result in such severe collapse that millions would starve to death and millions more would be killed in wars. So, even if we all believe that humans are probably the culprits (and a good many people do not believe this for perfectly rational reasons), why should we support treaties like the Kyoto Accord, which would not possibly have a significant impact on global warming and would only serve to increase suffering around the world?
It would be nice if the proponents of global warming would admit that the skeptics are not insane, evil, or ignorant, and start seriously engaging their ideas in reasoned debate.
the actions that would be required to remedy human-caused global warming would result in draconian decreases in the standard of living here, and total economic collapse in the developing and third world.
David,
You will not find Dean addressing this point except in vague terms of “sacrifices needed”, “technological advances”, and the like. When you are a modernist, the present standard of living is a moral negative – so any collapse is in fact to be held as a good (or if a negative, a necessary one given the higher prioritization of Gia like perspective of “human impact”)…
the actions that would be required to remedy human-caused global warming would result in draconian decreases in the standard of living here, and total economic collapse in the developing and third world.
I don’t address this issue because I don’t believe that it is a likely, realistic or plausible scenario, but a scare tactic, a straw man, an exaggerated or caricatured version of what scientists are saying.
Certainly there is a procrastination penalty and the longer we wait to arrest global warming, the more difficult it will be. However, I have heard no proposals for abandoing current technologies, overnight.
What I have heard are calls for nations to curb their emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere over a matter of years and decades, not weeks or months. What needs to be initiated immediately are the research and development of alternate technologies. GM had created a perfectly good electric car and then abandoned it for no good reason. The development of a plug-in car battery could extend the mileage of hybrid cars to 100 mpg. Metropolitan regions can build more public transportation, and city planners can lay out new communities along these public transportation lines. Japan has a bullet train that goes 200 mph, but for some reason somehow the United States refuses to build them here.
Why can’t we cover the Nevada desert with solar panels and the the windy central plains with windmills? Why can’t we mandate that from now on only low energy, long lasting florescent light-bulbs will be sold instead of the high energy incandescent bulbs?
America could be the leader in these new technologies. Alternate engery could be a whole new industry, the next big industry, full of the promise of profits and jobs for thousands of workers. One of my friends just returned from China, where he said the air was dirty, gritty and polluted. This could be our chance to sell someting to China, clean technology for a change and improve our trade balance.
The ignoramuses that warn that we will pay an economic price for abandoning oil, fail to note that oil imports are a big part of our massive trade deficit today. We are literally sending hundreds of billions of dollars more out of the country every year for imports, than we are bringing in from exports. America’s wealth is draining away, and dependency on oil is one of the main culprits
When did Americans develop into a spineless, cowardly people too scared to challenge the fat cats of the Oil and Coal industries. When will we stand up to these modern day Robber Barrons who have placed their need for profit above the long-term interests of the American people, and who use their obscene wealth to intimidate legislators, silence critics and start overseas wars in which our sons and daughters bleed for their profit.
note 24:
More of the same (we have been through all this already). For example, the electric car increase pollution, in that it shifts it from the relatively clean burning modern internal combustion engine to the relatively dirty coal fire plant just outside town. There is no replacement for oil except nuclear. All the rhetoric against “fat cats” is Marxist fantasy…
Note 24. Mr. Scourtes writes:
“GM had created a perfectly good electric car and then abandoned it for no good reason. The development of a plug-in car battery could extend the mileage of hybrid cars to 100 mpg.”
Christopher makes a relevant point in Note 25. Electricity is made by burning hydrocarbons. I think it should be made almost completely from nuclear power, but that is a non-starter with environmentalists. Also, there is already concern about what will be done with the toxic waste (batteries) from the latest battery driven and hybrid vehicles. If there is a complete transition to electric cars, disposal of batteries will become a severe problem. This is because people will inevitably illegally dispose of the batteries to steep avoid disposal fees.
“Why can’t we cover the Nevada desert with solar panels and the the windy central plains with windmills?”
There was a proposal to cover a part of the Mojave Desert with solar panels many years back. It sounded like a fine idea, but some of the more cautious environmentalists realized that they ecosystem of the desert floor is extremely fragile and depends on bright sunlight. If sun hits the solar panels, it doesn’t hit the desert floor. There goes the ecosystem. This is doubly true for the cryptobiotic soils of the Colorado Plateau that are found all over Nevada.
Apart from being unsightly to some people (I don’t really care), windmills exact a terrible toll on migratory birds. The achilles heel of wind power is that one would have to cover every acre of the U.S. with windmills to produce a fraction of our energy consumption, and only certain locales are ideal for wind power.
“One of my friends just returned from China, where he said the air was dirty, gritty and polluted. This could be our chance to sell someting to China, clean technology for a change and improve our trade balance.”
I hope that was a joke. China’s air is dirty precisely because the Chinese communist government is completely amoral and doesn’t care one iota about the environment. That is one reason China demanded and received complete exemption from the Kyoto Protocols. It would sign, as long as it was expected to do nothing. China could do a lot today at relatively low cost to curb its emission of particulate matter, but it refuses to do so because it wants that extra bit of economic growth. As a result, the Far East is covered by the “brown cloud” that extends on occasion to California.
“America’s wealth is draining away, and dependency on oil is one of the main culprits”
It is one of many culprits, but so far I’ve heard no feasible solutions. I’m all for diversification of our energy supply in ways that make sense. Covering the desert and the whole countryside with expensive solar panels and wind turbines is not one of them. Nuclear power is, but nobody will go for that.
“When did Americans develop into a spineless, cowardly people too scared to challenge the fat cats of the Oil and Coal industries.”
About the same time they became so uneducated that they swallowed the doctored “hockey stick” graph hook-line-and-sinker that was the basis for the UN climate group’s recent report.
“…who use their obscene wealth to intimidate legislators, silence critics and start overseas wars in which our sons and daughters bleed for their profit.”
The “fat cats” of whom you speak, if they are as evil as you imply, did not want us to go for war in Iraq. They very likely wanted us to lift all sanctions and pat Saddam on the back in exchange for production sharing contracts! During the oil embargo oil companies lobbied for us to let the Arabs take out Israel. As for the government, the cost of the war more than overwhelms any profit from oil, especially adjusting for time value of money. Jimmy Carter even realized this and said people who think the Iraq war was a cynical ploy to obtain oil are incorrect.
Global warming has been hitting countries across the globe. Wether we like it or not it is the reality that we are going to face.
But there is still hope, if we just make one step at a time to solve this problem.
Going for Hybrid and Biofuels could be a great factor in reducing pollutants.
For 100% emission free, Electric Cars is the ultimate solution. Lets go for green and help save the planet.
Soooo, if this is true, is it good or bad?
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2
🙂 Just kidding 😉
Why Conservative Christians fear Environmentalism:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010888.php
Conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities, Don Wildmon of the American Family Assn. and Paul Weyrich of American Values recently wrote a letter attacking another clergyman, the Rev. Richard Cizik, a prominent evangelical lobbyist who has promoted environmental protection as a moral imperative. “Citing the creation story in the Book of Genesis, he has called the fight against global warming a directive “straight from the word of God … no doubt about it.”
Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment. Global warming and other causes stray too far from battles on abortion, gay rights and similar ‘great moral issues,’ some leaders say.
Dean,
It is rational to “fear”, to stretch the term a bit, something that is contra your principles. “opening up” to the hard left agenda is to be resisted. “social-justice evangelicals” are an oxymoron because the hard left “social-justice” philosophy is neo-Marxist, not Christian. We ask again, “What is man”?