The Global Warming Debate
by Motte Brown on 09/29/2006 at 1:04 PM
I was happy to read a report by Sheryl Blunt in the latest issue of Christianity Today about the efforts of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), a coalition of 130 theologians, scientists and others who oppose the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI). Essentially, the ISA say the warnings of the ECI are a bunch of hooey.
ECI claims that human emissions are the main cause of global warming and that millions of people could die in this century if we don't curb our appetite for fossil fuels -- that and breathing and building fires to keep warm in the winter among other carbon-dioxide producing activities. They also claim there is a scientific consensus on all this. This is not so.
As Iain Murray points out in National Review Online's "Beware False Prophets" (in response to ECI's February report "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action"), a group of paleoclimatologists wrote in November 2005 that "enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes" (emphasis mine). Murray goes on to dispute most of the conclusions in ECI's report.
So given that there is no consensus, why are respected Christian leaders like Timothy George, Rick Warren and 84 others asking Christians to take action on issues still being debated in the scientific community? I suspect it's as Boundless contributor Matt Kaufman says:
"Since most of us aren't scientists (much less climate specialists), it's easy to get swept up in the tide of fearsome prophecies. Christians, of course, aren't immune."
1. Caleb said the following at 8:19 AM on Nov 16
This seems to be another example of well meaning people advocating a policy without thinking very hard...a tendency among many in the West, and in the Church - to support a policy that will make them feel better, and remove guilt in some way. We hear about potentially bad things happening in the environment, and feel guilty, so we want to do SOMETHING-even if that something isn't the right thing to do. Works the same way with some poverty initiatives. There are poor people in Africa - so lets do SOMETHING. Even if good evidence suggests that the "somethings" we've been doing actuallly contribute to the problem. Then, when others offer criticism, they are accused of not wanting to serve the poor, or being in bed with big business at the expense of the environment...and so rational debate is replaced with feelings of guilt...
2. Motte said the following at 4:22 PM on Nov 16
I agree Caleb. Until all the facts are in (and they may never be in the case of global warming), let's worry more about what we can accomplish in our own spheres of influence rather than getting "swept up in the tide of fearsome prophecies."
3. MUmon said the following at 6:07 PM on Nov 16
It is rather odd that there's still folks who are credulous of claims published in such "prestigious" publications as "National Review" on this subject.
I have found so many things wrong with the cited article that I just have to question people's motives here.
The fact is, the correlation between global warming and C02 consumption is as airtight as that between cigarette smoking and cancer.
Also, the fact is, the longer we delay taking action the more expensive and harmful it will be.
And yes, there are no great private sector answers to this problem yet.
But nobody ever said - outside of free market Maoists - that the free market was the solution to ALL the world's problems.
4. Henry Wollman said the following at 9:49 PM on Nov 16
There isn't even good evidence that global warming is ocurring. Yes the avg temperature has increased a degree or two, but is this a global warming trend or a natural fluction? We only have reliable records going back about 150 years. Far too short a time for accurate predictions of global warming. Especially given that by the theories of the global warming advocates themselves, the polution of the industrial revolution should have caused the avg temperature to be lower. Now that we have cleaned up the air, one would expect a rise in the avg temperature back to what is normal.
Global warming is far from fact, far from a scientific consensus. It is a theory that has been promoted by those who have a pathological distaste for the internal combustion engine and want to force americans to change their lifestyle whether it is needed or not.
5. dan said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 17
But even if Global Warming isn't proven to be caused by human activities, there are hundreds of other major ecological effects that humanity is having to the globe. The loss of species and natural habitats is rampant, what will be left in a 100 years? Most of this is irreplaceable. Once gone, gone forever. Are we going to continue to leave messes for future generations to clean up, or take responsibility today? Are we called to consume the earth or to be stewards of the earth? A brief look at unsustainable human activities, especially in North America, should be a wake up call for us all. This is not a lost cause. There is so much we can do to change this, but little yet being done.
6. Bead Junkie said the following at 12:59 PM on Nov 30
People like to blame Big Bussiness instead of taking responsibility. But Big Business doesn't decide what YOU do, it only sells what you choose to buy.
Conservation is a personal choice; to use a sponge mop instead of a swiffer, to purchase products in minimal or recyclable packageing, to drive a fuel-efficeint car instead of a mega-suv, to wear slippers intead of turning up the thermostat.
It is the choices like these, made daily by all people in all nations, which make the greatest impact on our environment. It is the individual who chooses to conserve or to squander natural resouces; a cleaner earth cannot happen until people exercise that choice for the benefit of all.
I choose to conserve.
What will YOU choose?
