To drag our economy out of the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, America needs another moon shot. Can the investment of billions into the clean energy sector trigger the creation of millions of jobs and innovation? Or would we simply be pumping dollars into the myth of a green economy?
"We are gradually undoing the stability that God built into our climate system."
If this is true, then what we are saying is that 1. God is a poor designer and 2. that God lied about the durability of the earth, a promise given from Genesis to Revelation.
And the supposed scientific evidence cited is not nearly as solid or "settled" as Bill wants to assert. Science is simply not done by consensus. There are still large gaps in and questions about the data.
The argument from the OT is based on a patently false assumption that mankind is merely a virus or scourge on the environmental. Merely using the environmental for our ends does not constitute raping the environment. It seems like Bill's hermaneutic is based on his narrow pursuit of saving mother nature.
Similarly Bill's argument form the NT appears to amount to nothing more than equating the gospel with man-made global warming hysteria and then co-opting the good Samaritan parable to somehow prop up this new Franken-gospel.
If we want to talk about injustice, we need to expose Bill's solution what it really is. Its the forcing everyone to worship this new environmental religion.
Sorry, but reality here is that the notion that men are able to and indeed are (in a causal sense) destroying the world that God made is still an unsubstantiated myth. A fad. A religion.
Here is an excellent debate from the Veritas Forum on the etchics of climate change.
Scientists now argue that we are on a collision-course with disaster unless the nations of the world collectively improve their stewardship of the environment. Yet the practical, ethical and political obstacles to change are truly daunting: Who is responsible for the climate-induced droughts in Africa? The floods in India? How conclusive is the evidence that climate change is man-caused? Who should be the primary receivers of protection and aid? Is a clean environment a human right? If so, where does it stand in relation to other competing rights? What is the basis of human rights? Vinoth Ramachandra, a Christian theologian from the third world, and John Mutter, one of Columbia’s premier experts in this field, will discuss these and other fascinating questions on the ethics of intervention. Who will have the most satisfying answers to the questions that climate change has provoked? Opening presentations will be followed by a moderated discussion, and audience Q&A led by Cynthia Peabody.
First, is the climate changing? The answer has to be: ‘Of course it is.’ Evidence throughout geological time indicates climate change at all scales and all times. Climate change is the norm, not the exception, and at any moment the Earth is either warming or cooling. If climate were ever to become stable, it would be a scientifically exciting phenomenon. To declare that ‘the climate is changing’ is therefore a truism.
By contrast, the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate ‘sustainability’. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as ‘climate change deniers’; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change – it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.
I think Stott is spot-on here.
The attitude of AGW proponents seems to be the same as those who want to return America to it’s “golden age”. The question has to be asked of both groups “when exactly is the ‘golden age’ you are referring to?”.
The major difference being that politics is wholly under our control whereas it is highly doubtful that our minuscule effects on any factors involved in the global climate would have any impact at all.
So the next time someone charges me with being a “denier” I want to know; Who’s really the denier? The one who maintains the climate is and has always been changing or the one who thinks there is some sort of “golden age” of climate stability we should try to preserve?
My posts on positive feedback loops (here and here) have engendered some interesting discussions, particularly at Collide-a-scape and Die Klimazweibel. While many are pondering the points I raise, most of the “insiders” don’t like the idea of “IPCC dogma.”
What did I mean by dogma? As per the Wikipedia, “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practioner or believers. . . The term “dogmatic” is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly.” The issue of dogma is tied to how dissent is dealt with.
(new text) Dogma refers to “belief”, it does not refer to the source of the belief. The Christian Bible is not dogma, but it can provide the source material for dogma. In same way, the IPCC Reports are not dogma, but can provide the source material for dogma. Dogma is in the eye of the beholder: both the person that holds the belief and is intolerant of dissent, and in the eyes of the dissenter, who perceives dogmatic intolerance. This is not something that you objectively prove.
And further down in her post she gives some examples of what we should expect if climate science were not plagued by the sort of dogmatic beliefs that are elsewhere decried (and rightly so) as being anti-scientific.
Well, lets try this. In 2010, lets assume that there are very very few climate scientists left that regard the IPCC as dogma. What might this look like?
no petitions signed by members of the IPCC or national academy members
Nature and Science not writing op-eds that decry “deniers”
no climate scientists writing op-eds that decry the “deniers”
no climate scientists talking about “consensus” as an argument against disagreement (argumentum ad populam, h/t Nullius in Verba)
IPCC scientists debating skeptics about the science
climate scientists stop talking about cap and trade and UNFCCC policies because the science demands that we do this
no more professional society statements supporting the IPCC
One of the great things that happened as a result of climategate is that many people started waking up to the fact that scientists have cognitive biases too and that they are not immune to the same sort of group-think and cultish attitudes that plagues all areas of human existence.
Christians in particular should pay careful attention to the climate change fiasco and take careful notes. The same sort cognitive biases which have led many nations (including the US) down a path of spending billions on dubious (at best) “fixes” for an imaginary problem have also been at play when it comes to other issues like Darwinian evolution. Like anthropogenic global warming, proponents of Darwinian evolution, “deniers” of Darwinian evolution are not treated to facts, and their doubts are not taken seriously. Instead, they are ostracized, ridiculed, and expelled.
This goes back to something Czech President Vaclav Klaus said in his talk at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London this week:
It is not that simple to tell who is and who is not a climatologist or an expert on climate change and global warming. Ross McKitrick once said that there is no such thing as an expert on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics.
Reminds me of Michael Crichton’s favorite rejoiner to the arguement from scientific consensus. Consensus is not science. Any time someone attempts to persuade us with an appeal to either the authorities or the majority we should reach for our wallets because we can be sure we are being conned.