Jo Egelhoff hosts a blog called FoxPolitics.net - which I would encourage readers to subscribe to. Today's post posed the question: "Why isn't climate change an issue these days?" Of course, if you know her blog, she is asking the question in the context of today's political discourse surrounding the upcoming mid-term elections. After posting my response (which I realize steps out of the political context in which she poses the question), I thought it worth publishing here.
The question: Why isn't climate change an issue these days?
My answer:
Science books, for decades, have been teaching us all as children about an era known as the Ice Age. Unless I am mistaken, the Ice Age ended rather a long time ago, thousands of years prior to industrialization - prior to homo sapiens according to most.
Are we capable of destroying our environment? Sure we are. Do we have a responsibility to preserve it for future generations? Of course we do.
But an initiative or movement that characterizes humanity as the cancer of the planet and advocates for population control - that places "mother earth" above humanity as a deity of sorts - but whose proponents aren't themselves willing to make "the ultimate sacrifice" and terminate their own carbon-emitting lives and lifestyles, has pretty obviously got an agenda.
As for the science being propounded on the subject, is there any doubt in anyone's minds that "science" which silences dissention from popular theory - especially that which affords such massive potential for financial gain and centralized power - MUST be doubted? Science is NOT science which insists on selling theory as fact, especially where that science is hell bent on dictating how many children parents should have and how living persons behave throughout their lives.
The global warming debate is ultimately not a debate about science. It is a debate between atheism and theism. If one subscribes to theism, the earth exists for human utility, to be cared for as a resourse but subject to the higher dignity of man. If one subscribes to atheism, humanity is but a mere product of the earth, and exists for earth's utility, and lacking dignity can be destroyed for earth's purported sake.
To answer the question: I suggest that climate change isn't "an issue these days" is because there is a groggy awakening among the masses that it is nothing more than one of many battlefields in the great and underlying war for souls bewteen God and Satan - the latter whose treachery abounds in confounding the human identity, created in the Image and Likeness of God - and the innumerable implications that single Truth has on every possible aspect of our lives; the denial of which, in whole or in part, wittingly or unwittingly, has ramifications in every action a person takes, no matter how large or small, and including the actions of the human will directing our own minds.
The deceipt of the Global Warming agenda had been counting on a long-deadened collective moral consciousness, which much oppressed, seems to be slowly waking from its careless oblivion.
God always makes a greater good come out of every evil. And having every confidence in that, life is beautiful.
6 comments:
Wow.
Okay, so, I have to admit, I feel like I am being baited into responding to this. I’m going to comment anyway on the chance that someone reading your blog may want to hear an opposing view.
First, a little science. You use the term “The Ice Age” (a scientifically ambiguous term) as if there has only ever been one such period in the history of the earth (i.e. “...the Ice Age ended…). The earth has gone through around seven “Ice Ages”, and technically we are still in an “Ice Age” called the Quaternary glaciation. Since it started approximately 2.6 million years ago, and since Homo Sapiens began appearing around 200,000 years ago, I think it’s safe to say that you are indeed mistaken on at least some points.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#moderns
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/quaternary.html
http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/iceage/ia_indepth/depth1.html
http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space§ionnav=period&period_id=7
http://nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm
Second, your understanding of the word “theory” is flawed. As with gravitational theory, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, etc., theories are composed of facts. When we say heliocentric “theory”, this is not an admission that it is still possible that the earth is the center of our solar system. The scientific definition of a theory (as opposed to the colloquial meaning where a theory is a kind of a guess) is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena”. In other words, it is an explanation for observations that is supported by the evidence and that makes predictions. In science, theory is about as close to “proven” as you can get: gravity is real, atoms exist, germs cause diseases and the sun really is the center of our solar system, and yet we still call the explanations for these facts theories.
Third, I admit, science, and in particular, climate change science, has a real PR problem. Many people obtain their science information from mass media, politicians, radio hosts, etc. These are horrible places to get science news from. Major science journals, such as the ones you quoted in support of your views on abortion, are the best place to go for science news. Of course, they can be quite dense and unreadable, so the next best source is literature produced by reputable scientific organizations. Many of these organizations are capable of producing excellent explanations, littered with references back to the published studies themselves, that lay out in detail the underlying science behind different topics while still remaining readable and understandable to a general audience. Places such as Yale, NASA, Nature (one, if not the most, prestigious science journal around), NOAA, etc. do just this. Here are some samples (more upon request):
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/files/kareiva_1.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/index.html
http://www.globalchange.gov/
http://www.pewclimate.org/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/news/knowledge-of-climate-change/
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjILZWW6Ko0&feature=player_embedded
Fourth, though not completely impossible, the notion that climate change is some big conspiracy gets less and less likely every time new data is published. In science, the peer review process makes it difficult for large conspiracies to take root. Here’s an example: through medical research, it has been determined that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) causes AIDS. Each step in forming this consensus involved scientists scrutinizing other scientists’ research. Any individual in that process could have falsified data or simply made an error that made them come to a false conclusion. But all of that data is scrutinized by other professionals. Those other people have just as much incentive to prove someone wrong, if not more so, than they do to accept their findings. But at some point, the evidence begins to fall overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, so that now we can say definitively that HIV causes AIDS.