7. OBEWAN said the following at 8:22 AM on Oct 19
Shame of Focus for attacking the Evangelical Climate Initiative. ECI is a grass roots organization which while concerned about global warming is fighting the problem through responsible stewardship and CONSERVATION. Austerity and conservation of the Earth’s resources are Christian virtues that should not be ignored in a world that is rapidly running out of energy.
Why has FOTF not published any articles on the impending Peak Oil crisis to bring balance to the argument? Global warming may become a non-issue if when we run out of oil in 30 years. Most of the worlds leading oil geophysicists agree that it will be gone or at least extremely depleted by that time, which will lead to widespread starvation, chaos, and economic disaster such as has never been seen. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that any significant substitute for oil will be found.
“If we look at the forecasts of Petroconsultants Corp., which produces the "bible" of oil data, we can see that in the year 2000 there were five barrels of oil per person per year, but that by 2025 there will only be about two barrels, not five. That's not an "on/off" situation, but at that point the human race should probably wave goodbye to the Oil Economy. The year 2025 is far less than a century from now.” http://www.countercurrents.org/po-goodchild181006.htm
“Mexico is the second largest supplier of oil to the United States (about 1.5-million barrels a day). But output from its major fields is dwindling fast, according to official figures from the state-owned oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). The country's known oil reserves will run out in nine years, the government says, potentially undermining the nation's oil-dependent budget.”
(24 September 2007) http://www.energybulletin.net/35087.html
Our church parking lot is FULL of HUGE WASTEFUL SUV’s including many Hummer H2’s that average only 8 mpg (while spewing 5 lbs of co2 into the atmosphere for every gallon of gas). Why is it that a family of 4 is more comfortable in a Hummer than a Honda Civic Hybrid 4 door? One man I work with drives a monster SUV a great distance to work. The gas bill? $300 a week. (While 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 a day and 30,000 children a day DIE from starvation, and bad water.)
So many posters on this website are paranoid that the fight against energy waste (and Global Warming) will somehow require changes in their “lifestyle” that they can not live with or which will impact their pocket book. Most experts (engineers and scientists) involved in fact say that Green is Green – we can SAVE money by attacking global warming through conservation.
In the realm of jet engines, the GEnX turbine engine will save 15% on fuel and it has 95% reduction in pollution. One new engine costs around $6 million, but it will SAVE the airlines $5 million a year in jet fuel. There is now a 3 year backlog of orders for the new engines.
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/genx/
The Evangelical Climate Initiative seeks to help people make responsible decisions regarding energy waste, and has posted success stories on their website. A large mega church in California saved around $12k a year on their electric bill by making changes to their HAVC and decided to donate the savings to world missions. http://www.christiansandclimate.org/resources
Please Focus on the Family instead of Science that is at worst debatable, or stop throwing stones at those who seek only to help us have a better world. WHEN we run out of energy billions of FAMILIES will be DESTROYED. I realize the world will end someday, and Jesus will come back, but that is not an excuse to not postpone the Peak Oil crisis for as long as possible.
8. John D. said the following at 9:16 AM on Oct 19
To the extent that Global Warming is a lie (and that might be a greater extent than many have been led to believe by Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore and others), Christians should be involved in exposing it. Christians should not be useful idiots for those furthering a lie.
Revelation 22:15 tells us that "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" will not be in Heaven.
Christians ought not to be pressured onto the global warming bandwagon, which is really more about international socialist control of resources than it is about the environment.
9. Ted Slater said the following at 10:29 AM on Oct 19
Obewan -- just want to make a small correction to your last comment.
You say, "Most of the worlds leading oil geophysicists agree that it will be gone or at least extremely depleted [in 30 years]."
But according to National Center for Policy Analysis :
"By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056."
So, if oil companies stop looking for oil (which they're not going to do), we'll run out of oil in about 50 years. I suspect that oil companies will continue to look for oil, though, as well as alternative sources of energy.
Where did you get the "most of the worlds leading oil geophysicists agree" factoid from?
Oh, by the way, Antarctica is cooling and most of its glaciers and ice shelves are growing.
10. OBEWAN said the following at 8:30 AM on Oct 31
Ted, you said:
"So, if oil companies stop looking for oil (which they're not going to do), we'll run out of oil in about 50 years. I suspect that oil companies will continue to look for oil, though, as well as alternative sources of energy."
1.) Regarding the oil supply, my point is that we are extremely wasteful, and will likely see disaster as early as 30 years out. Most experts say we are already past peak, (supply ½ gone) and that demand will continue to skyrocket with China and India growing at a breakneck pace.
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.
In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1233533,00.html
We now consume close to 30 billion barrels per year but find less than 4 billion per year.
In other words, significant new oil discoveries are so scarce that looking for them is a monetary loser. Consequently, many major oil companies now find themselves unable to replace their rapidly depleting reserves.
What about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil - or about the amount the US consumes in a little more than a year.
