Global Warming

Let it be known: I, PC, believe that the average temperature of the planet Earth is warming. Furthermore, I, PC, believe that human beings are contributing to Global Warming.

Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.

Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.

The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.

Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.

Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.

Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.

And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.

Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.

The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming

- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.

- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.

- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.

- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.

- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.

- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.

- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.

- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.

- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.

- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.

So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?

1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.

I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.

2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.

Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.

3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.

A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.

B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.

C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.

D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.

E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.

F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?

G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?

Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?

I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.

1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.

2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.

Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.

There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.

Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:

1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.

2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.

3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.

Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.

1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.

2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.


3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.

Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.

So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.

How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.

The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.