Is it silencing the opposition if we tell those that continue to deny the link between HIV and AIDS (and yes, they are still a vocal minority: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256) that their crackpot ideas aren’t worth wasting valuable resources on? Absolutely not. The science has progressed beyond their long discarded ideas.
You see, the climate change debate IS ultimately a matter of science. In fact, the science is really all that matters.
Yes, on the surface people like Al Gore may seem hypocritical (though he gets the science almost completely right, and many of the accusations against him are either exaggerated or blatant lies). And believe it or not, some legitimate controversy exists in the scientific community about exactly how bad climate change will be and what exactly we should do about it. Many have claimed that curbing the emissions and actions of individuals won’t really do all that much to help stave off climate change. They argue that instead, the major polluters such as coal electric plants, the shipping industry and other major industries should be the targets of emission reductions. Either way, advocating for people to be more responsible towards the environment doesn’t hurt though, and to criticize those who do is to miss the point. No respectable scientist is saying that you absolutely must have only one or two children, that you must ride your bike to work or that you must turn your lights off if not being used. Rather, these are things that, based on the scientific evidence confirming climate change, you SHOULD do if you would like to avoid any of the potential negative ramifications to our environment.
The facts of science don’t directly tell us how to act. It is only when we filter those facts through our values that we can advocate for any particular action. So if we value certain aspects of our planet, and if the science says that those things are potentially in danger, then it is in our best interest to try and avert that danger. Some may propose actions that won’t actually help the problem. After all, that is to be expected with such a complicated topic. But we definitely won’t fix the problem if everyone pretends that the problem doesn’t even exist.
And finally, though we have different views on many things, up until this point I have truly respected your intellect and I have honestly tried to understand your point of view. In fact, you have forced me to shed my over-simplified notion of the individuals associated with your political and religious points of view. It is all too easy to accept the skewed picture that the media paints regarding many of the topics that you talk about. From you I have learned that it is almost never as simple as the media makes it seem. And though I often still disagree with your position, it has been a real wake-up call for me to hear a more thorough breakdown of the many topics you discuss.
However, your conclusion that the “global warming debate is ultimately not a debate about science. It is a debate between atheism and theism” borders on ridiculous. Are you really going to try and claim that these groups:
http://interfaithpower.org/
http://www.grist.org/article/cizik/
http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/feb/evangelical/calltoaction.pdf
http://www.grist.org/article/series/god-the-environment
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/catholic-focus-climate-change
http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/
http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate/
are secretly atheistic? Or that they are influenced by the devil? Seriously Andrew, I had much higher expectations than that for you. Furthermore, your statement that “God always makes a greater good come out of every evil” unwittingly advocates for inaction towards EVERY issue that needs addressing. If God always saves the day, then I don’t have to do anything! It’s amazing to me that after reading Jesus’ words, very few people actually heed what he preached.
Unless you actually have valid scientific reasons to dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence that CO2 emissions from humans are causing the climate to change, then your position is no different than someone arguing that the notion that the earth orbits the sun (rather than the sun orbiting the earth) is an affront to God, a “war for souls between God and Satan”. You can claim that you are uninformed on the topic or that you weren’t aware of the science, but if that is the case then go and educate yourself.
That “groggy awakening” you talked about: it’s called ignorance and lack of scientific understanding. How about, instead of attempting to drum up dissent with heavy rhetoric, appeals to emotion, fallacious arguments and half-baked understandings of “Ice Ages”, you actually try addressing the science?
I could keep going, but I am fairly certain that it would be dismissed all too quickly.
I know this is an old post (though I am still looking forward to a response to my comments!), but I just found this great resource for links to good climate science websites. Thought it might be useful.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26872?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bigthink%2Fblogs%2Fage-of-engagement+%28Age+of+Engagement+%28formerly+Framing+Science%29%29
Post a Comment