As with all oil projects, ANWR will take about 10 years to come online. Once it does, its production will peak at 875,000 barrels per day - but not till the year 2025. By then the US is projected to need a whopping 35 million barrels per day while the world is projected to need 120 million barrels per day.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
You said: "Antarctica is cooling..."
2.) Regarding Global Warming, my sources differ in opinion. Remember, it only takes a change of 32F to 33F to melt ice, and parts of the Antarctic have seen a 4.5F increase in the last several decades.
“Antarctic Peninsula -- Warming 5 times global average. Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5?F (2.5?C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years.
Some ice shelves in the northernmost part of Antarctica—the Antarctic Peninsula—have been collapsing in recent years, consistent with the rapid warming trend there since 1945. Scientists are also concerned about future changes in the large West Antarctic ice sheet on the main continent because its collapse could raise sea level by as much as 19 feet (5.8 meters).”
http://www.climatehotmap.org/antarctica.html
From National Geographic:
"Antarctica is a tricky region and is more likely to do its own thing as the rest of the planet warms," he added. One reason for this, Walsh explained, is that compared with the Arctic, Antarctica is more susceptible to heat loss and gain from the ocean.
If the whole of Antarctica were divided into a grid, said Walsh, about 60 to 70 percent of the squares would reveal a cooling trend, while warming would be seen in the other 30 to 40 percent of the overall area.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html
It is not good science to use Antarctica as an example because of the cooling effect. Other regions have seen a rising trend over the last century, but my point anyway is that the Global Warming debate will become moot sooner that it becomes a disaster because we are rapidly running out of energy.
(More)People will starve before Global Warming becomes a worldwide disaster. Nonetheless, that is why I support the Global Warming advocates who push for conservation because it makes economic sense and is good for the continued survival of the human race.
11. Richard said the following at 2:31 PM on Jul 12
There will always be some debate in the scientific community on almost any issue, because science by its nature is a field that is continually re-examining itself and questioning assumptions as new evidence comes in. The fact that there is debate about an idea doesn't mean it should be rejected as being false.
However, based on the best evidence we have at the present time, there is overwhelming proof that global warming is real, and that hundreds of millions are at risk of death as a result of it.
Global warming will likely kill more people than the number of people who died in the Holocaust, and for Christians to not take radical action to stop it would be grossly immoral.
Those who deny global warming are usually in love with their lifestyle so much they don't want to change it, even if it means that millions of others around the world have to suffer as a result of thier selfish living.
12. Ted Slater said the following at 9:27 AM on Jul 17
Richard -- you're free to change your lifestyle. You're not free to control mine. If you want to buy mercury-filled CFLs and drive an electric car with its environmentally unfriendly batteries and shower but once a week and use your left hand rather than toilet paper, you're free to do so. It may make you feel better, but will make no difference on global temperatures.
And, no, the evidence is increasingly weaker correlating the earth's temperature change to human activity. Temperatures haven't gone up in years, and many actually believe we're on the verge of global cooling. Because of a decrease in solar activity.
Even if temperatures start going back up, it'll be because of increased solar activity and volcanoes, and even then temps are only estimated to go up by a degree or so. That'll benefit humanity, as it'll lengthen growing seasons, resulting in more food grown.
Global warming hysteria benefits those who seek to profit from consumers, and who want to exert control over their lifestyles. It's a money and power thing, not a stewardship of the earth thing. If it were about stewardship, Al Gore wouldn't be the energy hog that he is and he wouldn't make the pursuit of money and power such a significant motivation.
13. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 17
Welcome back, Ted!
How was paternity leave?
14. Dr. Ransom said the following at 11:06 AM on Jul 17
Hmm. For Christians to assume that:
a) it’s the Church’s job to get directly involved with public policy like this;
b) the Church should enact a revised “morality” to demand others follow (hey, I thought Liberals said they didn’t like “religion” “legislating morality”! instead of presenting the Gospel as is its main function;
c) unlike the Bible’s view(s) on the end times, people are not going to destroy the Earth — God Himself will eventually destroy it, then resurrect it with the New Heavens and New Earth ...
... is anti-Biblical, arrogant, and stepping way outside Christ’s intended function for we as representatives of His Kingdom until He returns Himself.
What are we doing commenting on a nearly two-year-old item, anyway, by the way? (Chuckles)
Also, can we just stop bringing up mentions of the Holocaust in our debates — especially those to do with “global warming”? Like it or not, it’s minimizing that very real and almost universally recognized evil to compare some contentious, oft-hypothetical, oft-religion-level belief to Hitler’s systematic extermination of Jews and others.
And by the way, yes, welcome back, Ted!
15. DEV DAWG said the following at 10:23 AM on Dec 8
I agree with caleb.